By David Borrett

This is the third and final part of the history feature on plans to put sodium fluoride in Andover's water supply. You can read the first and second parts here:

Part 1: Plans to put sodium fluoride in Andover's water supply divided town

Part 2: When 600 residents rallied against council to protest fluoride in water supply​

After the May 1957 election, there were seven councillors who were against the fluoride policy and nine in favour, so the chemical remained in the town’s water supply.

The two aldermen, Rowland Charlton and John Ponting, who were strong advocates for fluoride, were both put forward to represent Andover on the Association of Municipal Corporations, a body that looked after the interests of borough authorities against the interference of national government.

Meanwhile the Anti-Fluoride Association pressed ahead with legal action. The aim was to prove that the council had acted illegally.

Any action like this was fought with the consent and through the Attorney General. He was the officer charged with upholding public rights infringed by official and public bodies and it was he who would nominally bring the action against the council, backed by fifteen ratepayers who could claim their rights had been infringed.

The writ was served at the end of January 1958 and the council decided to defend it. The key legal point was whether the council had the right to add sodium fluoride to the water supply.

The 1945 Water Act declared that water suppliers had to ensure that water was ‘wholesome’ but what exactly did this word mean? The monthly council debates became increasingly bitter with personal insults being hurled across the floor.

Alderman Armstead accused Mrs Harvey of exploiting her health and engendering fear across the town, remarks for which he later apologised.

Now another election was due. As before, another four anti-fluoride candidates stood for election. One of these was Percy Batchelor, already on the council and anti-fluoride but whose term of office was up.

The other three were Leslie Coleman, George Lynn and Olive Harvey, all new candidates against Labour’s W H Newman, Conservative Reginald Harrison, mayor-elect, and the current mayor, Labour’s Gordon Simpson, respectively.

When the votes were declared, Percy Batchelor won his Winton seat back again, as did Reginald Harrison in Millway though securing it by only eight votes.

In St Mary’s Leslie Coleman won against the sitting candidate, W H Newman, and sensationally, Mrs Harvey ousted the then mayor, Gordon Simpson, in Alamein ward 723 votes to 523.

The now ex-councillor but still mayor bitterly remarked, ‘It is said that people get the kind of government they deserve. Well, you have got it!’

As a result of the elections in 1958, of the 12 elected councillors, nine were now anti-fluoride and three were for it.

Peculiarly, the four aldermen were all for fluoride, a strange balance.

On May 20, after Cllr Harrison was elected mayor, as already arranged the previous January, another election was due, that for two aldermen which was held every three years by the new council.

The two aldermen who had served six years were required to either step down or stand again for a further six-year period. This was usually a gentlemanly process whereby those who wished to stand again were unopposed.

In 1958, it was quite different: the two up for election were Rowland Charlton MBE and John Ponting, the two most blamed for introducing fluoride. They were no longer facing a council that largely agreed with them but in stark contrast a very hostile set of new councillors specifically elected to oppose the policy.

Of course, their candidature was opposed. Both Frank May and Jack Haines stood against them and in the changed circumstances both won the vote convincingly.

It was a bitter blow for both ex-aldermen, though Rowland Charlton was to lose more than just his aldermanic status.

Being no longer either councillor or alderman meant he was now not part of the council and had to resign from a host of senior positions both in Andover and in the larger sphere.

Most importantly, he could no longer hold any position on the Association of Municipal Corporations. He would almost certainly have become chairman of its Non-County Boroughs Committee the following September, a position that would usually carry a future knighthood. His fall was like a house of cards – the removal of the bottom tier meant the whole house came crashing down.

The Labour party also was a major casualty of the fluoride policy. Before 1956 there were seven Labour members on the council, while after 1958 there were just two.

Another two seats were won back in 1959 but by 1961, the local party had all but broken up and no Labour candidates stood for election that year. From this low point, there was a slight revival but there had definitely been a long-term political shift.

In July 1958, it was agreed to remove fluoride from the water supply immediately. The legal action was now almost superfluous as the chemical had been removed but the council wanted to ensure that fluoride could never again be added to the water supply against the wishes of the electorate.

An agreement was therefore reached that six months’ notice would have to be given before anything could happen, allowing sufficient time for the legal proceedings to be re-activated against the council. The action was ‘stayed’ but could be revived at any time.

In the years to come most of the leading lights of the anti-fluoride movement served as mayor. Mrs Olive Harvey served just a single term on the council and then retired, her main mission accomplished.

But Andover had a council of a very different outlook from that of 10 years earlier. The old borough council had rejected the idea of town expansion a few years before but the new one embraced it.

Percy Batchelor, mayor in 1960 -61, as one of his final acts of his mayoral year, signed the Andover Town Development Scheme agreement with Greater London Council, setting in train a course of events that even today is a source of some angst.

There were periodic fluoridation threats to come. The council lost control of its own water supply in 1962 when under a government scheme for regrouping water supplies Andover’s came under the control of Southampton Corporation and it was not long before the ‘new broom’ wanted to sweep clean.

Agreement was secured to add fluoride to the water supply of the entire area under Southampton’s control including from Hampshire County Council but at a meeting convened at the Bridge Street Andover council offices in December 1965 it was decided not to proceed.

There were future battles including that surrounding the passing of the Fluoridation Act 1985 but still Andover’s water is free of sodium fluoride.

As a final thought, the arguments over fluoride during that short period in Andover between 1956 and 1958 have been echoed in recent years during the Covid pandemic.

Here, the entire population was forced to take the ‘wonder drug’ of a hastily-produced vaccine, many being threatened with losing their jobs and their freedoms if they did not accept it.

This was certainly mass medication and indeed against the will of many people who were fearful of its long-term effects, of which (perhaps tellingly), a significant proportion were doctors and health workers themselves.

And whatever the consequences of taking three, four or five doses may be, it will take some considerable time yet to elapse before it is possible to pronounce such a vaccine as ‘safe’.

(For a more detailed account of the Andover fluoride campaign, read my book Something in the Water, published by Andover History and Archaeology Society. Details on its website.) 

If you are interested in local history, why not join Andover History and Archaeology Society? Details can be found at www.andoverlocalhistoryarchaeology.uk