The headline in the Wiltshire Times concerning the Local Government Ombudsman's decision was misleading.

Although we have fought consistently to get a proper investigation of the Record Office location selection process to protect threatened businesses in the town, this issue was never central to the Record Office campaign.

The project cannot happen without Heritage Lottery Funding, so the primary focus of the campaign is providing detailed evidence for that body.

The Ombudsman's operation is proscribed by bureaucrat rules. As long as a council pays lip service to its own procedures, then the Ombudsman 'cannot criticise the merits of the council's decision'.

The fact that all Record Office location surveys strongly favoured Trowbridge of the four locations, yet this was not mentioned in the Options Review, is dismissed by the LGO

The mere reference to the surveys in Appendix 1(a) of the Options Review report meets the Ombudsman's requirements in terms of informing members.

The county council's own Scrutiny Committee concluded parts of the Options Review 'may have led external agencies to perceive bias, as they could not identify the information and methodology used'.

Criticism of this 'perceived bias' was the key issue of the complaint.

The Ombudsman states that the provision of such information is 'a matter for the officers' professional judgement'. The Ombudsman, therefore, was unable to investigate the whole basis of the complaint.

Fortunately the Heritage Lottery Fund requires 'a thorough options appraisal to have been carried out', so our complaints can be taken further.

A Mason

Record Office Campaigner

Trowbridge and District Chamber of Commerce

Trowbridge