|
|
 |
Spring Song
Personal Observation and Comment on
local affairs in the Village of
Tisbury, Salisbury, Wiltshire. UK.
A Personal Resignation Statement
TisVis news has been published and is
freely available in several local
shops. It has a professional finish
and I compliment those members of
TisVis Voluntary Committee who were
responsible for its presentation and
printing. Until last evening I was a
member of the TisVis Committee, but as
they say I ‘did a Heseltine.’
I could not approve of the news item
headed ‘Hindon Lane’ because I did not
see any traceability for the assertion
made. It seemed to me an unwarranted
extrapolation from other facts.
If I may explain there remains a
possibility of building a number of
houses on any of three sites ‘in’
Tisbury.
The first site is Station Works
TisVis Survey returns tell that in
answer to Q.31
‘The Station Works (Old Parmiter Site)
should be retained for commercial
purposes only’. 49% of the 1369
respondents agreed, 25% had no opinion
but 26% disagreed. Quite clearly a
majority may not wish to see new
housing on our unique asset. Well when
I say our, it actually belongs to the
St.Modwyn Property Co. One understands
that it having, at the last moment and
at great expense to the District
Council Tax payers, withdrawn the
Appeal against a previous Planning
refusal; may be submitting a different
application. Possibly the Tisbury
Action Group; TisVis Committee and
others would do well to remember that
49% which wishes Station Works to be
retained for COMMERCIAL USE ONLY.
The Second Site is commonly known as
the Hindon Lane site. Seemingly the
Tisbury Action Committee of whom I had
never heard until yesterday evening is
against this Development, as too is a
majority of the village. The main body
of objectors believe Tisbury Village
can not accommodate a new Estate of
some sixty or so houses, be they
either here or on the afore mentioned
Station Works (formerly Parmiter)
site. Instead of the TisVis
Questionnaire putting the
question “are you for against the
proposed development of these Houses
on the Hindon Lane Site”. A different
question was posed and was
understandably considered to refer to
The third Site is The ‘Nadder’ School
Site.
Q.35 “The field adjacent to Nadder
School (off Hindon Lane) should be
developed.
Seemingly 55% not the stated 56%,
thought not, whilst 22% thought it
should be and another 22% of the 1353
unspoiled answers didn’t know. There
is no record of the opinion of the
missing one per cent.
I do not consider it a matter of
semantics that respondents understood
that they were being asked their
opinion on the field adjacent (sharing
edges with) The Nadder School. That
particular field has a ready unopened
retained access from the “Churchill
Housing Estate” It is currently a
pleasant open space where children
play and other residents walk their
dogs. All said and done this school
now called Tisbury School is deemed to
be sited as the healthiest school in
England. Of course people prefer it to
remain that way. A majority has no
wish to see it developed.
Prior to my Resignation I was asked
why if I did not like the question I
made no mention of the fact when I
might better have done so. The reason
is very straight forward, it was a
legitimate question that also needed
to be answered, I have no objection to
the question, and it was a lovely sort
of a question. A question all can
commend. My objection related not to
the question but to the fact that the
answer had in my opinion become the
object of unintentional Revisionism
through a genuine misunderstanding.
If you wonder over the mention of
Hindon Lane in question 35, it is
because there was to be a connection
over Weaveland Road to the Hindon Lane
Development, and through that to
Hindon Lane itself.
If the intention had been to ask about
The Hindon Lane Development, a
different question should have been
posed. There was a perfectly straight
forward Query to the matter of the
Station Works Site Q31. And an
unambiguous ‘yes’ answer was given.
I hope that neither The Tisbury Parish
Council nor TisVis which is financed
from Public Funds have any plans to
campaign either way over the
development at HINDON LANE, should
they intend to do so on the authority
of the answers to Question Thirty
five.
The Tisbury Community
This year’s our Parish Precept of
£22,500 is an increase of 12.5% on
the previous year Whilst the West
Tisbury Precept remains as last year,
a mere £4,194. These figures lead to
an interesting anomaly. Anyone in
Tisbury who has an E.F.G.H. banded
house pays more Parish Council Tax
than is due from the Pytt House
Mansion. It was surprising to find out
in the TisVis return that 52% of us
would be willing to pay more Parish
Tax! Include me out.
I make no suggestion of financial
exuberance by our Parish Council,
merely suggest that we in Tisbury are
subsidising the residents of West
Tisbury Parish. A majority of who have
better access to Tisbury facilities
than we the residents of Upper
Chicksgrove.
Something should be done to rectify
the situation. One Parish Councillor
wittily remarked that maybe we should
stop them using our trains. I am not
sure that would help.
A better solution would be for the
amalgamation of Tisbury Parish and
West Tisbury Parish. The dividing
boundary starts in the immediate
vicinity of the Church that both Civil
Parishes share, a necessity that arose
when the West Tisbury Parish Church St
Andrews, was sold off as a Private
House.
The point I wish to make is not a
financial one. I am not after their
money, what I want, is access to some
of their Parish Councillors. They have
one for every fifty inhabitants.
Please may we have Candidates for the
Parish Council Election in May 2007?
If Tisbury and West Tisbury were to be
amalgamated in the current Boundary
Commission Review maybe between the
two Parishes we could drum up enough
Candidates to furnish a more
Democratic form of an Election in May
next year. We would still be entitled
to but fifteen Parish Councillors. Too
many ‘co-options’ to our Parish
Council, seem to leak as if through a
sieve. One wonders why apparently
reluctant volunteers are soon
dissuaded from Office. As Lady
Bracknell might have said, “To lose
one Parish Councillor is a misfortune
losing more than fifteen looks like
carelessness.”
There is currently notice of a new
vacancy. One hopes a Councillor can be
found somewhere to the South of the
Parish Notice board. People do their
best and it was not encouraging to
note from the afore mentioned TisVis
Questionnaire Q23, that only 35% of us
were able to say that the Parish
Council responds well to the views of
the people of Tisbury. Sad though it
was that 16% didn’t think they did;
what is of more concern is the 49% of
the Village that just did not know.
There is talk of Apathy, but possibly
a lack of Communication might be an
alternative explanation. Most people
in the Village do not know whom their
Parish Councillors are, or have the
slightest idea where they live so are
unable to contact them, nor even
understand how they got to become
Parish Councillors.
There is talk of a Village Plan. A
Reasonable idea but please let it be
the offspring of a new Parish Council
elected by the Public Franchise.
TheAnnual Meeting of the Tisbury
Parish Council is in the Village Hall
on Tuesday May 16th. 2006. Please
attend.
(J.B.Pope,
Chicksgrove)
John B. Pope (still the Upper
Chicksgrove one)
|
