COMMENTS on the -Draft Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan Public Consultation March to April 2013
Volume 1 Main Body
I support the plan in principle, congratulate the Steering Group, and thank the members
for all their hard work.
1.1.3 Summary of selected housing sites.
Burton Hill 6, Malmesbury PCC 10 and 11. I ask for reconsideration of these sites. A ring of
development round the PCT allows for no future expansion, affects significaly
the rear of the houses on Swindon Road. Also the increase in traffic on the A
429 from 100 houses will cause problems at the approach to Malmesbury.
Potential Housing Site Selection Scores doc
site 16 Reeds Farm Estate (land NW of). Why cannot there be a partial development on the
southern side adjacent to the termination of Michael Pym’s road, to replace site
10 & 11 ? There has been an assumption in the past that a small extension of Reeds Farm would be accepted
here. I think in the scoring system the criterion score “heritage view and setting of the abbey” for 16 is too high.
3 Supermarket Allocation.
3.1.4 I support the need for another
supermarket to serve Malmesbury, and the selection of the Avon Mill (Land SE of)
site. The criteria used were thorough and comprehensive though the scoring
system arcane and difficult to understand, particularly the weightings, and so
difficult to use in the considerable debate on the 2 sites.
3.2.4 Develop the High Street.
I do not support extending the Town Centre boundary at this time.
I note that premises within both the designated Existing Primary Frontage
and Existing Secondary Frontage are protected from being changed from shops and
other office use. In the present
economic recession there are a significant number of empty retail premises, most
are listed buildings. As the most effective way of preserving a listed building
is to use it, consideration should be given to delete this protection in the
secondary frontage to permit change of use to residential.
3.2.5 Accessibility to the town centre.
Car parking – in addition to review of the parking in the Cross Hayes, there should be a
review of the charges at the long stay Station Yard car park.
The management of this car park should be devolved to the Town Council,
so the charges can be adjusted to reflect local needs.
In the Cross Hayes there should be further review of the use of the garage frontage by Hyams
Autos to park 9 cars not only by day but also by night which affects parking for
events in the town when walking up from the Statin Yard is not so acceptable for
6. Protecting Malmesbury’s heritage. I commend this
6.1.2 Issues 1). A Settlement Assessment should be used to evaluate and safeguard. I strongly recommend should is changed to must.
6.1.3 Objectives and Tasks. Enhance the landscape setting of the town
Asabove I strongly recommend shouldis changed to must
6.1.5 as above the CAMP should be referenced needs clarification, and I suggest should be is changed to must be
6.1.4 Preserve or enhance the town centre.
In addition to the updating of the Supplementary Planning Guidance documents
Conservation Area Appraisal, and Management Plan, the status of these
documents should be clarified. Does a SPD carry more weight than a SPD for
determining planning applications ? If so the SPG should be upgraded to SPD
Draft Neighbouring Plan Volume II design guide
I commend this document as a sound basis for the protection, and potential enhancement of Malmesbury.
8.1. Design Quality has been a contentious
concept for Development Control in the past, and not of the foremost importance
eg the Persimmon Office Tetbury Hill, Filands development frontage and PCC
central building, the design of all was strongly criticised by the Civic Trust.
So some design guidelines pertinent for Malmesbury could provide a base for
8.1.4 p 7
TASK Design and Access Statements must demonstrate …….how and proposed development complements and enhances the character of Malmesbury. It would be helpful to have some guide lines on the interpretation of enhancement.
Please could the MNSG consider commissioning a D & A Statement template as guidance fo developers, Development Control, and residents concerned with planningproposals. Also for guidance todevelopers
At the bottom of page 6, I have real concern about the requirement “Any development
proposal that may affect a listed building or its setting must be discussed with
the MNSG or its successor, the Town or Parish Council and Wiltshire Council at
an early stage of the planning and design process.”
This statement is repeated four times in the document.
I interpret this as a requirement for another consultee for the planning
application process, and an unnecessary burden on the process.
The future status of MNSG is not known, either the composition or
responsibilities. Why cannot
the Town or Parish councils fulfil this requirement?
Malmesbury Town Council has in place a Conservation Group which chould
fulfil this task.
MALMESBURY SETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT
1.9 Malmesbury setting is worthy of careful consideration when assessing future
change. Please firm this up:
worthy of careful should be changed to Malmesbury’s setting is unique and
serious consideration must be undertaken
when assessing future change.
6.0 Views and thresholds.
6.3 Thresholds or gateways to Malmesbury. Outer thresholds. I ask for specific reference to the views of the Abbey and the hill town from the approaches to Malmesbury both from the South and the North on the A429.
These are very significant views, and introduce the traveller to the unique setting of the Abbey on the escarpment and within the townscape. From the South a further T should be on the A429 north of Corston and just before the right turning to Seagry. In the North T2 just below Wychurch farm off the roundabout should be given special mention.
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.