Attended presentation 23/March/2013
Nice presentation but it raised a few concerns:
1. With regard to development of housing at Sites 3a and 15 and the
proposed business park parallel to Tetbury Hill:-Roads
- Most of the proposed development is parallel to Tetbury Hill and behind Dyson;
traffic from these developments would be filtered onto the B4014 and onto the
A429 or flow through town. This would increase traffic flow on Tetbury Hill,
which only has a controlled pedestrian crossing near the base of the hill.
Traffic flow onto the B4014 and A429 is badly congested now at certain times of
the day. Parking and highway section did not address any of these issues only
touch on town centre and car parking.
Water Flow - Increased building usually increases the speed water flows into
surrounding water courses overwhelming them either locally or downstream. What
is the affect likely to be at the bottom of the hill and downstream? Especially
given the extent of flood possible, as shown by this
Generally proposed development generally centred on the Filands area increasing traffic
and pollution in the area and decreasing the quality of life of those who live
2. With regard to school provision:-
The Neighbourhood Plan suggests creating further primary school capacity by possibly
expanding Malmesbury Primary School. After talking to the Malmesbury Primary
School representative, Mr T Cork, it appears that Primary schools within
Malmesbury are under no obligation to accept extra pupils if they feel their
standards will be compromised; I assume the Secondary is in the same
position. It is clear that less
than 500 hundred houses are to be built and I was told that unless this figure
is reached no new school will be provided by the County Council. The
Neighbourhood Plan suggests less houses than this, which is preferable. The
County Councils planning figures have proved inaccurate in the past as
Malmesbury Primary is already full and the Secondary almost. Hence it would seem
even a small increase in housing would need substantial extra school
In theory Malmesbury Primary could increase the number of classes to 3 in certain
years, however all facilities at the school are designed around a 2 class entry
every year. So it would certainly mean building new class space and facilities
or reverting to the old system of porta-cabins, as was the case at the school
prior to it being redeveloped.
Both of which would be disruptive and in the case of building would take
time. It is at present an excellent school and I’m sure the community would
not want that jeopardised.
In theory St Joseph’s could accept a larger entry, however it has also just
undertaken some redevelopment which does not foresee a large increased school
population. A large increase in pupil numbers would also probably be at the
expense of its Catholic nature.
Even if the schools could be induced to accept increased numbers in the short term
the long term effect of slowly increasing the housing stock would soon fill
these. The alternative is to ship increasing number of children outside of
Malmesbury to village schools. Which again is not acceptable to many and people
in the centre of Malmesbury may find themselves not being able to get into
Malmesbury Schools, even more so that at present.
3. With regard to Medical / Dental:-
No issues were identified; does this mean that the increased demand for services is
already built into the services available? The doctors in particular can get very
busy and it is often hard to get appointments at the moment, so surely an
increased population would have some impact on
this. It is also notable that all around the current Primary Care Centre is allocated as
potential residential housing development, this would leave no room for
expansion of the health care services at this site.
Malmesbury Neighbourhood Steering Group
What others are saying about our Draft Neighbourhood Plan Over 500 residents have already looked at the draft plan. These are the comments that they have made about it.
Our consultation runs from the 5th of March 2013 to April 26th 2013. These are the published comments received up to 08/03/13.
All comments below were submitted to this online feedback portal. We hold the identity and addresses for each submission and have decided not to publish them unless specifically requested by the person who submitted them.