<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Access to Archives?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/</link>
	<description>Life, history, beauty, oranges and banjos!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:59:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/#comment-46</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Mr Ellis, for your comments.  I am relatively new to Salisbury (about 18 months resident) and so I apologise if you feel my interest in the issue is a little tardy.  I read with interest the background you have given on the decision to move the county archives and local studies library to Chippenham.

Much of the problem with it (though this would do nothing to help the loss to local farmers, i realise) would be helped if Salisbury had better transport connections to the north of the county.  The fact there is a perfectly serviceable, working passenger line between Salisbury and Swindon but with only one direct service is testament to the &quot;lunatic decentralisation&quot; you cite.  Wiltshire CC have had plenty of opportunity to speak up against the outrageous cuts made to services in December 2007 but have chosen not to.

I await yet another response from the cabinet member with responsibility for travel, transport and economic development.  Not even an acknowledgment.  While it may be too late to reverse the decision of the new venue, it is important to campaign for improved access to it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Mr Ellis, for your comments.  I am relatively new to Salisbury (about 18 months resident) and so I apologise if you feel my interest in the issue is a little tardy.  I read with interest the background you have given on the decision to move the county archives and local studies library to Chippenham.</p>
<p>Much of the problem with it (though this would do nothing to help the loss to local farmers, i realise) would be helped if Salisbury had better transport connections to the north of the county.  The fact there is a perfectly serviceable, working passenger line between Salisbury and Swindon but with only one direct service is testament to the &#8220;lunatic decentralisation&#8221; you cite.  Wiltshire CC have had plenty of opportunity to speak up against the outrageous cuts made to services in December 2007 but have chosen not to.</p>
<p>I await yet another response from the cabinet member with responsibility for travel, transport and economic development.  Not even an acknowledgment.  While it may be too late to reverse the decision of the new venue, it is important to campaign for improved access to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Ellis</title>
		<link>http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator>John Ellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/#comment-45</guid>
		<description>This comment, a little late in the day, adds to those above about transport and some facts about this lunatic decentralisation of an important County service to inaccessible Chippenham.

As a strong and active objector to the move of the Record Office from the superior accessibility of the County town, I can assure everyone that transport, especially from Salisbury, where I reside, was very strongly represented during the consultation exercise.  The Leader of the Council when the project as mooted said a new bus service could be arranged.  That was a ridiculous response because it would have been uneconomic and dependant upon appreciable subsidy.

Typical of the irresponsible way that the project was conducted the comparisons with other possible locations was skewed in Chippenhams favour as were other important factors.  The determination of the subsequent and current Council Leader to bag this facility for her home District was little short of dishonest.

She was warned that the Lottery grant of around 50% of the cost would not be forthcoming if the Chippenham site was selected was misinterpreted by her officers and ignored when it was drawn to the Council&#039;s attention.

t was not just the transport factor that was behind the Lottery decision.  The Chippenham site was to be on a former cattle market made redundant for the purpose to the consternation of the farming community.  Designated the biggest cul-de-sac in Europe, it had just one access road from the clogged town centre and bounded everywhere else by barriers of the London mainline and redundant railway embankments plus a river.  The building was to have its main entrance within the danger area of a major electricity site with transformers which presented an explosion hazard known throughout the country.

A last point for this sumary is the fact that volume records from Salisbuiry District and its Diocese (which includes much of Dorset but not Chippenham) exceeds the whole of the rest of Wiltshire and Swindon put together!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This comment, a little late in the day, adds to those above about transport and some facts about this lunatic decentralisation of an important County service to inaccessible Chippenham.</p>
<p>As a strong and active objector to the move of the Record Office from the superior accessibility of the County town, I can assure everyone that transport, especially from Salisbury, where I reside, was very strongly represented during the consultation exercise.  The Leader of the Council when the project as mooted said a new bus service could be arranged.  That was a ridiculous response because it would have been uneconomic and dependant upon appreciable subsidy.</p>
<p>Typical of the irresponsible way that the project was conducted the comparisons with other possible locations was skewed in Chippenhams favour as were other important factors.  The determination of the subsequent and current Council Leader to bag this facility for her home District was little short of dishonest.</p>
<p>She was warned that the Lottery grant of around 50% of the cost would not be forthcoming if the Chippenham site was selected was misinterpreted by her officers and ignored when it was drawn to the Council&#8217;s attention.</p>
<p>t was not just the transport factor that was behind the Lottery decision.  The Chippenham site was to be on a former cattle market made redundant for the purpose to the consternation of the farming community.  Designated the biggest cul-de-sac in Europe, it had just one access road from the clogged town centre and bounded everywhere else by barriers of the London mainline and redundant railway embankments plus a river.  The building was to have its main entrance within the danger area of a major electricity site with transformers which presented an explosion hazard known throughout the country.</p>
<p>A last point for this sumary is the fact that volume records from Salisbuiry District and its Diocese (which includes much of Dorset but not Chippenham) exceeds the whole of the rest of Wiltshire and Swindon put together!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Goskar</title>
		<link>http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Goskar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tehmina.org/2007/06/12/access-to-archives/#comment-44</guid>
		<description>It shouldn&#039;t surprise me, but it still does, that yet again public transport is not considered when a service is moved from one place to another &#039;for the benefit of the public&#039;.

Yet again, people who want to use public transport are second-class citizens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It shouldn&#8217;t surprise me, but it still does, that yet again public transport is not considered when a service is moved from one place to another &#8216;for the benefit of the public&#8217;.</p>
<p>Yet again, people who want to use public transport are second-class citizens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

