at Burton Hill Site
Plan initially identified the Burton Hill area as ripe for development with 100
planned residential dwellings, and referred to the area as a potential
"satellite town" for Malmesbury.
The Plan refers to the development as providing 100 mixed cottage type
dwellings. However, at a meeting of the Town Council on 18th April 2013 the
Councillors were given the impression that the Burton Hill development around
Athelstan House was purely for elderly residents.
A prominent member of the MNSG has recently visited Townsend House at Burton Hill and
presented the Plan to residents. He gave assurances that the development was for single storey dwellings
and ring fenced for elderly people before distributing MNSG feedback forms for
the residents to fill in. The lack of clarity with regard to the plans for this
site raises concerns that the MNSG are trying to "soft soap" residents in order
to obtain positive feedback, with the likelihood of later reneging on these
plans and revert to social housing as the Plan comes under further
The MNSG need to clarify exactly what their plan is for Burton Hill.
If it is indeed for elderly people, the Plans are seriously flawed, and
are contrary to the MNSG's stated aim that elderly people should be within
walking distance of the High Street and near to social amenities. The Plan
states Burton Hill "is a short walk to Malmesbury High Street and just a few
minutes from any proposed Avon Mills supermarket."
Expecting elderly residents to cross the busy A429 and make their way up
a steep incline to local shops is laughable and does not cater for their needs.
Similarly, there is more to providing suitable housing for the elderly than
merely ensuring they are near a supermarket.
The MNSG Plan makes reference to 50 plus care home places which are to be developed at
the old Burnham House. Why do these not contribute to the overall number of
homes required in the plan?
The Plan lacks sufficient detail on the methodology employed and the evidence gathered to
determine how many homes for elderly residents are required in the Malmesbury
area. How has the MNSG reached the conclusion that 50 beds are required for the
elderly at Burnham House and a further 100 dwellings at Burton Hill?
The MNSG Plan for Burton Hill has morphed from high density cottage style houses to an
extension of the care home, and appears to be policy making on the hoof, in a
blatant attempt to curry favour and deflect criticism from their lack of
consultation with the residents of the current provisions for elderly
The Plan states Burton Hill "is a short walk to Malmesbury High Street and just a few
minutes from any proposed Avon Mills supermarket."
This is a blatant attempt to shore up MNSG's tenuous arguments as to the
suitability of the Waitrose site by trying to make both sites appear sustainable.
Identification of Suitable Land for Housing Development
The MNSG have not conducted thorough research of other potential development sites around
Malmesbury, but have merely chosen areas which are easily identifiable and which
suit their agenda.
Why have the plans for 70 homes, which have already been agreed, at Cowbridge, not been
included in the Plan? Surely this
alters the required housing need for the whole area.
The MNSG have a duty to now explore the potential to develop an additional 5 acres of
land owned by the Minton Group, which they have secured with the specific aim of
building houses. They state that
this land has sustainable access to the A429 and is unaffected by flooding.
Potential Conflict of Interest
At a recent public meeting, Simon Killane mentioned that the Prince's Trust, who appear to
have been instrumental in identifying the potential sites suitable for
development, were working in conjunction with Persimmon house builders. Has this, and will this, potential
conflict of interest be explored?
Are there any other potential conflicts between members of the MNSG and
their families and landowners? How
can Malmesbury's residents be sure that this has not been a factor in site
selection? Is there any register
of interests relating to individual members, their families, and their local
interests which would restore public trust and confidence in the transparency of
I would not normally place a note on any of the comments submitted but I think it is important to comment here. To the best of my knowledge the Princess Trust have no involvement with the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Steering Group or Persimmon Homes. Persimmon Homes have met with consultations for the "Princes Foundation for the Built Environment" to explore the possibility of using them to do community engagement in relation to master planning of site 3A. I and all other members of the steering group have no involvement with any arrangement that might or might not happen between the these consultants and Persimmon. I would welcome an approach where any developer seeks to take a community and design led approach to any proposed development. Please let me also state that I know of NO LINKS of any kind between members of the steering group and any site owners or developers!!!!!!!
Chair of MNSG
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.