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    





Apparently a huge number of leaflets were distributed with the Blackmore Vale Magazine advising that there was to be a Meeting to consider; in the context of the Fry ‘Hindon Lane’ Development, whether Tisbury preferred to have Recreation land or Money in lieu. I got to hear of the Meeting because I was on someone’s e.mailing list. By Tisbury standards there was a good public attendance, but it was far short of a representative quorum.

We got off to a very bad start when a Parish Councillor, other than the Chair, took it upon herself to rudely instruct a member of the Public at the back of the Elizabeth Hall to sit down. One was almost glad to hear that the gentleman had a bad back, and chose to stand to alleviate his indisposition. Parish Councillors might do well to bear in mind that no one elected them to the Office each holds, and some of them are but the Cross that the rest of us has to carry.

There had been the misunderstanding that the Parish was to receive the Freehold of an eight acre field for use as a public open space. Later mention was made that the land was not to be freehold, but was to be on a thirty year lease. During the course of the evening it transpired that the lease was to be for some 125 years, and when one troubled to enquire, the meeting was obliged to a lady in the body of the hall, for information that the lease was to be at a Peppercorn rent.

Parish Councillors were the first to admit that they were somewhat bemused by the detail of the matter under discussion. Although two Parish Councillors did exhibit a grasp of the situation; knowledgeable members of the audience seemed far better informed than the rest of the Parish Council.

I must admit that although I too was out of my depth I was less than impressed by the Village Elders. I am not sure that some of them ‘cut the mustard.’ Whilst all must respect their spirit of Public Service, the rest of us must share the blame that none gave them a run for it at the Polling Booth. I questioned my neighbour as to why he wasn’t a Parish Councillor, he told me as others have told me before him, that he had been one , and given up out of frustration.

Once more West Tisbury was in attendance on our Parish Affairs. If they wish to participate why is it that they have no wish to amalgamate with Tisbury to form a single parish? Apparently

‘They don’t want to!’

If I correctly understood the Tisbury Parish Chair earlier this evening. Well now there is a surprise they use all the Tisbury Parish Facilities and we in Tisbury pick up their ‘Tab’ via our Parish Precept.

It is no concern of Tisbury Parish Councillors what the West Tisbury Parish Council might or might not want. Let them speak for themselves. Tisbury Parish Councillors are supposed to represent their own Community Charge Payers, not the wishes of the adjoining Parish.

One heard mention too this evening, that Tisbury had negligible R2 Funding available for use . Why was it that we spent that £4,000 to give Fonthill, what was described as a ‘Toilet facility’ and purchase a new Gang Mower ?
(Fonthill is a Parish that did not field a single candidate for election to their Parish Council last May).
A great deal of money was designated for the refurbishment of Tisbury’s outdoor Tennis Courts.

Why did Tisbury pay out some £2,300 to a Project Manager in respect of our Lower Recreation Field, prior to shelving stages two and three of the proposed project?

contact : John B. Pope
Email : pionono@tiscali.co.uk