Welcome to dannyhowell.net
We hope you will enjoy your time reading and looking at everything on this website. If you want to show your support, you can appoint yourself a dedicated follow
er by becoming a member of dannyhowell.net ~ click on the "Join This Site" button on the right . . . .

You can also visit our dannyhowell.net Facebook page ~

remember to click on our "Like" button on our Facebook page~

and don't forget you can join the dialogue on our Twitter page: @dannyhowellnet
 

We are constantly adding to the contents of this website, so come back often to www.dannyhowell.net to see our progress.

"Wiltshire Council Whitewash" Is Vision For Warminster's Verdict On The Announcement That Wiltshire Council Are To Take No Action Against Wiltshire Councillor Magnus Macdonald For Taking Part In The Debate And Voting In Favour Of The Spurt Mead, Warminster, Planning Permission Application

Wednesday 17th September 2014:

The Vision For Warminster website has published details which confirm that Wiltshire Council are to take no action against Wiltshire Councillor Magnus Macdonald following his participation in the debate and the vote in favour of HPH Ltd.'s outline planning application to build 35 houses on the Spurt Mead watermeadow between Boreham and Bishopstrow, on the eastern side of Warminster.

Warminster Town Councillor Steve Dancey, who is a co-editor of the Vision For Warminster web pages, was among several people who made written complaints to Wiltshire Council with regard Councillor Magnus Macdonald taking part and voting in favour of the Spurt Mead development. Councillor Magnus Macdonald is a director of Selwood Housing, a position which he failed to note in the public register of interests. During the course of the Spurt Mead debate there were questions raised as to whether Selwood Housing was a partner (providing the social housing) in the proposed development. For the back story, see these links:

http://www.dannyhowell.net/2014/06/differences-of-opinion-whether.html 

http://www.dannyhowell.net/2014/06/thursday-19th-june-2014-danny-howell.html

Councillor Steve Dancey was not alone in making a compaint about Councillor Magnus Macdonald. Among the others who raised the question of Councillor's Magnus Macdonald's propriety was Mike Perry, the Chairman of Bishopstrow Parish Meeting, who had a mandate from Bishopstrow residents to speak out against the unsuitability of the Spurt Mead development so close to the village of Bishopstrow. Spurt Mead serves as a flood defence for the village when heavy rainfall overloads the River Wylye which flows between Spurt Mead and Bishopstrow.

Vision For Warminster have called the no-action decision "Wiltshire Council Whitewash". Here is the full report of Wiltshire Council's decision not to take any action against Councillor Magnus Macdonald (as published on the Vision For Warminster website):
 
DECISION NOTICE: No further action
Reference WC – 38/14
Subject Member
Councillor Magnus MacDonald – Wiltshire Council
Complainant: Councillor Steve Dancey.
Deputy Monitoring Officer: Mr Frank Cain.

Complaint 

On 13 June 2014 the Monitoring Officer of Wiltshire Council received a complaint from Councillor Steve Dancey regarding the conduct of Councillor Magnus MacDonald, a member of Wiltshire Council. 

The complaint alleged that at a meeting of the Wiltshire Council Western Area Planning Committee (the committee), held on 11 June 2014 (the meeting), Councillor MacDonald breached the Code of Conduct by: - 

• Failing to notify for inclusion in the Council’s register a disclosable pecuniary interest namely a directorship with Selwood Housing (Selwood) (paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct).
• Failing to declare an interest at the meeting (paragraphs 6 & 10 of the code of conduct).
• Participating and voting on an item in which he had a pecuniary interest when no dispensation had been granted (paragraph 12 of the code of conduct).
• Failing to act solely in the public interest (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct).
• Improperly conferring an advantage or disadvantage on any person (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct).
• Acting to gain financial or other material benefits for himself (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct).
• Placing himself under a financial or other obligation to an outside organisation which might have sought to influence him in the performance of his duties (paragraph 2 of the code of conduct).
• Failing to make a decision on merit when carrying out his public duties (paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct). 

These allegations all arise out of a decision in which the subject member was involved which related to a developer seeking planning permission for a small scale housing development in Boreham Mill Meadow, Warminster (the application) 

Decision 

In accordance with the approved arrangements for resolving standards complaints adopted by Council on 26 June 2012, which came into effect on 1 July 2012 the Deputy Monitoring Officer has determined as follows: - 

1. Failing to notify for inclusion in the Council’s register a disclosable pecuniary interest namely a directorship with Selwood (paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct): no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action. 

2. Failing to declare an interest at the meeting (paragraphs 6 & 10 of the code of conduct): no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action. 

3. Participating and voting in respect of an item in which he had a pecuniary interest when no dispensation had been granted (paragraph 12 of the code of conduct) no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action. 

4. Failing to act solely in the public interest (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct) no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action. 

5. Improperly conferring an advantage or disadvantage on any person (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct) no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action. 

6. Acting to gain financial or other material benefits for himself (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct) no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action. 

7. Placing himself under a financial or other obligation to an outside organisation which might have sought to influence him in the performance of his duties (paragraph 2 of the code of conduct) no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action. 

8. Failing to make a decision on merit when carrying out his public duties (paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct): no evidence of a breach and therefore no further action.

Reasons for decision

There are several legal concepts that need to be considered before any decision can be made as to whether the facts, as presented, if proven would amount to a breach of the code of conduct. Therefore I propose in these reasons to present in a three stage process; firstly to identify relevant legal concepts and their definition, secondly to apply these legal concepts to the facts and lastly to look at each allegation and the facts and law to determine whether the facts, if proven, would amount to a breach of the code and next steps if any.

The Law

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

A Disclosable pecuniary interest is defined in the schedule to the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 and includes “Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.” 

Whilst a directorship is not employment, trade, profession or vocation it is an office held. Therefore should a member receive any payment for a directorship which is for profit or gain as opposed to re-imbursement for expenses incurred then it will be a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Requirements for notification and registration of disclosable pecuniary interests. 

A member is required to notify the monitoring officer within 28 days of becoming a member of any disclosable pecuniary interests that they hold at the time of notification (section 30 (1) of the Localism Act 2011 (the Act)). 

If a member does not hold an interest at the time of notification then the legal requirements in respect of notification of subsequently obtained disclosable pecuniary interests are: - 

• If present at a meeting in which a matter in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest is being or is to be considered they must disclose it to that meeting (s31(1) of the Act) and
• Must notify the monitoring officer within 28 days of that disclosure (s31(3) of the Act). 

Therefore there is a continuing obligation on members to notify new disclosable pecuniary interests that arise after becoming a member but that obligation only arises when that member attends a meeting in which a matter in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest is to be or is being considered. 

Once a notification occurs under sections 30 (1) or 31 (3) of the Act there is a statutory duty on the relevant authority’s Monitoring Officer to enter that interest on the register.
These requirements are mirrored in the Wiltshire Council Code of Conduct (Part 13 of the Wiltshire Council Constitution). 

Requirements for notification of other interests S 29 of the Act requires a relevant authority to maintain a register of interests which at the discretion of the relevant authority may contain interests wider than disclosable pecuniary interests. Paragraph 9 of the Wiltshire Council Code of Conduct mirrors this requirement.

Wiltshire Council has not imposed any other mandatory notifications/registrations of interests on members.
Matter in which a disclosable pecuniary interest is being or is to be considered.

The requirements under the Act relating to disclosable pecuniary interest are relatively new and therefore there is little case law on these provisions. 

However in R(on the application of Freud) v Oxford City Council (2013) EWHC 4613 (admin) the High Court had to consider amongst many other grounds a challenge by Mr Freud to a planning permission made by a university on the basis that the chairman (Mr Cook) and other members of the Committee were employed by the university. Mr Justice Ouseley held at paragraphs 41 & 42: - 

41. …The complaint is as to his participation in the debate at all. But for him to have been obliged not to participate in the debate, it would have to be shown that he had a disclosable pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the discussion. He had no pecuniary interest in this subject matter. He was not in any part of the university which was promoting it. He had no contract to deal with it. He had nothing in that respect which could amount to a disclosable pecuniary interest in that matter. 

42. Mr Freud says everybody who is employed by an employer has some pecuniary interest, however indirect in how that employer does but the law on that has changed. I have no doubt that the change was in part intended to stop indirect relationships of the sort Mr Cook enjoys here at Oxford University requiring him not to participate in debates about each and every planning application that might be made in Oxford by the university. I do not consider that Mr Cook acted unlawfully in participating in the debates because he had no disclosable pecuniary interests in the subject matter of the proceedings. 

Therefore for a member to have a disclosable pecuniary interest which precludes them from participating and voting on the matter in question there needs to be direct relationship between the pecuniary interest and the subject matter under consideration.

The Facts 

The subject member is an elected member of Wiltshire Council. He was elected to Wiltshire Council in the May 2013 elections and became a member by at least 9 May 2013 and has remained a member since that time. The subject member was therefore a member of Wiltshire Council at the time of the committee meeting held on 11 June 2014. 

The subject member was confirmed by Selwood as a Director on 24 July 2013. 

Selwood’s Articles of Association provide for Directors of Selwood to be paid remuneration as well as re-imbursement of expenses (paragraph 19 of the Association’s Articles). It is therefore assumed that the subject member is paid a director’s fee.

The application 

The matter which is the subject of this complaint is the meeting and in particular an application for outline Planning permission (the application) by HPH Ltd and Hab Housing Ltd (the applicants). 

The Applicants are limited liability companies and are separate legal entities to Selwood. 

The minutes of the meeting record that at the beginning of the meeting the subject member declared that he had a pecuniary interest in one matter to be considered at that meeting in which Selwood was the applicant, as a result of the subject member being a director. For that item Cllr MacDonald withdrew from the committee and did not participate in the debate or vote. 

On 2 July 2014 and within 28 days of that declaration the subject member notified the Monitoring officer of his disclosable pecuniary interest and it was placed on the Council’s register. 

The minutes of the meeting also records that during the course of debate of the application itself there was discussion on the position of Selwood, and Councillor Magnus Macdonald confirmed as he had done earlier that he was a member of the Selwood Board. 

Further at the meeting Selwood confirmed in writing to the Committee that it was a prospective partner, not the applicant, and that there was no formal agreement in place between the applicant and Selwood. The subject member then confirmed that he would vote on the application.
Selwood is a social enterprise, registered charity and not for profit housing association based in Trowbridge and operating mainly within the County of Wiltshire. 

The application for planning permission involved a proposal for 35 homes of which a percentage is to be social housing.
The application was for outline planning permission. The development could only proceed when full permission was sought and granted. 

Any planning obligations relating to affordable housing arising from any permission granted would fall on the applicant. 

Relationship between applicants and Selwood
Paragraph 9.8 of the planning Officer’s report included the following sentence: - The applicant has already identified Selwood Housing to deliver the affordable housing and they are keen to innovate an affordable housing custom build model. However this sentence has to be considered in the light of the factual circumstances that surround it. 

The planning obligation will be on the Applicants to deliver the affordable housing. Neither the application nor any permission granted will create any legal obligations between Selwood and the applicants for delivery of that affordable housing. 

Delivery of the affordable housing component would be by way of separate legal obligations between the applicant and a social provider of the applicant’s choice.
Within Wiltshire there are a number of registered social landlords (including Selwood) which could fulfil this role. Due to recent legislative changes Wiltshire Council, if it wished, could tender for delivery of affordable housing in this development. 

Any legal relations between the applicant and a registered social Landlord would only be established after full details have been finalised and the applicants and chosen social Landlord have satisfied themselves as to terms.
The applicant, as part of the planning application, needed to address the planning requirements for provision of social housing imposed on housing developments. They had to confirm to the planning committee that their proposal was deliverable. Best practice would suggest that should involve discussions with a provider of social housing to test the proposal. However this does not in itself create any legal relationship.

Planning considerations 

Within the Wiltshire Council constitution there is a Planning Code of Good Practice (protocol 4). Compliance with this code is a requirement imposed on all members who sit on a Wiltshire Council planning Committee. 

It is a requirement that before a Member can sit on a planning committee they are required to go through comprehensive training whereby the Planning Code of Good Practice is emphasized. 

The Code of Good Practice at paragraph 5.2 provides: -
The integrity of and public support for the planning process relies on members of planning committees making decisions that are open, transparent and above board. To participate in decision-making on planning matters, it is essential that you do not have a closed mind and that you make your final decision only when you have seen and heard all the evidence and arguments presented, including the Officer’s report and representations on both sides. 

The minutes of the meeting show that the discussions at the meeting revolved around consideration of the planning merits of the application. Apart from the issue of the whether the subject member had a disclosable pecuniary interest there is no evidence, either in the minutes, which are the official record, or in the complaint(s) itself that the subject member based his decision on anything but planning merits.

Application of the facts to the allegations: 

1. Failing to notify for inclusion in the Council’s register a disclosable pecuniary interest namely a directorship with Selwood (paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct).

The subject member became a member of Wiltshire Council on or before 9 May 2013. He had 28 days in which to notify the Monitoring Officer of any disclosable pecuniary interests that he or certain immediate family members may hold. 

The 28 day period would have expired at the latest by 7 June 2013. As the subject member did not become confirmed as a Director of Selwood until 24 July 2013 he did not have this interest to disclose within the 28 day period.

On 11 June 2014 a matter came up in which Selwood was the applicant and therefore the subject member did have a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter before the Council. The subject member declared that interest at the meeting and has notified the Monitoring Officer (on 2 July 2014) of that interest and within 28 days of that declaration. 

I have concluded that there is no evidence that the member has failed to notify a disclosable pecuniary interest in accordance with the legal requirements imposed on him. 

2. Failed to declare an interest at the meeting (paragraphs 6 & 10 of the code of conduct). 

Wiltshire Council has limited mandatory notifications imposed on subject members these are limited to disclosable pecuniary interests. The subject member declared that interest at the outset of the meeting in respect of the application in which there was a direct interest. 

In respect of the particular application the ,subject member did not have a direct interest (see comments below) and for the reasons set out below I do not consider there is any evidence that the subject member failed to declare an interest in the meeting. 

3. Participated and voted in respect of an item in which an organisation in which he has a pecuniary interest when no dispensation had been granted (paragraph 12 of the code of conduct). 

Selwood is a separate legal entity to the applicants. Whilst they were prospective partners they had no direct relationship to the application. 

Any relationship that Selwood had to the application was indirect as a potential provider of social housing. They were a consultee for the applicant’s preparation of its application but equally any social provider could have been selected as a consultee and it does not form any legal relationship whereby Selwood could be held to have a direct relationship to this application. 

I have therefore concluded that the subject member did not have a disclosable pecuniary interest which precluded him from participating and voting on the application 

4. Failed to act solely in the public interest (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct). 

The subject member was trained before sitting on the planning committee. The Council has a Planning code of Good Practice which is contained within the Wiltshire Council Constitution. 

All members of Wiltshire Council sitting on a Wiltshire Council planning Committee must abide the Planning Code of Good Practice. There is no evidence within the minutes or the complaint itself (apart from the allegations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests which I have addressed above) that suggest that the subject member’s decision was other than on the planning merits which is the public interest. 

I have therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the subject member failed to act in the public interest. 

5. Improperly conferred an advantage or disadvantage on any person (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct). 

The subject member was trained before sitting on the planning committee. The Council has a Planning code of Good Practice which is contained within the Wiltshire Council Constitution. 

All members of Wiltshire Council sitting on a Wiltshire Council planning Committee must abide the Planning Code of Good Practice. There is no evidence within the minutes or the complaint itself (apart from the allegations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests which I have addressed above) that suggest that the subject member’s decision was other than on the planning merits which is in the public interest. 

I have therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the subject member improperly conferred an advantage or disadvantage on any person. 

6. Acted to gain financial or other material benefits for himself (paragraph 1 of the code of conduct). 

The subject member was trained before sitting on the planning committee. The Council has a Planning code of Good Practice which is contained within the Wiltshire Council Constitution. 

All members of Wiltshire Council sitting on a Wiltshire Council planning Committee must abide the Planning Code of Good Practice. There is no evidence within the minutes that suggest that the subject member’s decision was other than on the planning merits which is in the public interest.
There is no direct relationship between the applicants and Selwood. There may be an indirect relationship because Selwood is a prospective social provider however this is no greater than any other social provider including possibly the Council itself. 

I have therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the subject member acted to gain financial or other material benefits. 

7. Placed himself under a financial or other obligation to an outside organisation which might have sought to influence him in the performance of his duties (paragraph 2 of the code of conduct). 

There is no evidence that the member has placed himself under a financial obligation to an outside organisation which might have sought to influence him in the performance of his duties. 

If a matter arises for consideration in which the subject member has a disclosable pecuniary interest he must not participate or vote on that item. 

This is what he did in respect of the application by Selwood. 

8. He failed to make a decision on merit when carrying out his public duties (paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct). 

The subject member was trained before sitting on the planning committee. The Council has a Planning code of Good Practice which is contained within the Wiltshire Council Constitution. 

All members of Wiltshire Council sitting on a Wiltshire Council planning Committee must abide the Planning Code of Good Practice. There is no evidence within the minutes or the complaint itself (apart from the allegations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests which I have addressed above) that suggest that the subject member’s decision was other than on the planning merits which is the public interest. 

I have therefore concluded that there is no evidence that the subject member failed to make a decision on merit when carrying out his public duties. 

Right of appeal
Both the complainant and the subject member have the right to appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decision to a sub-committee of Wiltshire Council’s Standards Committee.

If either party wishes to appeal they must do so in writing within 5 working days of receipt of this decision notice. They should write to the Monitoring Officer providing clear reasons of the basis for their appeal. The Monitoring Officer will then arrange for a sub-committee of the Standards Committee to meet and determine the appeal.

Warminster Town Council Have Issued A Press Release Over The Debacle Of A Meeting Which Should Have Allowed Public Participation Before Councillors' Debated Making Recommendations To Widen Out The Town Boundary ~ The Council Acknowledges That The Town Boundary Change Is A Cause For Concern ~ Angry Warminster Residents Will Now Get Their Say At A Meeting In October ~ The Majority Say No To Expansion

Wednesday 17th September 2014:

Warminster Town Council have issued a press release with regard the debacle that ensued on Monday evening when many residents were unable to get into the Council Chamber to have their say on the Council's intended recommendation to widen out the town boundary ~ a move which would allow a free-for-all for developers who may want to build vast housing estates on greenfields including the area adjacent Norridge Woods, the field between Westbury Road and the public amenity area on Arn Hill, the fields of Home Farm, the Boreham Farm fields around Battlesbury Hill, the watermeadows at Bishopstrow, and perhaps beyond the Warminster Bypass.

The Warminster Town Council press release, issued this morning (Wednesday 17th September 2014), reads ~ 

Settlement Boundary A Cause For Concern

150 members of the public* turned up to a Council meeting on Monday 15th September to listen to the debate on the informal consultation with Parish and Town Councils on the methodology of the draft proposals for revised settlement boundaries, issued by Wiltshire Council. Unexpectedly, the Civic Centre, home of the Town Council could not facilitate the numbers attending the meeting and it was necessary to defer the item until another date and time. All meeting rooms in the building were in use by community hirers. Mayor Councillor Andrew Davis said “it was necessary to defer the item to ensure that a suitable date could be found to accommodate the number of interested public who wish to attend and be heard in a comfortable and safe environment.” Following this announcement, the majority of the public left the building and business continued.

The Town Council is now in the process of calling an extraordinary meeting which will be held sometime in October.


Danny Howell writes ~

1) * It was in excess of 200 people who attempted to attend the Town Council meeting on Monday evening. 116 people were able to get into the Council Chamber (many of them having to stand up because of a lack of seats or space for seats). The remainder had to stand around in the Civic Centre reception area, unable to hear what was being said and unable to contribute their opinions. (The majority of local residents are against further expansion of the town in any direction). The time for the Town Boundary topic was shortlived anyway, with only one member of the public making his views known (in favour of house building on the east side of Warminster). The item was eventually postponed after the Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Andrew Davis, was heckled and laughed at for trying to proceed when denying residents the chance to make their views known. He was ridiculed by the public when he said: "It's unfortunate so many of you have turned up to this meeting about debating the Town Boundary."

2) The Town Council have additionally stated: The consultation referred to set out the proposed methodology to review the existing boundaries and how Town and Parish Councils can inform the process. Comments at this stage were invited on the appropriateness of the methodology and proposed revisions to boundaries. The responses will be used to develop the proposals for inclusion into the draft plan. The documents and maps showing the current and revised settlement boundaries for individual parishes can be viewed online via Wiltshire Council’s website at:

http://consult.wiltshire.gov.uk/portal 

http://consult.wiltshire.gov.uk/portal/spatial_planning/sites_dpd/settlement_boundary_review_intial_and_informal_consultation

Market Towns have defined settlement boundaries and this is the dividing line, or boundary between areas of built/urban development (the settlement) and non-urban or rural development – the open countryside. For Warminster the original defined boundary was established in the West Wiltshire Local Plan 1st Alteration in 2004.

Race Night At Leigh Park Community Centre, Westbury


Race Night
at
Leigh Park Community Centre,
Westbury, BA13 3FN
on
Saturday 11th October 2014
7.00 p.m. - 11.00 p.m.

Raffle and Auction.
Bar Available.
Admission £5 (includes nibbles).
Proceeds to Cancer Unit, RUH, Bath.

For further details contact:
Sam 07929 171338 or Marie 07709 912661

Chef Required At The Old Bell Hotel, Warminster

Wednesday 17th September 2014:

The Old Bell Hotel, Market Place, Warminster, has a vacancy for a full time chef. Shifts include days, evenings and weekends. Competitive rates of pay. To apply, email a copy of your cV to oldbell@wadworth.co.uk

Unprecedented Scenes At Warminster Town Council Meeting ~ Council Forced To Postpone Town Boundary Expansion Recommendations Until A Bigger Venue Can Be Found So That The Public Can Have Their Say

Tuesday 15th September 2014:

Comments on the Vision For Warminster website re last night's shambolic scenes at Warminster Civic Centre as the Town Council had to postpone the item on the agenda which was to debate expanding the town boundary:

"Unprecedented scenes last night" . . .  "as [Warminster Town Council] could not cope with the public turnout to a town council meeting." 

"New meeting will be held to discuss one issue ~ The Core Strategy 'Settlement Lines' For Warminster."

Over 200 people had flocked to the Civic Centre to have their say on the Council's decision to recommend expanding the town boundary for Warminster, but due to lack of space only half the crowd were able to get into the Council Chamber.

The Town Council tried to continue on with the Town Boundary item on the agenda, ignoring the fact that local people were being denied democracy, but were eventually forced to postpone the matter when the crowd grew increasingly hostile and heckled the Chairman Andrew Davis.

A date and venue for a meeting specifically to debate the Town Boundary expansion, with public participation, will be announced as soon as arrangements have been made. The Town Council has to give at least seven days notice of the meeting.

Awaiting Their Undignified Demise ~ Limes By Lamplight At Boreham, Warminster

Monday 15th September 2014:

These lime trees, at Boreham Road, Warminster, immediately west of Boreham Crossroads, 
seen here lit by lamplight, await their demise.
They are to be felled, not because they are unsafe,
but because developer HPH Ltd., in conjunction
with HAB Housing, needs them out of the way for
the provision of an access road to a housing estate
they have been given outline planning permission
to build on Spurt Mead, a wildlife-rich watermeadow
that serves an important function as part of the
down-river floodplain for Warminster.

  These lime trees were planted in 1914
but it seems that having reached their
100th birthday they are in the way of
developers' desires. Local people have
vociferously campaigned against building
on Spurt Mead and the protests have
included tree-hugging the limes.

  There are no tree-preservation orders
on these limes and the developers
have already received the consent of
the county aborologist for felling.

Photographs taken by Danny Howell
at 8.15 p.m. on Monday 15th September 2014.

Low Mist On St. George's Playing Field, Warminster

Monday 15th September 2014:

Low mist on St. George's Playing Field,
at Boreham, Warminster.
Boreham Field residential estate 
in the background.

Photographs taken by Danny Howell
during the evening of
Monday 15th September 2014.


Spirited Play During FC St. George's Versus Fox & Hounds Match, Warminster

Sunday 14th September 2014:

Photographs taken by Danny Howell
on Sunday 14th September 2014,
showing one of the many moments
of spirited football play during the
match between FC St. George (at home at 
Kingdown School's St. George's Playing Field, 
Boreham, Warminster) and Fox & Hounds
in the Mindset Training Frome & District
Sunday League. Fox & Hounds were the
victors, beating FC St. George by 5 to 1.