Decision details

The Chairman outlined how he intended to deal with the various Community Governance Review schemes under consideration. Members of the public with general comments not specific to individual schemes would be invited to make statements and receive answers to questions which had been submitted.

Councillor Stuart Wheeler, Chairman of the Working Group on the Community Governance Reviews, would then introduce the work of the working group. Each scheme would then be considered in turn, with introduction of the scheme and working group recommendation from Councillor Wheeler, public statements and questions which had been submitted would then be received for each related set of schemes as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1. Members of the working group would have the opportunity to comment upon the recommendation prior to the item being open to debate.

Mr Lance Allan, Clerk to Trowbridge Town Council asked a series of questions as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1 regarding the conclusions of the working group and the considering and presentation of evidence which supported those conclusions.

Councillor Wheeler provided a verbal response on behalf of the working group, stating that the working group had spent considerable time considering each proposal that was put forward by town and parish councils and had taken into account the representations and comments that were presented to it. Each proposal was properly considered on its own merits in light of the relevant criteria and guidance. The council report summarised the conclusions of the working group upon those proposals and the reasons for its various recommendations. Contrary to what was stated in the questions, the working group did not ignore any evidence which had been presented to it. In reaching its conclusions the working group had to weigh up all relevant factors and it was inevitable that the weight given to those factors would vary between different proposals as each one had its own individual circumstances. It was for full council to make the final decision on the proposals and to consider all the relevant issues, including those raised in the questions regarding consistency. The full background detail for each scheme was included with the council agenda papers.

Mr Allan asked a supplementary question on the evidence available to full council. Councillor Wheeler replied that the evidence was clearly available and sufficient to allow full council to evaluate the recommendations and determine the schemes.

Mr Sharl Adabashi, a resident of Trowbridge, presented a statement in support of the proposals submitted by Trowbridge Town Council, as also detailed in Agenda Supplement 1.

Mrs Tracy Sullivan, Director of Trowbridge Arts, presented a statement in support of the proposals submitted by Trowbridge Town Council.

Councillor Wheeler then introduced the report of the Working Group on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Wheeler extended his thanks to the members of the working group who had attended a great many meetings over a considerable period to consider evidence and formulate their recommendations. He also thanked the officers supporting the working group, in particular John Watling, John Quinton, Ian Gibbons, Paul Taylor, Kieran Elliott and Jessica Croman.

Councillor Wheeler emphasised that any member of the working group representing an area directly affected by proposals took no part in any discussion relating to those proposals or any discussion on the final nature of the proposals that were put forward. He clarified that as Chairman of the working group he would not be voting upon any of the schemes, unless there was an amendment or proposal that he considered might, if approved, open the council to legal challenge.

Councillor Wheeler drew council’s attentions to the report and in particular the considerations they were required to take into account, as the working party had similarly considered them. Detailed consultations had taken place for all schemes, as detailed in the agenda papers.

It was noted that while full council was able to amend proposals, it could only approve such amended schemes if they fell within the scope of proposals which had been properly consulted upon. Any new proposal outside that scope would require a further consultation exercise, which would be difficult to achieve for most areas ahead of the elections for towns and parishes in May 2017.

In relation to the Wiltshire Core Strategy and its impact upon the Governance Review process, Councillor Wheeler clarified the working group had taken account of development expected to be completed in the near future when considering the governance review criteria.

He also confirmed that although proposals would need legal orders approved at the October meeting of council in order to be ready in time for the May 2017 elections, the council was required to consider proposals received from towns and parishes or the required number of the electorate, providing opportunity for other reviews.

Other members of the working group were then given the opportunity to make general comments ahead of consideration of the specific schemes. Councillors Ricky Rogers and Ernie Clark thanked Councillor Wheeler for his chairmanship of the working group and for the support of officers during the process.

Corsham and Box

Councillor Pauline Lyons presented a statement on behalf of Box Parish Council. She explained meetings had been held between Box Parish Council and Corsham Town Council to seek a compromise agreement on a proposal for the boundary between the two parishes following the previous decisions of council at its meeting in November 2015. Both councils had approved the new proposal.

Councillor Wheeler was then invited to present the recommendation of the working group, which was to support the amended proposal approved by Box and Corsham as reflecting the governance criteria. Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Clark.

Members of the working group were given the opportunity to comment up on the recommendation and a debate followed on the proposal. Comments in support of the recommendation praised the local member and both councils for working together to reach a consensus solution for both communities and their governance. There were no comments in objection.

Resolved:

To approve the proposed further changes to the boundary between Corsham and Box, as shown on the plan marked Scheme 102 included in the Supplemental Agenda, for the following reasons:-

 

1.    It would replace the outdated anomalous boundary that dissected crucially important sites with a clear linear boundary;

 

2.    It places nationally important industrial sites within one council area, Corsham Town, which would be better placed to support and develop the economic vibrancy and cohesion of the area.

 

Trowbridge

Councillor Bob Brice, Leader of Trowbridge Town Council, presented a statement in support of the proposals submitted by his Council. He urged council to make a decision which would stand the test of time, establishing easily identifiable natural boundaries, focused on where residents look to for their services, which he felt the Trowbridge proposals delivered, and so would improve governance in those areas.

Councillor Kendrick Jackson of Hilperton Parish Council presented a statement in support of the recommendations of the working group in respect of schemes 18, 19, 20, 22, 25 and 103, considering them both in accordance with criteria and receiving overwhelming support of local residents. Scheme 23 was proposed by the working group as a possibility not by Hilperton Parish Council, but Hilperton Parish Council noted the residents of the affected area supported the proposal, though the working group had chosen not to recommend it.

Mr Francis Morland then spoke regarding schemes 25,26,27,28 and 29, stating he felt the advice on the governance review guidance in the report in respect of considering development to take place within 5 years was incorrect.

Trowbridge Group 1 (Schemes18, 22 and 23)

Councillor Roger Andrews of Trowbridge Town Council presented a statement in which he strongly supported the proposals submitted by his council, stating the A361 formed the clearest natural boundary between the two parishes across the Paxcroft Mead estate.

Mr Lance Allan, Clerk to Trowbridge Town Council, presented further questions as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1 and received a response as detailed above as to his previous questions. He also presented a statement, claiming that the working group had not provided a clear analysis or assessment of the evidence and ensured their recommendations were justified by that evidence in a clear or consistent way. He requested council consider all the evidence before them, which he felt supported the Trowbridge proposals, which he felt were the only proposals which met the government guidance in providing a clearer, more effective boundary leading to improved governance in the area.

Councillor Wheeler was then invited to present the recommendations of the working group in respect of Schemes 18, 22 and 23, which were such that were 18 or 22 approved, the other would no longer be able to be approved as they directly opposed one another. The recommendation of the working group was to approve Scheme 18, for the reasons set out in the report and which were repeated to the meeting, and to take no further action in respect of Scheme 23. If Scheme 22 were approved, Scheme 23 could not be approved as they also directly opposed one another. Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Ian McLennan.

Other members of the working group were then given the opportunity to comment upon the recommendation. In addition to the reasons as set out by Councillor Wheeler from the report, it was stated that while scheme 22 looked simpler, it had been felt that Scheme 18 better reflected community identify and cohesion, in particular regarding the retention within the parish of Hilperton of community facilities for Paxcroft Mead estate.

Council then debated the recommendation. Comments in support of the recommendation included that the consultations showed strong community support for recognising the area as remaining largely part of Hilperton Parish, the proposals did follow natural boundaries of streams and cycle paths, and the Trowbridge proposals were inconsistent in only partly following major roads. The working group had carefully considered the relevant factors in making their recommendation and had concluded the most suitable boundary was that of Scheme 18.

Comments in opposition to the recommendation included that the A361 formed a more logical and natural boundary than the present boundary, which currently divided streets and was anomalous, a situation not improved by scheme 18. Wide main roads formed coherent boundaries in many places where the built up area extended across parishes as was the case with the Paxcroft Mead estate, and the estate itself was a clear example of the urban growth of the town and governance would be improved recognising that on the ground reality. Scheme 22 by contrast would see the entire estate south of the A361 in a single, clear parish, and residents north of the road would not find their ability to access community facilities impacted by the change.

Following a vote the motion was rejected.

Councillor Steve Oldrieve then moved that Scheme 22 be approved, seconded by Councillor Peter Edge.

An amendment was then moved by Councillor Ernie Clark, seconded by Councillor Terry Chivers, that in order to be consistent with the reasoning espoused by supporters of Scheme 22 that main roads form clear natural boundaries, Scheme 22 should be altered such that the eastern boundary of the proposed new line be along the B3105, known as Leap Gate, running south toward West Ashton, rather than the small lane proposed under the scheme which ensured the scheme included community facilities.

Councillor Wheeler stated he felt that the proposal had not previously been consulted upon, and so requested the mover and seconder agree to alter it such that if approved the working group would be directed by council to consult upon that proposal ahead of any approval. If unaltered he would vote against the amendment as legally unsafe.

Councillor Clark replied that he felt the residents in those area had been consulted about potentially moving into Trowbridge parish, if not in this particular fashion, but following discussion the Chairman accepted the amendment altered such that if approved the proposed revision would be referred back to the working group.

Council then debated the amendment. Comments in support of the amendment included that the vote to reject Scheme 18 had been very close and the new proposal should be determined after similar levels of consideration in order to be consistent, particularly given the strong feelings of the local population in opposition to Scheme 22. It was also suggested further consultation could allow for a compromise agreement between the affected councils on what was a controversial area as had been achieved in Corsham and Box, or that an analysis of the existing consultation responses from the area could indicate their views on the proposal.

Comments in opposition to the amendment included that the amendment had been made at the last minute and was also inconsistent in seeking to retain areas which Hilperton parish in Scheme 18 had previously suggested should be transferred to Trowbridge, and would not be a more logical and natural boundary than that proposed by Scheme 22. It was stated that the working group had at one stage considered such an option but it had not been proposed by any parties and had never been directed by council to be consulted upon and so had been discounted as a possibility.

Following a vote the amendment was rejected.

The council therefore debated the motion to approve Scheme 22.

Following approval of a motion to move directly to the vote, it was

Resolved:

To approve Scheme 22 for the following reasons, as outlined during the debate:-

The A361 formed a clear, defined boundary between the two parishes. In addition, the transfer of this area would mean that the whole of the residential area to the south of the A361 would fall within Trowbridge parish. As this area represented the urban growth of the town, it would provide for more coherent governance

Following the vote it was announced that the working group had been informed that Trowbridge Town Council and Steeple Ashton Parish Council had consulted each other and were in agreement upon a further small amendment to the boundary. Councillor Wheeler stated that the proposal would be taken to the working group for consultation and consideration in accordance with procedure.

Trowbridge Group 2 (Schemes 19, 20, 25 and 103)

Mr Lance Allan, Clerk to Trowbridge Town Council, presented further questions as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1 and received a response as detailed above as to his previous questions. He also presented a statement, claiming that the working group had as with schemes 18, 22 and 23 not provided a clear analysis or assessment of the evidence and ensured their recommendations were justified by that evidence in a clear or consistent way and requested Council reject the recommendation, particularly as previous guidance had been that roads should not be split between two parishes as currently existed and the recommendation to take no action maintained that position. Scheme 25 was a clear, logical boundary, whereas Scheme 103 resulted in over 100 houses with neighbours in another parish, exacerbating the current anomalous situation.

Councillor Wheeler was then invited to present the recommendations of the working group in respect of Schemes 19, 20, 25 and 103, which were all part of the same geographic area where the A361 met the top of Wyke Road. The recommendation of the working group was to take no action in respect of any of the schemes, for the reasons set out in the report and which were repeated to the meeting. Schemes 19 and 20 were direct opposites, and Schemes 25 and 103 were also such that if one were approved the other could not be. Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that Scheme 25 not be approved as set out in the report as it was felt there was no compelling case for changing the boundary, seconded by Councillor Ricky Rogers.

Members of the working group were given the opportunity to comment and a debate then followed.

Comments in support of the recommendation included that merely being a new road was not enough of a factor to amend the boundary, that council in its decision on Scheme 22 had not followed all main roads, and that the Hilperton Gap, as the space cut through by the road was called, was a definitive boundary that was not in need of amendment. It was also stated the main factor to be considered was existing communities as the primary factor not future development, and no residents lived in the area. The area was in any case not allocated for future development, and if development followed at some point, it was at that point the boundary should be reviewed. Others suggested the recommendations of the working group should not be set aside without clearer evidence.

Comments in opposition of the recommendation included that the approval of Scheme 22 had partly been justified as the A361 forming a clear natural boundary between the parishes, and Scheme 25 followed the line of that road and should be followed again in order to be consistent. It was also stated if housing were built south of the road, the result would again be a parish split by a main road as a barrier.

Resolved

To take no action in respect of Scheme 25 for reasons as set out in report.

A recess was then taken from 1:15pm to 2:10pm

Councillor Wheeler then presented and moved the recommendation to take no action in respect of Schemes 19 and 20, seconded by Councillor Steve Oldrieve, for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting as it was felt there was no compelling case for changing the boundary.

Members of the working group were given the opportunity to comment. It was confirmed Scheme 19 had the support of Hilperton Parish Council though had not been proposed by them, but had been an option consulted upon at the suggestion of the working group.

A debate then followed. Clarity was sought and provided on the relationship between the schemes in group 2. No further comments were made in support of the proposal.

Comments in opposition to the proposal included that the current situation was anomalous by having half the houses on the road in one parish and half in the other.

Resolved

To take no action in respect of Schemes 19 and 20 for reasons as set out in report.

Councillor Wheeler then presented and moved the recommendation to take no action in respect of Scheme 103, seconded by Councillor Ricky Rogers, for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting as it was felt there was no compelling case for changing the boundary. Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Ricky Rogers.

There were no additional comments made in debate.

Resolved:

To take no action in respect of Scheme 103 for reasons as set out in report.

Trowbridge Group 3 (Schemes 26, 27, 28, 29)

Councillor Roger Evans, Chairman of North Bradley Parish Council, spoke in support of the working group’s recommendations to take no action in respect of Scheme 29. The area’s residents wished to remain a parish not an extension of the town, and the proposal from the town was for financial reasons given the allocation of housing land in the area.

Councillor Richard Covington, Chairman of West Ashton Parish Council, spoke in support of the recommendations of the working group to take no action in respect of Schemes 26-29. The Town Council’s proposals were an attempt to gain more revenue, when the objective of the review was regarding governance, the case for which was not made. Residents were also strongly opposed to proposals to change the boundary, and held affinity with the rural nature of the parish and its current effective governance arrangements.

Councillor Tim La Mere, West Ashton Parish Councillor and resident of Old Farm Estate, spoke in support of the recommendations of the working group, highlighting the consultation responses from residents opposing the proposed changes and the strong sense of community identity held by residents of the parish.

Mr Geoff Ligo, Director of Transforming Trowbridge, spoke in support of the Trowbridge Town Council proposals. He stated in order to make a stronger, more vibrant county town it was essential the land allocated for significant urban expansion housing be included within the town boundary. Strategic factors and future development should be given greater weight than financially motivated consultation responses.

Mr Lance Allan, Clerk to Trowbridge Town Council, presented further questions as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1 and received a response as detailed above as to his previous questions. He also presented a statement, claiming that the working group had as with schemes 26, 27, 28, 29 not provided a clear analysis or assessment of the evidence and ensured their recommendations were justified by that evidence in a clear or consistent way and requested Council reject the recommendation. The areas in question included significant existing urban expansion, and significant allocated urban expansion which would retain green space between the parishes. Representatives of the parish had talked about wanting to remain in rural settings, but the existence of incoming housing of thousands of homes meant if the parish wished to remain rural the land should be transferred to Trowbridge.

Councillor Wheeler was then invited to present the recommendations of the working group in respect of Schemes 26, 27, 28 and 29, and would take each in turn. If Scheme 26 were not approved, as was recommended, Schemes 27 and 28 could not be approved as that would create an exclave of West Ashton Parish rather than a contiguous boundary.

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that no action be taken in respect of Scheme 26 for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting, as it was felt there was no compelling case for changing the boundary to improve the governance of the areas in question at this time. Councillor Ricky Rogers seconded the motion.

Members of the working group were given the opportunity to comment and a debate then followed.

Comments in support of the recommendation included that the proposal was the fairest option made after careful consideration of the relevant factors, consultation responses had demonstrated they opposed Scheme 26 and wished to remain part of West Ashton Parish, and the Core Strategy supported the distinct nature of the villages and their right to become larger villages. It was also suggested the town council consider why residents of the area would be so reluctant to become part of the town.

Comments in opposition to the recommendation included that the Old Farm estate was a clear urban extension of the town, with its access to services and facilities focused toward Trowbridge due to its considerable isolation from the remainder of the parish housing several miles away up a hill. The parish would retain its rural character as it wished if the scheme were approved, but would become an increasingly urbanised parish if it were not approved particularly with the Ashton Park urban expansion building up the area around it, leading to a confused sense of community identity and governance due to lack of clarity on the ground where the boundary was located. The estate shared no characteristics with the rest of the parish, and while the consultation responses had opposed the proposal, they had only been a very small proportion of the total residents. The B3105 linking the West Ashton road to Paxcroft Mead estate to the north was to the south of Old Farm estate, forming a natural logical boundary linking the built up area of the town.

Following a vote the motion was lost.

A motion to approve Scheme 26 for reasons as set out in the debate ()was moved by Councillor Steve Oldrieve, seconded by Councillor Gordon King.

Comments in opposition to the motion included that the views of residents should be respected, and that just because facilities of an area were used by residents of another parish did not mean they were part of the parish where those facilities were based.

Resolved:

To approve Scheme 26 for the following reasons:

1)    The Old Farm estate represented a defined urban extension of Trowbridge, which looked to the town rather than to the rest of West Ashton Parish for services and facilities. There was therefore greater community of interest with Trowbridge than with the rest of the parish of West Ashton.

2)    The remainder of West Ashton parish would retain its identity as an essentially rural parish.

3)    If this area remained within West Ashton it would become an increasingly anomalous urbanised area, within an otherwise generally rural parish, which would not reflect the community identity of the area.

4)    The B3105 linking the West Ashton road to Paxcroft Mead estate to the north formed a logical boundary linking the built up area of the town.

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that no action be taken in respect of Scheme 27 for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting, as it was felt there was no compelling case for changing the boundary to improve the governance of the areas in question at this time. Unlike Scheme 26 no housing was currently present on the site, which was designated in part for employment land. Councillor Ricky Rogers  seconded the motion.

Comments in support of the recommendation included that there was no communities at present and no compelling reason to change the boundary, and that those residents nearby in what was West Ashton parish were strongly opposed to changing the boundary.

Comments in opposition to the recommendation included that the area in question adjoined the Castle Mead estate which was always planned to expand down into the area, forming a natural whole. The B3105 road from Paxcroft Mead formed the edge of the proposed area and formed a natural clear boundary to the urban expansion, future residents would naturally look toward the town and its services.

Following a vote the motion was lost.

A motion to approve Scheme 27 for reasons as set out in the debate for Schemes 26 and 27 was moved by Councillor Steve Oldrieve, seconded by Councillor Nick Blakemore.

No additional comments in support of the motion were made.

Comments in opposition to the motion included that the recommendations and reasoning of the working group should not be set aside without firmer evidence.

Resolved:

To approve Scheme 27 for the following reasons:-

1)    That there were clear proposals for the expansion of Trowbridge to extend into this area, adjoining the Castle Mead estate, so that it would form part of the urban area of the town. The community interests and identity of this area would, therefore, be more closely linked with Trowbridge than with West Ashton and future residents would naturally look toward the town and its services.

2)    The B3105 road from Paxcroft Mead formed the edge of the proposed area and formed a logical defined boundary to the urban expansion of Trowbridge,

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that no action be taken in respect of Schemes 28 for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting, as it was felt there was no compelling case for changing the boundary to improve the governance of the areas in question at this time.

Comments in support of the recommendation included that, as with Scheme 27, there were no communities at present for the area Scheme 28 and no compelling reason to change the boundary at the present time as there were no communities to govern, and that those residents nearby in what was West Ashton parish were strongly opposed to changing the boundary. Scheme 29 contained some residents who were strongly opposed to being moved from North Bradley parish. There were no clear improvements to the boundary proposed, no roads or physical barriers, and it would be consistent with previous decisions to uphold the recommendation, even though the land would be built upon at some future stage.

Comments in opposition to the recommendation included that significant urban development was planned for the areas in question which would fundamentally change the nature of the areas with thousands of homes. Moving the areas would retain the nature of the parish and recognise the nature of urban expansion.

Resolved:

To take no further action on Scheme 28 for the reasons set out in the report.

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that no action be taken in respect of Schemes 29 for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting.

As the issues relating to Scheme 29 had been debated thoroughly while discussing Scheme 28, following a motion to move directly to the vote it was,

Resolved:

To take no further action on Scheme 29 for the reasons as set out in the report.

Trowbridge Group 4 (Scheme 21)

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that Scheme 21 be approved for the reasons as set out in the report. Although the public responses had been opposed to the scheme, the current boundary was seen as anomalous. Councillor Wheeler’s recommendation was seconded by Councillor Ricky Rogers.

Members of the working group were given the opportunity to comment and a debate then followed.

Comments in support of the proposal included that existing boundary was clearly anomalous, running between properties and cutting off a small number of houses from an existing estate, and community identity would be improved by correcting the anomaly.

There were no comments in opposition to the proposal.

Resolved:

To approve Scheme 21 for the following reasons, as set out in more detail in the report:

1)    The current boundary was anomalous and out-of-date, following earlier residential development in the area.

2)    The houses within the area concerned were clearly part of a larger residential estate which was within Trowbridge and were themselves to all intents and purposes part of Trowbridge. Therefore community identity could be enhanced by including this area within Trowbridge parish.

Trowbridge Group 5 (Scheme 24)

Councillor Andrew Pearce of Holt Parish Council made a presentation in support of the working group recommendation that no action be taken in respect of Scheme 24. There would be no improvement to effective governance or community identity, and the residents of the few properties in the area were opposed to the proposed change.

Mr Lance Allan, Clerk to Trowbridge Town Council, presented a statement in opposition to the working group recommendation. The response to consultation was mixed, and the only access to the properties was through Trowbridge parish, and to get to Holt parish further required moving through Staverton and Hilperton parishes over several bridges, and the report acknowledged the change to the boundary would be improved.

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that no action be taken in respect of Scheme 24 for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting. Although using the canal as the boundary would be an improvement, there were no compelling governance reasons to amend the boundary. The motion was seconded by Councillor Ian McLennan.

Comments in support of the proposal included that the site was facing no future development as it was Green Belt land and so belonged in a rural parish, and there would be no improvements in moving the boundary.

There were no comments in opposition to the proposal.

Resolved:

To take no action in respect of Scheme 24 for the reasons set out in the report.

Salisbury and Laverstock Group 1(Scheme 100)

Councillor David Burton, Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council spoke in support of the working group recommendation not to support the proposal to merge the parish with Salisbury City Council. The parish council was active, effective and viable, and residents were overwhelmingly opposed to being merged within Salisbury City Council. The governance criteria therefore supported the retention of the existing arrangements.

Julie Ward, resident of Laverstock and Ford, spoke in support of the working group recommendation. Residents had clearly and repeatedly demonstrated they wished to retain their own parish council and distinct identity.

Leslie Waller, resident of Laverstock and Ford, spoke in support of the working group recommendation, endorsing the comments made by the previous speakers, and pointed to the high volume of responses to the consultation and high attendance at public events that had been arranged. The people wished to retain their non-political parish council and not be absorbed by the City Council.

Councillor Margaret Wilmot, Salisbury City Councillor, presented a question as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1. Councillor Wheeler responded that the working group were aware of the development of Old Sarum which is to be extended under the Core Strategy and which is separate to the urban area. The review had taken appropriate account of developments to be completed in the near future. Councillor Wilmot also presented a statement in support of the proposal from Salisbury City Council to merge with Laverstock and Ford Parish Council. Salisbury had grown over time and had several communities with distinct identities within it, and new houses on the edges of the parish were an addition to that process, not a replacement of identity, which would lead to multiple governance improvements as the communities were better able to work together.

Councillor Matthew Dean, Salisbury City Councillor, presented a statement supporting the proposals of the city council, stating there was a tremendous opportunity for the whole of the area to achieve things for their communities together if they were to join. Laverstock was an urban area which shared characteristics with the city, and would be able to retain distinctiveness within the city while also contributing to the services and facilities they were currently enjoying from the city.

Councillor Andrew Roberts, Leader of Salisbury City Council presented a statement in support of the merger of the parishes. He stated the purpose of the reviews was to find improvements to parish boundaries to create more efficient and effective governance, and he urged council to take the opportunity to achieve that by creating a larger, more vibrant city council. He commented upon the consultations that had been undertaken and suggested that the results were not overwhelming when considering how many had not responded.

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that no action be taken in respect of Scheme 100 for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting. Councillor Ricky Rogers seconded the motion. The merger was the most significant proposal considered by the working group, involving the dissolution of an existing parish council. Extensive consultation had been undertaken and the detailed submissions of both views had been assessed.

Members of the working group were given the opportunity to comment and a debate then followed. The very passionate views expressed on both sides of the merger question were noted, and the strict criteria permitting dissolution of a parish council was highlighted.

Comments in support of the proposal included that Laverstock and Ford was served by a very effective and undeniably viable council and the residents were overwhelmingly opposed to being absorbed by Salisbury City Council, which some members felt was a less effective parish council, and the reason for the proposed merger being financial only. Most services in Salisbury needed to be paid for when used, therefore those from outside parishes were already contributing to the city, and it was not a reason to abolish Laverstock and Ford parish. Communities should not be absorbed against their will and risk losing their identity, and in Laverstock there was a strong sense of identity, as once absorbed it would be very difficult to separate again. While there might be a case for elements of the parish or other parishes to be moved into Salisbury, dissolution of the parish was not justified on the evidence, and there was nothing to prevent the parishes working together on many issues without merging. The lack of communication in particular from the proposing council to seek agreement between the parishes was criticised.

Comments in opposition to the proposal included that the key factor to consider was effective and convenient local governance, and that it was felt that the boundaries set decades ago were no longer appropriate, particularly with residents of the parishes who used services in Salisbury having no say in the delivery of those services. The comments of residents carried considerable weight, but the decision was not a referendum, and the response level to consultation was in fact a minority percentage, nor had most of Salisbury residents been consulted by the working group directly. Many in opposition to the merger did not wish to pay more council tax, which was not a relevant consideration, and others may have feared a loss of identity, but there already existed village areas within the city boundary which retained unique identity and character, so the fear was not justified. Large developments were taking place which were more properly urban extension of the city rather than part of the parish, and many people already thought outlying settlements were part of the city, and Laverstock in particular was no longer a distinct rural community .

Resolved:

To take no action in respect of Scheme 100 for the reasons set out in the report.

Salisbury and Laverstock Group 2(Schemes 2 and 3)

Councillor David Burton, Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council spoke in support of the working group recommendation to approve Scheme 2, noting in particular the work of the parish council on the area of the country park, and logic of combing the estate currently split between two parishes into one, and which the parish council already communicated to. This was also supported by the residents as detailed in the consultation responses.

Julie Ward, resident of Laverstock and Ford parish, spoke in support of the recommendation of the working group. She stated it was felt Bishopdown farm was an integral part of the Hampdon park estate, whose residents felt they belonged in Laverstock and Ford parish.

Leslie Waller, resident of Laverstock and Ford, spoke in support of the working group recommendation, endorsing the comments made by the previous speakers, and stated it was an historic anomaly that the area was split between the two parishes, and it was considered a part of the Laverstock and Ford area.

Councillor Margaret Wilmot, Salisbury City Councillor, presented a statement in support of the proposal from Salisbury City Council that Scheme 3 be approved. The housing was separated by river and railway from Laverstock, and residents looked toward Salisbury for services and employment, and was an urban extension of the city.

Mr Reg Williams, Clerk to Salisbury City Council, presented a statement in support of the proposal from Salisbury City Council that Scheme 3 be approved. The area was clearly an urban extension of the city, isolated from the rest of the parish, and if as was right the area should be contained in a single parish, Salisbury City was the most appropriate under the criteria of the governance reviews.

Councillor Andrew Roberts, Leader of Salisbury City Council presented a statement in support of the proposal from Salisbury City Council that Scheme 3 be approved. He stated the development was a clear urban entity and where the existing boundary was anomalous, and that if it were moved into Laverstock and Ford entirely the anomalous nature of the boundary remained due to isolation from the rest of the parish.

Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation that Scheme 2 be approved for the reasons as set out in the report and repeated at the meeting. As a result, Scheme 3 would not be approved as it was a direct opposite of Scheme 2. Councillor Ricky Rogers seconded the motion. The working group had accepted the estate should be in a single parish, and concluded on balance that realignment as proposed in Scheme 2 would improve community identity and cohesion.

Members of the working group were given the opportunity to comment and a debate then followed. It was stated a great many meetings had taken place assessing evidence and considering factors, and it was felt Scheme 2 was the most appropriate proposal under the criteria.

Comments in support of the proposal included that historically the area had been within Laverstock and Ford, and those homes still within the parish represented a significant portion of the parish. The nature of the area was more rural than urban, which was why it made more sense for all the homes to form part of Laverstock and Ford. It was acknowledged the consultation responses might have been a little skewed due to all of Laverstock and Ford parish having been consulted, but it was still notable the support for Scheme 2 over Scheme 3.

Comments in opposition to the proposal included that Scheme 3 was a simpler and more appropriate natural and logical boundary, recognising the area has a greater connection to Salisbury City than the rest of the Laverstock and Ford parish as a result of being an urban expansion of the city, and it would be more consistent with previous decisions, and more practical, to realign the boundary to include the whole area within Salisbury.

Resolved:

That Scheme 2 be approved and Scheme 3 not approved for the following reasons, as set out in more detail in the report.

1)    That the areas in Schemes 2 and 3 were clearly one housing development and the community identity for the area would be improved by the inclusion of all properties within one parish.

 

2)    That the inclusion of the areas concerned within one parish would provide a more logical and appropriate boundary between the two parishes.

 

3)    That there was a stronger community identity in the area with Laverstock and Ford parish than with Salisbury