I do not understand how the MNSG plan is any better than the Gleeson plan. The Backbridge site will be
a Persimmon development -something which has not been disclosed by MNSG What is
better about building 170 at Backbridge rather than at Filands - the problem
has simply been moved. The proposed site at Backbridge is a flood plain, it is
not in an easily accessible place, will add to the already appalling traffic
problems at rush hour near Dyson, will increase traffic going past children
walking to school on tetbury Hill, will significantly add to congestion in the
Town with people cutting through. In addition this is a spread of development
into open countryside rather than infill. MNSG suggested that the would look at
a number of smaller developments but instead have come up with the same sized
proposal at Gleeson - Malmesbury does not want or need large scale development,
so why are MNSG proposing such a large development?
The people who live near Filands and Reeds Farm
are large in number and will be more in favour of Backbridge but this is not
reflective of the whole of Malmesbury's views and it is disproportionate. I am
concerned at the lack if consultation - it seems that many in people in
Malmesbury do not know about meetings or proposals and I understand that a
leaflet drop prior to this event failed to happen. More needs to be done to
ensure that everyone is aware of the proposals. tetbury Hill Gardens which is a
private lane has been identified as an access point. How can this happen? There
is a bar on development down this lane as it is not safe to join the road and
it is unsafe for pedestrians as there are blind spots and the lane is very
narrow. When we initially queried this we were assured that residents of this
lane would be consulted but we have heard no more. I will submit further
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.