Changes proposed to the Town Council boundary.
Trowbridge Town Council made proposals many years ago to Wiltshire Council to incorporate existing developments at Broadmead, Paxcroft Mead and White Horse Business Park and proposed developments at Ashton Park in an expanded town boundary.
Wiltshire Council has undertaken a Community Governance Review over the past two years and is due to make a decision at a meeting on Tuesday 12th July 2016.
The Agenda has now been published which you can access from the
link below
Trowbridge Town Council has submitted the following questions to the meeting:
Questions to
Wiltshire Council, 12th July 2016.
Question 1.
At the November Full Council meeting Councillor
Alan Hill spoke very eloquently about the need for the Wiltshire councillors to
be presented with the evidence in order for them to be able to make decisions
on this important matter affecting the future of Wiltshire. In doing so,
Councillor Hill made a very simple argument in favour of the decision which was
then made at that meeting; that the Community Governance Review Working Party
should give further consideration to a number of the proposed boundary changes.
Councillor Hill and other Wiltshire Councillors as well as those of us also
interested in this issue have waited eagerly for the evidence to be presented,
for the evidence to be analysed and assessed and for the arguments in favour
and against to be weighed up and a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
How can the Working Group believe that the
Community Governance Review (Pending Schemes) report before the Council for
consideration today presents the evidence in a clear, coherent and consistent
way, supporting the conclusions which have been made in the recommendations
contained in the report, in a way which Councillor Hill and others expected and
in a way that such a report to the council should be presented, if it is to be
taken at all seriously?
Question 2.
With regard to the recommendation at paragraph
8.31, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear, coherent and consistent it
is.
Two pieces of evidence are cited in the report.
The first is the detailed submission from
Trowbridge Town Council, (which presents the case for the proposals).
The second is the recognition by the Working Group
that the area consists of ‘a mixture of
areas where development had already been built out, areas that had allocations
in the Core Strategy . . . and areas currently utilised for local employment.’
In paragraph 6, the report states that; ‘The
Working Group has therefore taken into account any significant development
including unimplemented planning permissions and any relevant allocations in
the Wiltshire Core Strategy.’
This reflects the government guidance.
In addition the Working Group comments that; ‘Schemes 27 and 28 were natural progressions
of the urban extension of Trowbridge from scheme 26 where the housing had
already been built.’
Therefore all of evidence presented in the report supports
the proposal.
On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does
the Working Group justify ignoring the evidence to reach the conclusion that no
action is taken?
Question 3.
With regard to the recommendations at paragraph
8.32 and 8.33/8.34, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear, coherent and
consistent they are.
Three pieces of evidence are cited in paragraph
8.32 of the report.
The first is ‘that
the response to the consultation showed the majority of respondents disagreed
with the proposal.’
The second looks at access to the area and notes; ‘that the only access to this area was from
Trowbridge’
The third looks at improving the boundary and notes
‘that the existing boundary was out of
date and anomalous.’
Three pieces of evidence are cited in paragraph
8.33 of the report.
The first looks at access to the area and notes; ‘that access to this area of land was only
possible via Trowbridge’
The second looks at improving the boundary and
notes; ‘that the proposed boundary would
be an improvement.’
The third is ‘that
the response to the consultation was mixed’
On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does
the working group justify ignoring the evidence from the consultation (in an
area with 28 residential properties), giving significantly greater weight to
access and improving boundaries in paragraph 8.32, yet at the same time
ignoring the evidence relating to access and improving boundaries, giving
significantly greater weight to the consultation (in an area with only three
residential properties) in paragraph 8.33/8.34?
Question 4.
With regard to the recommendations at paragraph
8.35 to 8.38 and 8.39/8.40, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear,
coherent and consistent they are.
Two pieces of evidence are cited in paragraphs 8.35
to 8.38 of the report.
The first is the improved boundary; ‘Scheme 22 reflected a more easily
identifiable boundary’
The second is the response to the consultation at
paragraph 8.36.
Only one piece of evidence is cited in paragraphs
8.39/8.40 of the report.
This is the outcome of the consultation, which was
‘strongly in favour of the proposal’.
On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does
the working group justify ignoring the evidence relating to improving
boundaries, giving significantly greater weight to the consultation in
paragraph 8.35 to 8.38, yet at the same time ignoring the evidence from the
consultation, in paragraph 8.39/8.40?
Question 5.
With regard to the recommendation at paragraph 8.45
to 8.48, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear, coherent and consistent
it is.
Only one piece of evidence is cited in paragraphs
8.45 to 8.48 of the report.
This is the outcome of the consultation, ‘the majority of responses came from outside
the area and were therefore less influential’.
In addition the report at paragraph 8.47 includes
a statement from the parish council, with no balancing statement from the town
council.
On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does
the working group justify ignoring the only evidence they cite in paragraph 8.45
to 8.48, on the basis that the consultation is less influential because responses
come from outside the area, when for Schemes 21, 23 and 103 they have
completely ignored the views of respondents who live in the areas concerned? How
does the Working Group justify the inclusion of statements from one side,
statements which could be made equally about both alternative proposals? Surely
the only conclusion to be drawn from the inconsistency, incoherence and lack of
clarity is that the Working Group has yet again failed to provide evidence to
justify its conclusions?
