My comments on the draft Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan are as follows: The final
draft version of the plan does not allow local residence to judge the merits of
the sites that are available for development. Earlier versions of the draft
provided details of all available sites, yet the final proposed draft only lists
the sites that have been proposed by the MNSG. There is insufficient detail
about the scoring system in the plan itself to allow the community to judge the
objectivity of the site selection. By way of example, one member of the MNSG
was recently successful in challenging a three house expansion to an already
approved planning application on site 11, yet that same site has been ‘selected’
by the MNSG as the ‘best’ site for 100 new homes. It seems somewhat strange
that the MNSG’s scoring system has identified a site for development where there
is already a precedent set for the rejection of planning consent. I would not
feel confident in voting for MNSG’s plan if it may not be enforced by the local
Planning Office. The Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan does not consider all the
land that is available for housing development. I could not find reference to
the brown field sites by the Redrow estate in Cowbridge that could accommodate a
large portion of the housing allocation. The MNSG states its intentions to
prevent large-scale development, yet it proposes that 100 densely packed houses
be placed across sites 6, 10 and 11. I would prefer to see a plan for
Malmesbury that has a smaller number of houses spread evenly across the
available sites, thus mitigating the majority of residents’ concerns such as;
flood risk; highways safety; urban sprawl; burden on schools; parking; access.
Such an approach would help to share the burden of new housing development
across the population of Malmesbury and help to better integrate new residents
into our sociable and interactive community. I agree with the MNSG’s efforts to
maintain the views of Malmesbury Abbey when considering the most sympathetic
locations for future housing development. However I do not think that sufficient
importance has been given to the views of the abbey that are enjoyed by ramblers
using the public right of way on site 10 and the field to its east. Views of
the abbey will be interrupted for ramblers if site 10 is developed, yet it
receives a weighted score of only 40 (the lowest of all sites). In contrast,
The adjacent site 6 will have no impact on ramblers’ view of the abbey, yet it
receives a weighted score of 140 (the eighth highest score of the 22 sites
evaluated!). I will be inclined to vote in favour of the plan if this error is
corrected and site 10 is removed from the final version of MNSG’s plan.
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.