Logo Image
return to the previous page





report offensive content
click to view site banner advert 2

click to view site banner advert 3


text version




bookmark this website print this page    




On the evening of Wednesday the 13th.December 2006. The Salisbury District Cabinet accepted the Hindon Lane Planning Brief unanimously.

This is no sort of a Planning Permission. The whole issue may well remain on the shelf for many years to come, or there is the possibility that an Application to build on the site might be forthcoming in the immediate future.

It is entirely understandable that neighbours of any such development, feel concern for how it will affect their own ambiance. Some of their effective observations have now been incorporated into the Planning Brief.

With great respect to the views of all those who have so far opposed this application; Much of their overall argument lost coherency somewhere down the line. Inexplicably the term ‘Stag at Bay’ comes to mind.

One objector advised that three planning applications on the site have been turned down previously. This is not so the information is erroneous. Another tells of a lack of Employment in the Village, thus the danger of Tisbury becoming a ghost town during the day. This objection ends with the comment ‘Build on the Parmiter Site’. Another Objector mentions that Estate Agents already have vacant work units elsewhere. I am sure they have, probably that because they are wrongly located, and too expensive for the Market. Employment is needed locally. The Village has no call for new Commuters or more of my fellow Retirees, especially any with an I’m alright Jack attitude. One needs generosity of fore sight beyond ones own immediate convenience. ‘ Après moi le Deluge’ (Louis xv) just isn’t good enough. One might go on taking pot shots at many similar undoubtedly sincere individual comments .

The TisVis Parish Planning Group treated us to the information that 90% think that Tisbury should not expand beyond its current Housing Boundary. What sort of an objection is that? Hindon Lane is within the building Boundary, The Station Works site well beyond it. Is this Planning Group aware of that basic fact? Heaven help the Village if such a Quango is to have any influence on future development. The ambiguity of the TisVis Questionnaire was bad enough. This statement is but another nail in its credibility. (yes the writer was on the TisVis committee when the Questionnaire was formulated, but not on the sub-committee that produced it.)

The proposed builder of houses at Station Works objected to the approval of this Planning Brief. ‘Well he would wouldn’t he’ to quote that famed ‘Mandyism’, her not him.

There are genuine expressions of concern over this proposed development, but it is an undeniable fact that most of the points raised are equally applicable to any alternative housing development at the Station Works site, or elsewhere come to that. Unfortunately Tisbury is to have a large Estate somewhere, it is no longer a matter of WHETHER we are to have one. Narrow roads will not affect the situation. As for the objection from Ansty Parish Council concerning an increase of Traffic through their Parish. Are they aware that if there is no building at Hindon Lane, more probably than not there will be sixty plus houses on their doorstep at Station Works?

It may so be that local Management made a fundamental error when dividing Village Opinion at the outset . For it set those who wished to see Station Works redeveloped as a Worksite, against the residents of Hindon Lane who hoped it could be redeveloped with houses. Houses that otherwise would be built on Hindon Lane. I recall that one of our current Parish Councillors wrote to Western Area Planning on the lines that ‘they had exhibited a lack of skill’ .Would not such comment be more applicable to some in our Village?

Neither site affects me personally. However from the very outset I have been against the Village losing Station Works. I have written every letter that seemed appropriate, even done door to door mail shots. I attended every appropriate Parish Council and District Council meeting that was at the time considering the matter. Well all except one when I was in hospital. ( I don’t think there was a plot to send me there)

I have found Current Forward Planning Officers amenable to consultation. I am unaware that they are driving the Councillors’ Agenda, nor see any need that some have abused Officers personally. Both Western Area and the Cabinet Committees have listened patiently to either side of the various arguments.

I regret to say that I found no such forbearance when making representation to the Tisbury Parish Council. Any time I have availed myself of their open invitation to address them prior to a Parish Council Meeting, the ‘Vibes’ seemed to indicate that I might be saying things, some had no wish to hear. On one occasion I was interrupted by the Chair in mid-spiel with the information that my time would soon be up. As it happened I was reading what I had to say, and had duly timed it before hand. Irrespective of that even if I had needed to run overtime, it would not have been inappropriate to stretch the ‘Three Minutes’ allowed on these occasions, since mine was the only voice defending the Status Quo of Station Works. Whilst mentioning that matter, would it not be more appropriate if we were invited to address the Parish Council immediately before the appropriate Agenda item, rather that at the start of the meeting?

I shall never understand how it was that the then Tisbury Parish Council saw fit, to all but wave through the initial planning application to build houses on Station Works. This application must surely have been the most important to have become before our Council in years. There was no discussion, other than that one Parish Councillor enquired whether the letter I had written to the Meeting might be read out. How on the earth can the effective loss of such an important work site, merit such a dismissive attitude?

Things were no better when the second application was submitted. A Parish Council is in office to reflect ALL local opinion. THEY are not a Planning Authority, nor is it their job to dream up new pedestrian bridges over the Nadder. In fairness to those Parish Councillors then holding Office, two have made representation to Western Area and the Cabinet supporting the Hindon Lane Brief. Our former District Councillor Roy Frankland too, he being the leading proponent concerning the retention of Station Works.

NOBODY MAKES ANY SUGGESTION THAT SOME FIRM IS LIKELY TO COME ALONG AND RENT OR BUY STATION WORKS AND USE ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION. Of course it is not viable. Some years back the Village was invited to visit the premises, see it at work. Even then one wondered at its viability. This Premises is now owned by one of the big players in the property game. If, probably when, they receive Planning Permission on the site, they will be converting a modest cost into a relative fortune. Government legislation may well enable this to happen. However losing Station Works is not in the better interest of Tisbury as a Community. Neither is it in the interest of those who follow on.

It is not ‘Our’ job to aid and abet the legitimate interest of the share holders in the St.Modwyn Group. It would be better for the Village if the site was levelled and rebuilt with the smaller units that meet the demands of local employers, and needs of the Tisbury Working man and woman. This site is an irreplaceable planning anachronism. I am sorry if its retention as a workplace, is a financial burden on the profits of its owner.

Even so I fear that Tisbury may, in the not too distant future find itself hosting not one Estate of sixty plus houses, but two. That would not have happened had the Parish Council been supportive of the legitimate needs of the Tisbury Workforce, and thereby the expansion of local services.

One needs to bear in mind that the fact one holds an opinion does not necessarily mean that one is right. But it is always easier to run with the seemingly common cause, than oppose it. As John Wayne said in Stagecoach .‘A man got to do, what a man got to do’ . Maybe he was right doesn’t Stagecoach now run our railways?

Possibly the matter was better expressed in lines ‘3&4’ by the son of a one time Tisburian. I Give the rest too.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn- out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and- toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling.

contact : J.B.Pope
Tel : 01747 870326
Email : pionono@tiscali.co.uk