In response to your article on the proposed transfer of assets and services from Wiltshire Council to Salisbury City Council I confirm that I, and I believe a majority of SCC members, remain supportive of the principle of the proposal and the acceptance of a balanced package of assets and liabilities.

It is helpful to now have something in a reasonably detailed form so that SCC can properly assess that balance against the criteria that we proposed and Wiltshire Council's cabinet endorsed many months ago.

For reasons beyond the control of either council delays have arisen in finding answers to various questions, including what does Wiltshire Council own in the City; how much does it spend on the items to be transferred each year and what are their short to medium term anticipated maintenance costs?

We accept that as the largest and most capable parish we must go first and set the precedent for others. But given this and the long-term impact of any transfers it is important that the process is dealt with properly. It is therefore disappointing if anyone at WC should seek to blame SCC for delays, but sadly such may now be the way of even local politics.

I and others at SCC strongly support the transfer principle because we believe that the City should have greater control over its truly local assets and services, and be prepared to accept the responsibilities that go with that control. We also recognise that for many things we now effectively face a 'take it or lose it’ decision, largely caused by the central government cuts in support for larger councils.

But taking on services such as street cleaning has wider implications. Currently all Wiltshire tax payers contribute to the cost of cleaning the streets of every town and village within Wiltshire Council. In future only Salisbury tax payers will pay for cleaning the streets of Salisbury. Others in Wiltshire will no longer do so, on the promise that Salisbury will in time stop contributing to the cost of cleaning their streets, when matching service transfers happen elsewhere (with transitional support until this happens).

The same applies to other local issues - only Salisbury will pay for the Poultry Cross, but Salisbury will no longer contribute to the upkeep of similar monuments in other towns. Parish level service responsibilities will be equal across the county. The levels will then be up to each parish to decide. They will get what they are each prepared and able to pay for.

SCC believes it can deliver improvements. But this localism can only be fair if all those who benefit from a service in closely similar ways make similar contributions - and have a similar say in deciding what gets done and at what cost. Which emphasises the anomalies in Salisbury’s boundaries.

A resident of Laverstock village lives no further from the central areas to be cleaned at City expense than a Harnham resident, and lives much closer than a Bemerton resident; whilst Fugglestone residents are and will be further away than those of Hampton Park or even most of Old Sarum.

On current boundaries some will pay for city expenses - and have a vote on City decisions - whilst others gaining equal benefit will not. Before making any decision on the correct balance of any long-term transfers (which if successful could lead to more) we need to see where we will stand on the fairness issue presented by our boundaries.

We present no ultimatum (perhaps unlike the CCTV replacement?) but simply wish to know what Wiltshire Council decides on the long-term issue within its control before making a final decision on the one that is within ours. It would be wrong to do otherwise.

I trust that both decisions will be made in the best long-term interests of all current and future residents of our City, that assets and services will transfer on a fair basis and that SCC and Wiltshire Council acting in co-operation can improve our City and create a model of really effective localism for the whole County.

Cllr Andrew Roberts

Leader Salisbury City Council