Shaw and Whitley villagers speak out against council merger

Residents of Shaw and Whitley have expressed concern about the exclusion of the two villages from a proposed merger of Melksham’s two councils to create one unitary council.

Villagers say that if Shaw and Whitley, which both currently sit under Melksham Without Parish Council, were forced to form its own parish council, it would struggle financially, putting at risk vital services such as the Community Emergency Group who offer assistance during flooding and other emergencies.

Speaking at last week’s full council meeting of Melksham Without Parish Council, Shaw resident and chair of Community Action Whitley & Shaw (CAWS), Mike Booth said, “It sounds like we are being cut adrift from Melksham Without Parish Council, which supports us very well at the moment. I am extremely concerned about that and what it would mean to the villagers in Shaw and Whitley.

“I fear that we would not have the same level of service from a council on our own, or as part of a much larger council that has the vast majority of its population in the town centre – we would be the after-thought on the outside. The status quo is great for us, and I’m sure most of the villagers feel the same way.”

Fellow Shaw resident, Brian Roberts, who is the treasurer of CAWS and the Community Emergency Group added “There’d be no way if Shaw and Whitley were isolated, that we could sustain what we do in the villages. It costs us money to run these organisations, and we are very thankful for the support of Melksham Without Parish Council, without whom we’d be lost.”

The merger of Melksham Town Council and Melksham Without Parish Council, but excluding Shaw and Whitley, has been proposed by town councillors who say that new housing developments being built in Bowerhill will erode the rural barrier between the town and the parish, and that one combined council is in the best interests of the community.

The proposal has already attracted strong opposition from Melksham Without Parish Council who say they are ‘totally against’ a merger, echoing the same stance they held in 2015 when a proposed merger of the two councils was rejected by Wiltshire Council

“The sheer lack of interest in Shaw and Whitley is amazing,” said parish council chair, cllr Richard Wood at last week’s meeting. “They (the town council) haven’t thought this through. 

“Shaw and Whitley enjoy a large parish council looking after them, as well as the other villages, and it’s worked very well because we have a decent precept and can afford to do work in all those areas. 

“You take that away and leave Shaw and Whitley on their own, they will struggle to raise enough money to keep that very vibrant coming going as it has been. It’s just callous – and they are not thinking at all about the people of Shaw and Whitley.

“It smacks of a parish that hasn’t thought it through, and has no detailed knowledge of Melksham Without. There is absolutely no case to be made for a merger.”

Cllr Alan Baines said, “It’s all about revenue and not about the responsibility – it’s looking for ways of funding their extravagance within the town at the expense of rural areas.”

Cllr David Pafford said, “The town council should be required to show what’s changed from before. What makes this a viable option, when it was considered not to be a few years ago? It does smack to me of a naked power grab, which has nothing to do with the best interests of our parishioners.”

Expressing his own personal opinion about the merger, cllr Nick Holder said,  “The town council appreciate their ability to keep going to the well of town residents with 16%, 17% increases (of precept) is running out, so therefore they are looking for other mechanisms for increasing their precept.”

At the meeting, councilors resolved to stand by their proposal that the 100 dwellings at Sandridge Place and the 450 dwellings that will be built in the east of Melksham should be transferred to the town. But also to reiterate to Wiltshire Council and the town council that the villages within the parish have their own separate identities, and should remain separate to the town.