Wiltshire 2026 Consultation Methodology and ... - Wiltshire Council

Wiltshire Local 

Development 

Framework 

Wiltshire 2026 

Planning for Wiltshire’s future 

Consultation methodology and output report 

Wiltshire Core Strategy July 2010 

Data Appendices

Wiltshire Council 

Information about Wiltshire Council services can be made available on request in other 

languages including BSL and formats such as large print and audio. Please contact 

the council on 0300 456 0100, by textphone on 01225 712500 or by email on 

customerservices@wiltshire.gov.uk.

Contents 

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................1 

2.0 Individual comments section ...........................................................................2 

2.1 Proposed overall spatial strategy: comments ...............................................2 

2.2 Proposed overall spatial strategy: respondents ..................................................4 

3.0 The story across the whole of Wiltshire – by topic........................................7 

3.1 Topics: The individual papers ...........................................................................7 

3.2 Strategic Objective 1 (Box 2) climate change: comments ...........................7 

3.3 Strategic Objective 1 (Box 2) climate change: respondents................................9 

3.4 Strategic Objective 2 (Box 3) long term economic growth: comments .....10 

3.5 Strategic Objective 2 (Box 3) long term economic growth: respondents...........14 

3.6 Strategic Objective 3 (Box 4) meeting 

Wiltshire’s housing needs: comments ........................................................16 

3.7 Strategic objective 3 (Box 4) meeting 

Wiltshire’s housing needs: respondents............................................................22 

3.8 Strategic Objective 4 (Box 5) infrastructure and services: comments ......23 

3.9 Strategic Objective 4 (Box 5) infrastructure and services: respondents............28 

3.10 Strategic Objective 5 (Box 6) vitality and 

viability of town centres: comments .............................................................29 

3.11 Strategic Objective 5 (Box 6) vitality and 

viability of town centres: respondents ...............................................................30 

3.12 Strategic Objective 6 (Box 7) safe and accessible places: comments ......31 

3.13 Strategic Objective 6 (Box 7) safe and accessible places: respondents...........34 

3.14 Strategic Objective 7 (Box 8) sustainable 

forms of transport: comments .......................................................................35 

3.15 Strategic Objective 7 (Box 8) sustainable 

forms of transport: respondents ........................................................................38 

3.16 Strategic Objective 8 (Box 9) natural environment: comments..................39 

3.17 Strategic Objective 8 (Box 9) natural environment: respondents ......................41 

3.18 Strategic Objective 9 (Box 10) high quality 

built environment: comments ........................................................................42 

3.19 Strategic Objective 9 (Box 10) high quality 

built environment: respondents .........................................................................45 

3.20 Strategic Objective 10 minimising risk of flooding: comments..................45 

3.21 Strategic Objective 10 minimising risk of flooding: respondents .......................37

4.0 The story by community area ........................................................................48 

4.1 Chippenham community area ........................................................................49 

4.2 Headline statistics .............................................................................................49 

4.3 Issues and opportunities ...................................................................................50 

4.4 Change and delivery .........................................................................................52 

4.5 Strategic site options .........................................................................................53 

4.6 Settlement hierarchy .........................................................................................56 

4.7 Housing distribution...........................................................................................57 

4.8 Chippenham: respondents ................................................................................58 

4.9 Chippenham: exhibitions and events ................................................................64 

4.10 Trowbridge community area ..........................................................................72 






4.16 Housing distribution...........................................................................................80 

4.17 Trowbridge: respondents...................................................................................81 

4.18 Trowbridge: exhibitions and events...................................................................84 

4.19 Wootton Bassett community area .................................................................92 





4.24 General comments ............................................................................................98 


4.26 Housing distribution.........................................................................................100 

4.27 Wootton Bassett: respondents ........................................................................105 

4.28 Wootton Bassett: exhibitions and events ........................................................107 

4.29 Bradford on Avon community area .............................................................115 

4.30 Headline statistics ...........................................................................................115 

4.31 Issues and opportunities .................................................................................116 

4.32 Change and delivery .......................................................................................119 

4.33 Strategic sites..................................................................................................119 

4.34 Settlement hierarchy .......................................................................................122 


4.36 Bradford on Avon: respondents.......................................................................123 

4.37 Bradford on Avon: exhibitions and events.......................................................124 

4.38 Calne community area ..................................................................................136 




4.42 Strategic site options .......................................................................................138 



4.45 Calne community area: respondents...............................................................140 

4.46 Calne community area: exhibitions and events...............................................141

4.47 Corsham community area ............................................................................143 







4.54 Corsham community area: respondents .........................................................147 

4.55 Corsham community area: exhibitions and events..........................................148 

4.56 Devizes community area ..............................................................................151 







4.63 Devizes community area: respondents ...........................................................157 

4.64 Devizes community area: exhibitions and events ...........................................158 

4.65 Malmesbury community area.......................................................................159 







4.72 Malmesbury community area: respondents ....................................................163 

4.73 Malmesbury community area: exhibitions and events.....................................164 

4.74 Marlborough community area......................................................................183 







4.81 Marlborough community area: respondents....................................................187 

4.82 Marlborough community area: exhibitions and events ....................................187 

4.83 Melksham community area ..........................................................................193 







4.90 Melksham community area: respondents........................................................214 

4.91 Melksham community area: exhibitions and events........................................215

4.92 Pewsey community area...............................................................................239 







4.99 Pewsey community area: respondents ...........................................................243 

4.100 Pewsey community area: exhibitions and events............................................244 

4.101 Tidworth and Ludgershall community area................................................247 







4.108 Tidworth and Ludgershall community area: respondents................................250 

4.109 Tidworth and udgershall community area: exhibitions and events..................253 

4.110 Warminster community area ........................................................................257 


4.112 Issues and opportunities ................................................................................258 





4.117 Warminster community area: respondents......................................................263 

4.118 Warminster community area: exhibitions and events......................................264 

4.119 Westbury community area ...........................................................................271 







4.126 Westbury community area: respondents.........................................................276 

4.127 Westbury community area: exhibitions and events .........................................277

Consultation methodology and output report Wiltshire Core Strategy August 2010 

Data Appendices 

1 Introduction 

1.1 This document relates to ‘Wiltshire 2026 – Consultation Methodology and Output 

Report’, part of an on-going process that will eventually produce the new planning 

core strategy for Wiltshire. Following consultation and community involvement events 

in autumn 2009, the main report is simply a write-up of the process and results, laying 

down another bed of evidence in the foundation of the core strategy and feeding back 

to the community our findings. It represents an information resource and part of the 

evidence base that has, by law, to underpin any planning strategy of this kind. 

1.2 The response to the 2026 consultation was excellent, with thousands of individual 

comments being received. In order to reduce the physical bulk of the main report, 

therefore, we have extracted the more detailed aspects of the data itself: the 

summarised comments of respondents and accounts of exhibitions and workshops. 

These are based on verbatim summaries of post-it notes left on posters and other 

information and these are included in this appendix. 

1.3 While the main report describes the methodology employed during the consultation 

and attempts a general pulling together of themes drawn from the responses, this 

appendix contains just the data itself. This is not strictly ‘raw’ data; the original 

comments have been saved, verbatim, on computer. However, given the volume 

involved, it was necessary to reduce file size by summarising comments into a refined 

list that, for instance, removed comments that were direct duplicates. However, every 

comment was counted and the numbers have been recorded in the main report. 

1



2 Individual comments 

2.1 This appendix section contains the individual comments from respondents collected 

together by council officers from each section of the consultation. The first section to 

be recorded is that which sought the community’s reaction to the overall spatial 

strategy that Wiltshire 2026 proposed. Following this, later sections move on to 

consider the comments received in response to the section on topics – that is the 

Strategic Objectives (SOs), and then finally the individual community areas. 

Proposed overall spatial strategy: comments received 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All settlements should be looked at individually with a detailed sustainability 

assessment before the appropriate level of development at each settlement can 

be decided. 

The strategy does convey a sense of what it is trying to achieve; the hierarchy 

should not be the sole indicator of housing distribution. The strategy needs to 

provide a unique approach for Wiltshire. 

The need to address transport and flooding issues before deciding the 

appropriate location does not seem to have enough prominence in the strategy. 

Proper travel assessments are needed, as well as realistic assessments of 

flooding risks. 

The imposition of a hierarchy needs to be more flexible in regard meeting local 

objectives and distinctiveness. 

The size and amount of development should not be overly rigid between market 

towns and SSCTs. 

Certain market towns have a much more important role to play and this should be 

recognised. Higher levels of development might well be appropriate at certain 

settlements where they have potential to expand and improve the role they play in 

Wiltshire. 

The current proposals do not seem to reflect the role and function (RandF) 

analysis. The amount of development proposed at Policy B settlements should 

reflect the R&F. 

The smaller villages identified in the hierarchy bare no relation to policy in the 

RSS and therefore should not be identified as settlements in the hierarchy. As a 

strategic document identification of these settlements is not in line with the RSS 

and therefore makes the document unsound. 

The mechanisms used to identify settlements at the policy C level are not well 

designed and should be reappraised. A more balanced local assessment based 

on Matthew Taylor report should be used. 

A number of the settlements which have been indentified at policy C level are 

significantly larger bigger distinction at policy C recognising some will benefit from 

growth. 

The strategy should give more weight given to issue of coalescence in the rural 

area and the ability of multiple rural settlements to support each other and act as 

a hub for sustainable rural living. 

There should be more definition between the different settlements in the lower tier 

of the hierarchy. Purton for example should be recognised as an important local 

centre and should have specific development targets. 

Villages should be left to decide their own numbers using parish councils and 

other local decision making processes such as village design statements. 

The plan must guard against the creeping urbanisation of villages, especially 

those near other towns. The individual identity of settlements must be protected. 

The policy below is too restrictive for those settlements not included in the 

hierarchy, some limited development should still be allowed at these settlements. 

2



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There should be a clearer definition of what is considered infill. It is difficult to 

support the hierarchy when it is not totally apparent exactly what will be seen as 

appropriate at the bottom tier. 

The lack of SSCT in east Wiltshire may not see the area develop and could cause 

a lack of investment and issues with affordable housing delivery. 

The Spatial Strategy document does not recognise that the New Forest National 

Park and New Forest Planning Authority. Text and all maps should be amended 

recognise New Forest. 

More reference should be made to the role of Bath and the influence it has on 

north west Wiltshire. 

The former district of West Wiltshire has surfeit of PDL and a number of large 

towns with a good employment base, therefore this area should receive more 

development. 

The methodology for arriving at the proposed housing numbers seems to be 

developer led and very much decided on the premise of land available. 

The policies are too rigid and it should be left to communities to have more control 

over both the size and location of new development, particularly housing, in their 

own towns and villages. 

The numbers that come directly from the RSS were objected to on a number of 

occasions. 

It was also noted that there were a number errors in the document, particularly on 

the various tables that displayed the number of houses and employment land. 

There are a number of disputed totals in the population numbers, particularly for 

the smaller settlements. 

There needs to be more sites identified over and above. Excess sites are needed 

to ensure that the allocations deliver the minimum numbers of the RSS. It is 

suggested that 10% contingency is the least that should be allocated for 

allowance for non-implementation. Housing numbers should be increase to 

ensure that there is a flexible supply. 

There needs to be more flexibility in terms of the amount of development at each 

settlement to ensure that development is reactive in the future. If the numbers 

remain there will no flexibility in the system. 

The viability of a number of current allocated sites was questioned and the 

predicted housing delivery rates are seen as over optimistic. There was also the 

question of residential C2 permissions should contribute to RSS figures (Royal 

Arthur site was highlighted). 

A number of comments sited the delivery of housing and affordable housing as a 

key requirement of PPS3. The non-allocation of a percentage of the housing was 

seen as contrary to national policy. 

There were a number of comments that thought there to be too little development 

being proposed for policy C settlements. However, there was also an equal 

number that thought there was too much proposed at policy C level. National and 

RSS policy directs development toward larger settlements balance is not correct 

to ensure that ‘critical mass is maintained. 

Too unspecific at policy C level, larger settlements such as Purton should have 

more defined development numbers. However, again a number of respondents 

felt that there is a need to be more flexible policy at policy C level. 

Support for decisions at the lower level to be made on a case by case basis, but 

widespread support for the retention of policy boundaries. 

3



2.2 Proposed overall spatial strategy: respondents 

Organisations 

Alder King Planning Consultants 

Ashton Park, Trowbridge Ltd 

Barters Farm Nurseries Ltd 

Berkeley Strategic 

Bloor Homes 

Bradford on Avon & District Community 

Development Trust 

C G Fry & Son Limited 

Campaign for Better Transport 

Cholderton and District Water Company 

Colerne Industrial Estate 

Corsham Civic Society 

CPRE North Dorset 

CPRE Wiltshire 

Dauntsey Parish Council 

Dilton Marsh Parish Council 

E H Bradley and Son 

Edington Parish Council 

Eton College 

Forest National Park Authority 

Galliford Try Strategic Land 

Gleeson Strategic Land 

Hannick Homes 

Highways Agency 

Industrial Property Investment Fund 

Kington St Michael Parish Council 

Lioncourt Homes 

Luckington Parish Council 

M J Gleeson Group plc 

Malmesbury & St Paul’s Without 

Residents’ Assoc. 

Malmesbury River Valleys Trust 

Mark Chard and Associates 

Martin Robeson Planning Practice 

Melksham Without Parish Council 

Minety Parish Council 

Ashtenne Industrial Fund Limited 

Barrett Strategic Ltd 

Bath and North east Somerset Council 

Biddestone and Slaughterford Parish 

Box Parish Council 

Bradford on Avon Town Council 

Calne Town Council 

Chamber of Commerce 

Christopher Wickham Associates 

Cooper Estates 

Corsham Town Council 

CPRE West Wiltshire Group 

Cricklade Town Council 

Defence Estates 

Director Wiltshire Rural Housing 

Association 

East Melksham Consortium 

English Heritage 

Fiona Jury Planning 

G L Hearn Planning 

Gleeson Developments Ltd 

Government Office for the South West 

Hartham Park 

Hills UK Ltd 

Katie Fielding Wiltshire Associations of 

Local Councils 

Knight Frank Agent Badminton Estate 

LPC (Trull) Ltd 

Lydiard Millicent Parish Council 

Malaby Ltd 

Malmesbury Civic Trust 

Malmesbury Town Council 

Martin Malaby Ltd 

Melksham Community Area Partnership 

Mid Wiltshire Economic Partnership 

NHS Swindon 

4



North Chippenham Consortium - 

(Barratt Strategic, Heron Land and 

Persimmon Homes) 

Partnership Manager North Wiltshire 

Economic Partnership 

Pewsey Community Area Partnership 

Potterne Parish Council 

Prospect Land Ltd 

Sarsen Housing Association 

Semington Parish Council 

Sherston Parish Council 

South West Councils 

Sutton Veny Parish Council 

The Bowerman Family 

The Doric Group 

The Trust for Devizes 

Trowbridge Community Area Future 

W B Real Development GmbH 

Warminster Town Council 

White Lion Land LLP 

WM Morrisons Plc 

Parrotgate Ltd 

Persimmon Homes 

Pewsey Parish Council 

Primegate Properties (Hooksouth) Ltd 

Ps and Qs 

Selwood Housing Society Limited 

SF Planning Link Ltd 

Slater Reynolds 

Spring Park Corsham Ltd 

Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd 

The Crown Estate 

The Hills Group 

Trevor Carbin Councillor Wiltshire 

Council 

Urchfont PC 

Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd 

Westbury Town Council 

Wiltshire Historic Buildings Trust Ltd 

Zog Brownfield Ventures Ltd 

5



Individuals 

Baydon P. Council Brian Teeder C.G. Phillips 

Cllr A N Prior Cllr Mark Connolly Cllr Mark Connolly 

Cllr Peter Deck Councillor Ernie David Feather 

Clark 

Dawn Tiley Dr. Christopher Kent Dr. Geoff Poole 

Francis Moorland Geoff Yates George McDonic MBE 

H A Edmunds Ian Rose J & P Hussey & Mrs S 

Cooper 

J.A.S MacDonald Louis Beardsworth M Coleman 

MF Freeman Alison Mr A E Turner Mr and Mrs Claridge 

Bucknell 

Mr and Mrs Ferguson Mr Andrew Goves Mr Christopher 

Gorringe 

Mr D Lees-Millais Mr Eric Jones Mr Geoff Martin 

Mr Ian Thompson Mr John Harmer Mr John Palmer 

Mr William Blake Mrs C Spickernell Mrs Jane R. Smith 

Mrs Valerie King Mrs vibeke ormerod Philip Clark 

Robert Lytton Sabel McCord Stuart Crook 

The Rt Hon. James Tom McCaw 

Trevor Cherrett 

Gray MP 

V.P. Francis 

6



3 The story across the whole of Wiltshire – by topic 

The topics discussed in the report relate to the comments received on the proposed 

Strategic Objectives. These were: 

1. Climate change 

2. Long-term economic growth 

3. Meeting Wiltshire’s housing needs 

4. Securing appropriate infrastructure and services 

5. Enhancing vitality and viability of town centres 

6. Encouraging safe and accessible places 

7. Promoting sustainable forms of transport 

8. Protecting and enhancing the natural environment 

9. Safeguarding and promoting a high quality built environment 

10. Minimising the risk of flooding 

3.1 Topics: the individual papers 

3.2 Strategic Objective 1 (Box 2) climate change: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

To address climate change is broadly supported. 

Agree that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge and the key to 

outcomes. 

We broadly support the council’s objectives for tackling climate change 

particularly in relation to promoting a more sustainable pattern of development 

and reducing the need to travel. We also support the council’s promotion of 

measures targeted at achieving high energy efficiency; the use of renewable 

sources of energy and power; promotion of sustainable design and building 

techniques; and use of sustainable waste management methods. However, it is 

important that future planning policy is flexible…. policy should not seek to impose 

onerous targets on new development (say in relation to renewable energy use), 

rather it should encourage developers to investigate and implement the most 

effective method for reducing the impact of the scheme on climate change. For 

instance, the use of energy efficiency methods (such as CHP) is often a far more 

effective method for reducing carbon emissions when compared to renewable 

energy techniques. 

Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon welcomes and applauds Wiltshire Council for 

adopting Strategic Objective 1: To address climate change. This is a significant 

step forward in strategic local authority thinking on climate change policy in 

Wiltshire. However, we suggest that this approach should be further developed. 

We recognise that the general strategic objective of addressing climate change 

has to appeal to a broad range of opinion in Wiltshire. …..it would better match 

commitments in carbon emission reduction in the Climate Change Act 2008 of 

34% of 1990 level emissions by 2020 and of 80% by 2050…. 

We are happy to support the strategic objective of addressing climate change, 

and look forward to clarity over the national and regions targets the council will be 

working towards ….. Clarity would be welcomed on the intention of bullet point 2, 

which appears to place as a key outcome the need for any new developments to 

make a contribution, financially or practically, to allow for improvement to the 

wider areas current environmental performance. Whilst the principle of this and 

the other key outcomes are supported, the strategy does not deal with the 

financial implications and consequences of these aims on other strategies. 

7



 

 

 

 

We accept the reduction of CO 2 through the self containment of settlements and 

reducing the need to travel. 

Supported: The Parish Plan supported recycling and a large majority wanted 

increased involvement with environmentally friendly activities. Only 5% were 

against a community renewable energy scheme. 

The supply of energy from renewable sources? Where are the measures to 

reduce energy need? How many homes will have integrated solar panels/voltaic 

cells/grey water saving/wind turbines? Where will the local food come from? The 

supermarket? Wiltshire Council should be telling developers that they expect the 

highest standards - higher than government or regional targets. Let’s be ahead of 

the game for once. 

While we support the outcome the sourcing and use of local food we are unclear 

what policy mechanism there are to deliver this (other than allotment provision). 

8



3.3 Strategic Objective 1 (Box 2) climate change: respondents 

Organisations 

Area Planner, London and South British 

Waterways 




Chairman Malmesbury Civic Trust 


Councillor Wiltshire Council 






National Farmers Union 


Planning Advisor BWEA 

Planning Liaison Technical Specialist 

Environment Agency (Wessex Area) 


Sustrans 


Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service 

Woodland Trust 


Assistant Network Manager Highways 

Agency 

Business Development Manager Sarsen 

Housing Association 

Chairman Climate Friendly Bradford on 

Avon 

Clerk Kington St Michael Parish Council 



Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire 

Downs AONB 


Association 




North Wessex Downs AONB 

Planning Adviser South West RDA 

Planning and Local Government Natural 

England 

Planning Policy Officer New Forest 

National Park Authority 

Senior planning manager Government 

Office for the South West 


Treasurer Transition Community 

Corsham 

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust 


Individuals 

Alison Bucknell David Trethewey Diana Thombs 

Diane Teare Duncan Hames Mr E Palmer 

Mr Eric Jones Mr John Harmer Mr Peter Barnett 

Mr Peter Holland Mr William Blake Mrs C Spickernell 

Mrs Philippa Morgan N P Parker Peter Newell 

Robert Lytton 

Tim Robertson 

9



3.4 Strategic Objective 2 (Box 3) long term economic growth: comments 

Support for promoting distribution of housing that supports existing employment 

uses and reduces out-commuting. 

Strategic objective 2 is consistent with the RSS. The need for Wiltshire to plan for 

a buoyant economy and the expected population growth and change cannot be 

over stated. 

The meaning of intensification should be made clear. 

Further reference on how the Wiltshire Workspace and Employment Land 

Strategy relates to the Wiltshire 2026 document would be useful. 

Some of the outcomes in objective 2 are simplistic. There should be outcomes 

The outcomes seem to go beyond the plan period. Realism is needed. 

The words “economic success” are more appropriate than “economic growth” as 

growth is not the only component of a successful economy. 

Investment needs to be made in development which will result in and encourage a 

buoyant and resilient local economy over the long term. This can be achieved 

through an accurate assessment of the existing employment stock and floor 

space requirements as many of the existing stock are not appropriate for modern 

business requirements. There should be an accurate assessment of the floor 

space within Wiltshire in order to ensure that the quality and type of employment 

floor space coming forward is appropriate for the modern and future market and 

redundant sites such as the older parts of Langley Park are redeveloped for more 

appropriate uses to match their location. 

Is economic growth desirable within the context of climate change? 

Continued economic growth and consumption is incompatible with living 

sustainably. Once everyday needs are met ever-increasing material standards of 

living are associated with decreasing well-being. The recent recession has 

highlighted the importance of economic stability over the pursuit of high average 

net growth. Wiltshire Wildlife Trust suggests the following alternative: “To ensure 

a resilient economy that meets the needs of all of Wiltshire’s residents and 

ensures their economic security and economic well being”. 

The core strategy is essential to provide business with greater certainty for 

investment decisions. The spatial strategy should include measures to support 

economic recovery in the short-term as well as longer-term outcomes around the 

role and function of each settlement. 

The reasons underpinning the relatively good performance of one settlement or 

the weaknesses of another do not yet seem to be fully understood or explained. 

The objective should specifically recognise the settlement hierarchy. Land for 

employment should be focused at the SSCTs (4 comments). 

The bulk of economic development should fall within the main settlements as 

most resources are already located there, for example, fire services. 

Too much employment is allocated to the SSCTs. Why do west Wiltshire towns 

need so much greenfield employment land when the aim is to regenerate town 

centres? Loss of manufacturing industries will means more brownfield land will 

come forward. 

There needs to be more information on the type of employment that is planned. 

Does it mean business park, warehousing, small workshops or other? Many of 

the outcomes are too vague to be meaningful. 

Employment should cover new and current skills. 

Renewable and energy generation and social enterprises should be encouraged. 

The role of the construction sector as an employer should be acknowledged (2 

comments). 

ICT and media should be added to Wiltshire’s strengths. 

10



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Wiltshire Workspace Analysis shows the area to have relatively few 

professional jobs. Bringing professional people into town centres by providing 

offices and a quality built environment will stimulate the economy. Cafes and 

shops etc.. benefit from the presence of business. The core strategy should push 

for town centres to be the places to do business. 

Food incubator units should be provided. These could be combined with other 

types of incubator units. 

Cycling should be encouraged and cycling shops could offer employment 

opportunities. 

There is a need to identify additional retail land. 

More reference should be made to tourism (4 comments). 

The importance of historic buildings should be reflected. The objective should 

state that there will be adequate accommodation to take advantage of tourism 

opportunities locally. 

Major funding is needed to develop tourism in Wiltshire but there is no evidence 

that such funding is available. 

There is a lack of ‘joined up’ thinking. If tourism is to be encouraged tourist 

attractions must be both preserved and enhanced. 

Is tourism local or global? It would be good if we spent more time on local visits. 

Comments on out-commuting: 

Support aim to reduce out-commuting. 

An increase in jobs will lead in an increase in in-commuters. 

The wording for the outcome related to out-commuting should also refer to incommuting 

and the necessary balance of homes and jobs to reduce commuting. 

There should be reference to directing employment related development to the 

most accessible locations with clear links to local housing. 

Significant change to outward commuting may not be realistic. There should be 

some recognition that the need to commute should not be seen as a barrier to 

live, shop and trade. 

Too much emphasis is placed on the theory that people will work next to where 

they live. There are many factors that influence this. 

Support for rural diversification. 

More priority should be attached to supporting essential rural businesses such as 

village shops, retail outlets, post offices and pubs. A comprehensive procurement 

strategy should be implemented where financially viable. 

Local schemes should be set up to support rural enterprises such as ‘Store is the 

Core’ and ‘Enterprise for Inclusion’. Cost effective skills initiatives for land based 

and environmental businesses should also be set up. 

There is a lack of reference to the rural economy. 

Support for providing smaller business premises in areas of need. There are 

such opportunities in redundant or underused buildings in rural areas in 

Chippenham and Malmesbury community areas. Small settlements that are 

identified as not suitable for development should have their definition altered to 

reflect these economic opportunities. For example, Sopworth, Alderton, Nettleton 

and Littleton Drew. 

A wide range of economic activity should be supported in rural areas. It is vital 

that ICT infrastructure is improved in rural areas as high speed broadband 

connection could impact on the potential growth of the rural economy. 

Opposition to more tourism and development in rural areas. Tourism encourages 

travel, and destroys peace and tranquillity. 

Basic infrastructure should be in place prior to any development occurring. 

Transport infrastructure should be improved to enable the efficient movement of 

people and goods. 

11



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There has been a traditional emphasis on the A350 and building new housing and 

employment side by side whilst improving the A350. The two recently built A350 

bypasses are now at capacity. A by-product has been that the town centres of 

Trowbridge, Melksham and Westbury are less visited. The idea of A350 

bypasses seems to be alluded to in a number of sections. Major road schemes 

need to be made explicit. 

More clarity is needed on how economic development will have moved towards a 

low carbon economy. The current bullet point is too general (2 comments). 

Measurable outcomes are preferable. 

Adopting measures to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2020 will influence the 

outcomes of the objective. 

The railway has been neglected and should be used to encourage economic 

development in Trowbridge and Westbury. 

A key outcome should be added that links the conservation of the natural and built 

environment to sustainable economic activity. 

Consideration should be given to the contribution that the Kennet and Avon canal 

makes to the economy. Waterways can act as a focus for urban renaissance and 

regeneration. The waterway is a non-footloose asset and flexibility is necessary 

to allow rural development. 

The natural environment has a role in delivering economic development. The 

green infrastructure in west Wiltshire will attract high value inward investment and 

employment. Green infrastructure should be used to drive long-term economic 

growth. 

The outcome on Wiltshire’s cultural assets should also refer to conserving those 

assets. 

Future iterations of the core strategy and the LDF should incorporate mechanisms 

(including phasing) that promote suitable conditions for the delivery of viable 

employment spaces whilst ensuring there is a sufficient quantity, range and 

choice of sustainable premises. 

It is important to ensure an adequate supply of employment / retail land - without 

delay. 

Emphasis should be placed on regenerating established employment sites before 

new development takes place. 

All existing employment sites should not be automatically protected (3 

comments). There are a number of sites that have been redundant for some time 

and where any prospect of it being used for economic use is slim. This includes 

redundant MoD land. There are also relatively new employment sites such as 

Castledown Business Park, which have been slow to take off and where there is 

scope for growth. A managed approach to the retention and release of existing 

employment land should be used. This should protect those sites that are viable 

and in use, focus new development at sites with capacity for further growth and 

release sites that are vacant/redundant with no prospect for re-use. 

 

 

 

 

Defence Estates supports that reference is made to making use of redundant 

MoD land. They call for further clarification on the role that regeneration and 

reuse of previously developed land will play in providing for major development 

options. 

There is no measurement of the type and size of redundant MoD land. 

Major previously developed sites can play a key role in reducing out-commuting 

by providing new employment and housing opportunities to generate a new 

market in the locality. 

Best use should be made of previously developed land from the MoD, farmers 

and industry. 

Allocating MoD land in unsustainable locations will not meet strategic objective 2. 

Need more innovative ways of managing new employment sites. 

12



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A joined up approach to research and the utilisation of sites can lead to a synergy 

in terms of economic growth. 

In the past west Wiltshire has been a dumping ground for warehousing and 

sprawling industrial estates. The areas on the periphery covey an impression of 

‘laissez-faire’ town planning and disregard for landscape and character. 

MoD land in Corsham could be put to more appropriate use. 

Tourist centre should be developed at top of Caen Hill Locks with links to wharf 

and town centre. Closure of public toilets at Wharf has reduced the number of 

coach trips to Devizes. 

There is potential for joined up thinking in Chippenham. In Abbeyfield School 

there is a business culture with young entrepreneurs and Wiltshire College has 

lots of young people looking for apprenticeships. These opportunities should be 

taken. 

It can be difficult to find small premises, for example, the starter units on Bumpers 

Farm are poor quality and high rental. 

Strategic importance of railway station in Trowbridge should be recognised. Area 

near Trowbridge train station should be a priority for regeneration. Town should 

be sold on its excellent services to Bath, Bristol and London. Potential services to 

Melksham, Chippenham and Swindon. Increase potential for Trowbridge train 

station to become transport hub. 

Westbury train station should be a strategic feature. 

AIFLP would welcome clarification on the site boundary of Langley Park site as 

maps only refer to the part of the site occupied by WRSL. Doesn’t include part 

allocated under H2 of the existing adopted North Wiltshire Local Plan. Doesn’t 

include all land within our clients ownership. The DTZ report and conclusions 

appear contradictory in relation to Langley Park’s role in delivering employment 

land in Chippenham. On the basis of the land supply evidence it appears that the 

optimum redevelopment solution for Langley Park continues to be mixed use 

development comprising of housing, employment, retail and leisure uses. 

13



3.5 Strategic Objective 2 (Box 3) long term economic growth: respondents 

Organisations 


Waterways 


Bath and North east Somerset Council 




Avon 





Government Office for the South West 

Ind. Property Investment Fund 

Lick the Spoon Ltd 



National Farmers Union 

North Chippenham Consortium (Barratt 

Strategic, Heron Land and Persimmon 

Homes) 

Planning Adviser South West RDA 


Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum 



Corsham 

Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 

History Society 





Agency 

Bourne Leisure 


Chief Executive Community First 



Association 

G L Hearn 

Gleeson Strategic 

GVA Grimley 





NHS Swindon 




Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 

Savernake Parish Council 


Corsham 

Trust for Devizes 



14



Individuals 

David and Rosalind Howard Butcher 

Mr E Palmer 

Huggins 

Mr Eric Jones Mr John Harmer Mr Peter Barnett 

Mrs C Spickernell Mrs Philippa Morgan N P Parker 

Patrick Hunt Peter Newell Robert Lytton 

Tim Robertson 

15



Strategic Objective 3 (Box 4) meeting Wiltshire’s housing needs: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The targets for new homes reflect the RSS. The county has not met its targets for 

44,400 homes a year since then, nor its targets for 3000 homes since then. The 

targets should be rebalanced to reflect that shortfall in delivery over that time. 

Depending on the impact, the shortfall in strategic sites identified may increase 

significantly. 

No mention is made of neighbourhoods and the importance of community 

development, neighbourhood regeneration and place shaping activities that can 

make where you live more than just a collection of buildings well placed for work 

and travel. This aim could be added to this objective or Objective 4 or 6. 

We are pleased that delivery of affordable housing is supported as one of the key 

objectives, but would suggest that aim is clarified by adding a statement about the 

sustainability of such development both in terms of the communities in which it is 

provided and the demand for the homes. 

Add some definitions and timescales to the aim of the all developments being low 

or zero carbon, perhaps acknowledging that definitions are not yet nationally or 

locally agreed. 

The strategy does not deal with financial constraints or implications of its aims 

and objectives. The strategy should not be built around traditional subsidy 

assumptions provided through models that are currently broken. For example it 

should not be assumed that the subsidy provided through section 106 

agreements and the ability of shared ownership products to reduce grant 

requirement on affordable schemes will return to the market quickly. Strategies 

that emerge from this document should cement the level of affordable housing 

each site should deliver, irrespective of the level of subsidy a developer can 

provide. This will secure land whilst allowing other models such as gap funding, 

equity based grants and capital grant regimes to be targeted to ensure the level of 

affordable housing is not constricted during these times. 

Whilst the urban focus at the SSCTs is supported, this should not be at the 

expense of the lower order settlements – Policy B market towns and those parts 

of the County without a SSCT. There are opportunities for continued sustainable 

development at Melksham, Warminster and Westbury. 

The need for 3,000 affordable homes per year exceeds the overall housing 

requirement. RSS Policy H1 states provision should be made for 35% of all 

housing developments annually. This would equate to 15,540 affordable housing 

i.e. 777 affordable dwellings per year. Therefore it is difficult to see how the need 

for 3,000 dwellings per year would be achieved and clearly this is not practical. 

The number will also depend on the economic viability of each site. PPS3 advises 

LPAs that policies should deliver the levels of housing growth set out in the RSS. 

Provision should be made on this basis and monitored accordingly. 

Agree subject to the following provisos: 

- Major new housing development is placed at Trowbridge, Chippenham and 

Salisbury. 

- Existing rural buffers should be protected. 

- Affordable housing development should take precedence over larger private 

housing schemes. 

Infrastructure needs to be in place before any new development takes place. 

It is vital that future policy seeks to encourage rather than restrain new residential 

development. Accordingly, in determining the future level of affordable housing to 

be provided within new development, it is important that regard is had to individual 

development site circumstances, including development viability and other 

scheme costs. 

16



The stated objective that all development will be low carbon or zero carbon is 

onerous particularly when the draft core strategy provides no definition for zero 

carbon or guidance on how this will be achieved. Rather policy should refer to the 

need for new development to mitigate against climate change as per the 

measures/objectives outlined in strategic objective 1. 

We support the focus of new housing at SCCTs and the identification of 14 

community areas, but would prefer to see this objective specifically refer to the 

main settlement within each community area, such as Pewsey, as the primary 

focus for housing allocations. If this were the case more sustainable patterns of 

growth would be promoted. 

North Wiltshire (primarily Chippenham) has been allocated the highest quantum 

of additional housing within Wiltshire. Brownfield sites within central accessible 

locations should be the principle location for new development. Langley Park is an 

ideal site to accommodate some of this growth in a sustainable and efficient 

manner. The proposals for the site that have been submitted present a scheme 

which makes efficient use of land and incorporates an element of affordable 

housing, range of type and sizes of housing and a range of benefits for the local 

community including infrastructure, education and investment in public open 

space. However it is important to note that the scale and quantum of planning 

obligations should not be too restrictive to the viability of development but should 

be considered on a site by site basis. 

In the absence of an adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) the use of the 

strategic housing requirement from the proposed changes is a prudent and sound 

response. The housing figures are founded on robust and credible evidence 

derived from detailed household projections. The figures have been 

independently tested by a panel of experts and are supported by the Government 

Office for the South West. 

The vision and strategic objectives background paper identifies that Wiltshire 

lacks sufficient levels of affordable open market and rented housing and therefore 

an objective within the core strategy which seeks to address this is entirely 

appropriate. The important challenge now lies ahead in producing policies which 

support and encourage delivery of the outcomes, whilst ensuring sustainable 

development and protecting environmental assets. 

Despite the economic 'slow down' the factors that underpin the need for additional 

housing in Wiltshire will continue, particularly in terms of the demographic factors, 

such as the ageing population and the continuing reduction in household size. 

We welcome Strategic Objective 3 which seeks to meet the housing allocation as 

identified within the emerging South West Regional Spatial Strategy. However, 

the strategic vision should acknowledge the important role settlements other than 

Trowbridge, Chippenham and Salisbury will play in delivering Wiltshire’s housing 

requirement for the period to 2026. 

We welcome the reference to providing adequate supply of affordable housing. 

However given that the projected need for affordable housing in Wiltshire up to 

2026 is 60,000 and the total overall housing supply is 44,000, it will not be 

possible to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing. Amend bullet point 

five to state that the council will work towards maximising the provision of 

affordable housing. This is a more realistic objective and also suggests that the 

council will look at imaginative ways of providing affordable housing where 

appropriate. 

Strategic objective 3 needs to specify how new zero or low carbon buildings will 

contribute to Wiltshire’s housing needs and how far energy retro-fitting of existing 

housing stock to ensure greater energy efficiency and micro-generation will be 

promoted in order to achieve legally binding carbon emission reduction targets. 

17



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective 3 also needs to address the issue of affordability of a housing stock that 

has been built to much higher energy standards. 

The benefits for developments to the local communities should be thoroughly 

researched and planning for the infrastructure should be considered before 

planning consent is given. 

To meet Wiltshire’s housing needs is appropriate, but the numbers quoted are not 

related to local needs, they are externally imposed targets. Such targets 

contradict other objectives such as sustainability and community resilience. 

Housing need is growing despite recession due to demographic factors. However, 

we doubt whether the affordable housing target levels can be realised - not least 

due to financial constraints. Suggest that affordability is considered on a site by 

site basis with this in mind. 

The statement ‘all developments will have been low carbon or zero carbon’ begs 

a question: When does this policy start? It certainly isn’t the current planning 

policy, but the paper implies that all developments from now on will be low or zero 

carbon. New housing developments should also include other sustainability 

elements, such as community gardens/allotments, local shopping to reduce car 

trips, and local renewable micro-generation. 

To ensure that the core trategy acknowledges the important role of the market 

towns within Wiltshire in accommodating levels of growth which will assist in 

increasing their self containment., further reference should be included within the 

objective to recognise that the market towns (including Corsham), which usually 

play an important sub-regional service centre role, will accommodate a significant 

proportion of growth planned for Wiltshire. With regards to the issue of military 

personnel accommodation, Defence Estates will work closely with the council to 

assist in ensuring that changes in accommodation result in better integration with 

the wider community. However, in order to meet this objective, Defence Estates 

requires a degree of flexibility on behalf of the council. Further text could therefore 

be added to the outcome to allow for an element of flexibility in assessing such 

proposals. 

Despite the economic slow down, the factors that underpin the need for additional 

housing will continue in Wiltshire, particularly in terms of the demographic factors 

such as the ageing population and the reduction in household size. Whilst the 

urban focus is supported, this is not at the expense of the lower order settlements, 

and those parts of the county without a SSCT. There are opportunities for 

additional development at Melksham. 

Recent housing targets have not been met and we would suggest that the 

shortfall is included in the new targets. Link this document with the HCA’s single 

conversation and that investment is not just isolated to the strategically significant 

towns but across Wiltshire, in rural areas and for specialist housing. It is also 

important to note that traditional models for delivering affordable housing will not 

continue in the future and this needs to be addressed as part of the single 

conversation and reflected in the financial requirements placed on the 

development of affordable homes. 

Concentration on Trowbridge SSCT should not negate development at Westbury. 

If the RSS is abolished, the housing figures should be re-examined. ‘Efficient use 

of land’ should not lead to excessively high densities but does need to provide 

adequate car parking on new developments. 

Fundamentally disagree with the housing targets. The figures do not stack up and 

the way these have been distributed amongst the principle towns may well allow 

for additional infrastructure but will not necessarily create desirable locations, 

which is important. 

There is no clear evidence as to how an increase of 44,000 dwellings was 

reached. Further evidence is required to support this amount of housing 

18



 

 

 

 

 

 

development for Wiltshire, especially when you consider the 39,000 dwellings 

earmarked for Swindon. 

The 4th bullet point refers to ‘maintaining an appropriate rural buffer..’ This should 

be removed. The Planning Inspectorate has removed references to rural buffers 

and strategic gaps from core strategies because they duplicate national policy 

and are unnecessary. The Secretary of State has endorsed this by not agreeing 

to save Policy ENV13 of the Swindon Local Plan. Therefore retaining the Swindon 

Rural Buffer with no greater rationale than geopolitical boundary west of Swindon 

introduces an inappropriate inconsistency and retains an unnecessary level of 

protection to settlements west of Swindon that may hinder the development of 

urban extensions. 

Replace ‘in a sustainable fashion’ with ‘with all housing developments having to 

be 50% affordable’. 

Box 4 – Add ‘This will be subject to possible changes in the RSS target.’ Delete 

‘Salisbury’ because 6000 houses cannot be provided without harming the special 

environment, the AONB and floodplain that surrounds Salisbury. Fourth bullet 

point – Replace ‘appropriate’ with ‘effective’. 

In principle we support homes being achieved in the most sustainable way, but by 

reason of the key outcomes it seeks to achieve is too prescriptive. The most 

sustainable way may not always be feasible / viable (due to costs of remediation) 

or achievable (should there be land assembly issues). Proposed amendments to 

three outcomes are: 

- Amend ‘The delivery of an appropriate number of new homes will have been 

achieved in the most sustainable way’ to read ‘The delivery of the regional 

target for additional new homes by 2026 will have been met if not exceeded 

and will have been achieved in the most sustainable way taking into account 

feasibility (viability) etc. 

- Amend ‘Development will have avoided encroachment on the Wiltshire Green 

Belt to read ‘Development will have avoided encroachment on the Wiltshire 

Green Belt except in exceptional circumstances’. 

- Amend ‘All developments will have been low-carbon or zero carbon’ to read 

‘All development will have demonstrated that it has minimised on-site carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions by using less energy, supplying energy efficiently 

and using on-site renewable energy generation with any reduction target 

achieved unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible’. 

It is unrealistic to assume that the rural market can meet all affordable housing 

needs. The LDD should clearly define targets and delivery mechanisms for 

intermediate affordable housing and market rented housing rather than the 

current blanket emphasis on a percentage delivery of social rented, usually 

through a partner RSL. The policy should make clear that in rural communities 

delivering affordable housing tends to be more limited and the aim should be to 

deliver high quality housing which contributed to the creation and maintenance of 

sustainable rural communities. 

Current Local Plan policies such as the Kennet Local Plan and North Wiltshire 

Local Plan currently require an equivalent provision of general market and 

affordable homes on all housing sites. Experience shows this is applied 

indiscriminately or at best, based purely on a financial statement without regard to 

design quality or community sustainability. This is contrary to PPS3 advice. 

Where current local needs surveys have been robustly undertaken and audited 

regularly then an appropriate percentage of mixed tenure low cost affordable 

development would be justified. Over- reliance of RSLs mono tenure development 

do not create resilient rural communities and there is strong evidence that 

community development trusts are more innovative and better placed to secure 

and manage affordable homes when given appropriate leadership support by the 

19



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

local authority. It is recommended that new affordable housing policies as applied 

to villages should: define a lower percentage delivery in small villages and which 

must be properly justified with a defined and robust local needs survey. Clarify 

that the council will acknowledge that creation of design quality and maintaining 

community sustainability is paramount; and take leadership responsibility to 

ensure that intermediate and market rented housing are encouraged in 

preference to social housing. 

With reference to the 3000 houses west of Swindon, it is vital that we preserve the 

identities of outlying communities e.g. Purton. 

There is a predicted shortfall of affordable homes in the whole of Wiltshire. We 

need to think more out of the box to provide affordable homes is a different 

manner e.g. using self-build homes to create truly affordable housing units. 

Objective 3 gives a statement without the detailed explanation. 3,000 seem too 

low and 44,400 seem too high. 

The objective fails to address a well known and established challenge which 

relates as to how the LDF will meet the needs of the elderly in housing and health 

care. Their needs are recognised in PPS3, paragraph 21 and Paragraph 6.1.1 of 

the draft RSS. 

The use of productive agricultural land for housing development should be 

avoided and the use of existing brownfield sites within city centres and in rural 

locations should be explored before turning to large scale greenfield development. 

Encroachment on the Green Belt is mentioned. Specific reference to unsuitable 

housing development within the AONBs should also be referred to. 

Confirm affordable housing thresholds and consider specific allocations, just for 

affordable homes in some of the larger villages. These could then be sold to 

affordable housing providers rather than relying on exception sites which hardly 

ever deliver. 

According to the wording, the primary focus of new development is at Trowbridge, 

Chippenham and Salisbury. Yet, according to the table, those settlements only 

account for 17,500 of the 44,400 new homes. Most new homes will not be in 

Trowbridge, Chippenham or Salisbury and instead they will spread across a very 

large area. This will present significant challenges for many public service 

providers, including the fire and rescue service. The LDF should enable the 

provision of the necessary additional infrastructure through which these public 

services are provided. The housing provision should address the needs of homes 

for vulnerable members of our community. Wiltshire FRS does not have access 

via existing funding sources to capital with which to set up new infrastructure 

necessitated by growth. Consequently, it is essential that appropriate policy 

support for developer contributions towards FRS infrastructure is made in the 

Wiltshire 2026 LDF. Without developer contributions, the requisite FRS 

infrastructure will not be forthcoming. This would put new development and the 

public at risk and militate against the delivery of sustainable development. 

Wiltshire FRS therefore strongly requests that appropriate additions are made to 

this and further emerging LDF Documents in order to provide this policy support. 

There is no specific mention of the contribution that can be made to sustainable 

objectives by bringing redundant buildings back into use. This is particularly 

important where such re-use can then fulfil a local need for housing or small scale 

local employment opportunities. 

Proposed olicy for rural housing allocations – To set the affordable housing 

requirement for rural areas and provide the strategic context for the allocation of 

specific sites in rural locations to meet identified housing needs. Secondly, to 

support the provision of new services and facilities and the diversification of 

existing facilities within rural areas. 

20



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The notion that larger towns and villages will always be more sustainable than 

smaller communities will make scores of villages in Wiltshire less sustainable. 

This approach will make it more difficult to meet local housing needs. 

Living afloat contributes to increasing the range of choice in housing types and 

lifestyle. Residential house boats are recognised by the Government as a specific 

housing group to be considered in housing needs assessments. Where the supply 

of suitable residential moorings is seen as an issue, it is important that associated 

land use implications are addressed in the Development Plan process. 

Affordable housing is key to sustainable rural communities and Wiltshire Council 

should support a framework for affordable housing that takes account of the 

needs of rural communities identified through housing needs assessment 

undertaken by parish councils. Make the roles and responsibilities of parish 

councils clearer and more robust in the planning process with a clear 

responsibility to support and promote affordable housing provision. 

The current housing numbers planned will affect the New Forest, with such a 

large amount of development concentrated to the north of the National Park. 

Cross boundary perspective is lacking e.g. West of England Housing Market 

Area. 

We have serious concerns about the speed of delivery on the larger strategic 

sites identified at Chippenham and West of Swindon. 

There should be a reference within the objective towards siting future housing at 

accessible locations where there are sustainable links in place to access jobs and 

services and to promote the overall objective of self-containment. 

The issue of new pitches/sites for gypsies and travellers and travelling show 

people does not seem to have been addressed in Objective 3. To be conformable 

with Circular 1/2006, the Core Strategy must set out criteria for the location of 

sites to guide the allocation and meet unexpected demand. 

Although there is a specific strategic objective around flooding, it is surprising that 

the subject is not mentioned in strategic objective 3. 

How will the council ensure supply of land for affordable housing in the future if 

we have another time (like now) where it is being frustrated by land being in the 

hands of private developers who have no real interest in affordable rented 

housing? 

We support the primary focus of new housing to be at the major towns and would 

expect an appropriate level of local healthcare services to be provided as part of 

the proposed sustainable growth for these towns/cities. 

The core strategy objective to achieve low carbon development must be aligned 

with the Government’s approach to escalating the BREAM and code for 

sustainable homes rating requirements. 

Strategic objective 3 is not sufficiently detailed enough to provide the necessary 

cross reference to other parts of the core strategy which support development 

outside of the main centres of Salisbury, Trowbridge and Chippenham. Add a new 

bullet point to read ‘Away from the above locations, development will be directed 

to specified small towns and large villages which have been identified as 

sustainable locations for development.’ 

Allocating MoD land for development is unsustainable locations in places where 

people do not want to live and which are not in the Swindon Housing Market Area 

and will not achieve the aims set out in Objectives 2, 3 and 4. 

The current exception site policy leads to ghetto developments. Exceptions sites 

should provide an appropriate mix of market housing and affordable housing 

units. These mixed-developments must retain the character of the village and this 

is often not a dense housing estate. There should be strict controls to ensure that 

affordable housing developments distributed throughout 

21



Strategic Objective 3 (Box 4) meeting Wiltshire’s housing needs: respondents 

Organisations 







Avon 

Community First 



Friends, Families and Traveller and 

Traveller Law Reform Project 



Hills UK Ltd (Barratt Strategic, Heron 

Land and Persimmon Homes) 

London and South British Waterways 


Ashtenne Industrial Fund Ltd. 

ighways Agency 


C/o Tetlow King South West RSL 

Consortium 





Eton College 



Godshill Parish Council 




Melksham Without Parish Council North Chippenham Consortium – 



New Forest National Park Authority Primegate Properties (Hooksouth) Ltd 



Swindon Borough Council 



Treasurer Transition Community Corsham 


Welbeck Land Limited 

Wilts. Fire & Rescue Service 



Individuals 

Alison Bucknell Councillor Ernie Clark Diana Thombs 

Diane Teare Dr John Loran Duncan Hames 

Emma Woodhouse Howard Butcher Ian Rose 

Jane Launchbury MF Freeman Mr Christopher Gorringe 

Mr Eric Jones Mr James Woodhouse Mr Peter Barnett 

Mrs C SpickernellTrevor N P Parker 

Robert Lytton 

Cherrett 

The Bowerman Family 

22



3.7 Strategic Objective 4 (Box 5) infrastructure and services: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General support for the provision of water, education, health, rural facilities, 

recreation and sport, and culture and the arts to achieve self-containment and the 

spatial vision. 

General support the recognition of water infrastructure as a key issue. 

General support for the recognition that it is important to secure and implement 

the necessary infrastructure for new development, essential for housing delivery 

and economic growth. 

Support and acknowledge of the need to provide cultural facilities. 

Support provision of enhanced social infrastructure in rural areas because this 

would aid the growth of sustainable communities and reduce the need to travel. 

Some agreement that developers can play some part in providing the funding for 

securing such infrastructure but caution against leaving development unviable by 

requiring onerous obligations. Developer contributions should be considered on a 

site-by-site basis after assessment of the site and any associated development 

costs. 

Support maintaining and, where appropriate, enhancing community infrastructure 

(e.g. schools, local shops, village halls, sports fields, pub, private members club, 

almshouses and churches) in villages. 

NHS Wiltshire supports the specific reference to adequate provision made for 

healthcare. 

Reword bullet point 3 to say “Excellent provision should be made for health care, 

including a Minor Injury Unit for every population centre in excess of 10,000 

population”. 

Questionable whether the objective can be obtained, given that it will require the 

strategic planning authority to take a totally different approach from that of the last 

decade. 

Reference to “recreation” does not do justice to the importance of accessible 

green space and woodland in delivering sustainable communities and placemaking. 

Thus, amend bullet point 5 to read “Appropriate provision will have been 

made for recreation and sport, amenity and green space as well as culture and 

the arts”. (see Woodland Access Standard (WASt) and Space for People for 

standards and targets for green infrastructure provision). 

When referring to transport infrastructure, refer more clearly to Regional Spatial 

Strategy (RSS) policies RTS1 and RTS2, which prioritise public transport and 

reducing car travel. 

The regional significant corridor is the A36, not the A350, as in the RSS 

Explain what is actually meant by the words transport infrastructure – type (e.g. 

bus, rail, and road) and function (bus lane, cycle path, distributor road, major 

bypass, etc.). 

Amend the second sentence by deleting “appropriately” and adding “at the same 

time as the development” to the end. 

Object to the omission of the provision of fire and rescue service, or indeed any 

other emergency service, infrastructure under this objective (included in a list of 

essential infrastructure in Strategic Objective 7 of the South Wiltshire Core 

Strategy). 

Have you spoken to the water companies and have they said whether they are 

able to provide for your needs? 

How can you say if adequate provision has been made for health care – you 

might be able to support planning applications made by NHS Wiltshire. 

Why include enhancement of rural facilities – you have never done this before? 

We should be striving for better than “adequate” in terms of health care. 

23



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the need to provide planning obligations in line with the tests in Circular 

05/05 is understood, especially in relation to recreation and sport, it will not be 

possible, in all circumstances, to make such provision on-site and the obligation 

may be better suited to off-site provision through the upgrading of an existing 

facility. 

Oppose seeking contributions for culture and arts – highly questionable whether 

any such contribution is relevant to planning and this should be deleted 

The need to secure appropriate infrastructure and services for settlements and 

community areas is more likely to be achieved by focusing growth at the main 

settlement in each area – this growth needs to be of a reasonable scale to 

achieve the critical mass necessary to deliver local infrastructure and services. 

Have you spoken to the schools and GP surgeries to see if they can cope with the 

extra growth? At this rate, we will be back to portacabins. 

What about provision for retail services? 

With reference to rural facilities, why do we need the phrase “as far as possible”? 

Allocating MoD land for development in unsustainable locations where people do 

not want to live and which are not within the Swindon Housing Market area will 

not achieve the aims under this objective. 

Statement recognising Wiltshire follows the national trend with an ageing 

population. 

Include the following as a key outcome under this strategic objective: 

“Provision of an integrated transport infrastructure package which ensures that 

deliverability of strategic infrastructure over the plan period”. 

Include a reference to green infrastructure, within the last bullet point, under this 

strategic objective. 

Proviso that infrastructure and service requirements are implemented prior to any 

development taking place. 

The timing of new development should be coordinated with the provision of the 

necessary wastewater infrastructure. 

The planning system needs to support the construction of essential infrastructure 

so that additional capacity can be provided in a timely manner and strict 

environmental standards in the treatment of waste water can be met. 

Any planning decision should only proceed once the key outcomes in this 

objective have been met. 

Should also consider provision of adequate and accessible retail services before 

approving housing. 

Lack of free and adequate car parking has been very damaging to many market 

towns, such as Malmesbury, and has led to people driving further away to places, 

such as Chippenham, Tetbury and Cirencester, where there is free parking 

(against the objective of reducing the need to travel!). 

Address how infrastructure can be planned to achieve healthier lifestyles as well 

as promoting effective health services, promote sustainable water usage and 

reduce waste, and ensure sport and recreational services are provided in 

sustainable and efficient ways. 

Include a statement to say that this objective is key to achieving the other 

objectives in a balance, sustainable and socially acceptable manner. 

The Core Strategy should support the growth and expansion of rural services and 

facilities in all locations, not only where there is planned growth, explicitly 

recognised the advantages to improved facilities in sustainability, reducing the 

need to travel and improving the quality of life, well-being and equality of those 

without access to cars. 

Recognise within the core strategy the objectives and desires of local 

communities to secure new services and facilities, as expressed through village 

24



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and community plans, such as the Chapmanslade Village Plan (which identified 

the need for additional local retail provision) and the Warminster and Villages 

Community Plan (2005-2015). 

Wiltshire has below average access to small woodlands – opportunity to improve 

accessibility to woodland through new tree planting. 

How will the coordination of essential water infrastructure with new development 

be monitored? 

Should say that if the amount of growth is reduced/ shown to be unnecessary 

then the demand for infrastructure decreases. 

Should be clear policies to support regional advice with regard to transport 

infrastructure in the Wiltshire SSCTs and their larger related settlements. 

Need to mention provision of ITC infrastructure, such as fibre-optic cabling for 

internet/ broadband. 

Need to have regard to achieving low or zero carbon homes. 

The delivery of affordable housing itself is vital contribution to the community. 

Financial contributions for social infrastructure should reflect the financial realities 

of the cost of delivering affordable homes, as well as the benefit the provision of 

affordable homes provides to community sustainability. 

Must be a telecommunications policy within the LDF (no mention in objective) 

(see PPG8 and the code of best practice produced by the ODPM and suggest 

policy and SPD attached (comment 583). 

Management of water resources to provide benefit to the local community as a 

whole – looking at efficient waste management and production for residential and 

commercial use, and link to energy production. 

Promote cycling and the provision of cycle pathways as an attractive means of 

transport. 

Developer should contribute towards maintaining and improving community 

facilities, such as town and village halls, and leisure centres. 

Severe lack of storage space for archaeological archives (including finds, paper 

records, plans and an increasing digital archive) makes future development 

unsustainable. 

Museums have limited capacity for expanding to accommodate additional storage 

and have to consider off-site storage as a medium term solution. Development of 

a shared storage facility is an attractive option given the current financial situation 

(see similar proposal in Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan) and 

Devizes and Salisbury museums keen to explore this option with the council in 

light of CIL and strategic property review. 

Museums should also be considered as part of community infrastructure, 

important not only because they are ‘cultural capital’ but they also have a role in 

economic development through tourism and regeneration. 

Amend fourth bullet point to “Rural facilities will, as far as possible, have been 

implemented, maintained and enhanced” and then cross reference to strategic 

objective 2, which supports the provision of smaller business premises/ 

enterprises in areas of need or where opportunities arise. 

Include reference to waste water and sewerage. 

Need more about provision for the elderly. 

Need clearer definition of term ‘rural facilities’ – should include enhancement of 

public access to woods/ parks/ lakes/ river meadows/ rights of way. 

Not enough detail about providing appropriate green infrastructure. 

Careful consideration of how critical infrastructure items will be delivered, when 

and by whom. 

25



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further work to define infrastructure requirements more precisely; where you 

hope deficiencies can be addressed and how, who is expected to fund and 

provide infrastructure. 

More detail about infrastructure items that are identified as critical to support 

future development, especially that which will occur near the beginning of the plan 

period. 

Need a partnership of providers responsible for committing the necessary 

resources and for overseeing the detailed design and delivery process (see 

PPS12). 

Evidence supporting the core strategy should be capable of demonstrating that 

the strategy is feasible and viable, taking account of other factors such as levels 

of affordable housing the local planning authority might be seeking as a part of 

housing developments. 

Kennet & Avon Canal should be recognised in the core strategy for its transport, 

green infrastructure and recreational importance and not be excluded from any 

future CIL or infrastructure strategy. 

Core strategy should recognise that future development may put additional 

pressure on existing infrastructure. 

This objective should also include infrastructure relating to flood risk and waste 

management. 

Make clear that water infrastructure, in the first key outcome, relates to water 

supply, wastewater disposal and surface water drainage infrastructure. 

Amend first key outcome to “essential water, flood risk and waste management 

infrastructure will have been coordinated with all new development”. 

Also include high quality, multifunctional, green infrastructure as an outcome. 

Infrastructure should be provided at the same time, or in advance of, new 

development, not after development has been completed. 

Care must be taken not to put too much strain on existing facilities. 

More attention, particularly in the current economic climate, should be given to 

where appropriate funding will come from – budgets for development? 

Add a bullet point “schools will not be expected to grow so large that they have a 

negative impact on their community. New schools will be provided where they 

cannot be reasonably accommodated on existing sites or where modernisation is 

preferable”. 

Recommend that the use of planning obligations/ CIL would be made for AONB 

and management plan objectives for development in or closely associated with 

the AONB. 

Add bullet: “Development within the AONBs will be expected to contribute to 

Planning Obligations/ Community Infrastructure Levy for AONB Management Plan 

purposes”. 

Suggested policy wording for policies on water and sewerage infrastructure: 

“Water and sewerage infrastructure capacity. 

The council will…take account of the capacity of existing off-site water and 

sewerage infrastructure and the impact of development proposals on them. 

Where necessary, the council will seek improvements to utility infrastructure 

related and appropriate to the development so that the improvements are 

completed prior to occupation of the development. The development or expansion 

of water supply or sewage facilities will normally be permitted, either where 

needed to serve existing or proposed new development, or in the interests of long 

term water supply and waste water management, provided that the need for such 

facilities outweighs any adverse land use or environmental impact that any such 

adverse impact is minimised. 

Text along following lines added to Core Strategy to support above proposed 

policy: 

26



 

 

 

 

 

 

The council will seek to ensure that there is adequate water supply, surface water, 

foul drainage and sewerage treatment capacity to serve all new developments. 

Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate capacity both 

on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to 

problems for existing users. In some circumstances this may make it necessary 

for developers to carry out appropriate studies to ascertain whether the proposed 

development will lead to overloading of existing infrastructure. Where there is a 

capacity problem and no improvements are programmed by the water company, 

the council will require the developer to fund appropriate improvements which 

must be completed prior to occupation of the development.” 

Lack of primary school places in Malmesbury - no to expand on current site. 

Strategic sites significantly affected by GPSS pipelines (no development may take 

place within a way leave of 10 feet either side of a pipe, without consent from the 

Secretary of State). Current policy is that the pipelines way leave must be kept as 

a green strip. Only crossing points for roads and service ducts generally allowed 

within way leave. Pipelines, which carry high pressure refined hydrocarbons, have 

the potential to be hazardous in the future and, therefore, may affect development 

in close proximity. 

Concern that level of housing / employment growth too low to achieve this 

objective. 

Any proposals should be considered in light of notifiable installations and 

pipelines in the area covered by the plan; would be helpful to potential developers 

if the constraints likely to be imposed by these were indicated in a policy 

statement in the plan. Proposals maps should be marked to show the locations of 

the notifiable installations. 

NHS Swindon would expect the opportunity to expand healthcare provision within 

Wiltshire and would seek to be a key stakeholder in infrastructure planning in the 

county – minimum to improve existing sustainable transport links to the growth 

locations and retention of Trust’s Wiltshire based sites in order to meet this 

objective. 

27



3.8 Strategic Objective 4 (Box 5) infrastructure and services: respondents 

Organisations 


Waterways 





Development Director Selwood Housing 

Society Limited 


Association 

Fisher German LLP 


Health and Safety Executive 




Mobile Operators Association (MOA) 




Planning Policy Officer The Theatres 

Trust 

Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum 



Southern Water 






Avon 



Downs AONB 

Director Wiltshire Archaeological and 

Natural History Society 








NHS Swindon 

Planning Administrator Thames Water 

Property Services 









Individuals 

Diane Teare Geoff Yates Howard Butcher 

Mr E Palmer Mr John Mr Eric Jones 

Mr John Harmer 

Harmer 

Mr Peter Barnett Mrs C Spickernell N P Parker 

Robert Lytton 

Tim Robertson 

28



3.9 Strategic Objective 5 (Box 6) vitality and viability of town centres: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support this SO and the concentration of retail into town centres. 

We believe there are significant opportunities for Wiltshire’s town centres to be 

improved and support this objective. 

Proper facilities and infrastructure are an essential part of any town that is truly 

functional in a meaningful sense. 

‘Supported’ or ‘Supporting’ were common single–word comments from developers 

and consultants. 

Residents should have easy access to facilities and a range of retail choice via 

low-cost public transport facilities such as buses and cycleways so that they are 

encouraged not to use the car for basic small shopping needs. 

I was disappointed to see no reference to making Wiltshire a bicycle friendly 

county. 

Policy is too rigid – developing main towns should not be at expense of smaller 

settlements. This could damage rural vitality and viability. 

Care should be taken to encourage a balance of retail opportunities in every town, 

so that one type of shop e.g. takeaway does not dominate the town. 

If there is true belief in sustainable development and recognition of people’s 

habits then the better policy would be to encourage more residential development 

within town centres i.e. converting retail space to living space. 

No need for any more retail (one respondent). 

Evidence base flawed. New retail study needed. 

Actually delivering the key outcomes will require the strategic planning authority to 

take a totally different approach from that of the last decade. It is therefore 

questionable whether the objective can be attained. 

We should recognise that car travel is what people really want and plan 

accordingly. 

We believe there should also be a clause included in the Strategy which states 

categorically a presumption against any supermarket extensions or extension of 

their range of goods and services. If town centres are to become the focal point of 

the local community more so than currently, then residents needs some 

encouragement. 

The cost of car parking locally needs to be on the same level with supermarkets, 

either both free of charge or the same charge per hour. 

Add a bullet point: ‘Wiltshire towns will have attractive and high quality town 

centres’. 

More residential development needed in town centres. 

Should we have something in here about town centre viability to do with 

encouraging mixed use properties including residential in town centres? Currently 

some town centres close down when the shops and offices close, and then switch 

to drinking establishments in the evening. Need to have a better mix. 

Protecting heritage and character must be an important part of regeneration 

High rents are a problem for small retail outlets. 

The council should identify actual town centre sites for regeneration as the next 

step. 

29



3.10 Strategic Objective 5 (Box 6) vitality and viability of town centres: respondents 

Organisations 





Association 




Planning Policy Officer The Theatres 

Trust 









Group Chairman, North Wilts and 

Swindon Group Campaign to Protect 

Rural England (CPRE) 




Sustrans 

Individuals 

Howard Butcher Mr Peter Barnett Diane Teare 

Tim Robertson Robert Lytton N P Parker 

Mrs C Spickernell 

Mr John Harmer 

30



3.11 Strategic Objective 6 (Box 7) safe and accessible places: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Include, in the first bullet point, reference to the need for growth to provide 

balanced communities/ address social exclusion in existing communities. 

Add: “projects to support community cohesion will be supported, e.g. green 

communities”. 

General agreement from North Wiltshire Economic Partnership with the outcomes 

specific in strategic objective 6. 

This objective should not just be about the built environment; many of the 

outcomes could be met by encouraging use of the natural environment. Fear of 

crime is also seen as a barrier to enjoyment of the countryside. Add an additional 

bullet point: 

“Access for walkers and cyclists between settlements and the surrounding areas 

will have been maintained and improved, with good paths and informal open 

spaces encouraging a sense of security and freedom to explore the countryside” 

Such an objective, and associated policies, will ensure that access links are an 

active and positive part of planning new development, allowing s106 and other 

developer contributions to be sought for improving rights of way and other access 

provisions outside of the immediate development area. 

The core strategy must encourage travel by means other than the car and 

improve bus and rail services. Transport plays a role in increasing isolation and 

social exclusion in rural areas. Households in rural areas are increasingly reliant 

on the use of a car to access shops and services, employment and training, 

schools and healthcare. While 10% of rural households do not own a car, the 

financial burden in those that do may further contribute towards levels of 

deprivation. 

The increased volume of traffic on rural roads has led to an increase in both the 

real and perceived risks of travelling by foot or bike on rural roads. Walking and 

cycling links need to be improved and developed if rural households are to have a 

genuine choice of transport methods.Therefore, add an additional bullet point: 

“The support and development of a range of transport choices in all rural 

communities”. 

A very complex issue has been expressed in a simplistic and wholly inadequate 

manner. Safety is a product of police actions and social attitudes/ pressures. Fear 

of crime relates to a range of concerns from violence to anti-social behaviour. 

Police budgets and government policies limit the effectiveness of policing and 

erode the effects of social pressures. 

Attaining objective 5 (access to facilities) would help achieve the safety aspects of 

this objective. Access to facilities is a major problem for poorer people in rural 

communities but there is no evidence of any policies to deliver improved 

availability and accessibility of key local services. 

While the location of housing to allow easy access to a range of local services 

and facilities and improved accessibility for key local facilities is support, there 

should be reference towards public transport, cycling and pedestrian links being a 

priority over cars in terms of access. 

While there is a need to ensure good security, this should not be at the expense 

of other design-related considerations. Improvements to the accessibility and 

availability of key facilities can only be achieved by way of new development, 

which could relocate/ upgrade facilities as necessary. 

This objective, while fully supported, needs to be expanded to show exactly how 

safe, accessible places will be achieved. Housing – location is important. Early 

consultation with stakeholders, especially the Police Force Architectural Liaison 

Officer, is vital. Design – embed principles of designing out crime and secured by 

31



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

design in new developments. Accessibility – too much in the wrong places may 

increase the fear of crime. 

Early consultation with the Police Force Architectural Liaison Officer. Competing 

needs for secure by design considerations and other standards must compliment 

each other and conflicts should be resolved to reflect local priorities. 

There should be a local facility within every town for residents to make a formal 

statement relating to a crime. 

New development should seek to deliver safe and accessible places, focusing on 

housing and retail facilities in suitable locations, accessible by a range of 

transport, and within close proximity to local services and facilities. 

British Waterways should be involved in the early stages of any waterside 

development scheme/ planning brief to ensure the canal is seen as a safe, wellconnected 

and integral part of development. 

Not just about safe places but instilling a sense of community pride are important 

too and can be self-monitoring and self-policing. Providing activities for young 

people may be just as, if not more, important than design in reducing anti-social 

behaviour. 

Matching housing to employment is important; increased levels of out-commuting 

leads to a lack of identity and pride in the local area, giving rise to a dormitory and 

soulless places, not a community. 

The core strategy will have a major bearing on public health and, as such, there 

should be an explicit reference by rephrasing the objective to read:“To provide 

safe, healthy, accessible places”. 

There should be two additional outcomes under this objective, which are: 

“Buildings and spaces will be designed to improve physical activity and mental 

health” and “All residents will have access to natural green space (standards to be 

agreed)”. 

The sequential test in relation to large stores is flawed. One reason is that, while 

planning officers tend to object to large out-of-town supermarkets, residents tend 

to support them because there is no loss of car parking, often a local gain of free 

parking. The reverse is true if the proposed store is to be located within the town 

centre. 

Risk that small villages will die if they are starved of all development. The villages 

have much stronger communities than large new developments and good 

communities are rarely breeding places for crime. Market towns have always 

been accessible to villages in the past by means other than the car and should 

continue to be so now. Add “and small developments in the villages” after 

“spaces” in the second bullet point. 

Promote safe environments for those who are too ill or too old to live 

independently. 

Bicycle friendly policies could encourage safe, accessible places by keeping cars 

out of town centres and creating safe cycle paths between settlements, schools 

and other facilities. 

This objective should also include explicit redevelopment of problem areas. 

Improvements in accessibility and opportunities to reduce social exclusion should 

be driven through the core strategy. The remoteness of many parts of rural 

Wiltshire increases the potential for people to be excluded or have limited access 

to local services and facilities. This presents a challenge to service providers, 

such as the fire and rescue service, in protecting the most vulnerable in the 

community. 

In promoting safety, consideration needs to be given to the difficulties inherent in 

having a widely dispersed population and, also, to road safety, given the increase 

in population and commercial traffic. 

32



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Broader health and safety issues in terms of building design should be addressed, 

including the need for houses to be built to best practice standards, such as the 

Lifetime Homes Standard. Change the second bullet point to read: “The design of 

buildings and spaces will have actively promoted safety and supported well being 

and will have reduced both crime and the fear of crime”. 

Add an additional bullet point: “residential areas will be designed so as to include 

safe and adequate car parking provision”. 

The Wiltshire police budget will need to increase to meet this objective – potential 

impact of current budget deficits on outcomes. 

Improve accessibility and safety of existing homes and services, rather than the 

very low number of new homes to be developed. 

Include mention of safety in town centres and in using public transport 

Locate houses closer to town centres and the necessary infrastructure to 

discourage car use and improve accessibility. 

Better delivery of community and social services will reduce social exclusion 

Piecemeal development in small towns and villages will not achieve the objective, 

nor will insufficient development in more established settlements, such as Calne 

Efficient transport links are important for ambulances to provide safe and 

convenient access for patients and increasing the range, availability and 

affordability of sustainable transport methods will help to improve better access to 

healthcare for all. 

Allocating more land for civilian housing in a garrison town will not improve social 

inclusion; instead it may create more social division. 

33



3.12 Strategic Objective 6 (Box 7) safe and accessible places: respondents 

Organisations 






Hills Group 


NHS Swindon 



Sustrans 


Wiltshire Rural Housing Association 


British Waterways 





Natural England 

North Wiltshire Economic Partnership 



Trust for Devizes 

Wiltshire Police (Architectural Liaison 

Officer) 


Individuals 

Barnett, Peter Butcher, Howard Carbin, Trevor (Cllr) 

Eaton, Rod (Cllr) Harmer, John Lytton, Robert 

Parker, N.P. Robertson, Tim Spickernell, Mrs. C. 

Teare, Diane 

34



3.13 Strategic Objective 7 (Box 8) sustainable forms of transport: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

Need to have a reference to the amount of walking and cycling we do, on route to a 

lower carbon lifestyle. Road and development infrastructures will always give a 

consideration to establishing cycle and walking routes. 

An additional outcome should be added allowing for the provision of a network of 

charging points for plug-in electric vehicles. 

The provision of sustainable (public) transport requires not only the infrastructure on 

which that transform is to run, but also the vehicles to provide that service. The 

local transport documents used to back up this strategy score a town "10" if it has a 

railway station which is then used as a major factor in scoring the relative provision. 

However, the provision of a station is not enough to allow people to use public 

transport - services must also be provided on the line, and appropriate ways to 

complete the journey within the town. We support the strategic objective to promote 

sustainable transport, but fear that the measures you have used give an indication 

that you are well along the way to providing it when in some places you are not. We 

ask you to base your assessment on journey opportunities offered and not 

(significantly) of the mere present of a station, especially where that station (such 

as Melksham) has no trains at all during daylight hours in winter. The Greater 

Western Route Unitisation Strategy calls for an hourly "TransWilts" service, 

connecting the main towns of Chippenham, Trowbridge, Salisbury ... also Swindon 

and Melksham, together the five largest towns in "Wiltshire". Wiltshire Council has 

also evaluated the appropriate service level and reached the same conclusion. The 

current strategic planning should be re-slanted so that it measures true end to end 

journey service and not the mere presence of a mostly-unused station. 

This objective is good, but serious commitment is needed. There is a great deal of 

railway infrastructure in the county, but much of it is used to carry freight and 

passengers through the county, without serving the local economy. A small amount 

of local infrastructure improvements could substantially improve the local services 

and enable people to switch more of their journeys from road to rail, reducing 

congestion at peak times, and carbon emissions. Financial contributions should be 

sought from developers towards: a holding bay at Chippenham station a re-opened 

station at Corsham, a proper station in Melksham for TransWilts trains between 

Westbury and Swindon, northbound disabled access at Bradford on Avon Station, 

and train halts for Staverton and Trowbridge's White Horse Business Park. Wiltshire 

planning policy should ensure that developer contributions towards transport 

infrastructure are not just about building new roads. Connecting villages with their 

nearest towns using footpaths and cycle paths would also help reduce car-based 

journeys and improve community resilience. 

We support the proposed Strategic objective. However we are concerned that the 

bullet points do not carry through into development proposals which seem to be 

largely car based, and lacking provision for walking, cycling, and bus use while 

providing new bypasses in the guise of outer service roads. Once again the lack of 

policies makes it hard to determine how and if the objective leads to outcomes; 

there is a suspicion that the sustainable transport objectives overlay a business as 

usual transport approach of improving journey times, building new and improved 

roads, and generally providing other encouragements for continued increases in 

cars and lorries use. Indeed the planned improvements to "transport infrastructure" 

appear on closer examination to consist almost entirely of the construction of new 

large distributor roads to knit together the existing and planned car-borne housing 

estates with their employment areas, and a series of A350 bypasses or dualling of 

existing bypasses. The lack of mention of the A36 (which really is a recognised 

Strategic road) adds to the impression that the council, having failed to convince the 

Secretary of State that the A350 should be a strategic route, wants to find ways to 

35



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

develop it as one anyway. If that is its intended meaning we object to that part of 

the proposals as being incompatible with the general objective of promoting 

sustainable forms of transport. Increasing levels of car and lorry transport is not 

sustainable. 

We would not disagree with the key outcomes but would draw attention to the 

unique environmental advantages of railways in this context. Rail is capable of 

moving large volumes of people and goods at high speeds and with minimal impact 

on the environment. If rail services can be expanded to provide an attractive 

alternative to road transport, there is every likelihood of improving air quality and 

reducing fuel consumption. The Governments recent decision to electrify the main 

lines from London to Bristol will create great opportunities to develop the rail 

network within Wiltshire. Whilst the immediate benefits will be felt in Chippenham 

and Swindon, which will served by electric trains, other First Great Western routes 

in the county are likely to see a cascade of relatively modern diesel rolling stock 

currently used on suburban services, which are to be electrified as part of the same 

scheme. 

It may be feasible to introduce some semi-fast electric multiple units calling at 

reopened stations at Corsham and Wootton Bassett. Three close railway 

formations in Wiltshire have potential to reopen as railways in the longer term. The 

disused track beds which are substantially intact and pass through significant 

centres of population, business and tourism are Chippenham-Calne; Holt-Devizes- 

Patney; and Savernake-Marlborough. 

We support strategic objective 7.The need to improve sustainable transport choices 

is evident from a number of converging themes within the Vision and Strategic 

objectives paper. However, we note the absence of explicit reference to walking 

and cycling within this strategic objective and its key outcomes. Traditionally these 

are modes of transport that have experienced relative under investment in Wiltshire 

in comparison to other counties. No Wiltshire town has a comprehensive cycling 

network and many villages still suffer from the absence of safe footways. While 

investment in bus and rail services remain important it is cycling and walking that 

will remain the most accessible modes of transport for the entire population. The 

enabling of increased levels of cycling and walking will be the most effective means 

by which transport policy can meet the overarching aims of the core strategy. We 

recommend the addition of the following key outcome ‘The enabling and promotion 

of walking and cycling, including development of comprehensive routes both within 

and between towns’. 

Strategic Objective 7 needs to better address issues of carbon reduction and 

sustainability so that transport can adapt to early adoption of low carbon vehicles 

for both private and public transport increase the availability and affordability of 

sustainable travel choices ensure that people have priority over vehicles in town 

and village centres to improve access to local employment and services safeguard 

strategic transport routes while reducing overall need to travel. 

Support sustainable transport objectives, but recognition of realities concerning 

need to use the car / motor vehicle for some developments should be incorporated, 

especially those that can only take place in remote locations and where impacts are 

modest. 

We would like to see recognition of the importance of transport partners and crossborder 

considerations particularly public transport considerations in the Wiltshire 

Core Strategy and Wiltshire’s LTP3. The proposals map cannot simply end at 

Wiltshire’s borders. 

The vision speaks of self-containment as though it were possible to tell people to 

work in the same town in which they live even in towns of 25,000 - 45,000 

population. This is a great idea but we really don’t think it’s realistic. 

36



 

 

 

We are much in support of reducing the need to travel. However, given the small 

size of the SSCTs, this is hard to achieve, and is better summed up by the idea of 

reducing the need to travel by car. People will need to travel in the next decade 

because local shopping and community services have been further centralised; 

even if more local shops do eventually open, health-care, education, and other 

services of all sorts will not be close by. As an example, Trowbridge relies on 

hospitals out of the area; major shops are in Bath and Bristol; there are no 

universities in Western Wiltshire. Bath has the cinemas, theatres and many clubs 

that people from the Trowbridge area enjoy going to. 

We would like policies in the Core Strategy which play up the importance of the 

Regional Transport Policies RTS1 and RTS2. 

Strengthen linkages and collaboration between transport providers and developers. 

37



3.14 Strategic Objective 7 (Box 8) sustainable transport: respondents 

Organisations 


Waterways 




Clerk Godshill Parish Council 


Councillor Wiltshire Council 











Agency 

Bourne Leisure Ltd 


Avon 


Councillor Richard Gamble 



Association 







Corsham 

Individuals 

David Feather Diane Teare Dr John Loran 

Duncan Hames Howard Butcher Ian Rose 

Mr Christopher Gorringe Mr E Palmer Mr John Harmer 

Mr Peter Barnett Mrs C Spickernell N P Parker 

Patrick Hunt 

Robert Lytton 

38



3.15 Strategic Objective 8 (Box 9) natural environment: comments 

Mention should be made of canals and their potential for acting as green 

infrastructure. 

The Kennet and Avon Canal currently passes to the south of Melksham, 

separating it from Trowbridge. It then passes north of Trowbridge through 

Hilperton, forming a natural boundary of development, before continuing into 

Bradford on Avon. The Trust therefore suggests that the canal has considerable 

potential as a green belt or green corridor. 

We would like to see the council giving encouragement to the provision of more 

allotments. By definition these are sustainable, beneficial to health and retain biodiversity. 

We have seen allotments lost to housing and parish councils are finding 

it difficult to source suitable alternative land because of the priority given to 

housing. 

Biomass should be supported as an energy source - has habitat positive 

implications. 

No reference to habitats and species changing due to long-term climate change. 

Resources should not be committed without limit in maintaining a species which 

has moved out of a previous natural range, but instead invested in helping 

species adapt and move to accomMoDate climate change. This should be 

acknowledged in the objective. 

Suggest amendment: a requirement to deliver significant housing and 

employment growth principally, but not exclusively, by the re-use of previously 

developed land. 

The council should use CIL revenue to help create green infrastructure. 

The Parish Plan process highlighted that respondees were more or less 

unanimous in their support of the maintenance of existing green open spaces and 

vistas. 

We support recognising the value of green corridors and networks to support 

biodiversity. 

In terms of green infrastructure, would support an approach which would adapt to 

climate change, increase connectivity and allow for wildlife corridors and 

networks. 

Why can’t the attractions of much of Wiltshire as a tourist destination be 

supported and appropriately managed without needing to bring more industry and 

commerce into the vicinity? Will the County really die if that is the policy? Local 

people do not appear to want the development expansion, judging by comments 

made to consultations, so why is it being forced upon them? Big Brother knows 

best apparently. 

Any housing will be detrimental to the environment, the loss of green space! 

This outcome should be more strongly worded without qualification and 

specifically linked to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets / AONB Plans 

Lack of targets. E.g. will habitat and species be enhanced by 5%, 10%, 20%? 

This SO should be based on and specifically linked to Nature Map (as per RSS). 

The planning processed is already biased too far in favour of nature conservation. 

A balanced approach is needed to weigh this SO against others such as housing. 

It is not reasonable to expect development to pay for enhancing the natural 

environment. 

The environment in Wiltshire is already degraded. Can the core strategy improve 

this? 

Some very laudable aims but outside the scope of the council to influence or 

measure. 

39



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Landscape issues are mentioned, but nothing about woodland – this is one of the 

most precious resources Wiltshire has, especially ancient woodland, and is 

becoming scarce. 

Mention of water but no mention of trees, these must be at the centre of any 

environmental strategy because of their multi faceted contribution - absorb CO2 in 

growth, possible fuel, provide safe habitat and of course a leisure opportunity 

This objective should be widened to include the protection and improvement of 

the water environment, as required by the Water Framework Directive. 

Alternatively a separate strategic objective could be included to cover the water 

environment. In particular the Wiltshire Core Strategy should include key 

outcomes to protect and improve the quality and quantity of water within streams, 

rivers, wetlands, as well as groundwater. 

Mention should be made of nitrates as well as phosphates – these are a bigger 

problem. 

It is not necessary for all green infrastructure to be provided for within new 

development. In many cases green infrastructure resources may be best provided 

for in locations that are adjacent to new development, or in some cases remote 

from new development itself. 

Policy is unclear – especially Bullet 4 - soil quality (defined by land 

classification?). 

Please use plain English! 

40



3.16 Strategic Objective 8 (Box 9) natural environment: respondents 

Organisations 


Waterways 




Canal Partnership Project Manager 


Clerk Godshill Parish Council 


Development Director Selwood Housing 

Society Limited 


Association 

Eton College 









Sustrans 







Avon 



Downs AONB 





General Manager The Kennet and Avon 

Canal Trust 


Managing Director Cholderton and 

District Water Company 



Planning Advisor BWEA 




Individuals 

Howard Butcher Mr Christopher Gorringe Mr E Palmer 

Mr John Harmer Mr Peter Barnett Mr Peter Barnett 

Mrs C Spickernell N P Parker Robert Lytton 

41



3.17 Strategic Objective 9 (Box 10) high quality built environment: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is consistent with PPS1. 

Should not just relate to new development but also the public realm and 

extensions to existing buildings. 

New development should not be expected to resolve existing poor design. 

Wording - where appropriate enhanced Wiltshire's distinctive built heritage will 

have been seen as an influence on the scale and form of new development. 

New development will have been designed to respect local character, foster 

community cohesion, and promote Wiltshire as a desirable place in which to live, 

work and visit. 

The sensitive and creative re-use of historic buildings will have taken place where 

appropriate. 

Suggested wording ‘built heritage will have been seen as an influence on the 

scale and form of new development’. 

Suggested wording ‘positive action will have been taken to seek the repair of 

neglected and disused historic buildings at risk’. 

Suggested wording ‘high standards of building maintenance of Wiltshire owned 

buildings’. 

Unrealistic to seek exceptional quality design without further definition’. 

Need to be careful with policy wording ‘i.e. reflects local character’ this may 

suggest pastiche. 

Might be useful to replace areas/buildings which are of little historical value. 

Historic buildings should only be reused where it can be demonstrated that the 

cost of such works would not make a scheme unviable as this onerous 

requirement will often result in some new development becoming unviable. 

Welcome the role of historic buildings in tourism. 

Mention should be made of ‘alteration’ as well as adaptation as this is sometime 

necessary. 

No objection to the stated objective. 

This section needs to be framed so that it is robustly incorporated into the 

planning framework so that it cannot be ignored by developers. 

Support ‘exceptional quality design which reflects local character’. 

In developing a high quality built environment the protection of green spaces is 

paramount. 

Brownfield sites should be considered as a priority. 

Further objective should be added prioritising Brownfield land ahead of 

Greenfield. 

Wiltshire historic environment is central to Wiltshire’s cultural heritage and sense 

of identity, and hence a resource that should be sustained for the benefit of the 

present and future generations. 

Acknowledge the appreciation of Wiltshire’s significant cultural heritage in the 

emerging core strategy. 

Following changes should be considered to improve the clarity and enhance the 

effectiveness of objective 9 – include the consideration of the historic landscape 

within the objective. 

Need to engage conservation and landscape conservation colleagues to ensure 

language used is consistent with national policy guidance. 

Perhaps a topic paper could be created for each individual community area which 

references measures required to respond to the likely impact of the spatial 

options. 

This topic paper could potentially form the basis for a Wiltshire Heritage Strategy 

SPD. 

42



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of sensitive historic centres Marlborough, Malmesbury and Devizes. 

A variety of characterisation studies are currently absent – the South Wilts CS 

options assessment used specific landscape and historic environment studies. 

Other strategies refer to a variety of generated evidence such as characterisation 

studies, all currently absent from the plan. 

Policy ENV5 of the draft SWRSS outlines the requirement for evidence to inform 

managed change. 

Conservation area apraisals are not adequate to inform environmental capacity 

and the ability of places to accommodate urban extensions. 

Important to recognise that the historic environment includes all designated and 

non-designated areas. It also includes their settings; the wider urban and rural 

landscape and the potential for unrecorded archaeology. 

Important to understand the relationship of strategic sites to the relative historic 

landscape character. 

Trowbridge and Wotton Bassett sections make no reference to the consideration 

of the historic environment. 

The SA indicators included within the historic environment topic paper allow a 

focussed response and evaluation. These could provide the basis for a Core 

Strategy policy and SPD. 

The effect on the historic environment appears currently to be unknown? This 

tends to suggest an inadequate evidence base. 

We recommend that heritage staff is more actively engaged to ensure a robust 

and sound SA and that this is more explicitly refereed to within the core strategy. 

Supported. 

Exceptional design is a subjective point. 

We support the promotion of a high quality built environment. The low allocation 

of land within Marlborough supports the aim of protecting its built environment. 

The requirement for exceptional design quality is a contradiction in terms. If you 

want good design to be a general rule in the area then it cannot be an exception. 

The word exceptional should be reconsidered and or clarified. 

High quality development cannot solely be captured through new development. 

Improvements can also be achieved through over means. 

Code for sustainable homes level 4, 5 and 6 should be an objective over the plan 

period. 

The following is proposed within the key outcomes – New development should 

promote the principles of the Code for Sustainable Homes and seek to achieve 

highly sustainable development which can enhance communities. 

All housing should be built to level 5 Code for sustainable homes. 

Should not seek exceptional design – this is over and beyond national policy. 

Reference should also be made to the promotion of locally sourced materials to 

both reduce carbon footprint of new developments and to promote use of 

vernacular materials. 

Suggested wording addition: Archaeological sites and features will have been 

adequately assessed and protected where appropriate. 

A flexible approach for the adaption of buildings to meet 21st century needs for 

employment and residential use should be taken. 

In reference to the historic built environment only the built environment is 

mentioned. 

The wider context of historic buildings is not considered within the objective. 

A Historic Environment Action Plan for the AONB is being created which should 

be used to inform emerging policies. 

Should be rephrased to read ‘to safeguard and promote a high quality historic 

environment’. 

43



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction should highlight that new development will respect Wiltshire’s rich 

archaeological and built environment. 

New development will need to respect and enhance Wiltshire’s distinct 

characteristics. 

Rewording of sixth bullet point to state that ‘The Stonehenge and Avebury World 

Heritage Site will have been protected from inappropriate development, because 

of its Outstanding Universal Value’. CLG circular 07/2009. 

British Waterways wishes to promote the benefits that a waterside location can 

bring and ensure that features and areas of high historic, amenity and cultural 

value are protected and enhanced. 

The wider context of the built environment is not referenced despite the crucial 

role that the historic pattern of fields, woodlands, downloads etc. play in defining 

the local distinctiveness and character of an area. 

Redevelopment of the Devizes Wharf should take full account of the traditional 

use of this area and of those canals related buildings still in extent. 

Buildings related with the past history of the canal should, where possible, be 

retained. 

This is a very important aspect of the value and diversity of the county. 

This objective should have a section on the design of urban extensions, and also 

new employment areas in fringe-of-town settings. 

All new development should be well designed and historic features protected. 

Policies relating to the protection of the built and natural environment should 

make reference to the positive contribution that renewable energy can play in 

reducing CO2 emissions and in mitigating against the environmentally damaging 

effects climate change. 

Landscape and nature conservation designations should not be used themselves 

to refuse permission for renewable energy developments. 

Polices should conform to PPS22 and not preclude the supply of renewable 

energy. 

44



3.18 Strategic Objective 9 (Box 10) high quality built environment: respondents 

Organisations 

London and S. British Waterways 



Cotswolds Conservation Board 





Kennet and Avon Canal Trust 

GVA Grimley 


North Chippenham Consortium - (Barratt 


Homes) 

Organisations 


Salisbury South Wiltshire Museum 


Wiltshire Historic Buildings Trust 






Association 




Knight Frank - Badminton Estate 







Individuals 

Howard Butcher Mr C. Gorringe Mr John Harmer 

Mrs C Spickernell N P Parker Peter Newell 

Robert Lytton 

3.19 Strategic Objective 10, minimising risk of flooding: comments 

 

 

‘This objective should include the consideration of the sequential approach to the 

location of developments, i.e. by placing developments in Flood Zone 1 first. 

Bearing in mind the flood risk hierarchy given in Planning Policy Statement 25, the 

requirement for new development to use the sequential approach to flood risk 

should be the first consideration. We suggest bullet point 3 is amended to read 

'The risk of flooding will have been minimised in the case of new development by 

avoiding inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. Where new 

development is, exceptionally, necessary in flood risk areas it shall make 

provision for providing or updating flood defence infrastructure which will make 

the development and an access route to land outside the floodplain safe 

throughout its design life, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where 

possible reduce flood risk overall'. (Environment Agency) 

‘We object to Strategic Objective 10 as written but not to its intent, which is to 

minimise flooding of properties. The first key outcome ‘natural function of 

floodplains will have been maintained and enhanced’ actually involves increasing 

flooding in the undeveloped floodplain where it will not threaten property! We 

45



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suggest a rewording along the lines of minimise the risk of flood damage to 

properties’.(Wiltshire Wildlife Trust) 

No new development should be allowed where there is any risk of flooding. 

Flood risk from new development should be eliminated, not just ‘minimised’. 

Infrastructure (sewerage, drainage and water) should be in place before 

development commences in order to handle and manage flood events. 

Any policy in the LDF should …include reference to sewer flooding and an 

acceptance that flooding could occur away from the flood plain as a result of 

development where off site infrastructure is not in place ahead of development 

(Thames Water). 

In Wiltshire, excluding flood plains, there are frequent instances of flooding on 

country roads because they have not been brought up to modern standards for 

many decades, possibly even for the best part of a century. 

Some strategic sites seem to be in flood risk areas. 

There is a clear need for a strategy that allocates overall responsibility. 

‘I fully support this objective. I trust that it will prevent any repetition of the decision 

to allow the building of large numbers of houses on inappropriate floodplains’. 

Consistent with PPS25 and emerging RSS10. 

‘Wiltshire FRS supports this objective. As recognised in the Pitt Review into 

flooding, the fire and rescue services are seen as the primary response agency to 

flooding and as such, we are pleased to see this included here’. 

Mention of mitigation as a possible technical solution to enable development 

should be made. A flexible approach is required. 

The ability of new development to improve overall flood risk should be 

acknowledged. 

‘BW is promoting the introduction of a consistent approach to the evaluation of 

flood risk from canals throughout the U.K. Flood risk assessments need to 

consider the likelihood and consequences of flooding to and from the canal 

network’. 

46



3.20 Strategic Objective 10, minimising risk of flooding: respondents 

Organisations 


Waterways 






Association 

Easterton Parish Council 


Group Chairman, North Wilts and 

Swindon Group Campaign to Protect 

Rural England (CPRE) 






Agency 





Eton College 






Individuals 

Diane Teare Dr John Loran Mr Eric Jones 

N P Parker 

Robert Lytton 

47



4 The story by community area 

For every community area, the consultation document posed the same questions to 

which answers were proposed. The consultation was therefore about both the 

question itself and the council’s proposed answers. The questions were: 

 

 

 

 

 

What are the key issues and opportunities for the community area? 

How do we expect the area to change by 2026 and what should the core strategy 

deliver? 

Are the proposed strategic site allocations the right ones? 

Is the settlement hierarchy (as relating to this area) correct? 

Is the proposed housing distribution (as it affects this area) correct? 

Every community area section begins with some ‘headline statistics’ recording the 

number of comments for each heading that were supportive, supportive with 

conditions, objecting or simply general comments. 

Details of exhibitions and events are also recorded – these are verbatim summaries 

of post-it notes left on posters. 

48



4.1 Chippenham community area 

4.2 Headline statistics 

Key issues and opportunities 

Supporting 1 

Supporting with conditions 6 

Objecting 9 

General comments 8 

How much we expect the community area to change by 2026 

Supporting 3 


Objecting 8 


Strategic site allocations 

Supporting 0 


Objecting 86 


Other comments relating to this community area 

Supporting 0 


Objecting 6 


Total No. comments re. Chippenham: 150 (plus petition 2,009 signatures) 

49



4.3 Issues and opportunities: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The level of housing proposed for Chippenham ignores essential environmental 

constraints. There is not enough emphasis on the development of brown field 

sites or the improvement of poor quality areas in the town. 

Chippenham over the past 30 years has been developed in the Pewsham area 

and on the Western side. So much expansion in such a short space of time 

makes the cohesion of the social fabric of the town very poor. There is very little 

evidence that adequate infrastructure has been put into place since the previous 

developments. This needs to be addressed before new developments on the 

scale of Wiltshire 2026 are proposed. 

Chippenham is now a big town and does not need anymore houses. The town is 

losing its market town status. 5000 new houses will change the nature of the 

town. The services are at full stretch. It is a logical inconsistency that the problem 

can be fixed by increasing the population of the town and developers funding 

services. 

North Wiltshire District Council proposed substantially fewer new homes in and 

around Chippenham than in this plan. Wiltshire Council should reflect on the level 

of housing necessary to meet local housing need as identified by the predecessor 

district council and defend from intervention. 

The allocation of 5500 new homes is not enough to accommodate all the growth 

over the plan period. 

The objective of strategic planning for Chippenham should be to enhance the selfcontainment 

of the town as a whole, rather than its constituent sites. 

Some of the comments on the Issues and Opportunities cross-refer to the Vision 

and Strategic Objectives for Wiltshire and in doing so have identified differences. 

Issues considered important and which should be added to the list include 

flooding; the existence of a Groundwater Source Protection Zone and congestion. 

Suggestions for opportunities include improvements to the transport network and 

river corridor enhancement. 

50



The comments can be summarised as: 

The Vision for Wiltshire proposes a low-carbon future based on sustainable 

transport and self-containment, so there is little need to provide large distributor or 

link roads for the private car. 

Dualling the A350 is counter to the aims of sustainable development and will 

anyway be unnecessary in the context of the Vision of Wiltshire in the future as 

road transport is discouraged. 

Dualling the A350 is counter to Policies RTS1 and RTS2 of the emerging SW 

Regional Spatial Strategy. The A350 is not a regionally strategic corridor and the 

Highways Agency is trying to manage down the demand for the A4 and will not 

want to see additional commuter traffic coming onto the motorway. 

A bus station with full facilities is needed for Chippenham and low floor buses to 

serve the town. The Coach Station at Bath Road needs upgrading. The proposals 

map needs to show major bus routes across boundaries. 

Flooding in and around Chippenham should be mentioned as an issue. 

There needs to be a clear and consistent position on whether Chippenham 

excellent accessibility is an opportunity or does the good road and rail connectivity 

and proximity create the issue of a high level of out-commuting. While both 

statements can be true, which is the priority to address? 

Does the population really want to make Chippenham more like Swindon or Bath? 

Chippenham lacks a theatre or concert venue, but other towns are not recognised 

as having a theatre or performance space. The Core Strategy should include 

specific guidance on protecting and encouraging existing arts and cultural 

provision. 

There are no jobs in Chippenham. All new residents will have to travel, meaning 

there will be no reduction in travel. 

How will building more homes tackle climate change? 

How will important biological and built environment issues be safeguarded by 

building in a floodplain? 

A large part of Chippenham falls within a groundwater Source Protection Zone 

(SPZ 2), which should be included as an issue. This is important because some 

types of development many not be suitable in SPZ2, or they might need specific 

assessment/mitigation to prevent impact on groundwater. 

River corridor enhancement should be added as an opportunity, possibly 

including hydropower potential at Chippenham. 

There is a need to get businesses to relocate to Chippenham using incentives. 

The argument that extra houses will lead to business is wrong. Unless there is an 

attractive business environment, no businesses are going to locate to 

Chippenham. 

What evidence is there that employers are not attracted to Chippenham now due 

to the lack of housing, services retail and community facilities? 

The issue of congestion needs addressing to prevent the situation from 

worsening. 

Improvements to the road network to ensure the town centre is easily accessible 

by alternative modes of transport are not mentioned. 

The high level of out-commuting, in part due to the good road and rail links is true 

and is the reason most people choose to live here. There would have been more 

local employment if the council had not discouraged past employers from 

expanding. 

Chippenham is already overpopulated for its size. It needs more employment. The 

list of businesses leaving Chippenham vastly outstrips those coming to the town. 

The exhibition gave no ideas as to how to attract businesses to the town. 

Chippenham is already a dormitory town with more people working outside of 

Chippenham than inside. 

51



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given that the lack of development opportunities available on previously 

developed land and the fact that the overwhelming majority of Chippenham’s 

development requirements will need to be met on greenfield sites, it is perhaps 

misleading to say that some greenfield land will be required. 

We will need our farms to grow food. Oil is fast running out and fuel price rises will 

make imported food increasingly expensive. 

Land to the South West of Chippenham is within Corsham Parish and Corsham 

community area. It is unclear how this allocation impacts on the needs of 

Corsham and it may have a detrimental impact on how Corsham is planned. 

Chippenham is of strategic importance to the County. There are a lot of great 

facilities such as the railway station and the new heritage centre. The town centre 

does need expanding to ensure that the shops are attracted to Chippenham. It is 

easier to get to Bath, which has shops people want to use. 

The issue of traffic congestion is a significant problem for Chippenham. There is 

the opportunity to deliver safe cycle access from Calne, Melksham and Corsham 

to mitigate the impact of commuter traffic on the A350. The routes are either 

existing and in need of improvement/promotion or are close to completion. 

Estimate the impact of internet communications on the future of the service and 

retail industries. 

Chippenham should only be regarded as strategically significant if employment 

opportunities are enhanced and if this is so it must be a priority for regeneration. 

4.4 Change and delivery: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is also a need for footpaths and cycle routes to link new housing 

development with the town and places of work and to provide links between 

neighbouring settlements. 

The eastern distributor road is essential; otherwise there will be unacceptable 

congestion at Stanley Lane, Maud’s Heath Causeway and at the top of Station 

Hill. 

Good aims, but unless there is an attractive environment for business, no amount 

of houses are going to promote sustainability. 

The dualling of the A350 is welcomed as it will assist with the employment 

objective as well as improving accessibility generally. It will also allow areas to be 

south to benefit from ‘excellent accessibility’. 

The proposals seem likely to result in an increased car use. The eastern 

distributor road appears to be a bypass. The policy framework needs to clearly 

demonstrate the outcome will be a more sustainable transport system (Strategic 

Objective 7) and not increased road traffic. 

The transport proposals lack any evidence based modelling. 

The strategy will be reliant on significant amounts of greenfield land, but disagree 

that it should all be contained north and north east of the town, which is overdependent 

on provision of an expensive link road. 

The chosen site is completely isolated from the town due to the Avon Valley being 

between it and the town centre. What alternative modes of transport will be 

provided? What are the planned community facilities? What is the cost of 

providing a distributor road? 

There are some glaring missing areas in the Sustainability appraisal, especially 

the impact on the landscape for the preferred option, with the landscape impact 

on the Avon Valley and the destruction of the Marden River Valley and the impact 

on Tytherton Lucas. 

With the addition of new flats in Monkton Park, of which not all have people 

residing there, it seems clear that the need for houses in Chippenham is not a 

52



forefront issue. With derelict sites like Hygrade and Westinghouse, the decimation 

of the natural habitat would be prevented. 

Provision should made for at least 5,500 dwellings rather than up to 5,500 

dwellings. (RSS Policy HMA2) to ensure Chippenham fulfils its role as a 

strategically significant town and to help realise other strategic benefits. Planning 

for only the minimum quantum will perpetuate problems of undersupply. 

Chippenham shouldn’t be compared with Bath or Swindon. People who live in 

Chippenham do so because it is not as busy or built up as Swindon or Bath. 

Do not build on farmland. 

The opening comment ‘significant growth’ makes the closing remark ‘the 

character of the town will remain unchanged’ difficult to believe. 

Chippenham would benefit from having a large and prominent clock on the High 

Street. 

The Highways Agency is yet to see any evidence based modelling. 

4.5 Strategic site options: comments 

North/north east Chippenham urban extension 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The sites are greenfield sites, are also farming areas and are well used and 

popular with residents. 

Birds Marsh Wood is only mentioned in terms of ‘minimising’ the impacts on it, 

rather than seeking opportunities to enhance it. 

The special visual, amenity and ecological value of the surrounding meadows 

should not be underestimated. They are an essential buffer zone for Birds Marsh 

Wood, which is already subject to some intrusion and damage from motorcycles 

and vandalism. Birds Marsh Wood is an amenity of great importance to the 

community, but cannot survive as an island within a significant development. 

There are two County Wildlife Sites adjacent to the preferred option the North of 

the town and 1 county wildlife site adjacent to the North East of the town. There is 

a high likelihood of significant adverse ecological impacts. Further investigation is 

required to see if ecological constraints can be overcome and if so how can it be 

achieved. A policy framework is required to ensure the long-term survival and 

even improvement of the sites. 

This area regarded as a rural buffer with a relatively narrow divide between 

Chippenham and the villages of Kington Langley, Kington St Michael and Langley 

Burrell. 

Risk of flooding would increase from the surface water run-off from agricultural 

fields. Run-off from agricultural fields becomes significant during heavy 

downpours and would be made much worse if the area was to be built upon. 

North Chippenham can act as a standalone site and doesn’t have to rely on the 

provision of an eastern distributor road. 

East Chippenham acts as a ‘sponge’ slowing the release of rainwater into the 

floodplain below. Flooding at Kellaways has been a big problem in recent years. 

The rapid increase of surface water run-off will increase the level of the River 

Avon between Chippenham and Kellaway Weirs, and water flow will back up 

towards the River Marden (Calne) and Cada Burna (Foxham). 

The proposed urban extension is not coherent with the remainder of Chippenham. 

It is isolated to the East of Chippenham Town Centre by the Avon Valley and 

would only have a link road as the access to other parts of the town. 

East Chippenham is the remaining area of natural beauty. The Landscape 

Character of the countryside must be taken into account as stated in Policy NE15 

Policy NE15 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and the Landscape Character 

Assessment. 

53



 

 

 

 

The development will be clearly visible and audible and will have an impact upon 

the countryside and nearby villages including Tytherton Lucas, Stanley and 

Kellaways. 

Lack of information about how development will be supported by environmental 

infrastructure – e.g. Green Infrastructure; Place Making; Adapting to Climate 

Change. 

Open spaces shouldn’t have been mapped without supporting evidence. The area 

identified is a significant overprovision and would seriously undermine the delivery 

of the scheme by risking viability. 

Locate fewer houses on other sites. 

Town centre mixed use regeneration preferred option 

: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Map appears to show development encroaching into the floodplain; using the 

Sequential approach, development should avoid flooding zone 2 and 3 where 

possible. 

The shaded area includes Hardenhuish and Sheldon School playing fields, 

leading to the presumption that these areas will be redeveloped. 

Westinghouse sports ground should not be redeveloped for housing. 

Support the designation of the town centre as a strategic site, but the title of 

‘mixed use regeneration option’ is misleading. 

Potential future employment sites 

The land at Showell Farm has already been turned down by an inspector, on the 

basis of non-compatibility with PPG13. Its inclusion again is developer-driven 

rather than policy driven. 

Showell Farm should be opposed as it has already been opposed by local 

residents. .Much of the land is high quality agricultural land. Development would 

be damaging to the countryside and the setting of Chippenham. 

Have the advancements in technology meaning there is a trend to work from 

home and reducing commuting and requirements for office space been 

considered? 

Pleased to see areas designated for employment purposes, but concerned about 

the large areas of mixed use housing and employment, because the former has 

overrun the latter. I would like to see more employment for Chippenham to stop 

the commuting to Bristol and Swindon. 

Transport 

The road will be very expensive. 

If the planned road is necessary then there are other areas of Chippenham and 

many fields that can be used instead of the destruction of one of Chippenham’s 

most beautiful areas. 

There is a fear that the road would damage Rawlings Farm and Hardens Farm. 

The Northern Urban Extension will contribute to increasing motor vehicle traffic 

and will be very attractive to out-commuters. 

The road would make Chippenham a community penned behind a ring-fence of 

tarmac. 

Suggest the road be routed to the north of Barrow Farm and parallel to Birds 

Marsh Wood with at least a 100m buffer. Frequent crossing routes would be 

needed. 

Dualling of A350 should be given priority and any development should make use 

of that expanded capacity. 

54



: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing has been said about the A4/Ivy Lane gyratory. 

Having a dual carriageway from Lackham to the A4 at Pewsham, will complete 

the ring road and remove through traffic from the town. 

North Chippenham Road seems unnecessary as traffic could use the B4122 to 

access the motorway. 

The development area should be designed with spine roads and boulevards 

connecting the new development to the town centre, to encourage use of the 

town. Any new large roads serving the area should be designed with bus lanes, 

cycle lanes, pavements and trees, and as part of the built environment, with 

shops, schools orientated along them. 

Alternative options 

Whilst the strategic approach to Chippenham is correct, it is too soon to narrow 

down to a preferred option. More resilient and detailed viability studies should be 

undertaken on each of the main options to draw out the barriers to successful 

development and integration with the existing town and to consider in more detail 

how these may be addressed. 

Southern options appear to be equivalent in suitability to the proposed North 

development, yet present a much greater sustainability option. Problems of 

providing the link road are no more significant than crossing the river and main 

railway line. Also excellent sustainable links into the town centre including 

walking/cycling route. 

Housing development in the Pewsham area would provide an economic 

opportunity to assist in the restoration of the canal. 

Land at Chippenham Business Park, adjacent to Saltersford Lane, is available for 

residential use. 

Land to the North of Barrow Farm should be within the preferred option. 

Hunters Moon is available for residential development and not for employment 

use. Hunters Moon could be brought forward quickly such that houses could start 

to be delivered in 2-3 years time. This could be in addition to the Preferred Option 

with Showell Farm being developed in full for employment purposes. 

Rowden Park has similar impacts to the Preferred Option, but overall it minimises 

the loss of Greenfield land and will give rise to a smaller infrastructure cost, more 

sensitive phased growth and will provide a unique opportunity to secure parkland 

facility close to the town centre. 

The proposed development of major employment sites in Corsham better lends 

itself to residential development in the South as there is a more logical link to the 

A350 and the A4 from here than from the Eastern Option. 

The councils approach is fundamentally flawed in terms of selecting sites in the 

absence of the necessary evidence base. None of the issues which the LPA 

indicate constrain development to the south represent showstoppers. 

55



 

 

 

 

 

Had improvements to the A350 been assumed in the traffic modelling, the traffic 

implications of a southern expansion to the town would be far more favourable. 

There are many merits including Identified preferred location for strategic 

employment development; juxtaposition of strategic employment, residential and 

other uses to provide a sustainable urban extension with good local links to the 

town centre. 

Site proposed for extra care housing (C2 Use Class) at Chippenham Golf Club, 

West of Chippenham to provide a care development for the elderly and to provide 

improved leisure facilities at the golf club. 

Designate Sainsburys Supermarket Site and the adjoining land occupied by 

McDonalds and a nursery as a District centre. 

Development to the West should be considered because it’s not any worse than 

East of Chippenham and has the advantage of the A350 and being away from the 

River Avon. 

Consider Lyneham as an alternative. 

4.6 Settlement hierarchy: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The settlement strategy is supported in principle, especially as it includes 

Chippenham at the top of the hierarchy as one of Wiltshire (and the South West 

regions) strategically significant towns, which is to accommodate the greatest 

level of economic and population growth, including enhanced provision of higherorder 

facilities and services. 

Although a number of smaller settlements have a limited range of services, such 

rural communities often share the resources of a number of nearby villages – e.g. 

Littleton Drew and Nettleton. It is unrealistic to allow for only modest levels of 

growth in a relatively few number of Wiltshire villages. 

There isn’t any reference to the windfall sites outside Chippenham and the named 

settlements and the recognised contribution they can make to the local 

community and economy. 

It is not explained fully why only 4 villages in the Chippenham Community Area 

are identified as only having capacity to accommodate modest levels of 

development to deliver local housing need to support rural services which will 

increase those villages self containment. There is no analysis and therefore no 

justification for limiting development to just these 4 villages and imposing restraint 

elsewhere, apart from the comment which says they lack the employment 

opportunities and services which would make development sustainable. 

Opportunities for employment and home working should be welcomed to 

encourage increased sustainability for those, and other, settlements. 

Sutton Benger should be listed in this group. Further analysis should be provided 

of the services existing in each settlement as, for example, Sutton Benger has the 

same facilities as Christian Malford plus the local primary school. It could and 

should be proposed for housing growth to meet local needs. Without a small 

allocation of housing, new affordable housing would not be delivered and there 

would no support for local needs in the village and surrounding area. 

There isn’t a definition of local housing need. 

The numbers for population and houses in Kington St Michael does not agree 

with those on the electoral register although that covers the parish. Some 

properties have incorrect street names e.g. 94 Kington St Michael is not located in 

Stubbs Lane and Manor Farm is not located at Honeyknob Hill. 

The impact of the designation of villages is not clear. There seems to be limited 

capacity for further development in Kington St Michael, as it is important to keep 

the separation between the village and Chippenham. On the other hand, if the 

village is classified as a smaller village does this signal the start of a decline? 

56



4.7 Housing distribution: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The level of housing proposed for Chippenham ignores essential environmental 

constraints. There is not enough emphasis on the development of brown field 

sites or the improvement of poor quality areas in the town. 

Chippenham over the past 30 years has been developed in the Pewsham area 

and on the Western side. So much expansion in such a short space of time 

makes the cohesion of the social fabric of the town very poor. There is very little 

evidence that adequate infrastructure has been put into place since the previous 

developments. This needs to be addressed before new developments on the 

scale of Wiltshire 2026 are proposed. 

Chippenham is now a big town and does not need anymore houses. The town is 

losing its market town status. 5000 new houses will change the nature of the 

town. The services are at full stretch. It is a logical inconsistency that the problem 

can be fixed by increasing the population of the town and developers funding 

services. 

North Wiltshire District Council proposed substantially fewer new homes in and 

around Chippenham than in this plan. Wiltshire Council should reflect on the level 

of housing necessary to meet local housing need as identified by the predecessor 

district council and defend from intervention. 

The allocation of 5500 new homes is not enough to accommodate all the growth 

over the plan period. 

The objective of strategic planning for Chippenham should be to enhance the selfcontainment 

of the town as a whole, rather than its constituent sites. 

57



4.8 Chippenham respondents 

Organisations 



Berryfield and Semington Road Action 

Group 

Bloor Homes 

Bowerhill Residents' Association 



Braemon Holdings 

C G Fry & Son Limited 


Carter Jonas 


Chippenham Civic Society 

Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon 

Committee Administrator Melksham 

Town Council 





Devizes Development Partnership 





Friends of Hilperton Gap 



Hannick Homes 

Haydon Wick Parish Council 


Hilperton Parish Council 

INscience Limited 

Keevil Parish Council 




Bishops Canning Parish Council 

BOA Property Ltd. 


Bradford on Avon Town Council 

Bremhill Parish Council 




Chairman Bradford on Avon Preservation 

Trust 

Charlton Park Estate 

Chippenham Vision 





Crest Strategic Projects Limited 


Devizes Town Council 

Director LPC (Trull) Ltd 


Eton College 



Georgia Developments (Wessex) Limited 


Hartham Park 

Hellam Land Management and Bloor 

Homes 

Hills UK Ltd 

Industrial Property Investment Fund 

IP Wireless 

Kington St Michael Parish Council 

Land & Development Stakeholder and 

58



Langdale Western Ltd 




Residents’ Association 


Melksham Community Area Partnership 


National Grid 

North Bradley Parish Council 


Northern Community Area Partnership 


Planning Potential Ltd 



Ramblers North East Wiltshire Group 

Redcliffe Homes 

Robert Hitchens Ltd 


Seend Parish Council 


Society of Merchant Venturers 


Swindon and Cricklade Railway 




The Theatres Trust 


(TCAF) 


Warminster Civic Trust 



Wiltshire College 

Policy Manager National Grid 

Larkrise Community Farm 

London and South British Waterways 




Melksham Railway Development Group 

MoD 

NHS Swindon 

North Chippenham Consortium - (Barratt 


Homes) 

North Wilts and Swindon Group 

Campaign to Protect Rural England 

(CPRE) 

Paxcroft Mead Community Forum 



Potterne Parish Council 


Purton Parish Council 

Realworld Holdings Ltd 

Redrow Home Ltd 






Steeple Ashton Parish Council 


Thames Water Property Services 


The Kennet and Avon Canal Trust 


Trowbridge Town Council 



West Ashton Parish Council 

White Lion Land LLP 


59




Wootton Bassett Town Council 

Woolley & Walis 


Individuals 

A Hackett A P SawyerA Purcell Adrian, Lucy and Sheena 

Lewis 

Alan Chilton-Bates Alastair King Alex Mair 

Alison Bucknell Alison Hicks Alison Smith 

Am Basil Howell Andy Jelly Andy Stainer 

Ann & Geraint Owen Ann Bass Ann Hawkins 

Ann Orr-Ewing Anna Kavanagh Anne Buxton 

Anwar Hussein Arthur and Marjorie Darby Ben Smith 

Beverley Brimble and Bob Philpott 

Brian Baden 

Wilkes Bob Kendrick 

Brian Jennings C Councillor Ernie Clark C.A Thomas 

Captain and Mrs Richard Carole Meling 

CGJ Hart 

and Brenda Nicholson 

Chris Roberts Cllr Mark Connolly Cllr Peter Doyle 

Colin Bowden Colin Davison Colin Roseblade 

Councillor Richard Gamble D J Vince 

D Mercer 

Mercer 

D. J. Raker D.J. Durbridge David and Diana Harris 

David Feather David Foxon David Frampton 

David Hawkins David Parris David Pope 

David Rigby David Rowlands David Stephenson 

David Trethewey David Wickham David, Pamela, Matthew 

and Jonathan Rutter 

Dawn Tiley Dean Mitchell Denis Jones 

Derek Harford Derek Pinnell Diana Thombs 

Dr Stephen Hunt Dr. Christopher Kent Dr. Geoff Poole 

Duncan Hames E H Bradley and Son E J Lister 

E Pitts E W Pearce Edward Clark 

Edward Raker Eileen Johnson Elizabeth Marsh 

Elizabeth Wilson Elsa Parris Emily Clark 

Emma Richards G and T Evason Geoff Yates 

Geoffrey Richards George Axiotis George McDonic MBE 

Georgina and Martin Gillian Minter 

Gordon Rees 

Naylor 

Graham and Freda Greg Lewis 

H.N Potts 

Franklin 

Harvey Paris Hayley Mitchell Hazel Frampton 

Henry Crook Henry Johnson Howard and Joy Morland 

60



Ian Henderson Isabel McCord Ivan Balmforth 

Ivar Baxter 

J & P Hussey & Mrs S 

Cooper 

J Fisher 

J Langley Jacqui Clark Jane and Chris Nicholson 

Janet Cassidy 

Janette and Gordon 

O'Brien 

Jean and Gordon Stanford 

Jenni Rivett Jill Crook Joan Howarth 

John and Sheila Ralph John and Sue Holcombe John Chivers 

John Cross John Hawkins John Osborne 

John Palmer John Rainbow John Sheate 

John Van Leer Jon Eskins JR Broome 

Judy Buxton Julia Goodwin Kate Hayes 

Keith Frampton Keith Thorman Ken Hughes 

Ken Ross 

Kenneth and Catherine 

Warr 

Kingston Homes 

L.J and L.I Brown Linda Westmore Louise Ranson 

Lucie Castleman Lucy Hatton Lucy Wilcox 

Lynda Trigg M and J Beadle M Cottle 

M J S Thomas M J Stefanoski M Lanfear 

Malcolm and Janet Tanner Malcolm Parrack Mark and Jill Funnell 

Mark Birkitt 

Mark Chard and 

Associates 

Martin Beale 

Martin Malaby Ltd Martyn Parrott Mary and Len Humphreys 

Mary Anderson 

Maurice Baker MF 

Freeman 

Michael West 

Mike Bowring Mike Brown Mike Rennie 

Miss A Taylor Miss Lorna Hodgson Miss Maud Lucas 

MMAT Mr & Mrs B Trim Mr & Mrs J & J Ellis 

Mr & Mrs R Slater Mr & Mrs Wiltshire Mr A Edwards 

Mr Alan Daly 

Mr and Mrs Alan & Eileen 

Needham 

Mr and Mrs B.A and G.J 

Jones 

Mr and Mrs Barrett Mr and Mrs Bent Mr and Mrs Brian and 

Roslyn Baden 

Mr and Mrs Denis Pocock Mr and Mrs E & M Mr and Mrs Hamlen 

Silvester 

Mr and Mrs Mitchell Mr and Mrs P Dickens Mr and Mrs P.J and S.J 

Hurren 

Mr and Mrs Page Mr and Mrs Parfitt Mr and Mrs Pocock 

Mr and Mrs PW and ME Mr and Mrs Ransom Mr and Mrs Robert Dudley 

Ellis 

Mr and Mrs S Alexander Mr and Mrs W G Conway Mr and Mrs W Hunt 

Mr and Mrs W Hunt Mr and Mrs Woodcock Mr and Mrs Yamina 

Havelock-Allan 

61



Mr Andrew Hatcher Mr Andrew Perrott Mr B D Mead 

Mr C Cornell Mr C Godwin Mr Charles Hanson 

Mr Christopher Gorringe Mr Colin Pearson Mr D Lees-Millais 

Mr David Dawson Mr David Sweet Mr E.A. Reynolds 

Mr Eric Jones Mr F and Mr B Tucker Mr Francis Sheppard 

Mr Frederic Nicolas Mr H Stubbs Mr Howard Chandler 

Mr Ian Bartlett Mr Ian James Mr Jack Morten 

Mr John Harmer Mr John Nutter Mr John Palmer 

Mr K J McCall Mr Kevin Peto Bostick Mr Kim Stuckey 

Mr LC and Mrs A Lee Mr M Clark Mr Mark Scott 

Mr Michael Green Mr Michael Sprules Mr Mike Chapman 

Mr N Hartnell Mr N Pratt Mr Nick Green 

Mr Noakes Mr Peter Barnett Mr Peter Brewster 

Mr Peter Gosling Mr Peter Holland Mr R Wootton 

Mr Ric Gower Mr Richard Gosnell Mr Richard Revell 

Mr Ross Gifford-Pike Mr S Lynch Mr Sam Gompels 

Mr Simon Ashworth Mr T Barnsley Mr T Molloy 

Mr Tim Hounsome Mrs Ann Piper Mrs C Spickernell 

Mrs D Rodham Mrs Durno Mrs Emily Ward 

Mrs Hazel Fitchen Mrs Helen Stuckey Mrs Hulbert 

Mrs Ivy Scott Mrs J Gosnell Mrs J Kenna 

Mrs J Mallais Mrs J Waller Mrs Jane R. Smith 

Mrs Karen Temple Mrs Kate Robinson Mrs M King 

Mrs Margaret Barrett Mrs Moss Mrs Patricia A Hunn 

Mrs Patricia Williams Mrs Philippa Morgan Mrs S.A. Godwin 

Mrs Sue Hartnell Mrs Susan Evans Mrs V Jones 

Mrs Wendy Harrison Ms Fiona Stradling Ms L Llewelyn 

Ms Liz Nash Ms Margaret Almond Ms Sarah Higgins & 

Malcolm De La Haye 

Ms Tracey Curzons MV Cottle N and MJ Phillips 

N P Parker Nancy Sawyer Natalie Glaysher 

Neil Edwards Neil Etheridge Nicola Walker 

Norman and Margaret Norman Swanney 

O Grimsdale 

Rogers 

P A Nash P Staddon Paul and Nicola Hammond 

Paul Ranson Paul Robinson Paul, Sally, Lee and 

Jemma Stratton 

Pauline and Richard 

Hanke 

Pauline Baxter 

Peter and Maxine 

Fairbairn 

Peter Brewser Peter Collins Peter Hames 

Peter Hayes Peter Hutchins Peter Little 

62



Peter Love Peter Wardle Peter Westlake 

R Candy R Williams R.C Saunders 

Rob Coles Robert Gallagher Robert Lytton 

Robert Taylor Roger Wootton Roger, Richard and Nicola 

Damery 

Ron and Sheila Sawyer Ron Pybus Rosalind Robinson 

Rosemary Walker Ross Kavenagh Ross Wheeler 

Rowena and Neil Heard Roy and Marion Hobbs Ruth Wardle 

Ruth Wardle S Clark S Payne 

S Randall S W Matthews S.A, P, E.A, and P Booy 

SA & SD Brown Sarah Phillips Sarah Richardson 

Scott Uncles Sheila and Arthur Lunn Sheila French 

Simon Main Slater Reynolds Stanley and Pat 

Thompson 

Stephen Edwards Steve Cundy Steve Davis 

Steve Stoker Susan King Thomas Clark 

Tim Wilson Tom Cunningham Tony Allen 

Trevor Cherrett Trixie Lewis V Crook 

V.E. Palmer V.P. Francis Vanda Tanner & Jonathan 

Biddy 

Vanessa Heard 

63



4.9 Chippenham: notes from exhibitions and events 

Chippenham workshop 

Strategic Objectives 

The top four objectives identified by participants were: 

to enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre 

to provide for long term economic growth 

to secure appropriate infrastructure and services 

to protect and enhance the natural environment. 

The groups discussed the objectives and some of the general issues raised 

included: 

Want appropriate and balanced growth. 

No objective specifically for employment land. 

Development will bring about community benefits. 

Planned approach better than piecemeal development, but plan needs to be 

good/appropriate. 

How do we encourage people into the town centre? 

Industry has gone from the town centres and shops are closing. 

Out of town shopping; Impact of parking. 

Encourage economic growth by growing! 

There is a need for more appropriate employment in Wiltshire i.e. Higher Value 

Jobs. 

There is a housing cost versus salary imbalance. 

Some of the issues discussed were specifically about Chippenham and the 

appropriateness of the Strategic Objectives for the town. The comments included: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objectives 2 and 3 are from the RSS and do not reflect Chippenham aims. 

Enhance the river corridor. 

Need a strategic plan to stop speculative applications. 

Transport may encourage out-commuting, particularly if there is an eastern 

distributor road. 

Lack of entertainment/leisure facilities. 

There is no incentive to shop in Chippenham and people would rather go to Bath 

and Swindon etc. 

Whole infrastructure is important to attract firms, shops etc. 

Future growth of Chippenham 

The discussions and comments focussed on the improvements that could be made to 

the urban realm of Chippenham and the need to be more innovative and in thinking 

about sustainable transport solutions. 

 

 

 

 

 

More retail, leisure and open space. 

Sympathetic river development. 

Good urban development. 

Better public realm – trees/ plants; the parks are valuable and historic areas of 

town. 

Need parking to accommodate drivers/ car travel, e.g. Parking charges – wrong 

mix of charging. 

64



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need innovative public transport solutions – taxi buses/ shuttle buses; and better 

facilities for cyclists. 

Increased employment may not solve out-commuting problem. 

Need to promote Chippenham to technical companies (Hi-Tech park). 

Renewable energy on new sites. 

Need comprehensive local facilities. 

Need to improve shop frontages and reveal historic facades. 

Need better design codes – redesign the town centre (‘vision’). 

Housing should be mixed – not segregated social housing (ghettos!). 

Housing growth must bring benefits quickly to promote vitality/ prosperity. 

Investment should not be linked to more housing. 

Town centre is poor and road-based housing has helped to promote its decline. 

Need development along A350: hotels/ leisure to encourage people into the town 

centre. 

The town centre has too many ‘lower-end’ shops. 

Creating jobs for the local community – large employers. 

Further explanation to local community about how we will encourage business/ 

employment etc. 

Further explanation of how land uses will work together to achieve objectives. 

Encouraging young people to live and work in the community. 

Appropriate training – not just highly academic training/ education. 

Could development at Lyneham help sustainable growth of Chippenham. 

Bringing the ‘feel good factor’ to the town. 

Create a social or cultural draw to the town – market the town. 

More leisure facilities, especially for younger people. 

Schools – it is difficult to attend north Chippenham schools. 

Night-time economy – too many jobs, need for more quality/ diversity. 

Social infrastructure – needed to support substantial growth. 

If needed infrastructure is too expensive, what then? Development provides 

‘critical mass’ to attract services and facilities; There is a danger that these 

services and facilities locate ‘out-of-town’. 

A limited amount of developer funding will create need to prioritise infrastructure 

and raise question; what will be available for affordable housing, social and health 

facilities? 

Don’t want large extensions without necessary infrastructure, services, facilities. 

Reduce commuting to Chippenham Railway Station. 

Need for additional train services, stations, platforms at Chippenham. 

Consider rent reduction to encourage more retail. 

The roundtable discussions also resulted in comments being made about the 

preferred options for Chippenham, highlighting issues of flooding, impact on Birds 

Marsh Wood; lack of amenities and the impact of the proposed road on the 

countryside. 

The comments included: 

No building on Birds Marsh – we do not want to be another Swindon. 

Birds Marsh as the name says is affected by water, hence should not be built on. 

2,600 houses at Birds Marsh will result in flooding in Chippenham High Street 

Where is the employment for 12,000 – 15,000 people? 

Where will all the cars go? 

20-30 more NHS dentists? 

No development on Rowden green fields. 

65



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lack of amenities for 800 houses. 

Loss of outdoor activities. 

The ring road extends to the furthest point of development impacting the 

countryside. 

Serious risk of higher water leading to increased flooding east of the 

development. 

The proposed development has been put forward because the council owns this 

land. 

If the RSS is not signed, is torn up – what about the calculated figures for 

Chippenham? 

Housing brought forward now is to satisfy the ‘baby boom’ and migrant market. 

Post 2020, this will change dramatically. 

Split option should be an option. 

The southern option is the wrong area. It should be modified. 

Concerns regarding development all in one community. 

Phasing and embed new development into Chippenham. 

Sustainability appraisal objectives 

The comments received about the Sustainability Objectives focussed on 

Chippenham and the preferred options and how they don’t comply with the SA 

objectives. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does an ASDA store on the Westinghouse site fit with this? 

Link road may not pass through Birds Marsh Wood but passes through the area 

of Birds Marsh and will spoil the peace of this area. 

Under item 5 the proposed development will increase the risk of even worse 

flooding east of Chippenham. 

More development will increase flood risk as less water will be absorbed by open 

fields. 

All this development will destroy all the wildlife in this area, will create more 

flooding downstream and will blight the enjoyment for many people that use the 

cyclepath and fields and riverside for walking and enjoying the countryside. 

This exhibition doesn’t show how these issues are going to be tackled. This 

exhibition only really tackles item 2 on the list. So we still don’t have any joined up 

thinking/ complete vision for the area. 

No.9 – just how will this protect and enhance the landscape. 

66



How do we think Wiltshire will look in 2026? 

The comments were all negative. They either highlighted issues which hadn’t been 

included such as climate change or they stated they didn’t agree with the proposed 

development for Chippenham. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The exhibition covers development and transport (and only partially) but doesn’t 

include: 

- Tackling climate change 

- Tourism 

- Protection for natural, built and historic environment 

- Security and sense of community 

- Access to local services 

- Therefore, you’re not explaining how you’re meeting most of your objectives at 

this exhibition 

Canal as leisure/ employment opportunity? Not shown anywhere. 

Don’t agree. Chippenham is becoming a commuter town, encouraging people to 

work further away not locally. Services and infrastructure seem to be an 

afterthought. 

There is no substance to these comments! The number of documents says 

nothing about research, consultation or evidence or the quality of your review of 

such documents. 

Smaller settlements with aging populations should be able to sustain their 

communities with suitably small numbers of low cost housing to retain, amongst 

other considerations, viable primary schools. 

Do not agree with proposed housing in and around Chippenham. We do not have 

the required work available. People coming to live here will be from outside and 

will not benefit the local economy – they will shop elsewhere. 

67



How do we deliver the vision for Wiltshire? 

The comments questioned the need for 44,000 new homes in Wiltshire 


I don’t believe that 44,000 new homes are needed in this area. And what is the 

status of the spatial strategy? 

The case for additional housing on green areas is not made – there are 1 million 

unoccupied houses in the country (enough to house 1.8million in need of social 

housing). This does not include second homes, single-occupant housing and 

empty office blocks. 

How did the spatial authority determine 44,000 houses are needed? 

Should? How likely is it that you can be held to account? 

Why 44,000 houses? Who says? 

The objectives to be sustainable and to prevent climate change are fundamentally 

contradictory. After half century of the environment movement since the early 

1960s, no progress has been made because it has not been possible to decouple 

economic growth from environment deterioration (and hence human well-being). 

Parts of the town centre are already in the flood plain zones. You should be 

planning to relieve the problem by building a flood holding reservoir up stream of 

the town on the Avon. This has been done successfully elsewhere in the UK. The 

Environment Agency and Wiltshire Council need to act! Before development 

prevents such a scheme being constructed. 

Other than item 3, none of the objectives are measurable as to success or failure. 

Need some figures to measure against. 

Great objectives but more manufacturing jobs are needed in this area. 

I do not agree that Wiltshire ‘needs’ 44,400 extra homes. 

The requirement for more housing is only because of our immigration policies and 

the breakdown of society. More and more people are unable to live together so 

requiring their own patch. The council should resist the Government pressure. 

68



Where are the new homes being proposed? 

The comments either disagreed with the number of new homes proposed for 

Chippenham or sought clarification over the amount of new homes proposed for 

villages and rural areas. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difficult to comment as no specific information on rural areas/villages. 

What higher order services and facilities exist in Chippenham? 

Where are the economic assessment figures to support the housing growth? How 

will they be in balance? 

What confidence can we have in this proposal, when market towns is spelt tows? 

Chippenham figures: 670 + 760 + 160 + 3650 = 5240; your total for Chippenham 

doesn’t add up. Are you saying houses permitted for ’09 is in addition to the 670 

already built for 06-09? What on earth is the 5yr windfall? Whose windfall? Not 

mine? 

I don’t agree – Chippenham is already too big. 

Development in villages sounds good. When will it start to come into being? 

What is a windfall supply? Please use English when talking to the public. 

What do we already know about Chippenham community area? 

The issues highlighted were similar in nature to other comments during the 

exhibition. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want people to stop in Chippenham, you need better car parking, reduce 

the charges, have more free parking. Devizes has several areas with free parking 

of 1 hour at a time. 

Key issue – all traffic must pass through bridge roundabout. 

Hospital & doctors surgeries, especially maternity, may not cope with extra 

demand. 

The river isn’t the only underused asset. All public spaces in Chippenham require 

better planning and maintenance. 

Why does Chippenham need more housing? (I agree!) Chippenham needs more 

employment and leisure facilities before more housing. 

We can’t afford to buy here – we live here and work in Bristol because it is a 

pleasant place to live. More housing means more out-commuting. The people 

who will move in are not currently local people. 

Over 2000 houses in option 1 would require an extensive drainage system. 

Where would all the surface water end up? Birds Marsh is an important wildlife 

habitat. “Friends of Birds Marsh”. 

What about affordable housing in rural areas? Is there a strategy for this? 

I agree with the key issues and these need to be addressed through Section 106 

agreements to provide leisure, retail and other amenities as well as schools and 


 

 

How can you encourage employment opportunities and therefore reduce outcommuting 

when the major employment site (Westing House) is up for shop/ 

housing development? 

“Theatre facilities” – the hire cost of the Town Hall and Neeld Hall are prohibitive 

and therefore they don’t get used as much as they could. Is it not better to lower 

the cost and have them occupied and generate more revenue, than to have them 

unused? 

69



How does Wiltshire 2026 expect Chippenham to change? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All villages should be allowed to grow. It is not realistic to restrict housing to main 

towns and some larger villages. You villages to meet “local needs” - what are 

local needs? 

Is Corsham being considered separately? No expansion plans mentioned here 

but major MoD works/ employment currently being developed. 

Save Britain’s natural beauty and save Birds Marsh. For many years, I’ve enjoyed 

these woods and the wide mycological advantages this site brings as perfect for 

many species. Much will be lost. 

Does this imply that the only rural areas being considered for housing are those 

listed above? 

Why is an eastern distributor road required? A southern link from Pewsham to 

A350 would be cheaper and relieve traffic at the Bridge Centre. 

As a resident of a village situated between Yatton Keynell and Houghton, what 

impact will this have on our highways? 

If Chippenham, were a university town, it would attract a higher calibre of 

employment opportunity and improve ambition in the young and give them a 

reason to stay and contribute. Too easy to leave for better opportunities. 

Preferred option and alternative options 

The overwhelming majority of the comments objected to the proposed 

development near to Birds Marsh Wood because of the impact upon the wildlife 

and natural beauty of the area. The need for and cost of a road and flooding were 

the concerns of many. There were also comments suggesting that Options 3 

(South Chippenham) and 4 (North and South Chippenham) are better options 

because the road links will be cheaper and development will avoid floodplains. 

Options 1 and 2 will increase leakage to Swindon, Bristol etc. as the external links 

better than to the town centre. 

Why does a town as small as Chippenham need 2 bypasses? Surely you are 

planning to increase carbon production. 

How will the development to the east start? The first phases must increase 

trafficking through the residential streets of Monkton Park and the town centre. 

Will a relief road ever be built? 

Where exactly are the differences between options 1 and 2? 

What about water run-off on preferred option? 

A great deal of this area is low lying. Problems of drainage and flooding potential. 

To build on Birds Marsh would be awful. Fantastic area for walking, nature etc. 

These types of places becoming fewer and fewer. 

Save Birdsmarsh! There is so much wildlife in the surrounding fields too. Foxes, 

deer, badgers and buzzards. You will be making a terrible mistake. 

No roads, no housing in fields around Birds Marsh. 

Plans are very poorly presented. 

No building on Birds Marsh. This is the only unspoilt part of Chippenham. 

Vincients Wood is now sterile. The town centre should be more like Cirencester, 

Marlborough and Corsham, not Swindon. 

Cannot understand reasoning for creating an employment area at Showells’s 

Farm when it is outside the town and on the wrong side in relation to the M4. 

Agree with the above, we can’t see names of road to see the new/ old boundaries 

and therefore can’t make an informed decision. 

70



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No to any housing at Birds Marsh. Wildlife will all go – deer, badger, birds – gone 

for good! 

Shaded areas in east are very close to river. We should keep the river as a 

wildlife corridor. 

Birds Marsh should be preserved. 

This valley is an area of outstanding natural beauty and should be kept as such!! 

All our green fields are being swallowed up. It’s a disgrace!! 

Parking in the town centre? How and where is this to be provided? 

Options 3 and 4 not optimal - land linking them to the A350 is not included South 

is best! 

Do we need to build on so much Greenfield? 

Option 3 and 4 better as road link Pewsham. A350 cheaper, offloads traffic at 

Bridge centre. 

Option 4 seems to avoid floodplains – why given the water ‘run-off’ to the river 

Marden/ Avon the ‘preferred options’ does not make sense. 

If you build it, will they actually come? 

Birds Marsh and the surrounding area is a place of outstanding beauty. Wildlife in 

abundance. What is more important than that – nothing! 

South option seems best – expand the employment options on land between 

Methuen Park roundabout and Lackham School roundabout. Then build the new 

housing to the South, meaning the workers can get to their place of work more 

readily. Maybe then construct more bypasses from Lackham to the London Road, 

giving a ‘Chippenham Ring Road’. 

Road (especially rail crossing) too expensive and not needed (dual A350 instead). 

You should show the contours on these maps. The preferred option slopes 

outwards and will be very visible to surrounding villages – ruing the countryside 

views. 

The preferred option ruins the most beautiful country and riverside (Avon and 

Mardon). Many people enjoy walking along the footpaths and old railway line. 

Why is the proposed link road so close to Tytherton Lucas. The road and 

development boundary should follow the current electric pylons. 

Why can’t a green corridor be save from Greenway lane to Birds Marsh? 

Employment now. Not an afterthought. 

If Chippenham must be a candidate for significant expansion then the preferred 

option is the one to go for. Chippenham desperately needs a NE bypass now. 

Also, a link between Avenue la Fleche and A4 Bath Road to reduce traffic 

problems at the Bridge Centre. 

No to houses behind Hardens Mead. Green fields are precious and should not be 

sacrificed to housing. 

Farmland should be kept for agriculture, wildlife and the quality of life of people 

who live in this area. 

We need our farm when fuel runs out, keep our fields and farms. 

If development as proposed is implemented then surely the pressure on local 

hospital will grow. From maternity provision to old age. 

The southern options need to be improved then compared with preferred option. 

Birds Marsh – if houses are built in the fields surrounding then the wood becomes 

sterile. E.g. Vincient’s Wood. Also, on one of the fields is a colony of rare orchids, 

probably the only one in Wiltshire. 

71



4.10 Trowbridge community area 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 6 



Supporting 3 


Objecting 3 



Supporting 96 


Objecting 62 



Supporting 5 


Objecting 1 


Total No. comments relating to Trowbridge: 244 

72




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The analysis of the Trowbridge community area is supported. 

Wiltshire is one of the most beautiful shire counties of England. It is requested 

that this rural nature is preserved. 

Investment is needed in the River Biss corridor and this presents an opportunity 

for regeneration in the town centre. 

A face lift of the older buildings in the town centre should be mentioned as a 

priority. 

The renovation and upgrading of small and medium sized business industrial 

premises in the town is very important and needs to be mentioned. 

The location of offices in the town centre should be promoted before the 

expansion of out-of-centre business parks. This would help to get professional 

people into the town centre and bring it to life at lunch time and after work. 

It is suggested that the Transforming Trowbridge initiative has been badly 

managed and has failed to deliver many of its aspirations which the town badly 

needs. 

Employment needs are not adequately addressed in the document. We need to 

build a good employment base in Trowbridge to reduce out-commuting. The 

figures given for out-commuting, at 7.000 a day are underestimates. 

New cycle routes linking to new development are needed. 

It is suggested that the commuting pattern around Trowbridge is complex and 

should not be over simplified. It is suggested that Trowbridge is a net recipient of 

commuters. It is important that a balance is struck in terms of the future role and 

growth of Trowbridge. Flexibility is needed in relation to the future of land use. 

Improvements are required to the A350 and development to the east of 

Trowbridge can help to address this issue. 

Recent changes to traffic movements into Bythesea Road from Stallard Street 

and the Railway Station have aggravated traffic congestion and should be 

reviewed as a matter of urgency. 

Concern is raised about the reliance of developer contributions to deliver road 

improvements at Yarnbrook. This may make development prohibitive. 

It appears that increasing car use is the intention of the proposal, as the 

development is seen to help facilitate delivery of road infrastructure 

improvements. A strong policy framework is needed to ensure car use does not 

increase. An objection is raised to the proposal until there is a strong policy 

framework in place to ensure car use does not increase. 

Trowbridge railway station is a key transport interchange. This facility is in urgent 

need of modernisation and transformation. New bus station facilities are also 

needed as these in Trowbridge are also presently very poor. 

It is suggested that too much employment land has been proposed associated 

with the allocated housing. What is it for? Why so much? 

Is its suggested that the strategy appears to promote delivering sustainable 

development by improving roads to bring people into the area on faster and better 

roads. 

The fast road network, roundabouts and large distributor road network all 

encourage a car borne life style and encourage both in and out-commuting. Outof-town 

development is far from sustainable and leads to the erosion of town 

centres. 

We do not agree that there are good transport links for Trowbridge. There are 

issues of getting in, out & around Trowbridge. 

The benefit of strong accessibility within Trowbridge should be seen as an 

opportunity to support and promote development in existing urban areas rather 

than simply delivering large residential development on the edge of the town. 

73



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inadequate parking on other sites has led to on street and indiscriminate parking. 

The development proposal is logical but greater recognition of environmental 

needs should be made. A new business park should be low carbon, incorporate 

an energy from waste facility and be linked to a district heating network. 

Opportunities for green corridors should be maximised. 

A strategic approach is required to ensure the most is gained from the 

development along the Biss corridor in terms of wildlife, visual amenity and green 

infrastructure. The Biss supports a fragile population of water voles and is also 

used by otters. 

Flood risk should be included as an issue. It should be demonstrated that 

development can be accommodated within FZ1 as set out in the SA. 

There are many empty Brownfield sites in Trowbridge which should be utilised 

before encroaching onto Greenfield sites. 

The need to protect wildlife habitat along the River Avon and Kennet and Avon 

Canal is highlighted. 

The role of Trowbridge as an SSCT is noted, although the town currently has a 

lack of community facilities. 

Omit that the library may be accommodated within the planned Waterside 

development. 

Formal playing pitches for cricket, football and rugby are urgently needed. 

It is not clear if there is need for an additional secondary school in Trowbridge. 

The proposed site for such a school is too small and there will be insufficient 

provision of playing fields. These will also be liable to flooding. 

The failure of the Waterside project to be delivered, which was to include a new 

library, cinema, bowling alley, hotel, leisure centre, cafes, restaurants, pubs and a 

car park is a major blow to the future regeneration of Trowbridge. 

Developer contributions are urgently needed for sustainable transport, community 

and green infrastructure provision. 

A concern is raised about the need for new infrastructure, in particular, the need 

for more schools and improved road links. 

As Trowbridge is the county town it needs upgrading and updating in every way. 

There is a desperate need for another secondary school as well as better leisure 

facilities and health care provision. 

There is a particular need for more GP surgeries in Trowbridge. 

A permanent ground for Trowbridge Town Football Club is needed. 


 

 

 

 

 

The expectations of how Trowbridge will change by 2026 are supported, and will 

enhance its status as a Strategically Significant Town in the region. 

The Environment Agency supports the principle of increasing employment as a 

means to enhance self-containment providing development does not result in an 

increase in the number of vehicular trips. Employment should be directed towards 

the most accessible locations and linked with existing and future housing 

provision. 

It is questioned if the balance between housing and employment is sufficient. It is 

suggested that people living in the new houses in Trowbridge will have to work 

outside of the town. 

An adequate cycling network, in particular providing safe access to schools, the 

town centre and railway station are needed. 

The development of the River Biss corridor is supported. This should include good 

access, recreation opportunities, tree planting and the protection of hedgerows. 

Any development should also be carbon neutral. 

74



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Environment Agency supports the use of the riverside and would like to see 

enhancements for wildlife and amenity as long as they do not compromise flood 

storage. The concept of a Country Park along the River Biss is supported. 

Trowbridge Community Areas Future supports the proposal for cycling and 

walking links to the town centre. New development should be mixed-use. 

It is suggested that the wording should be changed to demonstrate that 

environmental factors, like low carbon, and a localism agenda have been truly 

considered in putting the strategy together. 

Growth for Trowbridge is supported. However concerns are raised about the need 

for infrastructure, schools, leisure, health and roads. 

It is considered unlikely that Wiltshire College will be able to re-locate to the 

former Bowyer site. The number of allocated houses should be reviewed. 

It is suggested that Southwick should be classified as a larger village as it has all 

of the services and facilities to meet this category. 

The designation of Hilperton is unclear. 

Broughton Gifford should be classified as a small village. The range of services 

provided fall into this category. 


General 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More details are needed to assess the proposals. For example these should 

include housing density and type and a breakdown for the infrastructure provision. 

There should be preferential use of Brownfield sites and it was suggested that the 

housing numbers should be reviewed if the RSS is scrapped. 

A suggested alternative route for the Hilperton Relief Road is provided. 

The countryside and wildlife should be considered as a high priority in relation to 

any development along the West Ashton Road. 

The preferred option should include a high quality walking and cycling network, 

street networks which maximise priority to pedestrians and cyclists, provision for 

cycle storage, and smart measures to encourage car reduction. 

A detailed response is provided by the Town Council relating to infrastructure 

provision. It is suggested that traffic travelling from the west and north is not 

adequately addressed. Through town traffic needs to be subject to further detailed 

investigation. 

The Town Council remains concerned that the adopted Leisure and Recreation 

Plan identifies a shortfall of over 22,000 m2 for sports pitches and courts and that 

this is not addressed. 

The Town Council does not support retail or leisure development outside of the 

town centre unless it is for purely local needs. 

It is important that a green belt is protected between new development and West 

Ashton and Biss Wood and Green Lane Wood are also protected. 

Suitable sized schools should be provided. The one built on the Paxcroft Mead 

Estate was inadequate. 

Re Figure 3.2.2 the development at Barley Rise West Ashton has been 

constructed, not ‘already planned’. The employment land allocation at West Aston 

has consent and should be included in the preferred option. 

The poor quality of the maps produced within the plan is highlighted. This makes 

it very difficult to understand what areas are actually being proposed for 

development. 

Concerns surrounding the need for infrastructure delivery are raised. 

75



 

 

The value of local wildlife areas, including the Green Lane Wood County Wildlife 

Site, Biss Wood, Biss Meadows Country Park, Flower Wood and Woodside Wood 

is raised. A strong policy framework is needed to ensure development does not 

cause any harm to ecological assets. 

It is suggested that the amount of information available for public viewing in 

Trowbridge library was extremely limited and that the maps in the document were 

extremely difficult to read. It is suggested that if this is intended to be a public 

consultation then it is woefully inadequate. 

Supporting 

A large number of respondents wished to support the preferred location of 

strategic development in Trowbridge. 

Support is provided for the preferred option in Trowbridge. This can be brought 

forward to deliver a sustainable urban extension of housing and employment and 

include new infrastructure provision including a new secondary school. The site 

has good accessibility to employment land and is well located to deliver the 

transport infrastructure required. 

The proposal focuses development on the south east of the town. Appendix 2 

outlines compelling and logical planning reasons to concentrate development in a 

single area with adequate supporting facilities rather than dispersed development 

without such opportunities. 

Development to the east of Trowbridge can help to deliver a new secondary 

school and employment which will help to improve the self-containment of the 

town and strengthen links with sites north of Westbury. 

There was strong opposition raised to Options 4 and 5 due to the likely increase 

in through town traffic. Options 4 and 5 should not be considered until the 

Hilperton Relief Road is built. 

Options 4 and 5 would fully merge the village of Hilperton with Trowbridge 

resulting in the loss of its identity as a village. 

The southern aspect of the town has the best transport connections (A350/ A361), 

is in closest proximity to employment areas and offers potential for a new 

secondary school and improvements to A350 interchange at Yarnbrook. 

The south east option would also prevent Hilperton, North Bradley and West 

Ashton becoming part of Trowbridge and loosing their identity as villages. 

Support is given to the following statement: (Strategic Sites Background Paper, 

Trowbridge Preferred Option, Key Opportunities and Constraints, p.40): If 

development were directed to this option, significant development could be 

avoided in the smaller settlements around Trowbridge including Southwick, North 

Bradley and Hilperton. Such development is considered undesirable as it would 

lead to coalescence and the loss of the character of these villages. 

The following statement is also supported: (Strategic Sites Background Paper, 

Trowbridge Preferred Option, Key Opportunities and Constraints, p.40): Potential 

exists for additional infrastructure to be provided as part of this option. For 

example, a new secondary school located to the south east of Trowbridge would 

be well located for the proposed new development and recent development 

located to the east of the town. This would help reduce through town traffic which 

is currently a problem in Trowbridge. 

Attention is drawn to the West Wiltshire Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper 

published in December 2007. There was strong opposition to any development 

options in the vicinity of Hilperton. 

The Town Council supports the proposals which identify significant areas in and 

around Trowbridge Town Centre for mixed use regeneration. The principle of 

providing a full range of services in the Town Centre whilst resisting leisure and 

76



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

retail development in out-of-centre locations is supported, along with ensuring 

good cycling and walking routes into the Town Centre. The Core Strategy should 

link in closely with the River Biss SPD, and new Master Plan being developed for 

the Town Centre. 

The Town Council supports development within the identified preferred option and 

also for the proposed employment land allocations. 

Trowbridge Community Areas Future supports much of the preferred option. 

Regeneration of the Town Centre should be a key element of the plans for 

Trowbridge’s future. 

Agree with preferred option. This appears to make best use of existing road 

access and services. Expansion of community services in this area also 

welcomed. 

A new school to the east of Trowbridge is supported. 

New development to the south east of Trowbridge is well located to help deliver 

the road improvements Trowbridge needs. 

The location of a new secondary school, housing and employment to the south 

east of Trowbridge would help to alleviate through town traffic which is currently 

an issue. 

The development could increase the use of Westbury Station and more 

importantly freight from the extensive sidings. 

Development to the south east of Trowbridge would allow better access to 

employment opportunities. 

The existing traffic issues in Hilperton are highlighted, in particular traffic travelling 

between Bath and Melksham wishing to avoid driving through Bradford on Avon. 

Any increase in development in Hilperton would make this problem worse. 

77



Objecting 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trowbridge Community Area’s Future believes that Hilperton Gap is a much 

better site for a new secondary school. 

The preferred option is overly weighted to the site to the south east of Trowbridge 

which will not be able to deliver all the housing proposed due to flooding and 

environmental constraints. 

Potential employment on land between North Bradley and White Horse Business 

Park appears excessive and would result in the coalescence of North Bradley and 

Trowbridge. A smaller extension to the White Horse Business Park is suggested. 

Details of the site are supplied. 

Hilperton Gap should be considered as a possible location for a new secondary 

school and for new sports pitches. Concern is raised that the proposed school 

site is too small and would be constrained by flooding and existing roads. 

It is considered unnecessary to identify employment land north of North Bradley. 

The identified site to the south east of the town is the most appropriate and has 

the best transport connectivity. 

Growth directed mainly to the north and east of Trowbridge is supported. 

The main option is supported. However development of land between the White 

Horse Business Park and North Bradley would result in coalescence between 

North Bradley and Trowbridge which the plan seeks to avoid. 

The Environment Agency would prefer to see development directed towards 

previously developed land. However, it is recognised that sufficient PDL may not 

be available. Development should be mixed-use supported by appropriate 

infrastructure and services and with strong links to the Town Centre. 

Many responses were received to express concern about possible development 

to the north of North Bradley. 

The Bradley Road and Yarnbrook cross roads are currently overloaded and 

further development without a new road will considerably worsen the situation. 

A large number of responses object to the loss of the existing green fields to the 

north of West Ashton. 

The encroachment of North Bradley which is a successful village is strongly 

objected to. There are many derelict sites in Trowbridge which should be 

developed before Greenfield sites are utilised. 

Objections raised on the following grounds: 1. Destruction of the landscape and 

areas rich in wildlife. 2. Irreversible damage to the character of the villages. 3. 

Loss of quality of life, noise, traffic etc. 4. Environmental implications of further 

development. 5. Lowering of house prices. 

We have been promised on numerous occasions by village councillors that land 

between North Bradley and Trowbridge will not be used for building. 

There are a number of commercial units standing empty in Trowbridge, why 

swallow up green field creating more? 

There has been a great deal of housing development around Trowbridge in the 

past and this has led to the blurring of the boundaries between villages and the 

town. New housing estates are a rabbit warren of housing, they are not 

communities. 

Natural England have highlighted that the proposed development sites around 

Trowbridge are in proximity of important maternity roost of Bechstein Bats. There 

is risk that development would adversely affect these bats. This will need to be 

considered through the HRA process and it should be pointed out that 

development may be unacceptable according to European Law. 

It is unclear why open spaces have been mapped. This is unhelpful at this stage 

as open space needs to be given careful consideration. 

78



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The preferred option overlaps with a Strategic Nature Area and any development 

should meet the Strategic Nature Area objectives. 

It is questioned why a new senior school would be located in the south east. The 

north of Trowbridge appears to be more logical. This would serve the catchments 

of Hilperton, Starverton, Paxcroft and Seymour. 

The Hilperton Gap would also provide an ideal location for new sports facilities 

and formal pitches. 

More needs to be made of Brownfield sites. The plan has neglected to include 

many town centre sites that are currently vacant. 

Detail is provided of road infrastructure improvements needed in particular the 

problems of congestion associated with the Yarnbrook interchange. 

Flooding is raised as an issue in relation to the preferred option. 

The Westbury Industrial Estate should be expanded where there is plenty of 

scope for expansion and is near the railway station. This should be preferred to 

Trowbridge. 

Although Steeple Ashton is within the Melksham Community Area, it is more 

closely allied with Trowbridge. Development to the east of Trowbridge and north 

of Green Lane is not supported. 

I would like to keep North Bradley as a village, and not part of Trowbridge. 

A number of responses indicate that Hilperton Gap is much more suitable for 

development than those sites identified south east of Trowbridge. It is suggested 

that part of the reason for not selecting this land is the weight of opposition 

marshalled against such a proposal. Practical objections should carry more 

weight. 

Any development north of North Bradley would be in complete violation of the 

undertaking to maintain a buffer zone between the industrial park and the village. 

The existing employment park has never been fully occupied and has 

considerable vacancies. 

The current transport infrastructure is completely inadequate to cope with the 

scale of planned development. 

Larkrise Farm is a community farm and was relocated six years ago to make way 

for new housing. Now the new site will be completely encroached by further 

housing. Some open spaces around Trowbridge are necessary. It is important 

that the surrounding villages do not loose their individual character. 

Many respondents indicate that they moved to Wiltshire to live in the countryside 

not in a town. 

A response from National Grid is outlined making it clear that power lines cross 

the proposed development site south east of Trowbridge. It is the policy of 

National Grid to maintain these power lines in-situ. Further detail is provided 

regarding this matter. 

Development in land to the south of the Hilperton Relief road and Trowbridge 

should not be discounted. This would make a logical site for development. 

Trowbridge strategic site should be reconsidered in light of the PPS3 aim to focus 

on town centre development. 

The Environment Agency indicates that development proposals appear to 

encroach onto the floodplain. The sequential approach should be followed. 

79




 

 

 

 

 

 

Although Trowbridge is a key service centre, it should be seen as a significant 

part of the old West Wiltshire District ‘5 towns’ approach. This town cluster should 

provide a broad employment base. The council should promote a localism agenda 

for services, employment, energy provision and waste management across these 

five towns. 

The proposed development of Trowbridge as an SSCT and major growth point for 

Wiltshire is supported. 

Broad support for the approach was received based on the assessment of the 

role and function of the settlements. 

The Environment Agency supports the hierarchy of settlements identified within 

the spatial strategy. The identification of the three SSCTs is supported. However, 

development should be planned and managed so as to not negatively impact 

upon the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network. 

The identification of Trowbridge as an SSCT is endorsed; this is a logical 

evolution of the Structure Plan. Although there is uncertainty over the future of the 

RSS, GOSW have advised local authorities to proceed with the preparation of 

core strategies. The RSS EIP Panel acknowledges the additional capacity 

available to the East of Trowbridge. A generous amount of housing should be 

developed during the plan period. 

Although Steeple Ashton is within the Melksham Community Area, it is more 

closely allied with Trowbridge. 


 

 

 

 

Trowbridge Community Area Futures agrees with the distribution of housing 

numbers between the community areas. However, it is suggested that Trowbridge 

could have a higher allocation. 

It is questioned if the residents of Trowbridge have ever been asked if they would 

like the town to be classified as an SSCT. Trowbridge has awful transport links 

(both road and rail) and unless these can be solved it should be classified as a 

large market town. 

The inclusion of Hilperton within the Trowbridge Community Area and SSCT is 

supported. In urban planning terms Hilperton reads as part of the Trowbridge 

urban area, moreover, there are extremely close links in terms of the use of 

community facilities, employment opportunities and leisure facilities. The text 

should specifically refer to Hilperton as being located within the Community Area 

and the SSCT and therefore a suitable location for development. 

We support the emphasis on Trowbridge to grow to strengthen its service centre 

role as the County town. We are mindful that the village of Hilperton is dependant 

upon the town but it is not referred to in the consultation document as falling 

under the same policy although it is defined in figure 3.2.1 as part of the 

Strategically Significant Town area. We support the inclusion of Hilperton within 

this strategic area definition. 

80



4.17 Trowbridge respondents 

Organisations 

Ashton Park, Trowbridge Ltd Campaign 

for Better Transport 




King Sturge LLP 


National Grid 




Rail Future Severnside 










Kingfisher Church 

MoD 





Sustrans 


Trowbridge Town Council 


Individuals 

A Hackett A P Sawyer A Purcell 

Adrian, Lucy and Sheena Alan Chilton-Bates Alastair King 

Lewis 

Alex Mair Alison Hicks Amanda Wilkes 

Andrew Hungerford Andy Jelly Andy Stainer 

Ann & Geraint Owen Ann Bass Anna Kavanagh 

Arthur and Marjorie Darby Basil Howell Beverley Brimble 

Captain and Mrs Richard Carole Meling 

CGJ Hart 


Chris Roberts Colin Bowden Colin Davison 

Councillor Ernie Clark Councillor Trevor Carbin D J Vince 

D.J. Durbridge David Feather David Foxon 

David Frampton David Rigby David Stephenson 

David Trethewey Dean Mitchell Denis Jones 

Derek Harford Duncan Hames E Pitts 

Edward Clark Emily Clark Emma Richards 

Geoffrey Richards Gordon Rees Greg Lewis 

H.N Potts Hayley Mitchell Hazel Frampton 

Ivar Baxter J Fisher J Langley 

81



Jacqui Clark Janet Cassidy Janette and Gordon 

O'Brien 

Jean and Gordon Stanford Joan Howarth John and Sheila Ralph 

John and Sue Holcombe John Cross John Van Leer 

JR Broome Judy Buxton Julia Goodwin 

Kate Hayes Keith Frampton Ken Hughes 

Kenneth and Catherine L.J and L.I Brown 

Linda Westmore 

Warr 

Lucie Castleman Lucy Wilcox Lynda Trigg 

M and J Beadle M Cottle M J Stefanoski 

M Lanfear Mark and Jill Funnell Mark Birkitt 

Mary and Len Humphreys Mary Anderson Maurice Baker 

Michael West Mike Brown Mike Rennie 

Miss A Taylor Mr & Mrs R Slater Mr Alan Daly 

Mr and Mrs Alan & Eileen Mr and Mrs Barrett Mr and Mrs Denis Pocock 

Needham 

Mr and Mrs Hamlen Mr and Mrs Mitchell Mr and Mrs P Dickens 

Mr and Mrs P.J and S.J 

Hurren 

Mr and Mrs Parfitt 

Mr and Mrs PW and ME 

Ellis 

Mr and Mrs Ransom Mr and Mrs Robert Dudley Mr and Mrs W G Conway 

Mr and Mrs Woodcock Mr and Mrs Yamina Mr F and Mr B Tucker 


Mr H Stubbs Mr Jack Morten Mr K J McCall 

Mr LC and Mrs A Lee Mr Mark Scott Mr Michael Green 

Mr Noakes Mr Peter Barnett Mr R Mr Pike 

Mr Ric Gower Mr Ross Gifford-Pike Mr Tim Hounsome 

Mrs Ann Piper Mrs Hazel Fitchen Mrs Hulbert 

Mrs Ivy Scott Mrs J Kenna Mrs J Waller 

Mrs M King Mrs Moss Mrs Patricia A Hunn 

Mrs S.A. Godwin Mrs Susan Evans Mrs V Jones 

Ms Margaret Almond Ms Tracey Curzons MV Cottle 

82



Natalie Glaysher Nicola Walker Norman and Margaret 

Rogers 

Norman Swanney P Staddon Paul and Nicola Hammond 

Paul, Sally, Lee and 

Jemma Stratton 

Pauline and Richard 

HankePauline Baxter 


Fairbairn 

Peter Barnett Peter Collins Peter Hayes 

Peter Westlake Rob Coles Robert Taylor 

Ron and Sheila Sawyer Ron Pybus Ross Kavenagh 

Rowena and Neil Heard S Brown S Randall 

SA & SD Brown Sarah Richardson Scott Uncles 

Sheila and Arthur Lunn Sheila French Stanley and Pat 

Thompson 


Susan King Terrie Hanson Thomas Clark 

Tim Wilson Tony Allen Trixie Lewis 

Vanessa Heard 

Wendy Harrison 

83



4.18 Trowbridge: notes from exhibitions and events 

Trowbridge exhibition 

16 November, 2009 

Poster three – How do we think Wiltshire will look in 2026? 

Agree with the above approach! Trowbridge needs to be promoted for tourism – 

we have a huge amount to offer, e.g. historic built environment. 

Trowbridge Area Tourism Partnership. 

Rail halt at White Horse Business Park. Agree approach. More rail, less road use! 

Contribution to tackling climate change? Wind turbines on White Horse! 

Poster four – How do we deliver the vision for Wiltshire? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural strategy needed – enhancing the provision – like a new library! Put WC 

funding into improving such provision, in an accessible location – Town Hall? 

Make public services accessible by public transport, i.e. Trowbridge library in the 

town hall. Agree! Agree. 

Promote the use of rail (as) a preferred means of transport within West Wiltshire. 

Agree! Agree. 

Need to see a specific reference to affordable housing. 

Priorities: should place 2 at the top, 1 at the bottom. I need longer to work out 

other sequence – otherwise I agree. 

1. Affordable housing need. 2. Creative and sustainable transport solutions 

needed – especially for the young, old and disadvantaged. 

A need to have a much greater commitment to affordable housing. 

Attract better quality shops – we have already lost M&S, we need big brand 

names, to raise the profile of the town. 

Wiltshire Council support to raise the profile of the County Town – not 

undermining it! 

Poster five – Where are new homes being proposed? 

 

 

 

Housing needed to support development of facilities. Agreed! 

Yes – keep up proportion of affordable housing. 

Houses should not be seen as dormitories – i.e. the inhabitants should live and 

work and relax in their towns, not just sleep there. 

Poster seven – What do we already know about Trowbridge 

community area? 

 

 

Complete inner relief road – joining Bradford Road to Canal Road area. 

Delighted that out-commuting is now seen as an issue. We need a broader range 

of employment opportunities. 

84



Poster eight – How does Wiltshire 2026 expect Trowbridge to change? 

 

 

Industrial/ commercial development close to trunk route – A350, not on the least 

accessible site(s) of town. 

Vital to move College to the Bowyers site. We need more housing to support 

better facilities. 

Poster nine – How were development options assessed? 

 

 

Involve Wiltshire PCT in negotiations on GP surgeries (site identified on Paxcroft 

Mead). Trowbridge surgeries at bursting point. 

Health care planning for new hospital in West Wilts. R.U.H. is at capacity. 

Poster eleven – The initial options comprised: 

 

 

 

Neither Hilperton Gap nor Hilperton Marsh should be developed. Therefore, 

neither option 4 nor option 5 is suitable. 

Community facilities needed! e.g. cinema, especially if more houses built. 

Secondary school in Hilperton Gap – keep it largely green. Stop cross-town 

commuting. 

Poster twelve – The preferred option 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complete inner relief road. Islington to the Halve and Bradford Road to Riverside. 

Transport: the emphasis should be on constraint by reducing parking in new 

development, with road construction on the lines of what other SSCTs are doing, 

i.e. prioritisation of public transport. s106 money should not be for A350!!! 

West Ashton Road needs widening before any more development. 

There appears to be a lack of importance given to field sports in the community. 

Where can investment in playing fields be made? 

More road capacity breeds more cars. This is an important consideration. 

I support the preferred option. Economic development land currently on West 

Ashton Road should be located further out. 

Lack of drop kerbs around Trowbridge, or access routes around the town. 

Wiltshire County Council should award bus contracts that are DDA compliant 

Mainly because the existing Yarnbrook and West Ashton roundabout and cross. 

roads cannot cope with the current large amount of traffic (particularly during rush 

hours). I think any further development of White Horse Business Park and any 

further housing along West Ashton Road up to West Ashton cross roads would be 

a disaster!! Please do not allow any further development around Trowbridge 

because it would “eat up” the very precious buffer zones between Trowbridge and 

the surrounding villages. Also the existing infrastructure cannot cope and there 

are not enough amenities in Trowbridge and surrounding area to cope with any 

more people coming into the area. 

85



Sustainability objectives 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We need to consult early with Wildlife Trust, i.e. before deciding on specific 

options. Don’t assume that mitigation is always possible. 

Social inclusion – improve library provision! 

Get Trowbridge College into the Bowyers site – this will reduce cars, increase rail 

usage, promote town centre businesses and free up a big site for development 

15 is the highest priority, with 16 and 17 a close second. 

GP surgeries: currently Trowbridge surgeries at bursting point. Need GP surgery 

on Paxcroft Mead (land identified already). 

No 16 – is vital in achieving many of the other objectives. No 17 also very 

important. 

No 12. A key priority – which covers many others, e.g. affordable housing – 

sustainable transport options. Agree! 

Random 

 

 

 

 

All bus contacts should be low floor on Trowbridge Town Services and access to 

Melksham/ Chippenham/ Frome. 

A new secondary school is needed on the east side of Trowbridge. 

Make sure there are dropped kerbs on new housing areas – wheelchair/ mobility, 

scooter access. 

Make River Biss more inviting – have a decent path alongside, with shops and 

‘café culture’. Wind turbines up on the hills. Keep Hilperton Hap and Southwick 

Country Park. 

Local transport plan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Workers parking on streets near town centre an issue – e.g. Bellefield Crescent. 

Transport – interchange needed at Trowbridge Station. 

Make Newtown one-way and part of a system incorporating Newton, Bythesea 

Road, Stallard Street and County Way to end congestion on Trinity Church 

roundabout. 

Potential increase in rail network capacity for Trowbridge. In fact, more 

sustainable than car. 

More train services Salisbury to Trowbridge and Frome, to Swindon via 

Melksham. 

Support Greater Bristol metro services. Improvement required and investment in 

the Warminster/ Frome/ Bristol rail service. 

Improve/ widen West Ashton road connecting A350 and Trowbridge. 

Build access road through Hilperton Gap, relieving heavy transport through the 

town. 

Support the Cardiff/ Bristol to Portsmouth line as a priority public transport link in 

Wiltshire. Fight for enough trains and carriages on trains. Agree! 

Need an urgent solution to the West Ashton Road/ Yarnbrook traffic problem 

Need creative and sustainable transport solutions – particularly for young, old and 

disadvantaged. 

School on Hilperton Gap – rationalise school travel – biggest congestion problem. 

Need for a bus station near Station and shops (Stallard Street). Senior school 

needed to replace John O Gaunt (Victorian buildings, pupils get wet moving from 

one area to another raining). 

Sports areas very much needed including such sports as table tennis. 

Ensure adequate parking close to the station. 

86



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary school on east side of Trowbridge. 

RUH – accessibility: West Wilts town to RUH. Difficult now – if more growth in 

West Wilts, how can this demand be managed best? E.g. take the pressure off 

RUH. PCT co-ordination. Don’t forget the RNHRD in Bath as well. 

Bus lanes required in Trowbridge and bus station required in town. 

Lack progress on accessibility – accessibility on/off bus. Rail station. Cross 

boundary issues – BANES, e.g. where contracts specify low floor. Chippenham – 

Melksham – now, non accessible. Why? 233 – Chippenham/ Bath – now, nonaccessible 

why? Contracts to Bodlin and others who are not PDA compliant. 

Trowbridge needs urban regeneration before more development is made in 

Hilperton or Staverton. 

How does WC decide to spend £ on transport subsidy? Should more be spent on 

rail supported services? Enhance Trans Wilts (Swindon, Trowbridge, 

Chippenham). 

New station for commuters. White Horse Business Park. 

Need for traffic calming on West Ashton Road. Also need 30mph limit extended 

and gateway treatment used. 

Park and ride needed – with bus services into the centre. Week day and week 

end! 

New traffic system at junction of Bythesea Road and Stallard Street- not working 

– huge queues for cars and pedestrians do not use the traffic lights crossing! 

Signage on cycle routes – Paxcroft Mead – joined up with Biss Meadows paths 

can’t follow route – not shown! 

No more housing estates build of “distributor road and cul de sac model” s106 

agreements for: - new station, buses, innovative urban design, less car parking! 

Push for additional carriages to be added to existing trains – thus making system 

more responsive to need and sensible timetable. 

Bus services should be enhanced to remove some commuter traffic - from A350/ 

A36. What about re-instating Staverton Holt for Marina/ New Terrace housing 

development. Not that there is much of a service. 

 

Cycle routes provide good access for wheelchairs/ mobility scooters, e.g. 

Hilperton Road (Fairfields) to Budgens and through to Green Lane. Include new 

routes by new housing areas. 

Trowbridge workshop 2 December 2009 

Discussion one: objectives 

Objectives Group 1 Group 2 Total 

1. To address climate change 0 0 0 

2. To provide for long term economic growth 6 3 9 

3. To meet Wiltshire’s housing needs 4 2 6 

4. To secure appropriate infrastructure and services 7 6 13 

5. To enhance the vitality and viability of town centres 3 3 6 

6. To encourage safe accessible places 0 0 0 

7. To promote sustainable forms of transport 1 4 5 

8. To protect and enhance the natural environment 3 6 9 

9. To safeguard and promote a high quality environment 0 0 0 

10. To minimise the risk of flooding 0 5 5 

87




The top three objectives identified by participants were: 

infrastructure 

natural environment 

flooding 


included: 

Housing 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is proposed % of affordable housing? 20-30% - questioned if this will be 

delivered. 

Will local housing associations be involved? 

300 houses a year is less than Trowbridge has seen in recent years. 

Try getting lower density housing through planning system. 

Most professionals, who work in Trowbridge, live in surrounding villages, not in 

Trowbridge. 

The main need in the villages if for new property for young people starting out. 

There are too many large executive houses at present. 

All social housing in North Bradley has been sold off privately. 

Range of locations – design housing and employment together – is it possible to 

put them on one single site? 

More housing increases out-commuting. 

Density – all built development should be high density. 

Town centre 

 

 

 

 

 

There is reported to be a contamination issue at the Bowyers Site. 

There is a need for town centre regeneration sites. Particular needs for a cinema 

and bowling alley. 

Trowbridge town centre doesn’t have the same vitality as other town centres. 

Waterside – the council needs to find a developer. 

Bowyers – the council should decide what should be done with the site. 

Economic growth 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need housing and employment in mixed development. 

Melksham has taken all the business development in recent years. It is no good 

identifying a piece of land without employees interested in the sites. 

The authority should provide money for the development of infrastructure and 

then claim the money back from developers. 

The priority should be for delivering employment, not attacking new businesses. 

It is considered that more land has been put aside for development than is 

needed. 

Do you want heavy vehicles travelling through the area? 

Should allow for a wide diversity of uses and employers and employees, such as 

manufacturing. 

Semi-skilled workforce is going – need a greater skills mix, wide range of 

employment opportunities. Need to bring back what has previously been lost. 

Skilled people go out of the area to work. Bath/ Bristol/ Swindon are readily 

accessible. 

88



 

 

 

 

 

What kind of industrial units? There is a need for small high-tech communications 

and transport infrastructure – high quality accommodation. 

Do people want to up skill in a recession? Yes, more so. 

Marketing opportunity – villages will be affected – North Bradley/ Yarnbrook, not 

one of the villages has been mentioned. 

Economic/ business units will attract different people and will dictate what type of 

housing is required. 

Employers in Bath are looking to relocate to surrounding areas. 

Infrastructure 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lack of information on plans; where are roads? 

How are the numbers of dwellings identified? Concerned that we will only require 

infrastructure if housing is also delivered. 

Phase development to deliver infrastructure at right time. 

Protecting spaces for informal recreation. 

Opportunities for easy access to countryside ‘Green Infrastructure’. 

Traffic bottle neck at Yarnbrook. There is a need for a joined up plan to deliver 

(infrastructure) road improvements; some parts good, others bad. 

What infrastructure is required? 

Theatre – cultural complex. 

New retail development parking should be under building/ or above buildings. 

Allow for better landscaping rather than tarmac. 

Greener urban environment. 

Car parking spaces – this is important for new developments. 

Better access to facilities in Trowbridge for population and villages. 

On site GP/ shops. 

Off site highway improvements required – concerned that development can’t pay 

for what is required. 

Suggestion for a secondary school to be located in Hilperton Gap. This would 

preserve its openness in perpetuity. 

Recreation land? For use as sport facility; replacement for cricket pitch lost to the 

health centre. 

Can better use be made of schools recreation facilities? Make provision for 

community uses. 

There is a need for playing pitches – Astroturf used by variety of people. 

Stricter phasing of development to ensure infrastructure there at the right time. 

What improvements could justify improvements to the Yarnbrook/ West Ashton 

cross roads? 

Put a cinema in Trowbridge – it is the county town. 

Need for additional water supplies/ drainage – the developer should pay for this. 

89



Education 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can we configure education in Trowbridge in a sensible and constructive way 

– it needs to be coherent? 

We need different sites for secondary education that specialise in specific areas. 

How does the preferred option fit into this scenario? 

40% of pupils at Trowbridge schools come from surrounding villages. 

14-16 curriculum cannot be delivered together necessarily. 

For education purposes – Hilperton Gap – needs to be set aside for education. 

Better cycling facilities for older students to get themselves to school. 

How can children get to schools in a sustainable way? 

Transport 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three issues: 

- Congestion. 

- Access to town centres – from other areas. 

- Public transport – link villages into Trowbridge. 

Improvements needed at West Ashton/ Yarnbrook. 

Should consider the possibility of a new railway station as part of new 

development. 

Leisure/ recreation facilities – need for a new library! 

Road link – reinstate the relief road. 

Can the development in Trowbridge help the issues in Bradford on Avon? 

We need to join up gaps that exist in footpath routes and networks. 

New development will increase traffic. 

Who will fund highway improvements at Yarnbrook & West Ashton – public 

funding is not going to happen. 

The council needs to prepare an infrastructure plan – what’s required, how to fund 

it (tariff approach). 

There is a need for demand traffic management in SSCTs. 

Car parking charges needed to raise revenue to support better public transport. 

Developers are more concerned with journey time reliability on key routes. 

Cycling – climate change/ reduce congestion. 

Concern about reduced parking in new housing schemes. 

Need better public transport. 

Protecting the natural environment 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We should protect the natural environment, but not to the detriment of people. 

Biss Wood, Green Lane – these are important and are protected already. We 

should open them up for more public access. 

Southwick County Park – link into other green areas. 

Development often provides flood plain areas in the form of green space. 

In future s106 agreement should make provision for green space. 

Next to development footpaths will disappear – we will loose the green spaces. 

Future growth of Trowbridge 

Discussion points and comments included: 

Little or no account of the need for buffers between Trowbridge and outlying 

villages. 

Possible loss of village identity. 

90



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why adding more housing into Trowbridge? How have other towns been 

considered? 

Concern that the proposal is for Greenfield development, but new homes could be 

provided on brownfield sites. 

Advantages for village communities: 

- Close to towns, e.g. West Ashton ‘can’t walk into Trowbridge’ 

- Net distance-safety element 

- Reliant on car – no public transport 

Proposed urban extension 

- If employment site comes forward, there needs to be appropriate rural buffers/ - 

landscaping between village and built-up ‘employment’ site 

- North Bradley – key areas of concern are certain employment areas and traffic 

generation. 

The development near North Bradley & Yarnbrook and Biss Wood are of concern. 

Concern regarding the integrity of Biss Wood and the need for a buffer between 

proposed housing and the Wood. 

Development should avoid the flood plain. 

Don’t want proposed preferred option to cause additional impact on Yarnbrook 

road network. 

There is a need for more information to provide clarity on what road network is 

proposed for the preferred option. 

Villages are vulnerable – other people are making decisions for them. 

Participants 

Bob Brice (Trowbridge Town Council) 

Doug Ross (TCAF Partnership) 

Francis Morland (Wiltshire Council) 

I, Roijendou ( West Ashton Parish 

Council) 

Lee Lee (North Bradley Parish Council) 

Margaret Howard (Trowbridge Civic 

Society) 

Peter Fuller (Wiltshire Council) 

Robert Evans 

Colin Kay (Clarendon College) 

Ernie Clark (Hilperton Parish Council) 

Geoffrey Watkins (West Ashton Parish 


Jan Williams (North Bradley Parish 


Len Turner (Mid-Wiltshire Economic 

Partnership) 

Margaret Workman (West Ashton Parish 


Richard Covington (West Ashton Parish 


Sam Gilling (West Wilts Club) 

91



4.19 Wootton Bassett and Cricklade community area 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 7 



Supporting 3 


Objecting 8 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 11 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 0 


Trowbridge 0 

Total number of comments relating to Wootton Bassett: 82 

92



Issues and opportunities: comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exacerbating the dormitory function of Wootton Bassett will do little to improve the 

self-containment of the town. 

Reliance on Swindon to provide employment and other services has created this 

dormitory role. 

Affordable housing is needed now and should be provided for local people. 

Limiting the level of growth in Wootton Bassett and across the Community Area 

will do little to provide much needed affordable housing. 

There is no clear definition provide for ‘Affordable Housing.’ 

Employment opportunities should be provided throughout the Community Area. 

There should be greater opportunity for people to live and work in Wootton 

Bassett. 

Support for improvements at J16 of M4 priory to any additional traffic is put on to 

the network. 

Concern that planners forget that people commute through Wootton Bassett to 

get to the south of Wiltshire and this is a problem that should be addressed. 

Consider a by-pass? 

Redevelopment at Lyneham will exacerbate congestion and traffic volume 

through Wootton Bassett. 

Employment development at Interface will rule-out future prospects for a Wootton 

Bassett by-pass. 

The lack of real alternative transport options should be addressed. 

Improved cycle routes to connect the Community Area with itself and Swindon. 

The Core Strategy gives too much support for expansion into Wiltshire. 

It is not Wiltshire’s responsibility to take growth to increase the self-containment of 

Swindon. 

The council should stop stating that it is worried about coalescence when it 

supports a major expansion of the West of Swindon. It is a contradiction. 

Cricklade has more in common with settlements to the north than it does with 

Wootton Bassett. 

There is no clear reason why Wootton Bassett and Cricklade are in the same 

Community Area. 

The Community Area is more than just the large settlements; the Core Strategy 

neglects the aspirations of small villages. 

All villages have capacity to accommodate modest levels of growth. This should 

be addressed. 

There is no analysis of rural employment opportunities. 

Communities should be at the centre of development. 

There is no tourism policy. 

There is no reference as to what the “wider range” of facilities are planned or 

needed. 

The council should look at successful places and use what works to inform policy. 

93



4.21 Change and delivery: Comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safe walking and cycling links between WB, LM, Purton, Cricklade and Swindon 

to be delivered through the Core Strategy. 

Loss of employment sites in Cricklade has constrained the town. 

The community area is more than just WB and all additional growth to provide for 

local needs should be subject to a published Sustainability test. 

The council should give local communities the opportunity to deliver what they 

want for their future. 

J16 is operating at a saturated level in both peak periods, at times, outside of the 

peaks. (HA) 

Concern over the level of trips generated by additional employment on the SRN 

(HA). 

HA to be involved in discussions at the earliest opportunity, there is currently no 

robust evidence base to test the impact on the SRN. 

Wootton Bassett Station may be able to help with the congestion issues. 

In order to allow people to live and work in the same place, appropriate 

employment to match skills base should be planned for rather than just any type 

of employment. 

There will only be a benefit if housing can supply local needs only. 

No published sustainability test of the development options at WB. 

No sustainability test of the west of Swindon and appears to already been 

accepted. 

What about Swindon’s plans to change the boundary? 

The reference to modest levels of growth in smaller settlements does not give 

certainty and will result in unplanned windfall development. 

Housing development across the settlements within the CA is likely to be 

insufficient to meet AH. 

Development needs to be closely integrated with the rest of Swindon without 

leading to coalescence. 

There is no reference to employment in this proposed development and the CS 

makes no justification for this in relation to the RSS employment provision in the 

TTWA. The suspicion is that employment provision is intended to bolster the 

sustainability/self-containment of the Pry. 

Reference to employment at the west of Swindon is at odds with the Borough 

Council’s Workspace Strategy. Any employment that is not at an appropriate 

scale to serve the urban extension will be at odds with the Swindon Core 

Strategy, unless it refers to non-B Class, which it does not explicitly say. 

Elderly care provision of additional parking (Cricklade). 

Current parking provision is inadequate (Cricklade) especially for tourists who visit 

Cricklade. 

Few opportunities for new builds within the FB of Cricklade – this should be 

revised and expanded after consultation with local residents. 

Any new development in Cricklade should be linked to open space provision. 

Clear industrial zone should be established at Chelworth (Cricklade) land adjacent 

to the A419 should also be considered. 

Lack of vision given to Purton, creating a vision gap that can lead to uncertainty in 

land use planning and potentially, mismatched levels of development. 

94




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an opportunity to deliver/enhance green corridors as part of the 

development as well as creating greater opportunity for the Cricklade Country 

Way. 

The Preferred Option must include adequate cycle and pedestrian linkages. 

Inconsistencies in dwelling numbers between the Consultation document and 

Background Paper, there has been no definitive assessment of site yield. 

Without comprehensive assessment of yield WC should not divide the spread of 

the 2,800 dwellings. 

Reference to a single urban extension is mistaken and not a true reflection of 

reality, as the phasing and delivery of Ridgeway Farm, Moredon Bridge and The 

Pry will be in three distinct phases. 

Three very distinct parts to the Preferred Option; and the reality is that features 

and constraints that exist represent major constraints to the Preferred Option to 

achieve comprehensive integration. 

Ridgeway Farm is a sustainable development in its own - does not rely on The 

Pry to be delivered. Ridgeway Farm can deliver sites in the short-term without 

prejudice to other LDF documents. 

There is no five year land supply in the West of Swindon, indicating that 

development is needed now. 

The delivery schedule outlined in the WoS Background Paper is wholly 

unrealistic. 

The PO should say “The Preferred Option Provides opportunity to deliver up to 

2,800 dwellings. 

Reference to a single urban extensions leads to the conclusion that the 

constraints and obstacles to development specific to The Pry apply to RF which is 

not the case. 

The economies of scale argument is flawed as RF will look to Swindon and will 

have its own primary school, leading to questions regarding the need for 2,000 

dwellings at The Pry. 

Recognising the deliverability problems with The Pry should bring forward small 

developments in single ownership and in sustainable locations on the western 

edge to help meet the housing shortfall. 

Collins Lane is one of only two country lanes left out of Purton which is safe for 

pedestrian and cycle use route through to Swindon. Development at the Pry 

would destroy this route. 

Development of this size would represent a new large village or small dormitory 

town. 

Further SA work on the PO should be done, premature to determine Preferred 

Option prior to this. 

What evidence exists to demonstrate that the housing is needed. 

Development should have the required critical mass to support its own range of 

social and community facilities and provide sustainable transport links and 

promote healthy lifestyles. 

There needs to be agreement between the PCTs about who will take the lead to 

ensure that there will be an adequate provision for health care. 

Further information should be provided on developer contributions to 


Continued reference to sustainable development for the west of Swindon is 

unhelpful as it is unfounded and bears no relation to reality. 

95



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Self-containment will not come from reliance on yet peripheral dormitories, the 

lack of infrastructure to support 3,000 homes renders the whole area 

inappropriate. 

The 3,000 dwellings should be redirected into Swindon. 

Provisions for the elderly or young people have not been effectively included in 

the consultation. 

What about using RAF Lyneham? 

A proper explanation of the reasons behind the need to provide development 

should be explained. 

How can the council pursue this agenda when the adoption of the RSS is still far 

from certain? 

The costs of mitigation measures on the Pry will lead to reduced contributions. 

Full strategic flood risk considering the impact on the wider area must be 

undertaken. 

PSD HSE Zones need clarification and the significance of the PSD should not be 

underplayed. 

Must consider the impact of the PSD on potential developers, homebuyers. 

Pipelines could sterilise land and reduce the amount of land available for 

development. 

The council has not provided sufficient reassurance in respect of pipelines. 

Issues regarding Network Rail requirements have been underplayed. 

The West of Swindon Background Paper deals with some issues but does not 

adequately address the traffic congestion that will be caused be the development 

of the Preferred Option. 

The traffic concerns seem to focus on the impact on Swindon and not the 

settlements in Wiltshire. 

Any impact must consider the cumulative impact of all development in this area, 

e.g. Tadpole Farm. 

It should be a requirement that infrastructure should be in place before completion 

of development. 

Green Infrastructure links/routes should be protected in the CS. 

activities for children and young people outside of education such as play areas, 

activities centres, youth clubs and youth activities etc get little mention. 

The closure of Lyneham in 2012 will provide a 550-hectare Brownfield site that 

could more than meet the housing needs and reduce the need to build on 

Greenfield sites, such as Pry Farm. We believe that more importance should be 

given to this. 

Junction 16 of the M4 will be used by all options including option 1. It is therefore 

unfair to prefer option 1 over the others based on the capacity at junction 16. 

Seperate urban extensions could easily be made to work if essential infrastructure 

is correctly planned. 

Who’s going to occupy the homes - there are empty homes north and south of 

Swindon? 

Concern that the position of the Purton PSD has been under-played and that the 

HSE Zones are insufficient and that the paper has not considered how the PSD 

affects the viability of development and thereby reducing the delivery of housing in 

this area. 

Although oil pipelines have been mentioned – no detail about how this affects 

development and what this means for delivery. The Wayleave could sterilise 

land. 

The location of infrastructure such as schools has not been identified. 

Concern over the linkages between RF and PF. 

Travel to and from new schools will need to be addressed. 

96



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The council has underestimated the length of time it takes to negotiate with 

network rail and what this could mean for the delivery of housing. 

Full transport assessment should be undertaken on all options. 

The council should not assume that this land will be taken up by developers and 

as a result it should considered alternatives. 

All development options should be tested against PPS3. 

Technical evidence on the PO is weak and unproven. 

High landscape value. 

Parking provision for development. 

Will this development fund extension to GW Hospital. 

New town as an alternative. 

The EA flood map is wrong and planners should listen to the experiences of local 

people. 

Flooding should consider the impact outside the development area including 

Purton and Cricklade. 

The site is too removed from Purton - will fragment the village, road link is 

inadequate. 

The divorced nature of the PO (esp. the Pry) will not lead to greater selfcontainment. 

Wiltshire shouldn’t be planning to meet a shortfall in Swindon’s housing delivery. 

Infrastructure planning must consider Swindon Core Strategy Policy SSP9 and 

the SBC proposed-submission document. The need for coordinated planning 

should be identified. 

Alternative option to spread development has been too easily dismissed. 

Will the council review this approach if household projections are downgraded? 

This will remove the rural setting for the Cricklade Country Railway which should 

be retained as a green belt barrier. The closeness of the Canal to the road (The 

Pry) means that it will not be possible to bridge the canal to the west. Any 

crossing of the railway, to the east must be by bridge. 

An area of land north of Morden Bridge and east of the Gloucester Line has been 

designated as a site for a new railway station by network rail, supported by SBC, 

which will interlink with the Swindon and Cricklade Railway. The sustainable 

transport opportunities should be considered. 

Wiltshire Council should like further afield to areas such as Purton, Wootton 

Bassett and Wroughton lack of public awareness of direct consultation with 

people affected by the development. 

Swindon will have to absorb all the costs for associated infrastructure. 

Are RF and PF really one single urban extension? 

The projected delivery of the Pry is completely unrealistic. 

There is nothing to say that a larger urban extension is more sustainable than 

smaller one, which can make the best use of a very extensive community and 

other infrastructure. 

In order for the Pry to be sustainable, employment provision is required. 

Swindon’s employment is proposed in the centre, tadpole farm, EDA and 

Commonhead. No mention of the West of Swindon. 

97



4.23 General comments about Wootton Bassett 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PO has been refused twice in the past, council needs to explain why this is 

now a good option. 

The PO will exacerbate the lop-sided nature of WB. 

PO is marshland and area of outstanding natural beauty. 

Access issues and congestions concerns raising safety issues. 

The cul-de-sac should be opened to serve this development. 

Before any PO are identified there should be a clear strategy for dealing with the 

closure of RAF Lyneham. The infrastructure already exists to support these 

houses. 

Amenity value of PO. 

WB has enough housing in the pipeline. 

Why is more development planned during an economic downturn? 

Not convinced that another country park is necessary if it means building at the 

PO. 

Housing should not be linked to employment during an economic downturn. 

Strategic sites in WB should be accommodated on a number of smaller sites. 

PO will result in high density development out of character with the rest of the 

town. 

There does not appear to be any consideration of planning history of the site. 

Identifying the PO before the Brynards Hill inquiry was disingenuous. 

Affordable housing can be providing on alternative sites. 

The proposed country park will simply end up being a place for under-age 

drinking. 

It is agreed that housing should be limited to reduce the dormitory function of WB. 

Dismissal of Rylands Way as an alternative because of S106 is not a sufficient 

reason as most major sites have S106 agreements. Rylands Way should 

become the strategic site. 

The Background Paper fails to mention that planning applications on Brynard’s 

Hill have been refused in the past – a deliberate omission? 

What about the Inspector’s comments? The WB PO is undemocratic. 

What about the strategic pipeline which runs through the site? 

The PO is on the fringes of the town rather than being ‘well-connected.’ 

An important hill top open space. 

In respect of phasing it is inappropriate to allocate 150 homes for WB, better to 

allocate or reserve a location should it be found on review during the plan period. 

Brynard’s Hill has always been protected for its important landscape and amenity 

value. 

The PO will be the start of more and more development at Brynard’s Hill. 

If development does go ahead the council should insist on pedestrian crossings. 

This must be considered with development in Swindon to determine cumulative 

impacts. 

The Wilts & Berks canal has identified sites adjacent to the canal. 

A lop-sided extension to WB. 

Development should be at the NW of WB making the High Street a more central 

location. 

Partially increasing self-containment should not be used as an argument for 

development. 

The PO was not allocated in the Local Plan and there have been 168 homes 

approved which are in addition to the LP allocation. These 168 should be 

considered as the strategic site option. 

98



 

 

 

 

 

The focus is all about Wootton Bassett, where is the detailed assessment of 

Cricklade? 

Insufficient consultation on the merits/constraints of alternative options. 

The Core Strategy should identify supply for years 6-15 in accordance with para 

55 of PPS3. Subject to the circumstances of individual market towns, strategic 

sites may be as little as 75 dwellings. 

Incineration plans at Slough will increase volume of hgv (B3102 and motorway), 

to detriment of WB. 

A by-pass is needed. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lydiard Millicent should not be disregarded as a location for potential future 

development and should be categorises as a minimum as a small village. 

Support for the principle of directing growth at the SSCTs and Market Towns but it 

should not be applied rigidly as suggested in terms of large and small villages. 

Concern that small villages are only likely to receive ‘infill’ development. 

There needs to be a better definition of what is classified as ‘infill’. 

The reference to ‘infill’ should be replaced with ‘small scale development’ to give 

some flexibility to development in small villages. 

The categorisation of small villages uses a very basic indicator and is not effective 

in determining the sustainability of a settlement. It fails to consider connectivity 

and available employment and proximity to services. As a result the conclusions 

are not accurate. 

Lydiard Millicent should be elevated to at least Small, if not Large Village status. 

Not all Category C Settlements are the same and this should be recognised to 

allow a more informed split of housing allocations. 

Purton is a large sustainable settlement - appropriate scale of development 

should be clearly indicated. 

The Settlement is so broad that it fails to recognise the range of services and 

facilities present in Purton. 

It simply does not follow that housing will exacerbate the dormitory function of 

settlements. 

Swindon exerts a strong influence on parts of the former north Wiltshire district 

and this must be planned for in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. 

In order to deliver the level of development plan for at the West of Swindon 

planners must consider the importance of small scale development sites in 

sustainable locations. 

None of the development planned appears to be sustainable. 

Development at the West of Swindon threatens important green space between 

Swindon and neighbouring small communities of Cricklade, Purton, The Lydiard’s 

and Wootton Bassett. 

There is no legal basis for this regional housing requirement and it is quite wrong 

that Wiltshire Council should be considering development in such circumstances. 

The numbers defined for all communities area need refining in light of the 

limitations of growth at Corsham and Wootton Bassett. 

The focus on Wootton Bassett is misguided does not acknowledge constraints 

and comes from a failure to understand the potential at Malmesbury. 

How can Wootton Bassett take more growth than Malmesbury when we need to 

limit growth at WB. 

The distribution of growth between main towns and smaller towns and rural areas 

is unevenly balanced and should allow for more growth outside of the larger 

settlements, reflecting the rural nature County. 

99



 

There needs to be a detailed discussion about what happens at RAF Lyneham 

before a settlement hierarchy can be finalised. 


We are totally opposed to the increased development proposed for the rural areas 

to the west of Swindon. 

The projections should be amended appropriately to the east of Swindon, where 

is already located major employment and rail freight, being closer to the centre of 

Swindon, and fewer problems with flood plains. 

Our clients support increasing Wootton Bassett’s employment base but consider 

that the proposed level of housing growth in insufficient to support the strategic 

objectives. 

We have major concerns relating to the number of houses proposed for the area 

to the West of Swindon at Pry Farm and Tadpole Farm. 

Coalescence with Cricklade and Purton is an increasing threat in an area already 

prone to flooding. 

Cricklade Town Council feel that Wiltshire Council should be doing more to 

protect the area from this increase and not accepting that it is inevitable. 

The RSS is looking again at the number of houses required and this needs to also 

be reflected in the distribution between community areas. 

The infrastructure currently in place will not support development of this size and 

needs to be in place before development can take place. 

I write in general terms to object strongly to very many of the proposals outlined in 

your document Wiltshire 2026 - Planning for Wiltshire’s Future. 

In particular, I don’t accept Wootton Bassett’s housing increase of 912. 

Development is unsustainable. 

I also object most strongly to the proposal that 3000 houses should be built on 

Ridgeway Farm or The Pry to the west of Swindon. These developments seem to 

me to threaten the vitally important green space between Swindon and the 

neighbouring small communities of Cricklade, Purton, The Lydiards and Wootton 

Bassett. 

Leaving aside the detail, these housing projections are based on the flawed 

document known as the South West Regional Spatial Strategy. As you know, 

even the current Government have failed to provide a sound legal basis for this 

document. 

Caroline Spelman MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for DCLG, is committed to 

abolishing the Regional Spatial Strategy and returning the rights to decide on 

strategic housing numbers to local people. me wrong that Wiltshire Council should 

be progressing on the basis of the RSS, knowing that the likelihood is that the 

fundamental justification for it will be removed within months of now. 

I would be grateful if you would register my strongest possible objections to the 

plans. 

Do not agree the figures in Table 4.2. It is not appropriate to accept the figures 

which are based on the draft RSS which is being reviewed by the Secretary of 

State at the present time. 

The figure for North Wiltshire is opposed because it includes provision for 

development west of Swindon which is strongly opposed for reasons given below. 

Why has the total number of homes predicted by the RSS been accepted without 

question? 

See also comment 1699 for comments on West Swindon numbers. 

A single unallocated housing figure for all Category C Settlements is too vague. 

100



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purton should have a clearer split of housing indicated so as to clearly explain 

what is understood to represent an appropriate scale of housing for local needs. 

Although it is understood that any housing allocation in Purton will most likely be 

pursued through the Small Sites Allocation DPD, following the adoption of the 

Core Strategy, a clearer indication of the split of housing both can and should be 

made for Purton at this stage, as it is clearly one of the larger and sustainable 

settlements in this part of the district. 

The lack of any definition for what amounts to ‘local needs’, with regard to new 

housing in Purton fails to provide the certainty required by the Core Strategy. 

The last Purton Housing Needs Survey is effectively now out of date, having been 

carried out in 1998. Interestingly though the quantum of need then identified (28) 

is broadly in keeping with the ‘Purton Housing Needs’ extrapolated from Westlea 

Housing Associates housing register, (Listing Purton as a first choice), for general 

needs applicants (30). 

Accordingly, multiplying the above averaged level of affordable need 

(28+30+26.9=84.9Ã·3=28.3) as a 30% contribution of the total local housing need 

produces a figure of 94.3. 

It is of course noteworthy that the anticipated RSS has been based on an 

affordable housing provision of 35%. Using this percentage split the overall level 

of demand falls to 80.8. 

By way of further analysis all local estate agents were contacted in the last week 

of June 2009. The average number of individuals registered on their lists, 

requiring properties in Purton, was 36.8. 

This is of course an open market indication of need, and obviously reflects the 

currently depressed housing market. Nevertheless in crude terms the quantum of 

local need is still clearly significant. 

It is my contention that the scale of housing to be allocated in Purton should be 

more clearly broken out of the total figures indicated at Figure 2 of the 

consultation document. Moreover, as stated above, in order to address the 

identified issue of out-commuting the question of local needs must specifically be 

addressed in the related commentary. 

By seeking to identify a quantum split of housing for Purton rather than leave all 

housing in the category C settlements as a single figure the definition of local 

needs can be tackled reinforcing the issue of self-containment through a mixed 

development and a materially significant proportion of affordable housing. Such 

guidance will also tackle the currently rather nebulous indication that appropriate 

levels of housing will be for local needs. 

We object to the proposed distribution of housing numbers between the 

Community Areas for the former North Wiltshire area. 

We do welcome the level of information contained within Figure 4.2 as a basis for 

discussion. 

We consider the housing figures for each of the main settlements within the 

Community Areas for the former North Wiltshire district area require further 

refining in light of the limitations of growth at Corsham and at Wootton Bassett. 

We understand the distribution is in part derived from the role and function 

analysis, which provides an understanding of each settlement through an analysis 

of the level of housing, employment and facilities that are currently available and 

the potential which exists to consolidate and improve the current situation. 

However, on review of the study it would appear that the conclusions drawn do 

not the limitations of Corsham and more specifically Wootton Bassett. 

The RSS sets out that these are to be distributed to settlements that meet RSS 

Development Policy B or Development Policy C criteria. The RSS states that in 

identifying the growth to be located at each settlement, consideration should be 

101



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

given to local factors including landscape constraints, relationships between 

settlements, character, quality of infrastructure and the level of local need. 

The housing distribution table identifies a disproportionately small share to 

Malmesbury; less than that of Wootton Bassett. An even higher proportion 

remains on potentially ‘unallocated sites’. 

There are significant higher-level constraints associated with Corsham and 

Wootton Bassett to be taken into account prior to distributing housing allocations 

within former North Wiltshire area. 

The Sustainability Appraisal indicates the preferred distribution of growth should 

be across a wider range of larger settlements and a narrower range of smaller 

settlements, indicating that this approach would maximise the benefit associated 

with improving services across different towns. The proposed approach as set out 

in Fig.4.2 however suggests a larger proportion to the small towns and villages 

than any of the main towns, except Calne. This is contrary to the Sustainability 

Appraisal. 

Current Housing Distribution to Wootton Bassett We note that Wootton Bassett 

ultimately takes a higher percentage of the RSS allocation (17.7% of RSS 

requirements) than Malmesbury, despite the need to restrict growth at Wootton 

Bassett. 

The emerging RSS comments in relation to Wootton Bassett states no additional 

housing growth should be permitted above that which meets local needs due to 

the dormitory relationship it has with Swindon (of which the Secretary of State has 

subsequently endorsed this approach and also sets out that no additional growth 

at Cricklade other than to meet local needs. 

More importantly, we note the current distribution allocates almost 24% of the 

RSS requirement to the small towns and villages, further indicating the disparity 

between the settlements. 

This is considered too high, given the rural nature of much of the district and may 

lead to the creation of unsustainable patterns of movement and development 

across the former North Wiltshire area. 

We support the councils approach in identifying Community Areas. However, the 

distribution of housing to the Community Areas must ensure that growth is directed to 

the most suitable settlements capable of absorbing growth and ensuring that self 

containment is increased and their overall role as service centres enhanced. 

Para 1.5 of PPS12 is clear that ‘the planning system has been substantially reformed 

to embed community responsive policy making at its heart and to make contributing 

to sustainable development a statutory objective’. 

The current housing distribution, we believe, could create unsustainable patterns of 

development across the former north Wiltshire district. 

The distribution must not be based on rolling forward historic trends but should seek 

to create a ‘step-change’ in housing delivery and ensure sustainable growth within 

former North Wiltshire area. 

PPS12 states that the planning system exists to deliver positive social, economic and 

environmental outcomes. The evidence prepared to date (Strategic Sites and Spatial 

Strategy background documents and the Sustainability Appraisal) clearly indicates 

that that this can be achieved. 

In terms of the distribution of housing numbers in the North Wiltshire Community 

areas, it is considered that the 250 allocated to small towns and large villages is 

misleading as there are no such strategic level allocations made in the Core Strategy, 

combined with the residual to be allocated and the post 2021 windfall figure means 

that there up potential 680 dwellings to be allocated. 

As a result, and given the other concerns expressed, there is a need in the Core 

Strategy to provide guidance on where small towns and larger villages dwelling 

allowance should be directed to. 

102



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The number in table 4.1 (250 dwellings) is considered to be small, compared to the 

number of settlements it has to cover - this could be accounted for by urban 

extensions to towns in the table. 

In addition, the table would benefit greatly from an identification of the small towns 

and large villages within each respective former LPA area, so that some idea of 

distribution can be obtained. 

A further refinement proposed is to refine the dwelling distribution further to propose a 

specific number of dwellings at each small town/larger village. This would then 

confirm what levels of development (in each location) meet local needs as well as 

controlling the distribution to ensure that each of these locations has some 

development, without detriment to others. 

The theory seems to be that if large scale development exists at a place, force more 

on it, but if it doesn’t then prevent it. 

This is arbitrary and takes no account of where people want to live or what 

opportunities might be open to them were they to be able to live where they wished. 

The planning strategy is an uncomfortable mix between giving people what they 

supposedly want (more houses) yet seeking to constrain how they live e.g. making it 

difficult to access trunk roads. 

Why is more houses the solution rather than less people? 

Modern living and working is increasingly ‘virtual’ with telecommunications and 

broadband more vital for employment than physical proximity to ‘facilities’. 

Rural settlements may be made more sustainable by allowing some expansion to a 

critical mass, instead of forcing people into estates on edge of towns with no 

immediate prospects of employment. 

it would seem an excellent move for the planners to do more for Melksham than their 

draft suggests, do less elsewhere, in each case going along with the requests of local 

voices and producing a win (Wiltshire Council), win (Wootton Bassett) and win 

(Melksham) solution. 

Wootton Bassett should not rely on Swindon, therefore, it should not grow until a 

wider range of jobs are available, and the necessary health facilities for the present 

population in place. 

Calne, and Wootton Bassett, will be affected by the future of the RAF Lyneham site. 

The housing and job market in both towns is linked to the MoD role. 

The West of Swindon area and its options all appear to be unsuitable for a 

environmental reasons. 

We believe the Core Strategy should contain policies based on Plan, Monitor and 

Manage and therefore be able to anticipate and manage positive or negative 

economic conditions in the future whilst upholding environmental principles. 

We believe that policy has been skewered towards housing growth and there is 

nothing in this document which suggests the future will be different. 

There is NO OPPORTUNITY for a feedback loop to question the top level 

assumptions. 

The area West of Swindon has been zoned for development and regardless of how 

inappropriate that is when the detail is considered it apparently cannot be changed! 

If the argument cannot be won to convince the locals that the development will 

benefit them, why should they be forced to accept it? 

The constant growth argument which underlies the need to concrete over green fields 

is doomed to fail eventually because the planet is only so big. 

Those living in this part of the County value the green spaces surround them. They 

are not seeking those to be home to yet another fancily named but otherwise identikit 

housing estate. 

Alas it seems NO ONE IS LISTENING at a strategic planning level. We are told that it 

has been determined that West Swindon shall have houses. 

103



 

 

The draft regional policy has foisted this on the area and, despite the obvious 

shortcomings and negative impacts highlighted by local people, it currently appears it 

will be forced to have it. Is it really only through legal action that local voices can get 

heard? 

Do comments raised through consultations like this really get any attention or are 

they distractions from implementing a policy that has already been decided? 

104



4.26 Wootton Bassett community area: respondents 

Organisations 

Bourne Wootton Bassett Town Council 



CPRE 




Hannick Homes 


MoD 

Northern Community Area Partnership 




Ramblers North East Wiltshire Group 

Sustrans 







Crapper & Sons Landfill Ltd 

E H Bradley and Son 


Gwyneth Datson 

Haydon Wick Parish Council 


NHS Swindon 

P’s and Qs 


RailFuture Severnside 




Vanda Tanner & Jonathan Biddy 



105



Individuals 

Alison Bucknell Alison Smith Ann Orr-Ewing 

Ben Smith Bob Philpott Cllr Peter Doyle 

D. J. Raker David Battlebury David Pope 

Diana Thombs Edward Raker Elizabeth Wilson 

G and T Evason Geoff Yates George Axiotis 

George McDonic MBE John Palmer John Rainbow 

John Turner Marc D Willis Martyn Parrott 

Mr & Mrs Hammond Mr and Mrs Bent Mr and Mrs Page 

Mr and Mrs S Alexander Mr and Mrs W Hunt Mr Andrew Hatcher 

Mr C Cornell Mr David Sweet Mr E.A. Reynolds 

Mr Francis Sheppard Mr Howard Chandler Mr John Harmer 

Mr Peter Brewster Mr Richard Gosnell Mr S Lynch 

Mrs C Spickernell Mrs J Gosnell Mrs Jane R. Smith 

Mrs Kate Robinson Ms Sarah Higgins & Neil Edwards 

Malcolm De La Haye 

Neil Etheridge Peter Brewser R Williams 

Ross Wheeler Roy and Marion Hobbs S W Matthews 

S.A, P, E.A, and P Booy Sandra Horsnall Sarah Phillips 

Steve Briggs 

106



4.27 Wootton Bassett community area: notes from exhibitions and events 

Wootton Bassett exhibition 

General 

The Wootton Bassett Exhibition was well attended and provided an opportunity for 

local residents to comment on the proposals for the area. The fact that the proposal 

was held in Wootton Bassett meant that vast bulk of responses reflected the 

concerns of residents of Wootton Bassett and the immediate vicinity. Despite this the 

proposals identified at the West of Swindon still managed to raise a great deal of 

concern amongst the residents of Wootton Bassett and particularly the fear that 

Swindon will continue to expand and Wootton Bassett will simply become a suburb of 

Swindon. 

Transport 

There was general concern around the current on-street parking in and around Coped 

Hall Business Park, although it was generally acknowledged that this was a parking 

enforcement issues rather than a strategic planning one. There were frequent demands 

for safe and usable cycle routes between Wootton Bassett and Swindon, this will reduce 

car reliance and bring about improvements to residents physical health. The long-term 

aspiration for a Wootton Bassett train station was once again raised by local residents, 

although it was accepted that this will depend on financial viability but the benefits from a 

station, namely persuaded people to get out of their cars should not be ignored. 

RAF Lyneham 

The future re-use of RAF Lyneham was raised throughout the exhibition and in some 

cases there were calls for the planning authority to delay any strategic planning decisions 

until decisions about the future use of RAF Lyneham have been confirmed. 

Preferred options 

There were a number of concerns raised regarding the Preferred Option at Wootton 

Bassett. The common concerns were: 

Are prone to flooding. 

The area has a high environmental and amenity value. 

The site has been rejected in the past for housing as unsuitable. 

Poor road links and the likelihood of increased congestion due to the cumulative 

impact of all development across Wootton Bassett, namely St Ivel and the Beaufort 

Arms site. 

Other comments 

There were consistent calls for better cycle links between the settlements of the Wootton 

Bassett and Cricklade Community. 

Some concern was expressed that the focus of development at Wootton Bassett will be 

at the cost of proper planning for the smaller towns and rural areas. There were also 

calls for new ‘Village Policy Limits’ across Wiltshire. 

107



Workshops 


1. To address for climate change 0 1 1 










Objectives - priorities identified 

2. Economic growth. 

4. Secure infrastructure. 

9. High quality built environment. 

Workshop one 

It was acknowledge the future development at the West of Swindon represents the 

most significant challenge to the Wotton Bassett and Cricklade Community Area. 

Employment 

There were calls for a better understanding of what type of employment will be 

delivered at Wootton Bassett & Cricklade Community Area. For example, 

storage/distribution is land hungry options and may not be suitable for the Community 

Area. However it was universally agreed that all efforts should be taken to maintain a 

strong economic base in the Community Area and specifically at Wootton Bassett. 

108



Climate change 

The council’s strategy for tackling climate change should focus on: 

‐ reducing carbon footprint 

‐ changing personal habits – less waste more recycling 

‐ local production of energy. 


Some members of the group believed that the dormitory role of Wootton Bassett is 

exacerbated by the lack of leisure opportunities outside of Swindon. The council 

should safeguard land for leisure use and be more innovative with the joint use of 

facilities such as schools. 

Water 

There were calls for further technical studies to ascertain the capacity of existing 

reservoirs as well as ground water supply. There was a general acceptance that the 

current sewage network needs upgrading, although no factual evidence was 

provided. 

Design 

There were calls for the council to insist on high quality, carbon netural 

developments. Design should be innovative and represent the unique identity of 

Wiltshire as being very distinct from Swindon. 

RAF Lyneham 

There were further calls for a strategic plan to be in place to deal with the closure of 

RAF Lyneham. 

West of Swindon 

Acknowledged as the most significant issue for the community area and there was 

general concern that westward expansion of the Swindon urban area will have a 

detrimental impact on settlements such as Purton and begin to threaten the identity of 

Wootton Bassett. 

There were calls for greater connectivity between Swindon and Wootton Basset, not 

just by improving the road network and J16 of the M4 but also by encouraging 

alternative travel methods. 

Planning gain 

There were calls for the planning authority to have a clear strategy for securing 

planning gain for the benefit of local people who are directly affected by development. 

109



Workshop two 

Flooding 

This represented a major concern during the workshop discussion. 

It should be recognised that climate change and flooding are inextricably linked. 

Flooding is a major concern within Cricklade and it was stressed that Wiltshire 

Council should consider undertaking a detailed flood risk assessment of the town. 

Concern was expressed that the high level of infill development which has taken 

place in Cricklade and the outstanding developments within Cricklade will add to the 

flood risk concerns. 

An appropriate drainage system, with an adopted drainage network, should be in 

place before development commences. This will ensure that drainage is built to a 

suitable standard. 

Framework boundary review 

Cricklade Town Council suggested that the Wiltshire Core Strategy should consider a 

review of the settlement framework boundary of Cricklade when planning 

development. 

Participants said that the council should remember that villages, even the smallest, 

need some growth to ensure that they do not die. 

It was acknowledged that the framework boundary policies encourage infill 

development and this can cause problems, such as affecting the character of the 

settlement. 

It was said that there should be more potential for development, which is not possible 

with the restrictive application of framework boundaries. 

Framework boundaries restrict the natural growth of settlements and this can have a 

devastating impact on the smaller settlements. 

Cricklade 

Some participants with particular interest in Cricklade said that they would like to see 

infill development continue to deliver local need housing and in some limited and 

strictly controlled cases the boundary could be redrawn to allow for local growth 

needs. 

Broad Town 

The nature of the framework boundary is very restrictive and the infill development 

that does occur spoils the settlement character and adds to potential flooding 

problems. 

There was a general consensus from the discussion that it is very difficult to apply a 

broad-brush approach to the application of framework boundaries. What is right for 

one village is not necessarily appropriate for another. 

Cricklade Town Council and the Broad Town Parish indicated that both areas are 

pursuing the parish plan route. 

110



Affordable housing 

Representatives from Westlea Housing Association stated that affordable housing 

can be defined as any type of sub-tender dwellings and that the definition applied by 

housing associations often differs from that provided by private suppliers. 

There was a general acceptance around the table that the exact definition of 

affordable housing is not clear and this should be addressed in the core strategy. 

Affordable housing policy should make sure that affordable housing units are built 

where they are actually needed. 

Cricklade Town Council stated that they would like to see ‘exception sites’ that 

provide an appropriate mix of market housing and affordable housing units. This view 

was supported by housing association representatives at the table. 

It was suggested that providing ‘mixed exception sites’ would make such 

developments more sustainable. However, it was also said that these mixeddevelopments 

must retain the character of the village and this is often not reflected in 

a dense housing estate. 

There should be an emphasis on character-based property. 

There was an overwhelming concern that the current ‘Exception Site Policy’ leads to 

ghetto developments. 

In any development there should be strict controls to ensure that affordable housing 

developments are distributed throughout any housing development. 

Housing association participants commented on cases where developers, during the 

recession, will build the affordable housing units first which means that these units will 

not be distributed throughout the overall development. The reason behind this is 

because developers will use the affordable housing as the first phase of development 

which is then used to bank-roll the rest of the development. 

The table asked when any review of ‘Settlement Framework Boundaries’ will take 

place. This was accompanied by an immediate concern that removing a framework 

boundary will mean the death of smaller settlements. 

Framework boundaries should be re-drawn to provide opportunities for appropriate 

levels of growth and this should incorporate polices that provide opportunities for 

mixed exception site developments. 

The table suggested that Wiltshire Council should look at the Exception Site Policy of 

Gloucester where there is greater local involvement in delivering exception sites. 

The consultation process 

The table reflected concern that the questions put before local residents in the 

consultation material were too broad and did not offer the opportunity to make 

comments of local importance. 

111




It was agreed amongst the participants that infrastructure delivery is key and that 

development should not take place until the appropriate infrastructure has been 

identified and delivered at the key stages of the overall development. 

West of Swindon 

There was some concern that development at the west of Swindon is inappropriate. 

Jim Sherry (Wiltshire) explained the policy background including a brief summary of 

the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 and the emerging RSS. 

The table reflected concern that the development west of Swindon would create 

serious flooding implications for this development and surrounding settlements. It was 

also stated that a detailed assessment of the potential impacts should be undertaken 

prior to any development. 

It was suggested that Wiltshire does not have a ‘Strategic Flood Risk Assessment’ in 

place. 

The Strategic Objectives identified are all important and it is very difficult to identify 

the three most important. 

Transport 

There was a general acceptance that transport problems will never be resolved as 

people will always use their cars and in rural areas it is almost impossible to reduce 

car reliance. 

There were calls for a sustainable, flexible and appropriate public transport system 

although it was acknowledged that this will be very difficult to achieve. 

Participants gave examples of how difficult it is for local residents to walk or cycle 

between villages. 

Some participants suggested that a school bus service should be introduced to 

reduce traffic congestion; others promoted the idea of organising a ‘Walking Bus.’ 

The issue of school transport must be taken seriously and reflected in the Wiltshire 

Core Strategy. 


Wiltshire Council should consider the extension of ICT services across the county as 

part of the infrastructure requirements. 

Communication infrastructure will encourage people to live and work in the same 

place. 

Concern was raised regarding the capacity of Junction 16 of the M4 to deal with any 

further housing development and subsequent increase in traffic. 

112



Consultation 

Questions were asked what the final Wiltshire Core Strategy document would look 

like. 

Some participants suggested that the final core strategy should be as detailed as 

possible. 

Development 

Jim Sherry (Wiltshire Council) provided a review of the settlement hierarchy identified 

in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and how this has been translated 

into local policy, categorising Wootton Bassett as a Policy B Settlement and Cricklade 

as Policy C. 

- Views were expressed by the participants that Cricklade is a market town and 

concern was raised that Cricklade should not be disregarded as a market town in 

the settlement strategy. 

- It was acknowledged that even if Cricklade is categorised as a market town it 

should not have the same scale of growth as indicated for Wootton Bassett. 

There was general agreement that housing should be built where people want to live, 

but that government policy applies a very high density of development and this 

creates developments where people do not want to live. 

Developers should have to build dwellings to the same standard as social housing 

developments. This would create quality developments and help to tackle climate 

change. Policies to be contained within the core strategy must be specific to ensure 

compliance to prevent developers getting around the policy objectives. 

Wiltshire Council should take advantage of parish plans, where they exist, to 

understand the most appropriate location for housing developments within smaller 

settlements and where the framework boundary should be. It was acknowledged that 

parish plans do not have any significant status but Wiltshire Council should reflect the 

aspirations of these plans within the Wiltshire Core Strategy. 

Housing and employment should be delivered at the same time, although it was 

recognised that allocating land for employment does not guarantee that industry will 

come along. 

High quality built environment must reflect the character of the local area. 

Cricklade Town Council expressed concern that planning permissions are being 

granted without considering the necessary infrastructure requirements. 

113



RAF Lyneham 

Questions were asked about what will happen to RAF Lyneham when it closes. It was 

accepted that Lyneham does not have enough infrastructure in place to deal with any 

new large housing developments. 

Questions 

How do stakeholders influence the planning process? 

How likely is it that developers can take the planning authority to appeal they can 

be successful? 

What is the formal process of adoption for the Wiltshire Core Strategy? 

How does the Wiltshire Core Strategy fit in within the South Wiltshire Core 

Strategy? How does the council know if a site will actually come forward? 

114



4.28 Bradford on Avon community area 



Supporting: 0 

Supporting with conditions: 3 

Objecting: 2 

General comment: 3 


Supporting: 0 


Objecting: 2 

General comment 0 


Supporting: 3 


Objecting: 4 



Supporting: 5 


Objecting: 5 


Total number of comments referring to Bradford on Avon: 47 

115




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support for the issues and opportunities identified, particularly regarding provision 

of affordable housing and refurbishment and provision of community facilities and 

public open space. 

Support for the view that “opportunities exist to promote Bradford as a sustainable 

tourist destination”. 

There are inaccuracies in the text: there are a number of convenience stores in 

the town, and there are gym facilities and tennis courts. 

The emphasis on skateboard facilities and playground facilities may be misguided 

given the high proportion of second-home owners and retired people in the town. 

Disagreement with the statement that “Bradford on Avon is well connected by bus 

and rail services to nearby settlements”. Bus and rail services in the town are not 

adequate to meet demand and are not reliable. Poor links with nearby 

settlements. 

There are capacity issues on buses and trains. 

Inaccuracies in the document raise queries as to the accuracy of the picture 

painted by the document, and therefore the appropriateness of the proposals it 

makes. 

The statement that the town features “a number of historic buildings” is an 

incomplete and inaccurate assessment. The town is an important historic 

settlement and should be recognised accordingly. 

Building and environmental constraints should not be presented as being only 

negative; these can provide a basis for creative conservation. It needs to be 

recognised that high environmental quality of the town is a major attraction for 

residents, businesses, and visitors, and also has potential to provide a base for 

sustainable economic activity. 

Lack of effective planning control has had a detrimental influence on the town: 

policies and implementation of these policies need to be more robust. 

The Environment Agency commented that flood risk should be included, and 

appropriately addressed in the sustainability appraisal. 

Need for better cycling infrastructure in the town should be added. This could be 

achieved with a number of small projects to deliver new paths and crossings. 

The Kennet & Avon Canal towpath offers cyclists access to Melksham and Bath 

(National Cycle Network Route 4) but the surface is in need of improvement. 

Better maintenance needed of National Cycle Network Route 403. 

 

 

 

 

 

Bradford on Avon has some of the worst traffic problems in western Wiltshire. 

The issues identified need to be resolved, and not the subject of promises that 

cannot be delivered. 

Bradford on Avon is particularly well placed to be an exemplar community in 

strategic action on climate change. There are a number of initiatives related to the 

Bradford on Avon 2050 declaration, which commits the town and surrounding 

villages to pursuing carbon neutrality by 2050. Would like to see a strategic 

commitment to carbon reduction in the town and surrounding villages. This could 

be developed, in part, through the Bradford on Avon Town Plan. 

A Bradford on Avon community area vision should be based on sustainable 

economic regeneration to improve employment and living standards through the 

encouragement of inward investment in environmental, arts and sustainable 

tourist development. 

Lower levels of traffic congestion and pollution are obtainable through a combined 

strategy of reducing travel by vehicles and promotion of walking and cycling, the 

early adoption and sponsoring of electric vehicles in the town through sponsoring 

of charging points, and the encouragement of supermarkets to undertake low 

carbon delivery services using electric vehicles to reduce customer journeys. 

116



The following issues and opportunities should be identified for Bradford on Avon: 

sustainable economic regeneration of the town; sustaining and developing the 

existing retail and small-business base, issues around pedestrian intimidation and 

traffic congestion; revival of the town centre, retention and expansion of current 

employment sites; conservation of local landscape character; investment in ecotourism 

and promotion of walking and cycling; community based renewable 

energy provision; protection of the town’s and villages’ unique qualities against 

Green Belt. 

Support for retention of existing employment sites in order to seek the retention of 

local jobs. 

Should new development come forward, mixed use is preferable to enhance selfcontainment. 

The issues would be best addressed by locating development on the Golf Course 

instead of the preferred option at Moulton Estate. 

Support for the analysis relating to Bradford on Avon community area, and 

supportive in principle of the Town Council’s proposed text changes. 

Support for the objective of reducing out-commuting and increasing selfcontainment. 

Half hourly trains to Bath and Bristol make a big difference – challenge now is to 

reduce cost. 

Bradford needs a bypass further land for housing will exacerbate traffic 

congestion further land should not be released without significant contributions / 

dedication of land for bypass. 

Improve safe cycle and pedestrian routes to link smaller settlements and their 

towns sustainably and to aid community resilience. 

Extra traffic would make Holt Road even more dangerous – footpath and cycle 

track would be essential. 

Saldesbrook is very narrow and runs past a primary school entrance and a 

nursery school. Yet it carries an enormous amount of traffic. Some of this has 

used the Berryfield estate as a rat-run. The Leigh Park cross-roads are an 

accident black-spot. Why not close Sladesbrook off at the cross-roads and direct 

the traffic up the A363, where it could turn right at Maplecroft. 

Woolley St – From Murco out to Woolley St area. Dangerous pedestrian access 

and crossing along St. Speeding traffic coming in from Woolley Green. 

Derestricted speed limit between Grange View and Woolley green is inappropriate 

and unsafe / dangerous. 

More pedestrian crossings needed in centre of town but a by-pass is not the 

answer to traffic problems – in the long run they just create more traffic and 

carbon. 

We want less traffic full stop, not just less traffic on BoA. Cut out the need for cars 

and so all the congestion – don’t just move the pollution elsewhere. 

A bypass to the town so badly needed. Improve safe cycling in and around the 

town and surrounding villages. 


reduce cost. 

A major problem – access to businesses. 

BoA bath has done a great job of discouraging traffic to the alternative north – 

south route through BoA. We need to stop it being used as a bath bypass. Issue 

passes to local area and put a toll on bridge. 

There needs to be more footpaths to encourage people out of their cars. Not just 

foot paths but pavements so people can walk between the villages e.g. BoA to 

Holt safely, less CO2, healthy people, better sense of community. 

In BoA persuade Sainsbury’s to reinstate the delivery service Bludgeons used to 

offer. 

117



Bus and public transport should not be given up, actively pursue. 

Pedestrian priorities and deter through traffic, calm others subject to rat runs and 

speeding. 

Bradford on Avon local bus service should be instigated by small, electric buses 

operating more frequently and well published routes. They could be fitted with 

bicycle racks so that more people can use bicycles sown into the town then catch 

the bus up the steep hill. 

Change train roofs to solar power to power the lighting. 

We need to protect the Avon Valley (walking/cycling routes and AONB) by finding 

alternatives to proposed A36-A46 link road. 

Speed along A363 from Bath should be reviewed. 

Speed limit through Bradford Leigh unsuitable. 

Bends on B3109 dangerous. 

South Wraxall – a cycle route into Bradford. 

Need to retain accessible leisure services specifically local to attain the health and 

social interactive objectives. 

Promote more efficient use of land while at the same time protecting and 

enhancing local character and distinctiveness and environment. 

The preferred option “Moultons” – is away from river and flood issues. – retains 

sporting facility. – does not destroy the life of local community next to the ‘golf 

course’ by massive increase in traffic on very unsustainable roads. – Is a much 

larger area suitable for reasonable number of houses i.e. quality for new 

residence. 

To reach community services there must be a reliable connecting transport 

service. E.g. BoA to the villages – BoA to Devizes and Chippenham. 

The most important has to be 7 (climate change) or there won’t be a future for 

Wiltshire. This might have to take precedence over eg 9 if wind turbines are 

needed. 

Ref 6&7 – This will not happen unless the number of cars through the county and 

through especially towns like BoA are reduced. – In a dip like Bath who have 

actually discouraged traffic. 

Use public transport run on hydrogen or electricity. Produce electricity by 

alternative methods e.g. wind. 

Ref 6 – This, if achieved will reduce some of the need to travel. Linked to 6 – 

Ensure that previous employment land is not allowed to become residential. 

Development/Sustainability – an oxymoron? 

Ref 8 – Tick 

Important in BoA until its flood history. 

Ref 6 – Well related to where people live and travel requirements. 

118




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changes by 2026 will be more significant than those set out. Development will be 

complete at the Kingston Mills site and the balance of the town will be much 

enhanced, services and facilities will have been improved with a wider retail offer, 

and traffic impacts will have been reduced with the implementation of measures of 

restraint, taking forward the historic core zone . 

It should be clarified that the Kingston Mills development is already underway1. 

The Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon group should be mentioned. 

The Priority for People initiative and related Historic Core Zone work should be 

mentioned. 

The regeneration work being led by the Town Council and others should be 

mentioned. 

The label of ‘dormitory town’ for Bradford on Avon is rejected. This label has been 

damaging to the town in the past. Bradford on Avon is a working town and has 

been so for almost 800 years. 

Would expect walking and cycling links to have been delivered by 2026, and 

would expect towpath of the Kennet and Avon canal to be improved and 

promoted as a leisure and commuter route. 

There should be a greater emphasis on sustainable low carbon development. 

The plans should include a review and implementation of a Conservation Area 

Management Plan. 

There should be an end to the recent history of piecemeal development without 

sufficient consideration for the effects of traffic generation on the town. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support for the identification of land at Moulton Estate as the preferred strategic 

site allocation for Bradford on Avon 

Agreement with the rejection of the alternative option of building houses on land 

at the Golf Course. 

Support for a zero carbon development on the preferred strategic site. This could 

provide a blueprint for sustainable contemporary buildings for the Bradford on 

Avon community area. 

Support for the preferred option providing there is no adverse impact on the 

nearby Grade 1 listed building. 

The promoters of the preferred site state that a study has shown that 70% of 

traffic generated from development at the Golf Course site would cross the Town 

Bridge. 

The promoters of the preferred site expressed support for the methodology used 

to identify strategic sites. 

Promoters of the preferred site state that their baseline work has proven that the 

site is developable, available and suitable in accordance with the applicable 

national planning guidance. 

The promoters of the preferred site state that the vision that is emerging for the 

land at Kingston Farm, which seeks to create a low carbon exemplar mixed-use 

development, chimes well with Vision and Objectives of the emerging Core 

Strategy. Strategic objective 1 can in part be met by delivery of development at 

the preferred option site. 

The Golf Course site is unsuitable due to issues of land contamination, access, 

and traffic generation across the Town Bridge. The Golf Course currently forms a 

green lung to the centre of Bradford on Avon along the river. 

119



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A new employment area on the edge of town may not be the right place for the 

suggestions of artists’ studios, small start-up premises, and offices for hi-tech 

companies. 

A strategic employment allocation at Bradford on Avon is not supported due to 

potential impact on the landscape, and worsening of traffic problems. 

The proposed link across Green Belt between the preferred option and the 

cemetery should be deleted. 

Redcliffe Homes objects to the preferred strategic site option, and suggests that a 

site controlled by Redcliffe Homes to the north of Holt Road would be preferable 

in terms of access arrangement and impacts on landscape, ecology and the 

historic environment. This site could also be considered alongside the preferred 

option. 

Inadequate simply to present one preferred option. 

The alternative option at the Golf Course is wrongly located on the map used at 

the exhibition – should be corrected. 

150 houses in one place are too many. 

Preferred option is not within walking distance of certain facilities (station, school, 

medical services). 

Any new shops, restaurants or convenience stores will compete with existing 

businesses in the town, and there is no demand for new office and shop 

accommodation. 

Applicants who had applied for planning permission on the Golf Course site state 

that the Golf Course site would be preferable. Questions are raised regarding the 

environmental impact of the preferred option (historical environment and also 

landscape and visual), and also about the combined impact of the preferred site 

and the Kingston Mills development on levels of traffic. Questions also raised 

about the sustainability appraisal which has informed the identification of the 

preferred option, and about the availability of the land at the preferred site for 

development. It is stated that the Golf Course site has better links with Trowbridge 

and Bath, is closer to the train station, and is on a regular bus route. There is a 

public footpath which provides a short cut from the Golf Course to the town 

centre, and the Golf Course site is much closer to the supermarket. 

Inaccurate statement in paragraph 6.6.8 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report 

which states that “no details are available for any development proposed on the 

Option 2 site”: details are available from a previous planning application on this 

site. 

Impact of additional development (employment or residential) on the Strategic 

Road Network will need to be assessed, since Bradford on Avon is in close 

proximity to the A36. The Highways Agency would have concerns regarding a 

level of development which could negatively impact on the Strategic Road 

Network. 

Applicants who had previously applied for planning permission on the Golf Course 

site suggest that development on the Golf Course site could provide a significant 

amount of affordable housing, and could also provide public open space, a new 

enhanced nine hole golf course, and an additional club house, which could also 

be used as a community facility. 

Wiltshire Council should re-instate the covenant on the land at the Golf Course 

preserving it for sports, leisure and recreational purposes. 

It is hard to assess the proposed new employment or mixed-use area without 

more information about exactly what is planned. Warehousing and tin sheds 

would mar the landscape setting and provide the wrong kind of employment for 

local people. 

120



 

 

It is essential that the Core Strategy remains flexible enough to permit innovative 

and viable proposals, such as those emerging at Kingston Farm to be 

implemented. 

Development at the preferred site should not encroach too far down into the 

beautiful river valley. An existing copse of trees should be retained. 

Should consider 10 houses a year for 15 years, rather than building all 150 

houses in one go. This would offer more opportunity for the involvement of local 

builders, and would enable the council to monitor any impacts on the community. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration should be given to stopping development at the dwelling that is 

already there, which could/should be the boundary of the town. 

Do plans exist to show how 150 dwellings would look within the preferred option 

site? 

Alternative sites suggested along the Bath Road, Winsley Road, Frome Road, 

Trowbridge Road and Holt Road (20 houses at each site, with 60 on the Holt 

Road). Possibility of locating housing and business development along the 

Sainsbury’s road – possible site for 20 houses. 10 more houses could be provided 

at the Colour Development’s site next to the Railway station. 

Development of 30 or 40 houses at sites along Trowbridge Road, Winsley Road, 

Holt Road and Frome Road would provide the number of houses needed without 

destroying the character of the town. This would involve the loss of small areas of 

Green Belt, but these areas do not match in beauty the preferred option or the 

Golf Course. 

There doesn’t seem to be much urgency to the plan, so it may be worth waiting to 

see what the impact is of development that is already planned, before rushing to 

build more. 

Preferred option offers an opportunity for a detailed evaluation of an additional 

eastern exit for the Kingston Mills development. 

Joint business and housing development on the preferred option site offers the 

opportunity for combined heat and power, and heat recovery from industrial 

furnaces to be used. 

The Highways Agency state that any development should be supported by 

appropriate public transport, cycling and pedestrian links to the town centre, and 

any application should be accompanied by a robust Transport Assessment and 

Travel Plan. 

Public transport should be addressed before any major development of this kind. 

Natural England suggests that survey work should be undertaken with regards to 

bat habitats. 

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust states that Bradford on Avon is close to an SAC for bats 

(Coombe Mine is adjacent to the preferred housing option). There should be 

strong proactive policies in place to protect and enhance the SAC. 

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust states that County Wildlife Sites were not mentioned in the 

consultation material about Bradford on Avon. 

Request for a small relaxation to the Green Belt at Treenwood to facilitate further 

economic development. 

Bath and North East Somerset Council would have concerns about development 

which increases the amount of traffic travelling into Bath from Bradford on Avon. 

The council would wish to avoid increased traffic movements through Bath, i.e. 

travelling between Bradford on Avon and Bristol, in particular HGV movements 

along this route. The council seeks clarification as to the type of employment 

development planned for Bradford on Avon. The council also seeks clarification, 

in respect of both employment and residential development, as to what Wiltshire 

Council’s transport modelling shows in respect of traffic travelling to and from the 

A4 via the A363 and heading to and from the A36. 

121




 

 

 

The Town Council is in agreement with paragraph 4.6 of Wiltshire 2026, which 

identifies Bradford on Avon as a market town. 

Agreement with the settlement hierarchy. 

Agreement with the strategy for Bradford on Avon as set out in the hierarchy. 


150 houses over 15 years would seem to be a reasonable total. 

Agreement with the numbers for Bradford on Avon. 

Applicants who had previously applied for planning permission on the Golf Course 

site state that the number of houses identified for Bradford on Avon is too low. 

Issues like affordable housing need in the town can only be addressed by 

allowing more new development. Some of the numbers for Trowbridge should be 

redistributed to Bradford on Avon. Bradford on Avon should be singled out for an 

allocation as it is a special case, being highly constrained, and having very high 

property prices. 

A great deal of new development is in the process of being developed in Bradford 

on Avon, and it is questionable whether the town can take any more due to traffic 

issues, unless car-free development is planned. 

It is unfair that Malmesbury has to take a higher housing allocation than other 

market towns such as Bradford on Avon. 

Malmesbury is contributing a far greater percentage of the overall growth in 

relation to its size than other communities (such as Bradford on Avon). 

The strategy seems to accept rather than challenge issues of housing affordability 

in Bradford on Avon, as only 450 homes are planned over the length of the 

strategy. 

Why 150 houses? Why not 50 or 100? 

122



Bradford on Avon community area: respondents 

Organisations 

Alistair Millington (Sustrans) 

Charles Routh (Planning and Local 

Government Natural England) 

Colin Johns (Wiltshire Historic Buildings 

Trust Ltd) 

Diane Holmes (Clerk Bradford on Avon 

Town Council) 


Lt Cdr J Blake (Branch Secretary CPRE 

Wiltshire) 

Mr WR Jenman (Wilts Wildlife 

Mrs Mary Hill (Malmesbury River Valleys 

Trust) 


Redcliffe Homes (agent: Mike Craggs, 

Regional Director DPDS) 

Individuals 

BOA Property Ltd (agent: Chris Beaver, 

GL Hearn) 

Clare Crawford (Business Development 

Manager Sarsen Housing Association) 

David Moss (Chairman Bradford on Avon 

Preservation Trust) 


Environment Agency (Wessex) 

Mr Richard Craft (Chairman Climate 

Friendly Bradford on Avon) 

Mrs Jacqui Ashman (Highways Agency) 

Neil Best (Bath and North East Somerset 




David Parris Diane Teare Dr. Geoff Poole 

Duncan Hames Elsa Parris J & P Hussey & Mrs S 

Cooper 

Mr and Mrs Brian and 

Roslyn Baden 

123



4.35 Notes from exhibitions and events 

Bradford on Avon exhibition 

19 November 2009 

Poster three - How do you think Wiltshire will look in 2026? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In general of course this is what everyone wants. How do you stop developers’ 

“money” changing this? 

What world is WCC living in? Who has thought up these nirvana like bullet points? 

Protection and enhancement of the natural and built and historic environment and 

reinforce local distinctive character. 

Good to see strong emphasis on tackling climate change and self-contained 

communities. Will look forward to how this translates into specific targets Bradford 

should help pilot. 

Protection for natural, built and historic environment – we have the laws, are they 

being correctly used? 

Can we mention reduced traffic intimidation to enhance quality of life in the 

community? 

This all sounds very good – needs to be translated into action. 

A more transparent view of how developers are “influencing” council decisions is 

needed. Re covenants on golf course. People will need confidence in order to 

agree to any proposals. 

With community beds being in Chippenham BoA need direct transport system. 

Connectivity and respite beds needed in the area. 

Poster four – How do we deliver the vision for Wiltshire? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point 3 – 44.4K homes according to the RSS. Who– central govt? Who are these 

homes for? Where will these 100k people work, study, find recreation? Is this 

sustainability? Are we going to have yet more “EXECUTIVE” estates and housing, 

leaving the less wealthy sustainably disadvantaged, as now? 

More supply of trains – more carriages. Less delays, greater frequency. 

Racks of bikes where you pay for the amount of time you use (like in Paris). 

Reopening of Corsham railway station would remove hundreds of car movements 

daily. 

Cannot divorce the level of housing/employment allocations from constraints on 

infrastructure provision. 

A real question over the level of housing proposed? Too high? 

Yes address climate. Low energy use yes. Sustainability/renewable resources 

encourage/go back to school catchment areas enable cycling safety. 

No mention of reinforcing local distinctiveness and character? Should minimise 

use of resources not just promote renewable energy. 

Point 1 – “and reduce energy use in the first place with max levels of energy 

efficiency”. 

Point 7 – Phrase more positively – promote low carbon travel, such as walking 

and cycling. 

124




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sensible approach that minimises travel needs. 

Trowbridge – 5.66 K new homes. Each one represents a potential traffic 

movement. Eg work, shop social. Trowbridge already pretty choked at times, not 

just in centre. It will cause traffic movements through BoA (work, social, shop etc). 

BoA – 490 homes again represents potential of perhaps 1.2 – 1.5k potential 

movements through town. Where will they work? 

Consider sustainable homes and not just affordable units (already achieved CSH 

Level 4 and above). If RSL’s can do it – so can developers. This will help climate 

issues as well as provide the housing. 

Sustainable homes already provide bike storage to help achieve higher code 

levels. More needs to be done to encourage people to use them – safer roads, 

better lighting and general drive to use bikes. 

To address climate change All new housing should be carbon neutral – Barratt 

are doing it in Bristol – It can be done here! 

Investing in rail and bus not more road building. 

To encourage more sustainable transport you need safer roads and more rail. 

% of affordable housing planned? Govt only req. 10% of any estate to be 

affordable/social. so more EXEC estates? 

Poster seven – What do we already know about Bradford-on-Avon community 

area? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are the tourists going to shop? Where are the local people shopping – out 

of town? Unless you are a superstore of course. 

Biggest issues in surrounding rural communities = traffic intimidation. 

How does housing improve employment in the town? More housing will only put 

more pressure on the available local work. 

BoA has strong group working on climate change issues with much support in the 

town – need to build on this bringing in employment opportunities as well as a 

model for other local communities. 

We have an almost unique situation in the town centre with owner – managed 

shops beware of the effects on these of introducing a convenience store – we 

have the grocery basket and other needs are met with existing shops and 

convenience store on existing shops and convenience stores on town edges. 

Key issue – need to tackle climate change and opportunity growing and strong. 

Coalition/support to reduce carbon emissions. 

Do not agree with need for convenience store (Sainsbury store to town. 

No point in affordable housing when no jobs and transport not good enough to go 

any distance (as well as huge cost of buses). 

Only additional sports provision needed is outside swimming pool. 

No mention of the quality and distinctive character of the historic environment – it 

can be constraint or sometimes an opportunity. 

Fuel Poverty – WWDC study (2004) showed nearly 14% fuel poverty compared to 

5% district average. Function of older population, older housing etc… 

125



Poster eight – How does Wiltshire 2026 expect Bradford on Avon to change? 

There is “hope” of a new pedestrian footbridge – There must before. It is 

dangerous to walk in the centre which encourages car use. 

I was shocked to drive past traffic coming into BoA from Frome/Warminster 

direction the other Thurs – Tailbacks were right past incline from Southway Pk 

roundabout and then past The Poplas from the traffic lights of Winfield at 8.30am. 

We need a Bypass. 

Must protect and enhance distinctive character of BoA . 

Support rebalancing homes and jobs so more can live and work sustainably. 

Pedestrian priority needed. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The preferred option: Has good access and would allow a proper access to 

Kingston Mills. Based on area alone it allows better quality of housing also. 

The alternative site (BoA Golf Course) is wholly unsustainable: Places excessive 

traffic burden on local access roads and town bridge; Replaces valued 

recreational land. 

Golf course has “no” safe or reasonable access. Why not let it be developed as a 

proper golf club. The owner could then generate an income and keep valuable 

sports facility. 

Why is the Kingston Mill development marked as purely housing development? 

Part of it is retail and office space! 

The Moulton Estate scheme should not be allowed to extend into Green Belt by 

the cemetery. It should also provide eastern access to Kingston Mills 

redevelopment to reduce impact on town centre. 

Moulton site makes sense in every way, especially less traffic impact etc… 

Is there sufficient, (whilst small scale) development in villages to ensure the 

viability of village primary schools and community stores? 

Poster eleven – The initial options considered 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This planned development looks sensibly sited but it is essential it is as 

environmentally friendly as possible. 

Excellent to increase employment in town, but how do you get over the fact that 

companies/developers need parking – if it’s too difficult they will pick industrial 

business parks – So in reality are you going to attract businesses that have 

difficulty attracting staff? 

Only by hugely increasing traffic use on local roads!! How does this equate with 

small increase in traffic trough town? (Regarding access) 

Why does this give an “opportunity to provide new green sites” when it’s not 

presently built on i.e. green. Also looks like plans encroach into Greenbelt. 

Bullet Point 2 – Here to Bath in rush hour good road? Try it? Bullet Point 3 – Not 

that small! Bullet Point 7 – That is down to economy. 

To be welcomed – commitment to mixed use with employment options – Aim for 

carbon neutral should be a flagship. 

The Holt Road site is vastly preferable to the golf course site for reasons already 

given on the golf course application. Development of the Holt Road site should be 

used as opportunity to gain contribution to Bypass. 

Encourage diversified economy. Keep a ‘relief road’ on the planning agenda. 

Need to keep commercial sites, not allow them to be used for housing 

development. 

126



Poster twelve – The preferred option 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree with preferred housing option as long as mixed use development. 

Along Holt Road better than alternative. 

Vital to protect setting to Hall and environmental quality of river corridor. 

The overall 2026 plan is good. If there has to be further housing 2010 – 2026, the 

Holt Road fits well with major transport needs and access to M4/both and a 

pleasant safe environment (the golf course is not: toxic, overcrowded, dangerous 

road access etc….). 

Why is it that the area of BoA as whole does not share out the housing 

development? Why does Winsley, Westwood remain un-developed. They have 

good access and public sustainable transport. 

The NE spur on the Moulton Estate proposal intrudes on the Green belt between 

white land and the cemetery. 

The proposed development on Holt rd. would add to traffic congestion. Nothing in 

the plans would ease the current severe congestion that so blights the town. 

The alternative option of building on the golf course is unsustainable because – 

access is difficult – the former tip is contaminated – the golf course is a valuable 

resource. Land adjoining Trowbridge Rd (albeit currently greenbelt) would be a 

better alternative. 

 

 

 

 

Nothing in these plans would ease congestion in town. Because of the bridge the 

non-Bath side of town is unsustainable for further development. 

There must be no further loss of employment and commercial uses in town. Is 

there enough new provision on this map? 

Will development of strategic site require upgrading/one way system etc.. on 

existing network – are only ‘B’ class roads. 

Not enough employment development shown. 

Local transport plan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start to plan for an oil free world. Need to begin to think about an electricity based 

public transport systems, using renewable sources of energy. 

Re-open Holt station once services between Trowbridge, Melksham and 

Chippenham have been restored. 

The key to transport is to provide a ring road. 

You need to force the private train companies to actually put on service and 

sensible levels of seating to encourage use. 

Take cycling and walking much more seriously in order to get more cars off the 

road. As well as serious behaviour change there needs to be a serious financial 

commitment to high quality infrastructure. 

Make sure bus and train services are co-ordained. More cycle parks needed. 

People won’t get out of their cars until there is a proper public transport system. 

Who will find it / provide it? 

As someone who uses public transport now, its not good enough now, so where 

will all this wonderful public transport come from? If council provide links to 

railway / train bus routes, does this mean that First ~ (~for example) will provide 

more trains and buses? 

Can we keep railway stations (ie. Limply stoke) to help reduce road use / traffic 

flows? 

Can I suggest a toll over bridge charge all those outside Bradford of Avon. 

Cycle path Holt to Bradford and safe ways for cyclists and workers from all 

villages. 

127



So many meetings etc. happen in Devizes and now eye appointments have been 

moved here from Westbury but there is no direct public transport from BoA – this 

really needs to be looked at. Could cut down greatly on car journeys. 


reduce cost. 

Bradford needs a bypass further land for housing will exacerbate traffic 

congestion further land should not be released without significant contributions / 

dedication of land for bypass. Improve safe cycle and pedestrian routes to link 

smaller settlements and their towns sustainably and to aid community resilience. 

Extra traffic would make Holt Road even more dangerous – footpath and cycle 

track would be essential. 

Saldesbrook is very narrow and runs past a primary school entrance and a 

nursery school. Yet it carries an enormous amount of traffic. Some of this has 

used the Berryfield estate as a rat-run. The Leigh Park cross-roads are an 

accident black-spot. Why not close Sladesbrook off at the cross-roads and direct 

the traffic up the A363, where it could turn right at Maplecroft. 

Woolley St – From Murco out to Woolley St area. Dangerous pedestrian access 

and crossing along St. Speeding traffic coming in from Woolley Green. 

Derestricted speed limit between Grange View and Woolley green is inappropriate 

and unsafe / dangerous. 

More pedestrian crossings needed in centre of town but a by-pass is not the 

answer to traffic problems – in the long run they just create more traffic and 

carbon. 

We want less traffic full stop, not just less traffic on BoA. Cut out the need for cars 

and so all the congestion – don’t just move the pollution elsewhere. 

A bypass to the town so badly needed. Improve safe cycling in and around the 

town and surrounding villages. 


reduce cost. 

A major problem – access to businesses. 

BoA bath has done a great job of discouraging traffic to the alternative north – 

south route through BoA. We need to stop it being used as a bath bypass. Issue 

passes to local area and put a toll on bridge. 

There needs to be more footpaths to encourage people out of their cars. Not just 

foot paths but pavements so people can walk between the villages e.g. BoA to 

Holt safely, less CO2, healthy people, better sense of community. 

In BoA persuade Sainsbury’s to reinstate the delivery service Bludgeons used to 

offer. 

Bus and public transport should not be given up, actively pursue. 

Pedestrian priorities and deter through traffic, calm others subject to rat runs and 

speeding. 

Bradford on Avon local bus service should be instigated by small, electric buses 

operating more frequently and well published routes. They could be fitted with 

bicycle racks so that more people can use bicycles sown into the town then catch 

the bus up the steep hill. 

Change train roofs to solar power to power the lighting. 

We need to protect the Avon Valley (walking/cycling routes and AONB) by finding 

alternatives to proposed A36-A46 link road. 

Speed along A363 from Bath should be reviewed. 

Speed limit through Bradford Leigh unsuitable. 

Bends on B3109 dangerous. 

South Wraxall – a cycle route into Bradford. 

128



The most important has to be 7 (climate change) or there won’t be a future for 

Wiltshire. This might have to take precedence over eg 9 if wind turbines are 

needed. 

Ref 6&7 – This will not happen unless the number of cars through the county and 

through especially towns like BoA are reduced. – In a dip like Bath which has 

actually discouraged traffic. 

Use public transport run on hydrogen or electricity. Produce electricity by 

alternative methods e.g. wind. 

Ref 6 – This, if achieved will reduce some of the need to travel. Linked to 6 – 

Ensure that previous employment land is not allowed to become residential. 

Development/Sustainability – an oxymoron? 

Ref 8 – Tick 

Important in BoA until its flood history. 

Ref 6 – Well related to where people live and travel requirements. 

129



Bradford on Avon workshop 


Attendees 

Andrew Nicolson (CPRE) 

David Roberts (Wiltshire 


Jane Laurie (Climate 

Friendly Bradford) 

John Allison (Winsley 

Parish Council) 

Mark Greenwood (Keep 

Bradford Green) 

Simon Fisher (Bradford 

Town Council) 

Group one 

Discussion one 

Bren Hodgkinson (Keep 


Duncan Hames 

(Prospective Parliamentary 

Candidate (Lib Dem) 

Jenny Raggett (West Wilts 

CPRE) 

Jude Gregory (Green 

Square GP) 

Mike Andrews (Climate 

Friendly Bradford) 

Colin Johns (Planning 

consultant to Town 


Gerald Millward-Oliver 

(Consultant) 

Jocelyn Fielding (Bradford 

Preservation Trust) 

Len Turner (Wiltshire 

Economic Partnership) 

Mike Davison (Keep 


Economic prosperity – but not growth at any cost. 

Top priorities: - to address climate change and protect and enhance natural 

environment. 

Need to provide sufficient housing to accommodate local needs. 

Green Belt + AONB restraints in countryside outside town. 

Green infrastructure map needed for BoA – for wildlife, soils, rivers etc – identify 

gaps for local action. 

Water cycle needs to be addressed locally too. 

Traffic growth + congestion worst in rural SW – need toad traffic reduction. 

Rural-urban linkages need strengthening – town centre serving villages. 

Deterioration of services in town is reducing the ‘hub’ effect. 

- lack of sense of ‘belonging’ - lack of retail services. 

Need to reduce unnecessary traffic – cannot go round the town. 

- but a bypass would destroy sustainability outcomes. 

New jobs likely to be ‘high end’, high skilled – this is BoA’s ‘niche’. 

Council needs a ‘skills profile’ of CA. 

Need a network of cyclepaths e.g. Holt – BoA as well as in town centres. 

Also Wraxalls, Broughton Gifford, Westwood. 

Cycle Network public consultation – early 2010. 

‘Priority for People’ Action Group – proposals endorsed by council. 

- consultants engaged to look at designation of an ‘historic core zone’. 

Some villages will need to accommodate some limited growth – in order to 

support rural services. 

New development must be carbon neutral – but cost of this? 

Carbon reduction may be more realistic if under 500 houses? 

Aspiration for high levels of growth. 

Need incentives for business to recycle, reduce carbon footprint etc. 

130



 

 

 

Close to peak oil – makes good business sense to build low-energy homes. 

Looser control on agriculture to encourage innovation in energy generation. 

Off site renewable issues – coppicing etc – need enhancement. 

Discussion two 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary schools, doctors + dentists under pressure from new development. 

Public services e.g. courts, driving test centre lost. 

Need to get around town in a civilised way – pavements in terrible state. 

Infrastructure Plan – levy goes to priority projects. 

Enormous network of accessible footpaths – being better signposted now. 

More flexible planning policies to bring vacant premises into use? 

‘Burdens’ on industrial development – need incentives. 

- Planning obligations – Community Infrastructure Levy equalises burden. 

‘A project which is needed by local community – within 2/3 miles radius’. 

Need land/buildings for industrial use – at Treenwood Ind. Estate. 

150 houses needs to be shown more definitively – which part of site? 

Mixed uses – including social housing? Rented, equity? 

Don’t want to encourage more out-commuting. 

Group one 

Most significant issue? 

Integration of uses – community as a whole. 

Objection to density of housing on preferred site. 

Consultation at a local level ‘marginalises’ impact on strategic issues. 

– need strategic impact too. 

* Use BoA as a model for replication elsewhere* 

Group two 


 

 

The group felt there was an objective missing – Sustainable development should 

be a stand alone objective – It was not reinforced strongly enough through the 

document. 

In the same vein there was opined that ‘minimise flooding’ was a minimal 

objective and it was questioned whether it should be an objective at all. 

Objective one – Climate change 

 

 

 

 

 

No mention of ‘Climate Friendly Bradford’. 

Should we look at renewable energy sources? 

Water turbine idea is being explored (centre). 

References to underlying technical docs need inclusion. Joined up and interrelation 

to RSS etc.. 

Failure to recognise relationships between function and quality of life etc.. to 

reach suitable solutions. 

131



Objective six – Vitality of town centres 

 

 

 

 

Issues of ‘blight’ in some central areas. 

Document foes not reflect reality on the ground – Kingston Mills for example is not 

currently in planning but is actually underway and being developed. 

Difficulty in convincing public that economic development/regeneration is 

underway. 

No mention of ‘priority of people’ scheme. 

Objective seven – High quality built environment 

 

 

Planning policies should protect settlement as a whole. 

Balance to be sought with conservation areas so that they do not act as constraint 

against achievement in other areas. 

Other points of interest – References to outside of Bradford on Avon 

 

 

 

Smaller development in villages could be welcomed in some instances i.e. school 

population etc; 114 around four villages is this enough? 

Village development could enforce more shared demographic spread to ensure 

school numbers for example. 

Agreement that Limpley Stoke is limited and constraints of green belt are correct. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed site. 

Should have eastern access although topography would make it v expensive to 

cater for 150 homes. 

Why such a large development and not spread. 

Pitched against dispersed employment. 

Employment land is not suggested alone only as mixed – Why can the land not 

just be employment. 

Greenbelt policies – are they going to qualified through or protected by further 

development. 

132



Group three 


Prioritising objectives: 

Addressing climate change – key objective. 

Not necessarily a need to provide employment space if transport links enhanced. 

Need to understand skills in order to improve the economy. 

Opportunities for smaller knowledge based businesses to establish a niche. We 

need to provide what they need, for example, office space. 

Poorish retail offer. Kingston Mill will improve convenience. Supermarkets are not 

necessarily the answer. 

Growth of business spend is important. 

Vitality of urban centres is important. 

Smaller more affordable housing needed. There should be a self-containment 

policy for affordable housing. 

Sustainable transport – it’s the right size to promote walking and cycling. Need 

more employment locally. 

Train needs to be improved. Limited routes. Direct to Chippenham is missing. 

Opening of previous stations, for example, Holt would be good. Need increasing 

frequency. A circular route to Chippenham would be good. Need space for bikes 

on the trains. 

A network of cycleways would be good, for example, from BoA to surrounding 

villages. 

Need to protect the natural and built environment. 

Discussion 2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preference for mixed use. Need small units that are good for business. ‘Easy in 

easy out’ terms would be good. 

Current development site is vague. Details need to be developed. 

No warehousing. 

Shortage of premises for artists. 

There are two companies in need of expansion. 

Strategic site for employment? Housing all infill/windfall? 

Should have early dialogue on biodiversity input, for example, from the Wildlife 

Trust. 

Low carbon housing – need a different product to suit BoA. Include affordable 

housing, tenure and mix. 

Car free? 

There’s not enough detail on renewable infrastructure. 

Need to start infrastructure planning now includuing adaption of the existing built 

environment. 

Aspiration to go beyond current climate change standards, for example, relating to 

air quality. 

Need a higher proportion of developer contributions. 

The northern site is better than the southern site as it has significant employment 

land and renewables. 

Pinch points are an issue – Staverton Bridge, town centre bridge etc…. 

133



Bradford on Avon workshop notes (additional notes) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t want a plan to address flood risk (not around here); the area is not really at 

risk of flooding (only localised flooding). 

But, some shops and houses do get flooded quite frequently/ Make sure the EA 

talks to all the different relevant parties. 

Climate change is a key objective. What needs to be done in BoA? The 

consultation document doesn’t mention Climate Friendly Bradford. The town has 

a Carbon Neutral target for 2050 (the Sustainability Appraisal says it is for 2030). 

What does climate change mean in relation to the Core Strategy? 

Need to look at the potentials for renewable energy. 

Opportunities for hydro power in BoA. 

Wiltshire 2026 appears to be a stand alone document / it needs to be joined up/ 

doesn’t suggest it is interrelated with national policy etc. 

BoA could be energy self sufficient. 

Need to take a strategic view. Not just an historic town. Danger of overlooking 

obvious. Need to consider economic development/ town is more than just a centre 

to be conserved/ the town needs to function. 

Concern over using the term ‘constraints’/ some constraints are assets. We need 

a Wiltshire view not the PPS view. 

Need to ensure policy to emerge from the LDF process is efficient and effective. 

Need to consider the vitality of the town centre. We need regeneration in BoA; this 

is not reflected by this document. Kingston Mill has planning permission. New 

office space etc. The new bridge will not be to a housing estate but to mixed use 

development with employment and such like. 

The Priority for People initiative is very important/ not mentioned in the report/ if 

read the document would believe that nothing is going on/ this is not the case. 

One priority is to ensure planning policy is in place to create re-use/ ensure that 

the historic environment does not stop regeneration. 

Of the 48 options considered in the SA/ 46 of them are likely to result in a 

significant adverse effect in relation to climate change. BoA is one of the two that 

is likely to deliver a significant positive impact in relation to climate change. 

Also need to consider the rest of the community area. Might have a different 

perspective on the objectives to the town. Affordable housing is a key priority in 

most of the smaller villages. Need to keep primary schools open etc. 

The allocation is too small/ certainly for the villages. Lots of pressure on village 

schools as not enough people in the villages with children/ houses not affordable. 

Need to sustain community life/ village life/ the primary schools are important local 

resources. Holt, Westwood, Winsley, Staverton, all need more housing/ but 

probably not Limpley Stoke though. 

Also need to consider what proportion of housing to go to Starverton. Huge 

difference between this village and others. Also big difference between Holt and 

the others. Staverton is really part of Trowbridge. 

Preferred option/ yes agree/ but should be mixed use/ perhaps mainly 

employment/ need connections – maybe road into Kingston Mill. 

Agree Golf Course site is wrong site. Apparently application has been withdrawn. 

The document makes good sense/ the arguments set out are well structured. 

Why should all development go on one site? Why not spread on number of sites? 

Could have an ‘Enquiry by Design’ on Preferred Option. Need proper 

consultation. 

Not many people in the town would be worried about some infringement of the 

Greenbelt on a limited scale. Will the Greenbelt be looked at through the Core 

134



 

 

Strategy process? Summit Chairs needs to expand/ why not have a small 

infringement into the Greenbelt? 

Need to preserve green corridor along the river (golf course). 

Some concern that other sites have been left out. 

135



Calne community area 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 4 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 5 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 6 


Other comments relating to this community area. 

Supporting 0 


Objecting 0 


Total number of comments relating to Calne: 47 

136




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreement that traffic congestion is a key issue (6 responses). The 

pedestrinisation of a short key access road has caused the congestion. Puts 

people off shopping in the centre. 

One response does not agree that traffic congestion is an issue. It should not be 

a constraint to appropriately designed development. New development offers the 

opportunity to improve public transport and modal shift. 

Villages to the north of Calne experience higher traffic due to traffic seeking 

routes to and from the M4. 

Support that growth should be connected to town centre by means other than the 

private car. 

There is a lack of alternative transport means and cycle routes. The cycle network 

needs improving. 

Calne town centre is severed from the satellite villages for non-motorised travel. 

The A4 and Sand Farm quarry isolate Cherill and Compton Basset and the A4 

and A3102 isolate Derry Hill and Hilmarton. Cycle routes should be improved 

including national route 403. There is also demand for cycle track adjacent to the 

A4. Abberd Brook path offers an artery for residents wanting to travel into the 

centre but links from the path through the town centre and to schools are poor. 

There is an opportunity to reduce traffic congestion by the construction of a 

number of short links. 

Calne needs a transport strategy and working group. It needs a transport hub. 

There are traffic issues in Hilmarton. 

Calne does not have adequate services. 

Access to work, services, leisure and education is poor. 

The potential closure of Lyneham will have a direct impact on Calne in regard to 

loss of employment opportunities and an increase in housing stock. The impact 

should be assessed before housing numbers are confirmed (3 responses). 

Calne has attracted important employers in recent years and is not a dormitory 

town. 

Calne cannot attract large scale employers. They’re more likely to choose 

Chippenham or Swindon. 

There are empty and boarded up shops in the town centre in view of the road 

which does not encourage visitors to stop. The range of shops is limited. The 

centre needs tidying up. 

There should be better awareness of long-term cutting-edge planning. 

The overprovision of housing and under provision of employment causes out 

commuting and growth should not occur until this is in balance. 

Additional growth won’t encourage people to work and shop in Calne but will 

increase travel. 

Calne is affected by its dormitory relationship with Chippenham. 

The current structure of Calne should be maintained. 

Need emphasis on the right level of retail provision between the market towns. 

Calne should improve its tourist offer. 

137




Traffic needs to be taken away from the town centre. Calls for an eastern bypass 

to do this. This would allow normal traffic to circumnavigate Calne as well as the 

HGV traffic going to Sandpit Lane. 

An eastern bypass would remove heavy traffic form the town, improve 

environmental conditions, improve safety and reduce the burden on overwhelmed 


National Cycle Route 403 should be completed. 

Concern too high an increase in employment land will lead to more trips on the 

Strategic Road Network. 

Growth needs to incorporate sustainable transport links into the town centre. 

The potential for a longer-term eastern bypass should be investigated (3 

responses). 

An eastern bypass is not a realistic option (1 response). 

An eastern bypass should not be dismissed just because there is not enough 

housing development. It should be publicly funded. 

Calne Town Council have recently carried out a public consultation on the level of 

growth for Calne. This proposed two options; (A) maintain the status quo with 

slow growth, or (B) a higher level of growth that could potentially facilitate 

infrastructure provision. Calne Town Council have confirmed that the responses 

to their consultation are in favour of the first option: maintaining the status quo (A). 

More employment land required. Extension to Portemarsh Industrial Estate in 

public control. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More variation in employment type is required, particularly IT and electronics. 

Support for prioritising the delivery of services and facilities and increasing selfcontainment. 

Need the critical mass to support community services, retail and 

employment. 

Existing facilities and infrastructure should be consolidated first. 

The infrastructure is needed before the development occurs. 

Infrastructure should include power, water, lo carbon travel, culture, art green 


Growth won’t encourage people to work / shop in Calne but will increase travel. 

Support growth that supports services, regeneration, retail, public transport, 

leisure/ sports. 

Due to economic climate some commitments may not come forward. Consider 

other sites. 

Additional growth should be sought. An additional 915 dwellings should be 

supplied. 

Development should be delayed for five years until the outcome of Lyneham is 

known. 


Support for the preferred option: 

 

 

 

 

Support for the preferred option (four responses). 

It is not constrained and relates well to the town centre. 

Phasing is necessary to allow the necessary improvement in facilities to be 

provided. 

It should include a walking and cycling network including links to the town centre 

and schools, street layouts that maximise priority to pedestrians and cyclists, 

138



 

 

provision for cycle parking including dwellings designed to include safe storage, 

and interventions to encourage reductions in car use. 

Further consideration needs to be given to the historic landfill located in part of the 

preferred option. 

The preferred option should also include land labelled 1a as it can provide for the 

first phase of an eastern relief road. 

Objection to the preferred option: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objection to the preferred option (three responses). 

It would encourage more road traffic. 

The preferred option is not appropriate for housing use. There would be noise 

and transport issues caused by nearby heavy industrial use. 

It is ideally located for employment use because it offers existing road 

infrastructure for HGVs and other traffic movements associated with employment 

land, it offers optimal access from Calne to the M4 and it is adjacent to 

Portemarsh Industrial Estate and land at Beaversbrook offering the opportunity to 

consolidate access and services. 

One large development would exacerbate traffic issues. 

Consideration should be given to preferring a number of smaller sites rather than 

one urban extension. 

Alternative sites: 

 

 

 

 

 

Land on the northern bypass opposite the current housing development. 

Land south east of Calne at Quemerford. This could be part of a package to 

deliver an eastern bypass or it could come forward as a small stand alone 

development. The combined sites could provide 850 dwellings, community uses, 

open space and employment land together with the first phase of an eastern relief 

road. 

150 dwellings on land at Silver Street. This can be delivered within 5 years and is 

unconstrained. 50 dwellings on land at Wenhill Heights. This can be delivered 

within 5 years. These two sites can deliver smaller scale urban extensions along 

with a potential town park and potential town allotments on nearby land. 

Land at Marden Farm. 

Option 3 is not affected by restrictive designations and offers the opportunity for 

good transport links. 

139




 

 

 

There is support for the market town designation in Calne (2 responses). 

Calne has service deficiencies and therefore should not be designated a policy B 

settlement. 

The housing allocation should be increased by 915 dwellings. 


4.42 Calne community area: respondents 

Organisations 

C G Fry and Son 

Calne Area Transport 

CCAP 

CPRE (Wilts) 

Fisher G LLP 

Gleeson Strategic land 

Hills UK Ltd 



Calne Area Board 


CPRE (N Wilts and Swindon) 

Environment Agency (Wessex) 

Gleeson developments 


MoD 

Redrow Homes Ltd 

Sustrans 

Individuals 

Cllr A Hill 

Colin Pearson 

Jane and Chris Nicholson Jane and Chris Nicholson 

Linda Jenkins 

Mr Matt Moore 

Robert Hitchens 

140



Calne exhibition notes 1 December 2009 

Board four: How do we deliver the vision for Wiltshire? 

Q: Do you agree with the objectives? 

In response to objective 5 – Derelict sites from Phelps Parade to market area – 

back to Pippin and rear of A4, needs to be addressed to improve the town centre. 

Objective 4 – Worry about increase in homes and whether schools, doctors etc. 

can cope. 

Clear regeneration plan for market towns needed. 

Board 5 Q: Do you agree with the proposed settlement hierarchy? 

Q: Do you agree with the distribution of numbers to market towns? 

 

 

Rural policy – How to define local? Wiltsshire Council links to parish plans. How 

can the core strategy support local initiatives? 

Parish Plan Survey. Cherhill – no more infill. Yatesbury – some additional 

growth. Local affordable homes needed – what is affordable? 

Board eleven 

Employment in Calne minimal causing traffic on surrounding roads especially A4. 

This town has grown enough already, we need more jobs not more houses. 

Otherwise those living here will have to go elsewhere for work. 

The site is near Portemarsh Industrial Estate and employment and transport to 

and from Calne is good. To support a larger population in Calne we need a larger 

number and variety of shops, more employment should also be encouraged. 

Please note the name of the industrial area adjacent to preferred option. This 

may indicate the reason for the chosen site being so frequently under water. Is 

the existing drainage system adequate to take the rain off from the hard surfaces 

that would replace the open fields? Is the existing sewage system capable of 

dealing with 500 extra houses? If not what provision will be made? What part of 

the plan deals with provision of more employment for the growth in population? 

The same question arises regarding facilities in the town centre. 

Junction improvements on Curzon Street onto the A4 – possible one way system. 

Need to find out more about traffic. Volume of lorries unacceptable. Increase in 

lorries to and from Hills because of the way the business is changing and 

increase in recycling. Movement on A4 day and night unacceptable and clashes 

with local traffic. 

Infilling in small villages where the current population not sufficient to have good 

community action. Village halls should be encouraged particularly in very small 

villages. 

Water voles in Abberd Brook east of housing third field along. Flood relief 

required. 

Need to find a way of getting people to stop in Calne/shop in Calne and not go 

outside. 

Agree generally with all the bullet points. Should include encouraging sustainable 

transport such as cycling and walking safely instead of car usage. 

Level of lorries on A4 makes cycling and walking unsafe. Joint use of 

pavements? 

Parking and lining review delays. Response to safety issues on Station Road 

slow. Parking on A4 e.of Calne and road too narrow for cyclists. 

Encourage more people to use cycles, walk, public transport. 

141



Serious traffic congestion at Sliver Street already. Too close to school – 

children’s safety. 

Calne needs to develop a coherent cycle network especially to schools. 

Curzon Street needs sorting out. The traffic jams up. 

Encourage people not to use cars for short journeys – cycling and walking by safe 

routes. 

Following the exhibition on 1 December at Calne Town Hall the exhibition was moved 

to the community hub shop in Calne for the whole of December. People working in 

the hub said that a lot of people came in to look at the exhibition, asked questions 

and were referred on to the council. However, there was a general feeling that people 

didn’t understand what it was all about and left without making comment. Technical 

language and non user-friendly presentation were problems. Some comments 

included the opinion: ‘It is not an eastern bypass that is needed as much as an A4 

bypass. If the Strand were blocked the town would be cut in half. Why does a bypass 

depend on population growth? It is through traffic that is the issue.’ 

142



4.43 Corsham community area 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 7 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 7 


Strategic Site Allocations 

Supporting 0 


Objecting 9 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 6 


Total number of comments relating to Corsham: 74 

143




Areas of agreement: 

 

 

The need to reduce out commuting and congestion as well as improving self 

containment of Corsham is agreed. 

There is considerable potential for growth - which needs to be sustainable and 

encourage self containment as proposed. However this could be greater than 

envisaged – what about the MoD sites? 

Areas of disagreement and concern: 

 

 

 

 

 

Corsham is an average sized market town – not small. Figures quoted are 

inaccurate. Population was 10.780 in 2001, but since then there has been 

significant house building. 

Economic Base is not narrow, but includes ICT, food and media companies, as 

well as military. 

Need to re-open the railway station not acknowledged clearly enough. The council 

should lead on this. 

Leisure provision not mentioned once. 

Push for specific targets and actions on sustainability. We lag behind many 

European countries. 

General comments: 

 

 

 

 

 

Corsham already has sufficient retail and other services to act as a hub for 

outlying villages. This role needs to be recognised explicitly. 

New housing should be kept strictly in balance with employment growth. New 

houses should be restricted to affordable units and potentially also a Retirement 

Village for the elderly. 

Some executive housing may be needed for top ranking military personnel. 

The council as well as new development should enable the expansion of 

sustainable transport modes – for example the National Cycle Network and 

cycling facilities at the Railway Station (if implemented). There is a great deal of 

potential for sustainable transport in Corsham, with schemes already part-built 

and needing to be linked up. The Core Strategy needs to discuss with Sustrans 

and mention this in the Core Strategy. 

The plan is hard to use, relying on cross referencing documents. This is especially 

true of the electronic version. It would be appreciated if clarity of text, and 

especially maps, could be improved in subsequent drafts. Unwieldy and 

frustrating. 

144




 

Employment uses on MoD land supported, existing employment land should be 

retained and not given over to residential use. 


 

 

 

Greater scale of development needed to provide the critical mass necessary for 

self containment. 

Growth should be limited to be within capacity of the Strategic Road Network 

(Highways Agency). Some concerns over this. 

Corsham lies within the statutory height safeguarding zone surrounding RAF 

Colerne. 


 

 

 

 

Open countryside between Corsham and other villages should be protected. 

The town has potential for considerable degree of renewable energy generation 

including solar, wind and bio-mass. A demonstration project could be 

commissioned. 

Distinctiveness and separate identity of Box not recognised. 

Development should aim to raise quality overall and support the historic core. This 

is not clear enough as an aim. 

145





 

 

 

 

Objections to the preferred option and suggest sites at: 

Land East of Leafield Trading Estate (Persimmon). 

Proposal for site at Ladbrook Lane (Wills). 

Copenacre and Rudloe (GVA Grimley and Box Parish Council)Part of the housing 

numbers relate to a care home (a C2 use not C3) at Royal Arthur Park, and 

should not be included in the figures. Housing target at the west of Corsham site 

consequently needs to be increased to 260 homes, or more alternative sites 

found. 


 

 

 

 

Open countryside between Corsham and other villages should be protected. 

National Grid Requests that design of schemes takes accounts of their power 

lines, which apparently cross the preferred site. 

Landscape and separation form nearby settlements is an issue with the proposed 

option and would need to be sensitively handled. 

Need to ensure sustainable transport links between new development, Corsham 

centre and surrounding settlements. 

Section 106 agreements should be used to secure community benefit / 

infrastructure from development. This is necessary in order to enhance selfcontainment 

and reduce out-commuting. 



 

 

 

 

 

Need to ensure sustainable transport Areas of Agreement. 

MoD sites in Corsham could allow significant growth and would support plan 

objectives in terms of encouraging self-containment and broadening the 

employment base. 

Settlement Hierarchy is too rigid a concept. 

Status of Corsham is wrong – should be of higher status. In particular, it should be 

listed in Paragraph 4.16 as being capable of accommodating development. 

Plan seems insular and does not link well with other councils outside of its 

administrative boundaries. 


 

MoD sites in Corsham could allow significant Need to build in sufficient flexibility 

to allow for normal and organic growth. 

146



4.48 Housing distribution: Comments 

Areas of disagreement / concern: 

 

 

 

Numbers too low – especially for affordable housing. 

Potential of MoD sites not quantified and impact underestimated. Basil Hill 

development by the military in particular will encourage demand for new housing 

in the town. 

Need to encourage specialist and novel housing solutions – e.g. Live/Work, rural 

enterprise workshops / technology etc. Overall Housing allocation for Corsham 

seems unclear. 

4.49 Corsham community area: respondents 

Organisations 


Broadway Malyan 

Carter Jonas 


CPRE (N Wilts and Swindon) 


GVA Grimley 

Hartham Park 

MOD 


Sustrans 







Hannick Homes 




Transition Community Corsham 

Individuals 

Iain Stevenson 

147



4.50 Corsham community area: notes from exhibitions and events 

Corsham exhibition 


General 

 

Why allow Welsh rubbish to be brought here. It is hardly environmental? 

Options 

 

 

 

The grey preferred option along Lypiatt Road is a buffer between the settlement of 

Corsham and Neston. 

I would question the lack of Grade 2 land. Surrounding Great Lypiatt. That which 

borders Lypiatt. Road is equally good quality according to the farmer !!!! 

No. 8 Corsham – Protection of open countryside between Corsham and Rudloe 

and Westwells. There will not be any OPEN countryside left according to the 

plans. 

Environmental constraints map 

 

 

 

Not environmental constraints but ASSETS to be exploited for benefit of local 

community/ tourism. 

Local Copenaire military land (not shown). Where and what is the battlefield? 

It is difficult to understand the area of Grade 2. Listed land as much of the hand 

around Lypiatt Farm is equally good. Ex-Farmer. 

SA issues 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support Credit Unions. 

That will be the day!!! A secure funding stream and budget. 

How? Buses are inconvenient. And trains far too expensive. 

Good start with market, but creating enough local jobs isn’t possible. Corsham is 

really badly served by direct transport links. The buses are far too difficult to use 

with wide timetable gaps and not knowing how long you need to wait. So buses 

are empty followed by 100 cars going the same direction with just a driver. 

Increase teacher to pupil ratio in first 2 years of school so children benefit from 

high levels of input. 

Specially agree to No 6 and 11 and 15 (need an Action Plan not just issues). 

Is it true that our rubbish is driven to Slough for combustion? Can we have 

doorstep food waste collection as this will encourage recycling as waste product 

seem cleaner to handle. 

Restrict domestication by certain invasive species, e.g. squirrels, Fa. Tail 

Pigeons, badgers, rabbits, rats! 

Again – address the travel deprivation of Corsham compared to residents of BoA 

who are rail rich which is great social leveller. 

Please don’t talk about sustainable waste management proposals! Having trialled 

with 70+ others across Wiltshire for over a year with a good hierarchy agreed 

what did WCC go – enter into yet another contract with Hills Waste! Again, 

consultation feedback ignored. 

Wiltshire appears to be doing nothing positive towards reversing the trend in 

Climate Change. We have no windturbines, no food waste digesters or even 

recycling plants – everything is sent out, increasing CO2 emmissions. 

148



 

 

 

Promote rail positively instead of WCC’s A350 road schemes. Invest in TransWilts 

for a start and support Corsham’s much needed rail link to Bath & Bristol. 

How? The problem is being able to keep houses affordable. Not always terraced 

for affordable homes, gardens are needed for children to play in and parents to 

relax and grow things in e.g. veg & flowers. 

Too many houses already, should be none for immigrants. 

Poster four - How do we deliver the vision for Wiltshire? 

Strongly agree with No. 7. 


 

 

No there are too many houses! 

Stick to max of 100 for Corsham please. 

Poster seven – What do we already know about Corsham community 

area? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment sites need to be retained to make the most of this opportunity to 

reduce out-commuting. 

More promotion of Corsham as a tourist location through Enjoy-England-Visit- 


No mention of age distribution. I suspect we are seeing an increase in the 

numbers of elderly people, with families living some distance away. They need 

improved access to public and medical services and public transport, plus 

possibly special housing needs. 

The description of Corsham within the strategy is dire. I do not need to leave 

Corsham for our family’s needs. 

MoD land includes land between Westwells Park Lane and Hudswell, also land 

adjoining Pockeredge Farm, which will encourage the cojoining of Corsham & 

Westwells. D. Stevenson, 8 Hatton Way, Corsham. Please keep an eye on this 

8 Hatton Way, Corsham. Concern about MoD at Basil Hill. So many people and 

MoD personnel will be employed here. Prime target for terrorist attacks since 

C.C.C was moved from underground security. D. Stevenson. 

What do you have in mind for redundant MoD sites at Copenaire and Rudloe. 

Roads will not take increased traffic from development. David Bowen- Jones, The 

Lodge, Crosskeys, Corsham. SN13 ODT. 

It’s not the out-commuting that’s the problem – it’s how people are outcommuting, 

by car! We need public transport that serves all shift workers and all 

pleasure seekers too. 

Poster eight - How does Wiltshire 2026 expect Corsham to change? 

 

 

 

 

 

This would be nice but preferred housing options on map on Table 1 seem to 

conflict with this! 

Housing development contradicts this! 

With the MoD and related PFI activities here for the next 25 years as a key part of 

their strategic plans – why does the council classify Corsham as not for strategic 

workplace provision? 

More specialist shops and parking needed for use of cars. Now in Corsham after 

Pockeridge development (400 x 2 cars =1,200 cars). 

Corsham has individual shops not large chains. It needs to retain this. 

149



 

Corsham station – discussions with Network Rail NOW – Katherine Park, Basil 

Hill, Data Storage – come on Wiltshire! 

Poster eleven - The initial options comprised: 

 

Limit housing development please. 

Poster twelve - The preferred option 

 

 

 

 

 

Corsham is really badly served by affordable public transport, especially at night. 

Evening events in Bath & Chippenham often end much later than our buses run 

through. 

Corsham needs its station back. Can the LTP support platform and station 

investment to support Network Rail’s Chippenham-Bristol shuttle service 

proposal? It should. 

Shift workers need better transport at all times, frequent services to decrease the 

reliance on cars. We have far too many cars per household in Corsham due to 30 

years + of badly serving buses. 

Please open Corsham Station – we have been waiting years … 

Until the stations reinstated, we need better lines to Chippenham Station. Evening 

bus services need improving badly. 

Poster thirteen - Why is transport important? 

 

These principles are fine, but we need an integrated strategy for the Community 

Area to provide the detail. The real paths to a more sustainable future: local 

employment, public travel networks, cycle paths, renewable energy micro 

generation, local food production and tree planting. 

150



4.51 Devizes community area 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 6 



Supporting 3 


Objecting 3 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 17 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 3 


Total number of comments relating to Devizes: 90 

151




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The issues and opportunities identified for the settlements / hinterland of Devizes 

present a fair reflection of the character and challenges facing them over the next 

twenty years. 

The key role of Devizes should be underlined and poor supply of employment 

land stressed. 

The strategic focus of the document is unclear; it seems to be trying to do too 

much. The Core Strategy should be more clearly focused on the strategic spatial 

options. 

Strategic issues for Devizes are topography, peripheral expansion and 

opportunities for mixed use regeneration in an accessible central area. 

The Assize Court and use of the Wharf area are important for the future of the 

town. There is an opportunity for more tourism development on this site. 

Plans to redevelop the Wharf area should be resisted, particularly for housing. 

Development of the Wharf should be for leisure to benefit Devizes and attract 

tourists. 

The untapped potential of the central area is a strategic issue. 

The Wharf area and the old hospital site are very important sites which could 

greatly enhance the town for both locals and tourists. 

The severance between a satellite villages and Devizes should be identified as an 

issue. 

Reference to Market Lavington & adjacent villages is much too superficial. 

The infrastructure of Potterne cannot support large scale development. Support 

the classification of Potterne as only suitable for limited infill development. 

There should be reference to the small towns and larger villages which will 

combine with Devizes to provide the majority of the housing provision. 

The policy for Easterton, Market and West Lavington and Littleton Panell is not 

clear. 

Impact of traffic resulting from proposals should be recognised - would be 

catastrophic. 

The imbalance between income and cost of housing increases the amount of 

traffic into, through and out of Devizes and is not a sustainable way forward. 

The strategy is right to identify traffic congestion as a major issue. 

Traffic passes through town centre on unsuitable roads in competition with local 

traffic. 

Local traffic and commuting traffic has grown and is probably the biggest local 

concern. 

Highways that pass through this area are unsuitable to meet modern traffic 

requirements. 

Do not agree that sustainable development at Devizes is constrained by traffic 

congestion. 

The Kennet & Avon Canal going east is a valuable green infrastructure. 

There should be no further encroachment on the green space around Devizes. 

The steady erosion of public open space by housing is becoming a major issue. 

Alternatives to the car and Improvements to public transport/ walking/ will be 

necessary. 

Need to enable and encourage people to travel within the town by walking and 

cycling. 

Better pedestrian connections needed from town to Wharf, Assize Courts, canal 

etc. 

Devizes could provide more growth opportunities than it is allocated in this plan. 

152



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A key issue is the need to ensure that housing development, and thus an increase 

in population, is synchronised with an increase in employment. 

Additional housing, employment and shopping will strengthen this as a 

sustainable town. 

A big mistake to replace car parks with more "big name" shops. To bring larger 

national retailers to the town centre would damage the essential character of the 

retail offering. 

Central car park suitable for smaller retailers, but there is a limit to the numbers of 

such retailers. Los of central car parking would be detrimental unless good 

alternative found. 

Improve empty stores/spaces on the streets so we keep integrity of the Market 

town intact. 

There should be any encroachment upon existing car park provision. 

Housing should not be allowed on existing employment areas. 

Challenge the statement that ‘Devizes provides a significant level of employment’ 

Number of houses planned is not matched by a strategy to attract employers to 

the area. 

Allocating further land for employment would be disastrous. Appearance of town 

when entering from north would become worse: a very large, unattractive 

industrial estate. 

Is there demand for employment land given recent appeal decision at Bureau 

West? 

There is a major problem of access to hospital facilities. 

Facilities are not in place to support the proposed level of growth. 

Infrastructure is not in place to support the proposed level of growth. 

Continuing loss of services should be an issue (health, police given as examples). 

The proposed care village should be acknowledged as an opportunity to provide a 

new community facility and much needed social care provision in Devizes. 

Development can support new facilities. 

The impact of development on the AONB should be properly considered. 

New housing built in the last decade is mostly outside Devizes and in parish of 

Roundway. 

What is meant by self containment? 

Devizes does not have high level of self-containment. Substantial out-commuting 

exists. 

Delivery of affordable housing not as successful as Wiltshire 2026 suggests. 

The planned housing developments will further damage the quality of the town. 

Devizes needs a railway station. 

Process fro too complex. Material and web site needs to be clearer. 

The village culture and “rural feel” and characteristics of a ‘village’ should be 

retained and pressure to grow into a town should be resisted. 

Previous developments on a scale greater than neighbouring villages have 

caused the mass of the village (Market Lavington) to approach its upper practical 

limit. 

The medieval layout of the village (Market Lavington) should) be conserved. This 

layout of narrow streets makes further large-scale development impractical. 

153




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Core Strategy should be about making choices. 

Limiting the growth of Devizes in the way proposed will restrict its economic 

potential and result in higher house prices and affordability issues. 

The core strategy should build on the strengths and advantages of Devizes and 

be the focus for additional housing, employment, retail and community services. 

Additional population will place additional pressure on the Town Council services 

but provide no additional council tax revenue for their funding as proposed sites 

outside the towns boundaries. 

Concerned that the outward sprawl of the town and the tendency of developers to 

build at higher densities in the interests of profit, the basic character of the town is 

at risk. 

Support the decision to only allow limited infill in the village of Potterne. 

Rural communities need greater support for the young people and those raising 

families. 

The description should include some reference to how it is anticipated that the 

small towns and villages will change instead of neglecting them. 

Support the principle of increased retail provision at Devizes. 

No encroachment on central car park for further retail development. 

Additional research should be undertaken to assess the retail opportunities in 

Devizes to ensure that Devizes is able to maintain the ‘hustle and bustle’ of a 

vibrant market town. 

Growing traffic has not been addressed in relation to planned further 

development. 

Continuing development on London Road is a matter of concern. 

There is failure to address the congestion problems of the town or identify what 

levels of traffic any of the major roads are capable of absorbing. 

A relief road should also be investigated. 

Additional housing will compound this existing difficult traffic situation further 

The findings of the traffic flow assessments do not agree with most people’s 

experience. 

Additional analysis of the traffic flows are needed before major decisions are 

made. 

Concerns that ancient bridges will not be able to cope with a further increase in 

traffic. 

Agree that employment land should be retained in town to enhance selfcontainment. 

Inadequate allocation of new employment land. 

Some consideration ought to be given to better broadband facilities in the town. 

Avoid Government Inspectors overriding the strategy and allowing residential 

development on carefully research employments sites. 

Not acceptable to encourage business to Trowbridge / Chippenham ahead of 

Devizes. 

enable the delivery of increased amounts of tourist accommodation. 

employment land should be retained and additional sites considered. 

Expect walking and cycling within Devizes and to outlying villages to be improved 

by 2026. 

Do not oppose the proposal for 700 houses. 

How was it decided that Devizes can accommodate so many houses? 

Recognise the demand for affordable and social housing for future needs. 

There is a high percentage of affordable housing need. 

154



No indication about how services will provide for the proposed additional 700 

houses. 

Capacity of the sewage treatment works. 

The Secondary School (market Lavington) is at capacity level, but could expand 

with new buildings. St Barnabas Primary currently has space for approx. 45 extra 

pupils. 

A ‘green-field’ separation between Market Lavington and the surrounding villages 

of West Lavington and Easterton should be retained, offering clear boundaries 

between the villages. 

The narrow roads within the village are currently causing difficulties due to the 

conflicting needs of passing traffic and residents needing parking spaces. There 

have been documented difficulties with the access of emergency vehicles within 

the village. Road access and junctions further out, around the periphery of the 

village, are not suitable for further significant traffic growth. 

There should be no further encroachment of building on southern side of the 

village and on the protected northern slopes of Salisbury Plain. 

Any development should be within the existing ‘envelope’ as specified on map 28 

of the previous ‘Kennet Local Plan’. 

The environmental impact of creating accommodation for commuters who work in 

distant towns such as Swindon, Salisbury and Trowbridge should be considered. 

Wessex Water has confirmed that the sewerage system for the village (Market 

Lavington) is close to capacity. 

4.55 Strategic site options: Comments 

 

 

 

 

Society of Merchant Venturers consider that land North East of Roundway Park is 

more appropriate to accommodate residential development in Devizes than the 

two larger strategic sites identified, north east and south east of Devizes. 

Langdale Western Ltd. consider that land at Coate Bridge, Devizes should be 

included as part of the preferred option for the development of Devizes instead of 

the extended Bureau West site and land to SE of Devizes. 

Land at Coate Bridge is close to the employment areas and town centre with the 

well-defined boundaries of the road and canal. When seen from the south and 

east the new housing would be seen against the backdrop of the existing built-up 

area and could be softened with additional planting (land owners comments). 

Further sites need to be allocated at Devizes and consider that land at Windsor 

Drive is suitable, available and achievable for residential development in 

accordance with national and regional planning policy (Hills Group). 

 

4.56 Settlement hierarchy: Comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Potterne is rightly identified as a village for only limited infill for local needs. 

Support Devizes position in settlement hierarchy but the town should be 

recognised more. 

Limit new housing development in market towns to accommodate true local 

housing need as is the case in smaller villages. 

Justification for market town designation should give sufficient consideration to 

their community service role. 

Clarify the definition for infill in the villages. 

Market towns carry out a primary function in terms of providing a concentration of 

business, public transport links and employment and community facilities that 

meet the needs of the settlement and the surrounding area. This needs to be 

highlighted more in the settlement hierarchy. 

155



 

 

 

 

The lower threshold for "small towns and larger villages" should be a current 

population of about 1,500. That would indicate the probable removal of Great 

Cheverell, Urchfont, and West Lavington/Littleton Pannell in the Devizes 

Community Area from the list and the addition of Bromham, Bishop Cannings and 

Potterne. The lower threshold for ‘smaller villages’ should be a current population 

of about 900. 

Market Lavington should get special consideration because it is a successful 

economic unit. 

Devizes, Calne, Melksham, Warminster should have a more significant role than 

other market towns. 

Despite the growth in population, the number of shops and services in Market 

Lavington has been decreasing. This may be due to a lack of parking facilities 

driving shoppers further afield. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The number of houses allocated to Tidworth/Luggershall is disproportionate. The 

number of dwellings allocated should be reduced and re-allocated to the Devizes 

Community Area. 

It is unsatisfactory that the housing assigned to Devizes (700) should be 

determined by the number which causes congestion to reach a critical level. 

Housing figures bear little relationship to local needs or the preservation of the 

features of true value in our communities. 

It is vital that the practice of ignoring incidental windfall developments is 

discontinued. 

A revised spatial distribution of growth in the east is needed which increases the 

proportion of development to those areas that need it most and where the 

opportunities exist for sustainable and self-contained development. In Devizes an 

increased allocation from 700 to 850 would be appropriate. 

The document does not recognise that Devizes is a Sustainable Policy B 

settlement and does not allocate enough development to Devizes. 

There should be an allowance of 10% for un-implemented planning permissions. 

The council have identified insufficient land in East Wiltshire and there is a need 

to identify land for approximately 1500 more dwellings (based on redistribution 

from Tidworth/Ludgershall and rural areas and a non implememntation 

allowance). 

Planning for over 22% of the total housing requirement in East Wiltshire to be in 

small towns and villages is unsustainable. This number should be substantially 

reduced and land allocated in more sustainable urban locations. 

156



4.58 Devizes community area: respondents 

Adrian Green (Salisbury and South 

Wiltshire Museum) 

Alistair Millington (Sustrans) 

Andrew Le Coyte (Agent: Gary 

Llewellyn) 

Andrew Miles (LPC (Trull) Ltd) 

C.G. Phillips 

Charles Routh (Natural England) 

Clare Crawford (Sarsen Housing 

Association) 


Andrew Goves 

Andrew Lord (North Wessex Downs 

AONB) 

Anthony O'Hare 

Charles Hanson 

Christine Jackson 

Councillor Richard Gamble 

D. J Watson Dan Hallett (Berkeley Strategic) 

David and Lesley Russell 

David Dawson 

Declan McSweeney 

Dr M G Rodd (The Kennet and Avon 

Canal Trust) 

Hazel Simons 

Ian Rose 

Janet Giles 

Jenevora Searight 

Judy Rose 

Keith Thorman 

Langdale Western Ltd 

Lt Cdr J Blake (CPRE Wiltshire) 

M Whitehead (Urchfont Parish Council) M. Roberts (Devizes Dev. Partnership) 

Malcolm and Janet Tanner 

Margery Steel 

Market Lavington Parish Council Miss Katherine Burt (Environment 

Agency) 

Mr David Dawson (Wiltshire 

Mr Edward East (Trust for Devizes) 

Archaeological and Natural History 

Society) 

Mr Gale and Mr Shivers (Agent: Carter Mrs C Spickernell 

Jonas, Iain Stevenson) 

Mrs Jacqui Ashman (Highways Agency) Ms Jane Hennell (British Waterways () 

Ms L Llewelyn 

Paul Langham 

Paul Robinson 

Peter Balls 

Peter Little 

Peter Newell 

Philippa Morgan 

Rob and Ruth Edwards 

Sally Hoddinott (Potterne Parish Sarah Todhunter (Devizes Town Council) 


Slater Reynolds 

Society of Merchant Venturers (Agent: 

Carter Jonas, Amy Hallam) 

The Crown Estate (Agent: David 

Fovargue, Entec UK Ltd) 

Thomas Searight 

The Hills Group (Agent: Barton Willmore, 

Mr Ian Mellor) 

Vibeke Ormerod 

157



4.59 Devizes community area: notes from exhibitions and events 

The workshop that was held in Devizes identified the proposed objectives most 

relevant to the area as: 

addressing climate change 

providing for long term economic growth 

securing appropriate infrastructure and services 

protecting the natural and built environment 

Attendees 

Eric Clark (Bishops Cannings Parish Council) 

Jacky Thomas (Wiltshire Wildlife Trust) 

Janet Giles (Devizes Community Area Partnership) 

Jim Batt (Devizes Community Area Partnership & Urchfont Parish Council) 

Jo Curson (Greensquare) 

Jonathan Gale (Devizes Community Area Board Manager) 

Len Turner (Mid Wiltshire Economic Partnership) 

Lionel Grundy (Wiltshire Council) 

Mitch Roberts (Devizes Development Partnership) 

Peter Evans (Devizes Town Council) 

Peter Newell (Urchfont Parish Council) 

Roger Chadwick (Devizes Community Area Partnership) 

Simon Holt (Urchfont Parish Council) 

Ted East (Devizes Town Council) 

158



4.60 Malmesbury community area 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 2 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 7 



Supporting 4 


Objecting 7 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 13 


Total number of comments relating to Malmesbury: 78 

159




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is too much emphasis on Dyson as the key employer in Malmesbury. 

There is a lack of small to medium sized firms. The economic base needs to be 

diversified. 

Support for the retention of the economic base that makes use of good 

connectivity to the M4 and A429. 

Support for the recognition that there are relatively high levels of in-commuting to 

Malmesbury. This should be used to justify more housing. 

Malmesbury is a commuter town for Swindon. 

Support for more affordable housing. 

Higher levels of affordable housing can only be achieved with higher levels of 

market housing. 

There is no need for more small affordable housing units. 

There should not be a blanket assumption about constraints in Malmesbury. 

Support for utilising the river corridor for green infrastructure. Water voles and 

otters should be taken into account. 

It is an important tourist destination. There is a risk there will be lost if the town is 

extended. 

Consideration needs to be given to impact on the conservation area. 

Growth is not supported by infrastructure. The central road system and education 

facilities are at capacity. Better leisure services are needed. 

There is a lack of safe cycle routes. The road network isolates villages south east 

of Malmesbury from the town centre. 

There is a lack of local knowledge. 

The road network needs improving. 

Parking is an issue. 

The bus service is relatively good except for the bus service to Tetbury. 

The issues just relate to Malmesbury - should relate to the wider community area. 

The issue of severance between villages and the town centre should be added. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The isolation of the community area means growth is essential in Malmesbury to 

maintain the vitality and viability of the town, the economic base and the retail 

function. 

Malmesbury is in a rural context therefore significant growth is not appropriate. 

A moratorium should be held on new housing for five years. This will allow 

infrastructure needs to be assessed. 

Growth should be phased. 

More employment is needed, not more housing. Employment base not adequate. 

The proposed development should be of a better mix and quality, and lower 

density, than the Filands Estate. 

There is a lack of infrastructure including schools, public transport and drainage. 

Consideration will need to be given to health facilities, power sources, culture and 

art, green infrastructure and sewage. 

Substantial contributions will be needed to enhance the built and natural 

environment. 

Walking and cycling links between Malmesbury and satellite villages should be 

improved including use of the disused railway between Malmesbury and Little 

Somerford. 

Free parking should be introduced to the town centre to reduce decline of the 

town centre. 

160



 

All new affordable housing should be for local people. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several responses (12) supported the preferred option. 

It is a logical extension to the school site. 

It will deliver affordable housing. 

It is the least constrained site. It is in one ownership and capable of delivery. It is 

close to existing housing and employment. There is capacity for a higher number 

on the site. 

The site should accommodate 225 dwellings. 

Careful phasing is necessary. 

The preferred option would need a carefully designed access and through road. 

It should be ensured that the development is not a repeat of the Filands Estate. 

Future development should be high quality. 

Future development needs to include high quality cycle and pedestrian routes, 

public transport and play areas. It should include a local community focus such 

as a pub. 

Adequate infrastructure must be provided. 

Several responses (12) objected to the preferred option. 

The preferred option would obstruct views from the south and east. 

It is not realistic to assume all 200 dwellings will be delivered within one location. 

Identification of an alternative housing allocation, such as a subject site, will 

introduce competition, increase chances of delivery and improve choice. 

It does not have adequate road access. Creating road access via Reeds Farm 

Estate will destroy its character. 

Loss of greenfield land. 

The pedestrian route to town from the preferred option is poor. 

Suggested alternative sites: 

- Land at Burton Hill. 

- Development south of Malmesbury is better located for access to retail and 

jobs in Chippenham. 

- Land off the B4040 to Brokenborough. 

- Land to the side of the White Lion Housing Estate on the old allotments. 

- Land off the Malmesbury to Brokenborough class C road via Backbridge. 

- Land adjacent to the White Lion housing estate south of Park Road and Park 

Lane. This site is equal in sustainability terms to the preferred option. The 

land should have been assessed as a site in itself instead of part of a larger 

swathe of land. It provides a logical expansion to the White Lion housing 

estate. It is available and deliverable within the short-term. It can 

accommodate 137 units. 

161




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dauntsey should have limited infill. 

Minety should be recognised as a ‘policy C’ settlement. 

Development should be restrained in Ashton Keynes, Sherston, Great Somerford, 

Little Somerford and Luckington. 

Re-use of land and buildings from windfall sites outside named rural settlements 

should be encouraged. 

The development boundaries at Luckington and Sherston should be changed. 

Ashton Keynes should not be in the Malmesbury Community Area. 

Oaksey and Great Somerford should receive a higher level of development. 

There are several responses (10) that are objecting to development on SHLAA 

sites in Great Somerford. This was not included in the consultation document and 

no research has been carried out on these sites. 

The housing numbers for Malmesbury are unsustainable and not supported by 

the appropriate infrastructure. 

The housing numbers have not been developed from the bottom up using local 

knowledge. 

Additional development bears a large risk to the current benefits of Malmesbury. 

Growth is essential to maintain the vitality and viability of the town, to enhance 

employment opportunities and increase the opportunity for people to live and work 

in the same area. It is likely that a higher allocation is needed. 

The allocation of 200 homes will help to deliver affordable housing. 

More emphasis should be placed on Malmesbury and the allocation should be 

increased by 25 units. 

Housing development should not occur for five years. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dauntsey should have limited infill. 

Minety should be recognised as a ‘policy C’ settlement. 

Development should be restrained in Ashton Keynes, Sherston, Great Somerford, 

Little Somerford and Luckington. 

Re-use of land and buildings from windfall sites outside named rural settlements 

should be encouraged. 

The development boundaries at Luckington and Sherston should be changed. 

Ashton Keynes should not be in the Malmesbury Community Area. 

Oaksey and Great Somerford should receive a higher level of development. 

There are several responses (10) that are objecting to development on SHLAA 

sites in Great Somerford. This was not included in the consultation document and 

no research has been carried out on these sites. 

162



4.66 Malmesbury community area: respondents 

Organisations 

(CPRE) Swindon and N Wilts 

Broadway Malyan 



Hannick Homes 

Lea and Cleverton Parish Council 


Residents’ Association 




Parish Clerk Dauntsey Parish Council 


Sustrans 


Carter Jonas 


Great Somerford Parish Council 





MoD 

Pegasus Planning Group 


White Lion Land 

Individuals 

Mrs Karen Temple Lord Suffolk Mrs C Spickernell 

Miss Lorna Hodgson Mr Frederic Nicolas Ian Henderson 

Mr Peter Gosling Mr Nick Green Colin Roseblade 

Bob Kendrick Mrs. Simone Porter Mr William Blake 

Simon Dring Mrs Claire Edmeston Mr James Woodhous 

Mrs Jill Shearer Mr Miles Widnall Mr John Hanington 

Mr and Mrs Beckwith Sally Morgan Neville Burne 

Mr Eric Jones Nigel Kirkman Mr Peter Holland 

163



4.67 Malmesbury community area: notes from exhibitions and events 

Malmesbury exhibition notes 


Poster three – How do you think Wiltshire will look in 2026? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can’t dictate where people live and work. Malmesbury is full now without all 

these extra houses. 

The council must influence travel patterns. It can help mitigate climate change 

(and must). 

What does ‘more sustainable’ mean? The council has no influence over people’s 

travel patterns. The council cannot influence climate change. 

There is insufficient town centre parking now. How will this plan address parking? 

This plan is completely ridiculous for Malmesbury. Leave Malmesbury alone!! 

Yes (John Gundry) 

Keep Wiltshire a rural county with our good, socially responsible communities. 

You will transform a small town into a housing estate and destroy our community 

spirit!! 

Extra houses – extra employment; transport; if minimal employment in 

Malmesbury, any though of cycle routes to Chippenham, Cirencester etc. 

What employment will be brought to Malmesbury so all these people can be 

employed locally? 

Poster four – How do we deliver for Wiltshire? 

 

 

 

Is there no brown field in Wiltshire? I believe that Lynham is scheduled to close 

soon. 

What about planning to be self-sufficient for energy? Wind, solar, bio. Etc. 

Wiltshire should not be bound by the draft RSS – this is arbitrary and 

undemocratic. 

What about all the services needed for these extra people? Police, fire, health – 

maybe we should have kept the hospital!!! 

(1) Concentrating Malmesbury housing north of the town encourages travel. (2) 

Flannel! (3) we must obey! (4) Malmesbury is constrained within its 2500 year old 

ramparts, not a lot we can do about fitting infrastructure in there! (5) Ditto. (6) No 

comment. (7) See (4). (8) & (9) good trick to pull off both. Has anyone looked at 

quality of new buildings? (10) And water abstraction. 

 

(1) Quite right. Every location should support its population by providing work. 

Most people who live in Malmesbury for example travel away from the area to 

work elsewhere. This is unlikely to change. 


Why the focus on houses? The focus should be on employment – then, if we get 

any jobs, we can think about houses. Travelling miles to work is not sustainable. 

When infill houses are built/ proposed, there seems to be no consideration for 

traffic safety. Kingfisher Mill and the Hawthorns on Park Road are prime 

examples. Narrow pavements, speeding cars/ coaches, increased numbers of 

parked cars pulling out of tiny driveways at the side of the road … How can we 

possibly justify building these infill houses when the cost is the safety of our 

children/ pedestrians/ cyclists and motorists? 

Should the Malmesbury aggregate be 720??? I get it to 730! 

164



 

 

 

 

 

 

If Malmesbury is to grow then needs to grow its social infrastructure too. Built 

communities, not just houses. 

This doesn’t acknowledge that houses have been seriously oversupplied 

according to the Structure Plan. 

Why does Malmesbury need the extra 200 houses? Allocation of 1000+ to the 

region appears to fly in the face of the council’s own reasoning. 

Isn’t this a case of a national, politically fuelled need for increased housing, rather 

than Malmebury’s need? 

What about Lyneham ‘new town’? 

My daughter is in a class of 35 and rising at Malmesbury Primary School. The 

increase in housing will affect here education. Unacceptable! Agree entirely! 

Poster seven – What do we already know about Malmesbury community area? 

 

 

 

 

 

I am concerned about the balance of type of houses in Malmesbury. In the last 

couple of years, many small houses have been built but, if anything, Malmesbury 

town needs larger and good quality homes – not more tiny cardboard boxes. The 

town’s personality is changing too fast – it cannot be got back! Families need 

decent living space and gardens. Think about families eating in front of the TV 

because there is no dining room and the kitchen is tiny! This affects health, i.e. 

obesity and healthy eating, good social habits etc. Small cramped housing estates 

breed crime and dissatisfaction. I think this is a national problem but lets get it 

right here! 

Yes, river corridor very important. 

Despite the economic downturn, Malmesbury still has a real working High Street, 

which meets the needs of the Malmesbury hinterland. More, larger shopping 

facilities would have an adverse effect on the existing small businesses. 

If I wanted to live in a town full of housing estate, I would be living in Swindon, 

Chippenham or Bristol, where there are local job opportunities and transport 

networks are available. Malmesbury is an ancient town and should not be ‘breeze 

blocked’ into a modern town – but without the infrastructure (no jobs to afford 

housing, very poor transport links etc.). 

Employment: (1) live/ work. (2) small business park. 

Poster eight – How does Wiltshire 2026 expect Malmesbury to 

change? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New primary and secondary schools have recently been built – will they 

accommodate 200 more children if this plan goes ahead? 

Malmesbury has too many homes. People can’t afford them. There’s no room and 

the primary and secondary schools are packed. 

Too many houses! You’re going to ruin Malmesbury – a small market town! 

There is not work in Malmesbury for all these proposed new residents – so result 

will be more traffic on roads commuting to elsewhere. 

What plans will there be for work opportunities mentioned above? 

How will the already full schools support the increase in housing? 

Sherston – further employment opportunities required in the parish for local 

residents. Additional housing should be specific to meet known needs, e.g. for 

senior citizens and young people/ affordable. 

Yes, natural and built environment needs to be protected. If more housing is 

planned, not only its location will need careful consideration but where, for 

instance will water supplies come from? 

Malmesbury is a beautiful town, with history, and fantastic views. But it won’t be 

so beautiful or have such fantastic views if 200 houses are built. The schools are 

packed too, and there are also a lot of unbought houses. 

165



 

 

 

 

 

Don’t build houses in our ‘market town’ because if you do it won’t be one 

anymore. 

Malmesbury has three fantastic schools – two fairly new. Extra houses – can the 

schools cope? Will existing levels of excellent education be sustainable? 

NB – transport, flooding, parking, schools, strain on amenities and utilities. Think 

before you build!!! 

Will any affordable housing be allocated to local people? 

Where are the shops going to be built for all these extra people if work is to be in 

Malmesbury. There’s not enough parking in the town now, another 200+ cars in 

the high street would lead to total gridlock. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, more farmland will be sold off. With an increasing population in the 

UK, how are we able to feed the population? Once the farmland has gone, it’s 

gone forever. 

We’re a unique rural town, it has taken over a thousand years for Malmesbury to 

steadily grow. How can we plan to double the town size over seventeen years? 

At Filands, they built affordable houses to help those who lived in the town to 

since they were children to be able to continue to live in the town, but these have 

been sold to housing associations who have bought people in from outside. 

Any new development must be sympathetic to the town. There must be grass, 

trees, space for children to play and gardens. Too many 3 storey houses are 

being built and the mix of houses within developments is not good. 

The design of any future developments should take into account the town 

architecture and not be given to permissions to build drab, dreary estates. The 

proposed estate should be spread out between lots of small developers who can 

build quality homes!! 

The area towards Brokenborough up Park Road, regularly flood and is 

unsustainable for development without substantial work to drain the land. Is this 

feasible cost wise? Also, will roads be able to cope with extra cars etc. is a large 

number of houses are built in Malmesbury, where will the children go to school? 

Where will people work? Will the doctors be adequate for such a potentially large 

increase in Malmesbury residents? 

Is the infrastructure an important part of potential development? Malmesbury 

roads are already small and congested with traffic and we have a lack of parking. 

‘Address climate change’, ‘minimise the risk of flooding’, ‘demand on 

infrastructure and services’. How do building 200+ extra houses square with the 

above? Up to 400 extra jobs needed, not in Malmesbury, so 400 extra return car 

journeys to/from Swindon/ Bristol/ Gloucester. Any building produces the 

propensity to flooding – more roofs, more roads, more driveways – water runs off 

into the Avon, not soaking into the soil. Where are the extra (local) school places/ 

hospital beds (!!)/ dentists? Another ‘consultation exercise’ but all input will be 

ignored I suspect. 

More attractive housing with more space, I don’t think that all the lots have been 

sold at Filands – in other words, more like that in Sherston. Why do we have to 

put up with Persimmon Homes, whose idea of a regional office is a lego-style 

barn? How about some diversity? 

There seems to be a large focus on housing: preferred option; alternative option 

(which becomes reality). How about proposed employment, education and 

entertainment options? 

(1) Yes. (4) Yes. (7) Yes. (8) Yes. (9) Yes. (11) Yes. 

(5) More houses, more flooding. (2) & (9) Type of houses being built at present 

not suitable for historical town (8). Schools already too small. 

166



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Play & open spaces – the current plan indicates development over the long 

standing cricket field. How does this enhance the play and open spaces policy? 

Urgent need for affordable housing. 

If you over populate our town, no one will want to live here – the characteristics 

that draw people here will be lost and it will become an ugly ghost town. The 

fabulous schools will be crammed and people will be commuting as there won’t be 

enough jobs. The ‘community’ will have disappeared. 

These ‘issues’ sound hollow when the key element of this presentation is building 

yet more houses in a small town already choked with traffic. The building of so 

many houses is utterly in contradiction to the sustainability issues identified here. 

Where recent developments have taken place, little consideration seems to have 

been given to improving our community. It has taken 15 years for the community 

to finally get the play area promised at Reeds Farm – and we had to fight for it. I 

feel very concerned about any more development in Malmesbury. 

Ban all cars from centre of town (except delivery etc.) Lay on constant electric 

small buses. 

(8) The fact that the development is on the edge of town will mean increased 

traffic into centre will affect historic environment. 

This town is being spoilt by over-development. Where will all jobs come from? 

More houses = more children. Where are they to be educated? The primary 

school is full with no further land for available temporary classrooms? 

Housing please with the best possible heating efficiency and energy efficiency. 

Footpaths and bicycle routes through Reeds Farm to Finlands development. 

Further housing development, especially in outlying parts of the town of 

Malmesbury will increase the use of the car. This will adversely affect nos. 

6,7,8,9, 11 of your sustainability objectives. 

Infill developments on Old Alexander Road and Park Road are making this main 

artery to school extremely dangerous for pedestrians if we cannot safely walk 

in our town, how does that fit in with the sustainability and climate change 

agenda. 

Too many houses for a small town, the schools will be too small and there will be 

too many cars! 

Malmesbury already has so many new houses. I feel that a priority for this town 

should be a proper ‘youth’ centre and skate park. 

(5) There is already flooding in low lying areas. More housing will just increase the 

problem of flooding. (15) Poor public transport from Malmesbury to other local 

towns. (16) There seems to be less and less of a vibrant economy in Malmesbury 

over the last 5 years. 

The word is quality! Persimmons are not providing this. Agree entirely! 

The provision of education in Malmesbury is very important. The primary school is 

full, there should be no more housing developments in Malmesbury. 

If we pursue social housing there needs to be support for the communities. This is 

not Poundbury! 

(10) What’s your definition of affordable housing?? Is it for people to get on to the 

property ladder, given assistance, or is it council housing? 

Efficient doesn’t mean piling people on top of each other! 

To generate energy locally. 

(8) Priority! Agree! (10) No more housing – Malmesbury already spoiled– losing 

its unique character. 

Develop quality housing in Station Yard. 

By building houses in outlying parts of the town, you are increasing car use – this 

does not fit with your sustainability agenda. 

167



Poster ten – Initial options 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The preferred option at the back of Reeds Farm is an annual feeding ground in 

the winter for flocks of fieldfare and redwing. Once more our wildlife is being 

marginalised. 

If houses continue to be built in Malmesbury, facilities will struggle and small 

market town will lose much of its character, to allay people’s potential fears it 

would help if there was an agreed limit to growth, a green belt where no 

development would take place. 

You cannot build housing without planning infrastructure. We will need: new 

schools, transport links to Kemble, parking provision, another supermarket, preschools 

and employment. 

The option areas to the west of Malmesbury are bisected by Park Road ending at 

Back Bridge, the boundary of AONB. This road is critical for access if any houses 

get built and floods regularly! I should know, I live there. EA maps not particularly 

accurate. Photo evidence available. 

Malmesbury has enough problems with parking and facilities as it is. Schools are 

full already. I feel it is wrong to impose new housing and expect Malmesbury to 

soak up all the extra people. 

Is there going to be a local pub etc. to try to get the community together more. 

Malmesbury is already too big. Parking in town is often difficult with the result that 

people do not bother to stop. With additional housing, the schools will need to be 

extended to cater for more children! Extra houses add to the flood plain. 

What about the covenant that any building already existing on Finlands road must 

have a clear view of the Abbey. Will this be upheld? 

Where are people coming from to fill these houses and where do they work? Are 

the amenities going to be improved to cope with this influx? What about the 

already over-stretched infrastructure? 

What if Dyson closes down? Where are jobs coming from? 

Reeds Farm must never be directly linked to the Finlands Road or it will become a 

dangerous rat run and children will be killed. 

Can you explain how Malmesbury will cope with these houses seeing as it is a 

small market town? 

These plans will be a copy of Finlands estate – it does not work with the social 

element not from Malmesbury – so why the need for more? I live there and 

Persimmon conned us into buying a house on a council estate. Malmesbury 

hasn’t the infrastructure to cope with these plans. Not needed. 

There is a covenant relating to any housing on Finlands Road must have a clear 

view of the Abbey. 

Reeds Farm must not be directly linked to Finlands Road, by road, pedestrian 

links are fine. Reeds Farm would become a short cut to Filands and it would 

change the estate. 

No more 3 storey housing in Malmesbury blocking light and views from 

established housing. 

River valleys within / on edges of Malmesbury should protected from possible 

development. 

You don’t need more houses when you’ve got enough anyway and you are 

hurting the environment. 

The river valleys must not be developed especially the low lying area behind 

Tetbury Hill Gardens. 

Facilities (schools, health-care, care home) already too small for present 

population. 

168



 

 

 

 

 

Concerned that Reeds Farm will become extremely busy as people will use it as a 

drive through. 

If you build houses on small industrial sites, e.g. Station Yard, where is industry to 

be located? 

There must never be an out of town supermarket in Malmesbury –need to protect 

our High Street. 

Another 200 houses! Please give a thought to the ageing population. A 2yr 

waiting list in Athelstan Care home. No definite plans yet for an extra care home 

on the old Burnham House Site. Will another school be built also?? 

Reeds Farm is a very special estate where children play safely in the numerous 

cul-de-sacs. It must not become a short cut up to Filands. 

Poster eleven – Initial options comprised 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No mention of proposed Burnham House retirement flats 

What guarantees doe we have that development will be quality, not crowded? 

The current housing estate near Dyson is appallingly designed, with no thought as 

to the layout. Any new development should be better thought out? 

Copy of maps and info to every houses in Malmesbury – in the letterbox and free 

to householder. Has impact of development been modelled into flood planning – 

less absorption? Where and when will the new schools be built? Primary and 

secondary? Will current primary serve new areas? New one for White Lion Park? 

Need convincing that Malmesbury needs 200 new homes. Isn’t this Prescott-ism? 

A few years ago a strategy was agreed for the number of new homes to be built in 

Malmesbury – that number was almost immediately exceeded! Now the proposals 

are for yet more! Traffic, parking, building on the flood plains are already real 

problems in our town. These proposals will only increase the present problems. 

No amenities on Filands and proposed new building site. 

Sherston is a large village – but has had to accommodate a large amount of new 

build housing in the last 5 years already. What is meant by ‘modest’. 

If less than say 30 units over rest of plan period may be acceptable. Larger scale 

development should not be promoted. ‘Brownfield’ first. 

Schools are already at capacity. Where will the children go to school from these 

extra 200 houses? 

We should be improving the sites we already have. i.e. Filands –no play area, no 

dog walking areas, no shop for emergencies – milk and bread!! Already school is 

full. Families growing quickly. 

Lack of suitable sites for small and medium sized businesses at affordable prices 

needs addressing. 

The most recent developments (Filands/ Lucent) have not been integrated – 

infrastructure has not caught up with this increase in population. We cannot cope 

with more. 

 

 

 

 

 

Further residential development in a town not geared for increased employment 

opportunities only leads to further road travel which the town cannot sustain. 

How do you plan to ensure accessibility when the planned area for development 

is on the edge of the town? 

Need pubs/ clubs/ shops in Filands and expansion area. 

No more houses needed, no employment, no traffic boom, schools already 

overfull, no shops, risk of flooding, call a halt!! 

Have you considered that the land to the north of Malmesbury preferred for 

development is not well related to the retail centre, recreational facilities or 

healthcare facilities? Pedestrian links down Tetbury Hill are very poor. There is a 

169



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

danger you will create a separate community who are dependent on cars and are 

not part of the town. 

I have concerns about the infrastructure of the town – if more houses how we 

manage with: car parking, shops, doctors, schools, pubs, policing, fire and 

emergency? 

Alternative housing options – how you can include the river and floodplain area 

Back Bridge eastwards along the river amazes me! This area should be afforded 

protected status and not be included in any alternative housing options. 

I personally don’t think that Malmesbury or the surrounding area needs any more 

housing! The schools are already full with families moving into the new Filands 

estate. Houses are being built in front of the school and the town is too small to 

cope. Let’s just see if Filands can sell first. 

(1) not sufficient infrastructure to add additional housing. (2) no current 

employment opportunities for more people. (3) will further deface the tourist 

attraction of the town. (4) not enough retail outlets for more people. (5) invasion of 

green belt on to existing farmland. (6) will produce more commuters. (7) although 

council are indicating preferred option of 200 extra houses - could be changed to 

1000. 

One area of green open space (Filands sports field) has been covered in concrete 

and houses. There should be absolutely no mention made of ‘alternative’ option 

for development on the site to the east of the town, presently a cricket ground and 

pasture. 

The infrastructure of Malmesbury – doctors/ dentists/ schools – is not equipped 

for this scale of development. We shall end up with a ‘new town’ which is not part 

of Malmesbury, 

We are warned of more flooding with climate change. Not nearly enough 

consideration. Type of housing planned? What provision for older people who do 

not want apartments but small bungalows, with some garden space? Whole 

scheme is flawed. 

Increasing the opportunities for people to live and work in the same place only 

applies if you increase the number of work opportunities. So far this is imbalanced 

and building more houses will only increase the number of commuters!!! 

It does not increase the opportunities to live and work in the same area. Where 

will the extra employment come from? Also, Malmesbury Primary School is full 

and the secondary school is nearly at capacity. 

Issues to be addressed – what has been done to consider these? Will work be 

done before the end of this consultation period or is this presented as a fait 

accompli and other developments managed around it? 

Ok to more houses if there are increased facilities for the youth and facilities for 

safe cycling and walking. 

Any new development needs to be designed to the highest eco-standard. The 

Abbey Height development is aesthetically very poor and far too many houses 

crammed in with insufficient green space and open areas. 

It would seem sensible to evaluate the most recent developments 

(Filands/Lucent) before moving forward. Have they been successful – did they 

achieve your aims – do local people live in them – where are people who live 

there working? 

How have you arrived at your figures for required dwellings? You talk in terms of 

dwellings but what rise in population would this lead to? How many school, preschool, 

childcare places will be needed – where is the planning for this? 

Don’t flatten forests for nothing, no money. What Malmesbury needs is peace!! 

170



Random 

 

 

 

No one has considered facilities to accompany new development, e.g. schools 

new families require these. Also, including sewerage system. People living here 

don’t feel they are part of town. In particular, Filands site doesn’t have facilities 

and is not integrated with town. Inevitably, problems occur which require police 

involvement. Hullavington new town could have been a better option – lost 

opportunity. 

Site surveys should be done to find out who lives there – have they moved in from 

local area or further afield. People need to be able to move ‘up the ladder’. Bigger 

houses required and annexes for relatives. 

People do not use public transport. I travel on almost empty buses all the time. 

Hear Hear! 

Transport 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Already many traffic problems in this town – building of more houses means more 

cars and people – the whole of Malmesbury is being spoilt by type of property 

being built – totally out of character. 

Issues: - (1) parking; (2) road safety – increased traffic through town: Gloucester 

Road and Abbey Row; (3) infrastructure – no more primary school capacity; (4) 

flood plain development. 

We need a bus service which gets car owners out of their cars. Andy buses 

mostly empty. We need availability, easy access, low fare, get on and ride buses 

– small ones. 

More houses need more gull time employment, otherwise CO2 goes up. 

Traffic management for the top end of Tetbury Hill. A sheer bend opposite 

“Wimst” Close is dangerous bend for children cross the road to school. Better 

signage or gateway treatment. 

Parking is a major issue for Malmesbury already. Trying to find a parking place 

means more emissions. 

Tetbury Hill Hill traffic has increased because of the increase in new houses. The 

road surface is poor in Tetbury Hill. I can see Tetbury Hill being the main route 

into the centre of Malmesbury which is a big concern, especially with another 200 

houses in the pipeline. 

Existing road systems through the town cannot cope now. Road works for repairs 

are very frequent due to the ancient road system. What has happened to plans for 

heavy traffic to bypass Malmesbury. More houses, more cars, more congestion. 

Need to provide social infrastructure, mini market, small shops, takeaway, pub? in 

any new northern development around Filands. 

Please, please, please no more traffic through town – can all road links be to the 

bypass!!!! 

Can we now assume that the proposed building of more homes will be the last 

before Malmesbury becomes lost forever? 

There is a need for cross country links, i.e. between Malmesbury and Tetbury. 

Problems in town occur at narrow spots, along Bristol and Foxley Roads. 

Any plans for cycle paths? 

Access points for new development should not be an extension from existing 

housing estate (Reeds Farm). 

We need safe cycle and pedestrian routes but there is no room on current roads – 

 

how will you overcome this? 

Tetbury Hill is a busy road and gets lots of parking at school time and funeral 

times. This week not be a safe route to school. 

171



How will the preferred option of houses be accessed – Tetbury Hill is a dangerous 

road – no pedestrian access, no crossing. Reeds Farm is relatively safe area – if 

access is given to extra housing area, it will no longer be a safe walking area. 

Current Filands development has serious planning shortcomings – what 

confidence that anything new will address the essential issues. 

Access to proposed new site should not go through Reeds Farm. It will become a 

motorway. Where is the infrastructure (schools, doctor’s surgeries, etc.) to meet 

growth in population? 

Malmesbury currently has inadequate parking for the current housing stock. 

Practical solutions need to be devised about how any significant numbers of 

vehicles can be accommodated … on a Saturday morning in the town!! 

Junction of 4014 and A429 is currently no right turn travelling from Cirencester 

South. If the development comes to fruition, then a roundabout would be required 

to stop cars travelling to the roundabout and back to the junction. Also note that 

this junction is an accident black spot (opposite Garden Centre). 

How will the traffic be dealt with at the Junction of the B4014 and A429? 

Is climate change a religion now? You have to cater for cars! Don’t pretend! 

How can you do this building houses so far out from the centre of town with a 

totally inadequate transport service? 

What will happen to the Junction of A429 and B4014 if the preferred option goes 

ahead? 

New houses built do not have enough area which will be important for the future, 

i.e. growing our own food. Allotments are all very well but you need transport to 

get to them and parking. Better use can be made of the land. 

Are their plans to integrate cycle routes linking new developments to town centre 

and schools? 

Yes, I agree – If you are discussing new houses, therefore more cars and still 

want to reduce parking for locals? Young people need to get around easily! 

People, especially young people need better access to other local towns and 

villages for work/ entertainment. 

Transport is a big problem for young people to and from villages. To encourage 

use of public transport, I would suggest incentives (e.g. bus pass). 

Kemble is our nearest railway station yet no bus services between Malmesbury 

and Kemble. Can we have a bus service to our nearest station? 

We need public transport to local hospitals, e.g. RUH and GWH etc. We have no 

access at present. 

Desperate need for cycling provision – particularly Tetbury Hill – slow traffic down 

pavements too narrow. 

Transport in and out of these areas are of paramount importance. Otherwise the 

town centre dries. 

 

 

 

 

 

Transport to Kemble Station from Malmesbury. 

Transport to the surgery at present doesn’t work. Needs to be looked at. Can take 

1½ hour to get there by bus. Very difficult for non-drivers and the elderly. Here, 

here! Try to get a town bus after 5pm! 

Building 200 more houses will result in reduced safety on our roads! Park Road 

and its recent Kingfisher Mill site is a prime example – as is the proposed 

development at the Hawthorns on Park Road. 

Build a new town at Lyneham! Available at a knock-down price from 2012. Fill 

your boots! 

You cannot build housing without planning a community! Where are people 

educated, where are people entertained, are there sufficient leisure facilities, 

where’s the nearest pub/ shop? Computers unable to interact in community life, 

do not help a town grow. 

172



 

 

 

 

 

Increasing housing in Malmesbury will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It 

will increase them as there is no room for significantly more employment in the 

towns. People will travel elsewhere to work. Not sustainable! 

There is incompatibility between increased walking/ cycling and increased road 

traffic. Part of the problem is large trucks and large buses on very small/ narrow 

minor road. Possible solution – keep trucks to main routes. Use small buses on 

minor roads. 

Bring back Malmesbury railway and route. 

So you expect people to cycle down the hill and up the hill into town and then 

reverse with heavy bags of shopping!! 

Almost every point on this board contradicts what you’re trying to do to our 

community: (1) supporting growth! How will extra housing with no increase in work 

opportunities benefit economic growth; (2) tackling climate change! People will 

have to use their cars to travel to Swindon etc; (3) Safety! More cars on the road!!! 

(4) Opportunities! What local jobs? (5) More traffic for local communities, not 

less!!! 

173



Malmesbury workshop notes 


List of attendees and organisations (where given) 

Name 

Frances Goldstone 

Jennifer [unreadable] 

Jessica [unreadable] 

Patrick Goldstone 

Adam Clemo 

Martyn [unreadable] 

Kingsley 

Steve 

[unreadable] Jennings 

Jim Thomas 

Ann Cornelious 

Bryn Howells 

Paul Dove 

Jacky Thomas 

Rosie Nicholas 

Hannah Dickerson 

Eddie Golding 

Andrew Wilson 

Caroline [unreadable] 

W.A. Sykes 

Graham Thorne 

Peter Crocker 

John Matthews 

Maggie Beggs 

John [unreadable] 

Jane Mouncay 

Organisation 

MRNT 

Malmesbury resident 







[unreadable] Malmesbury 

CPRE 

Westlea HA 

Greensquare Group, Swindon 

Malmesbury Town Council and MVCAP 


Malmesbury School 




Civic Trust 

Residents Association 





[unreadable] and Cleverton Parish 


[unreadable] and Cleverton Parish 


174



Number of blue dots on strategic objectives: 

Objectives 

1. To address for climate change 3 

2. To provide for long term economic growth 1 

3. To meet Wiltshire’s housing needs 1 

4. To secure appropriate infrastructure and services 2 

5. To enhance the vitality and viability of town centres 1 

6. To encourage safe accessible places 2 

7. To promote sustainable forms of transport 2 

8. To protect and enhance the natural environment 2 

9. To safeguard and promote a high quality environment 0 

10. To minimise the risk of flooding 4 

Group A 

(To be read in conjunction with hard copy of map showing housing and employment 

options for Malmesbury – points marked in red on map). 

Priorities 

To address climate change (5) 

To promote sustainable forms of transport (3) 

To protect and enhance the natural environment (4) 

To minimise the risk of flooding (1) 

To enhance the vitality and viability of town centres (2) 

Involving the community in development to ensure they are appropriate. 

Economic viability 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Late night cheap transport for young people. People from villages to Malmesbury 

but also out into the villages from Malmesbury, e.g. buses at 8pm. Parents have 

to support young people doing things at school in the evenings. 

£46 million spent on public transport – free for elderly but many could afford £1 for 

a trip. Big subsidy of buses. 

Issue of buses too large for lanes (52 seater) needed for mornings and afternoon 

for schools but smaller ones needed during day. 

- Can we follow the American model of specific school buses with volunteers 

driving them and smaller buses provided by bus companies. 

Allocate the free bus pass to be used within certain times. 

Concern that commuters will leave here but work outside Wiltshire. Drive out and 

go to Tesco in Tetbury. 

Preference for more jobs in area – manufacturing. 

No competition in town for supermarkets. 

Need something to encourage people to come in and use the town, e.g. a 

vegetable shop or something to catch attention, e.g. the Woolsack Race at 

Tetbury. 

Money back from traders for parking when you shop. Needs to be something 

majority of shops will support. Area Board will support if majority of people 

support. 

175



Leisure 

 

 

Nothing to do in Malmesbury. Cinema club has additional money. Need to let 

people at school know. Publicity at school because Area Board want young 

people to use cinema 

Somewhere to go, e.g. café downstairs closes early. Somewhere to hang out. 

- Youth club divides the school – not always people get on together. 

- Facility in town would be good but transport in from villages. 

- Need for premises away from school for young people to use. 

- Would be popular if advertised. Private but fun not supervised but not at 

school. 

How can we be sure the development benefits Malmesbury? ( + 200 houses) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School inadequate for population. Additional development will make it 

overcapacity. 

Certain age of people moving in impacts education – is there an issue of phasing. 

Every development has just delivered houses not schools, or other infrastructure. 

Small town centre, issue of size. 

Nurden Garden Centre expansion, e.g. Post Office sorting moved out of town to 

Nurden site. Move out Hyams Auto from centre to Nurden site planning will 

need to allow these to relocate. 

Move industry from Station Yard to out of town and re-use that area. 

What about moving fire/police/ambulance to behind Persimmon Homes? 

Link road across but as soon as bypass will open up the area for development/ 

infill. 

Should we have a planning policy to protect specific green areas in Malmesbury, 

e.g. River Valley (road must be maintained). 

View of Abbey on any approach. Height limitations on developments. [Proposal] 

(Area marked on hard copy of map of housing and employment options). 

Link road would remove traffic from town centre and Reeds Farm out of 

Malmesbury. 

Don’t want four storey town houses maximum of 2 storey (Priority). 

Issue of density of houses on the area people living too close together. 

Don’t want to join the “Red Block” onto existing Reeds Farm they should go out to 

main road. (Pedestrian and cycle access through Reeds Farm only) (Priority). 

If the Red Block is developed then the junction Filands Road should be redesigned 

by Nurden’s (slip road or lights suggested) (roundabout). 

Close off front entrance of Nurdens if you agree to develop the land and traffic 

would enter site from B road. 

What can we do to get people out of cars? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 taxi firm doesn’t always run. 

Boomerang has gone – need a night service recognise that Boomerang is too 

expensive. 

Using 10/12 seater buses not big buses. 

Community bus driven by volunteers – retired population who are still fit and 

healthy. 

Extend library hours by using volunteers. 

Station Yard should be enhanced, e.g. footpaths extended right down to river runs 

into muck. Use a footbridge across river. Could Station Road become the second 

town centre. Larger retail units – possibly supermarket? 

176



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old school site been sold – what do we want to happen there (Burton Hill House 

School). 

Country Hotel/ conference centre – concern about building things in grounds. 

No building in grounds. 

Possibly apartments in main building. 

Training centre in grounds/ conference centre (connections to motorway). 

M&S Food and Clothing?? 

Car park at Station Road must not pass to private ownership, there must be 

shared use (Priority). 

Within package you could change the whole use of the area to retain public 

parking but allow retail etc. 

Police station should be in centre of town – visible policing. 

Backbridge Farm to west should not be developed (red cross through it) (Priority). 

Envisage to be allocated in long term. 

Can we be sure that if we build new estates it must be low level lighting so as not 

to pollute the sky line. 

Table 

Concern of issues relative to flooding. 

Grey areas have or this time are prone to flooding. 

Climate change is a cross cutting issue for the town. 

Appropriate infrastructure required especially linked to viability of town. 

Sustainable transport – especially around the town – using this long stay car park. 

Climate change – don’t know how bad or soon, but will address local sustainability 

issues. 

Minimise risk of flooding. 

Ensure ‘top line’ in design and sustainability issues – build modern, not retro 

styled properties – homes, fit for purpose. 

Cost of housing should be reflected in a lowering of land price. 

Current new developments have few local facilities. 

Need to ensure new developments have good local facilities on site. Especially – 

Dyson Factory side (NE). 

Town bus – Reeds Farm doesn’t provide an access route – it is a safe area – 

don’t want to make it unsafe. But good for pedestrians/ cyclists. 

Need to provide cycle parking in town centres and cycle routes into town – inc. 

from outlying villages and cycleways into town. 

177



Table two 

Discussion one: 

Objectives 

1. To address for climate change 3 

2. To provide for long term economic growth 1 

3. To meet Wiltshire’s housing needs 1 

4. To secure appropriate infrastructure and services 2 

5. To enhance the vitality and viability of town centres 1 

6. To encourage safe accessible places 2 

7. To promote sustainable forms of transport 0 

8. To protect and enhance the natural environment 2 

9. To safeguard and promote a high quality environment 0 

10. To minimise the risk of flooding 2 

 

 

 

Minimise risk of flooding – is ‘minimise’ strong enough? We should not develop in 

the floodplain! EA have ‘no teeth’ to deny planning apps. 

Promote sustainable transport; get people cycling/ walking, promote smarter 

choices, e.g. car share etc., links to Kemble should be promoted. 

To secure appropriate infrastructure – broadband/ home working, provision of 

renewable energy sources, providing dual housing/ employment through planning. 

178




 

 

 

 

 

Town bus to health centre. 

Fear of dormitory status and little social infrastructure promotes private car. 

Walking- pedestrian safety is paramount (Tetbury Hill). 

Demand manage transport to centre via community bus. 

Future benefits to Malmesbury. 

- Affordable housing to meet needs of local; ensuring local take up is difficult. 

- Open space within new development; street scene within development. 

- Housing construction out of character; all looks the same, formulaic build, 

soulless. 

- Better yet, removal of town hall car park in-line with policy such as park and 

ride. 

Purple group 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Objectives to be looked at together, rather than in isolation. Each one to impact 

on climate change. 

2 - Economic growth – is there adequate employment opportunities to be with the 

increased levels of housing? Without it, increased commuting. 

4 – (Infrastructure) – is there adequate space in existing schools for the increased 

population and shops. 

6 + 7 – improved sustainable transport links especially cycle routes. This would 

help create safer, more accessible places. 

10 – any development needs to account for the increased overland flow and 

minimise the risk of flooding to new and existing developments (housing). 

Top 3 objectives: 

- 1st = 4 

- 2nd = 8 

- 3rd = 9 

What is needed to achieve the top three objectives? 

Objective four 

 

 

 

 

Buses, cycling, schools, shops, access to doctors. 

Protection of the [unreadable ~ aquifer?]. 

Enhanced bus provision to key services. 

Improved cycling and walking routes – cycle network for the town. 

Objective eight 

 

 

Safeguard the river. 

To retain existing field boundaries. 

Objective nine 

 

 

 

Park area, large green space. 

Views? Aesthetic quality. Existing views of fields will be lost impact on Reeds 

Farm. 

Pedestrian and cycle link through Reeds Farm, including buses, including green 

spaces – motor vehicles prohibited. 

179



 

Sustainable housing with solar panels, stored rainwater for flushing waste (links 

with climate change – building above minimum planning regulations). 


How can we make sure future development benefits Malmesbury? 

 

 

 

 

Growth at a sensible, sustainable rate will ensure that there is a flow of children to 

sustain a secondary school in the town. 

New employment to give opportunity for jobs for the increased population. 

Provision of a town bus service (smaller bus) to service the area. More regular 

service across the day. 

Possible negative impacts – additional employment does not guarantee additional 

jobs for the people of Malmesbury. 

180



Chris Minor’s Group 


Currently not sustainable. 

Capacity of schools – issue. 

Parking within the town – issue. 

Need to tackle current issues. 

Need to ensure we capture planning gain. 

Unique town (Hill Top). 

Issues with streets coping with development. 

Conservation area very important. 

Limitation is present because of the hill. 

Very important to safeguard the built environment. 

Capacity of sewer system issue within the town. 

Lack of employment opportunities. 

Where will people work within Malmesbury. 

Can Malmesbury actively attract new employers. 

How do we attract business into Malmesbury? 

Retail offer attracts people into the town. 

Need to safeguard the retail offer. 

Public transport – town bus works well. 

Alternative to parking within the town. 

High levels of out-commuting. 

Not likely to have a viable opportunity. 

Oversized village? Difficult to accommodate new development. 

Not geographically possible to expand. 

Malmesbury operating as a dormitory town. 

Tourist Information Centre footfall very large; abbey, museum, town. 

Increase tourism signposts for tourism. 

Pedestrianisation of town. 

[unreadable] etc. perhaps not present. 

Conservation area could be more strongly enforced. 

We need to strike a balance between conservation and development. 

Housing need – young people accommodation for them. 

Affordable housing need. 

Number of people using public transport. 

Need to ensure standards for climate change. 


Open space – children’s play area. 

Need plenty of open space. 

Education. 

Clear development brief. 

Youth facilities – need more – skateboard park. 

Better road linkages – A429/ Tetbury road junction. 

Linkages between new development needs to be carefully planned. 

Density? 

Space for education – new school? 

Heritage management and conservation. 

Big issue with traffic going through the town. 

Social infrastructure very important. 

We also need sheltered accommodation need to live near families. 

181



Cohesive community requires full spectrum of ages. 

Need to think about the elderly people. 

Size of properties are not big enough. 

Design quality needs to be improved. 

Requirements for affordable housing should be linked to local residents – 

postcode restrictions. 

Prevent additional sales for affordable housing high need for young people. 

Need very strong s106 agreements. 

How do we use our current housing stock more wisely? 

Affordable housing should be pepper-potted, spread through development. 

Location and level of growth 

Cannot accommodate growth; lack of capacity in housing, transport and health. 

Issue of Lyneham? 

Should plan for Lyneham. 

Need to take account of growth of population. 

Need to have the infrastructure in place within the town before the development. 

Burton Hill site could potentially accommodate housing development. 

200 too much – we should have less on the site. 

182



4.68 Marlborough community area 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 1 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 1 



Supporting 3 


Objecting 3 



Supporting 1 

Supporting with Conditions 2 

Objecting 0 

General Comments 11 

Total number of comments relating to Marlborough: 36 

183




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the phrase, 'The area's potential for tourism has arguably not been fully 

taken advantage of.' 

Important to recognise the significance of protecting the town’s landscape context. 

The fact that the A346 is still classed as a national Primary Route adds to the 

traffic problem by attracting heavy vehicles, although most of the road from 

Salisbury to Swindon is unsuitable for this designation. 

There is an acute affordable housing need, exacerbated by a low level of 

completions. 

Need to address out-commuting and reinforce the high level of self-containment. 

Marlborough has a limited employment offer, exhibiting less self containment 

compared to Devizes. 

Marlborough has significant concentrations of shops and services which are 

served by a number of local and national bus routes. 

Marlborough provides less potential for employment growth but maintains a 

strong service and retail function which requires protection. 

Issues of severance between a number of satellite villages and the centre of 

Marlborough must be recognised. 

The Chiseldon to Marlborough railway path (National Cycle Route 482) offers an 

excellent opportunity to improve non-motorised access to Marlborough from 

villages in the A342 corridor. 

Marlborough’s location within an AONB and being within easy reach of Avebury 

has the potential to benefit economically if sufficient accommodation is available 

and walking and cycling links are improved. 

The physical, historic and AONB constraints to the future expansion of 

Marlborough Town could indicate a need to accommodate housing requirements 

within the smaller towns and larger villages. 

Marlborough sits at the top of the River Kennet SSSI and so any growth could 

have an impact upon it. 

184



4.71 Change and delivery: Comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chiseldon to Marlborough railway path should be upgraded to enable greater 

use by walkers and cyclists. 

Marlborough’s strategic location within the North Wessex Downs AONB should be 

promoted. 

Wider improvements to walking and cycling routes, particularly to Avebury, the 

Vale of Pewsey and onwards to Stonehenge should take place. 

Agreement that it is unrealistic to plan for significant strategic growth at 

Marlborough. 

Support a proportionate level of growth which supports local employment and 

seeks to retain local services. 

Concern that the expected changes relate solely to Marlborough town and not to 

the overall Marlborough community area. 

Whilst the principle of boundary extension is acceptable the proposed density 

would result in over-development, a lack of space for landscaping and excessive 

urbanisation. 

Development within Marlborough town could impinge upon the AONB setting of 

the southern boundary of the town. 

Smarter measures and interventions should be made to encourage reductions in 

car use. 

It is appreciated that responding to needs is a challenge in an area with sensitive 

landscapes, including the North Wessex Downs AONB, development should not 

be overly constrained at the expense of equally important social and economic 

objectives (i.e. those identified above and in our specific comments on issues and 

opportunities). 



The preferred strategic site option is unlikely to impact directly on Savernake 

Hospital which is sited on the A4 on the outskirts of the town. However, we need 

to ensure that this level of development coupled with the committed sites for 

housing and employment are supported by appropriate community and healthcare 

infrastructure in the form of GP services and sustainable transport links. 

Need to ensure any development incorporates a high quality walking and cycling 

network. Street layouts should maximise priority to pedestrians and cyclists. 

Provision should be made for cycle parking including dwelling design to ensure 

safe storage. 

Important to have a drop off point for school children at the top end of the 

proposed strategic site close to the footpath which passes the front of the old St 

Johns School building . 

Would like to see a further allocation at Chopping Knife Lane for up to 220 homes. 

Density must be reduced otherwise the proposed strategic site will unacceptably 

impinge upon the AONB setting of the southern boundary of the town. 

Need to thoroughly assess constraints including the North Wessex Downs AONB. 

An exceptionally well designed scheme is required given the AONB. 

Difficult to determine the water and waste water/sewerage infrastructure needs at 

this stage. In general terms it is easier to provide infrastructure for a small number 

of large clearly defined sites than it is for a large number of smaller less defined 

sites. 

Savernake tunnel is an important bat roost. Although resourcing constraints have 

meant that it has not been designated as a SSSI per se, it meets our criteria for 

SSSI designation, and as such, in the context of this consultation should be 

185



 

 

 

 

 

treated as a SSSI. It seems likely that the proposed development will lead to a 

higher level of disturbance 

The preferred option is close to Savernake Forest SSSI. This site may be 

adversely affected by the allocation in a number of ways including atmospheric 

pollution from increased traffic effecting the lichen interest of the wood, cat 

predation and recreational disturbance affecting the woodland bird interest, 

recreation (dog walkers) prejudicing attempts to restore grazing on the slopes 

above the business park, and the removal of and/or the burning in situ of dead 

wood, affecting the invertebrate interest of the wood. This may render this site 

unviable in terms of gaining planning permission. 

The preferred option falls within a Strategic Nature Area. Any development 

proposals should deliver the Strategic Nature Area objectives. 

The proposed site could potentially be phased so it meets local demand over a 

long period. 

The proposed housing locations are shown to overly the Inner Source Protection 

Zone (SPZ1) for a public water supply abstraction (Marlborough). As a 

consequence this area is very sensitive, and if it is proposed to take this preferred 

option forward, a hydro geological assessment indicating the potential risk to 

groundwater is likely to be required. 

It is possible to realise opportunities for sustainable development, in response to 

significant local needs, in a way which is sensitive to Marlborough’s landscape 

through high quality design, including strong landscape and buffer planting within 

and on the edge of a scheme. 


 

 

Not convinced that the town contains the necessary retail, employment, services 

or facilities to sustain very much development and the landscape and topography 

limit development opportunities as acknowledged by Wiltshire Council. 

Although Marlborough offers less potential for employment growth it still acts as 

an important service and employment centre and exhibits a high level of self 

containment. Therefore we also consider that Marlborough should also be 

considered to be a Policy B Settlement. 


 

 

 

Given Marlborough’s role and function as a Policy B settlement and, crucially, the 

lack of affordable housing, the council should consider how a much higher level of 

growth could be allocated at the town. 

As an alternative the burden of development should be shared between 

Marlborough and the smaller towns and larger villages such as Aldbourne and 

Ramsbury. 

Would like to see a revised spatial distribution of growth, increasing the proportion 

of development to those areas that need it most and where the opportunities exist 

for sustainable and self-contained development at Marlborough. 

186



4.75 Marlborough community area: respondents 






The Hills GroupSustrans 






Individuals 

Mr Christopher Gorringe 

4.76 Marlborough community area: notes from exhibitions and events 

Marlborough workshop 


Attendance 

Name 

Organisation 

Alexander Wilson 

Marlborough Town Council and 

Community Transport (EKDCT) 

R. B. Hicklin CPRE 

John Kirkman 

CPRE 

Sergeant Ben Braine 

Wiltshire Police 

Joan Davies 

Savernake Parish Council (but not 

specified on signing in sheet) 

Jo Curson 

Greensquare Group 

Cllr Chris Humphries 


Cllr Jemima Milton 


Rich Pitts 

Marlborough Town Council (but not 


Michael Edmonds 

Baydon Parish Council 

Janice Pattison 

Berwick Bassett and Winterbourne 

Monkton Parish Council (but not 


Guy Loosmore 

Marlborough Town Council (but not 


Cllr Peggy Dow 


187



The following relates to discussion 1 on objectives from the Marlborough workshop. 

Attendees were asked to place blue stickers against their top three objectives. Both 

groups placed these on the laminated A4ish cards. As they had to be reused for a 

subsequent exhibition, the results are recorded below. 

Objectives 

Group 

1 

Group 

2 

Total 

1. To address climate change 1 0 1 










Group one (Andrew Maxted and transport planner) 

Marlborough workshop notes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need sustainable transport for a viable town centre. Accessibility is a particular 

issue for younger people (pre driving age). 

Joined up integrated transport required. 

Lessons from Cumbria on preparedness for climate change. Up river woodland 

reduces properties risk to flooding. 

Climate change should be considered in relation to all other objectives. Need 

building control standards for housing (CO2 etc). 

Issues with affordable housing/ e.g. for local key workers (fire-fighters etc). This is 

especially an issue in the rural villages. 

Marlborough has good vitality/ but some shops are being lost (focus on visitors 

and tourists not for locals). 

Need small workshops to assist local firms. 

Cost of car parking is a major issue affecting local firms/ there are no sustainable 

alternative forms of travel. Need long stay car park on the edge of town for 

employees. Not to detract from town centre. Also insufficient capacity overall. 

Need more flexible interpretation of planning policy to support local jobs for 

example supporting local Bed and Breakfast guest houses. Some have been 

refused due to a lack of sustainable travel options/ damaging to local economy. 

Need improved digital network for rural areas/ rural economy/ home working/ and 

supporting local economy. E.g. if work at home may use local shops more. Also 

good for climate change objectives etc. 

In relation to additional housing/ needs to be mixed with different types of tenure 

including catering for special needs. 

Need new road plan for the Salisbury Road area/ pre-development/ capacity 

issues on 2 roundabouts. 

New road needed through preferred option to A345/ need drop off point for 

school. 

188



 

 

 

 

 

 

George Lane/ remove parking/ but it performs a traffic claiming role so maybe 

better to keep. 

School transport issues “nightmare as a parent”/ Need to present non car 

alternatives/ and overspill parking needed at recreation ground. 

Need community/ local hospital/ 1 hour to Chippenham/ or Swindon (and long 

wait when arrive). 

Need transport to Marlborough from rural catchment/ not necessarily buses. 

Need play facilities to be incorporated into new development early on to avoid 

NIMBY opposition. 

Out of town supermarket ‘ridiculous’/ although would service new development 

without the need to go into town. New supermarket should be in the town centre/ 

accessibility/ support vitality of high street/ supermarket needed as no low cost 

convenience stores. Vauxhall Garage would be good site/ central/ near parking/ 

could walk to town centre etc. 

Group two (J. Sherry and A. Lee) 

Discussion one: objectives 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question about the order in which the objectives are presented. Are there 

priorities already? JS answered that the group should ignore the current order, 

and tell us the order they would like. 

LAs are required to produce strategy. Energy efficiencies of housing stock within 

LA boundaries. Look at benchmarks of other LAs to see what has been done and 

could then take this forward. 

There are really powerful things that Wiltshire Council could do with regards to 

climate change. 

Can’t factor in climate change if we don’t know what it is – don’t know how 

weather will change. 

JS mentioned regulatory requirements regarding climate change. 

Minimising the need for travel: 

- Would like to see Marlborough as a carbon neutral town. This will require 

looking at new developments – making them as efficient as possible. 

- This relates to transport. Marlborough has problems with HGVs/congestion 

problems. 

Affordable housing – there is obviously a need in this area. Taking account of 

climate change puts up the cost of housing. 

- But BedZed provides an example of development where the cost was not put 

up despite incorporation of ‘green’ measures. 

The wording of objective 1 is wrong: should be about moving to a low-carbon 

economy rather than focusing on climate change. 

Want to build housing with low cost – both in terms of price and running cost. 

Needed for all housing – not just affordable housing. 

What exactly is meant by affordable housing? Need to redefine what affordable 

means in this context. 

- If you have a low income, you should be able to have a home you can own. 

- Variety of things – also relates to rented income. 

JS: There is a statutory definition of affordable housing. We need to provide 

housing in villages so that people can buy a house when they grew up. 

When new house is built – should be a link with the village – so young people can 

stay in that village. 

Missing objective? Jobs (the ‘economic growth’ objective is not specific enough 

about jobs). 

189



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reality = we are more fluid than other counties – this means more transport and 

more movement. Statistics for number of people travelling into county to work 

(Berkshire). 

Can’t force companies to move to Wiltshire. JS: We want to give people the 

opportunity to work here. 

Point of view of families – if people can live and work in same village – can then 

easily pick up children at the end of the day. 

Question about how Wiltshire Council collects information from communities 

about what they want. Answer (JS) – we are doing it now. 

How much of planning is led by national policy? JS: We are led by national 

guidance. There was a draft RSS, the government then increased the housing 

figures. But the figures came from the Local Authorities originally. 

Information gathering – village plans – lengthy process – many villages were 

appalled that they had to draw up a plan. Therefore need another way of 

collecting views of the community. Not much rural representation tonight. 

One lady on the table was from Savernake – a very rural area. Have lost rural 

economy. 

Issue with Pewsey – not within community area – but is linked. JS: There are links 

between all the community areas. 

Local residents want jobs and houses – able to access without driving, decent 

school & hospital. ‘Creation of community’ is key. 

Need to create companies to create jobs. Is that the role of Wiltshire Council? 

JS: Wiltshire Council has an economic role, but can’t force people to provide jobs. 

Objective 2 should read “long term sustainable economic growth”. 

People want to see vitality in the town centre. 

In the US it is the culture to move to the job – not so here. 

The objectives overlap – sustainable housing can contribute to the climate change 

objective. 

Economic growth is beyond our powers. JS: but we can facilitate economic 

growth by identifying the right type of jobs that we need to provide. 

One person made a point about the selection of objectives using blue stickers: the 

climate change objective is taken as read, so this one was not selected. 

How can we address these issues in the communities (e.g. the 250 new 

dwellings)? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rural village – gentrified over the years – economic driver in life of village. 

JS: How do we turn development into an advantage? 

Villages should not be swamped. Relax allocation rules – too rigid at present. 

Housing figures are very specific figures. It seems that housing is driving the 

whole agenda. 

What is the basis for the 44,400 new homes? 

JS: The need for the new homes is driven by population – the nature of the 

population – choosing to live alone. New form of planning is not just about 

housing – housing and jobs in balance. 

Issue with council Depot site. JS: Not changing any existing allocations at 

present. 

Why do people want to come to Marlborough – because it is a nice place to work. 

Need to get people to come to work in Marlborough without using their cars 

More efficient local transport is needed. 

Park and ride scheme. 

JS: In 20 years time petrol and diesel may not be available any longer. 

Technology may find solutions. 

190



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rail link should be brought back to Marlborough – what about villages? 

Aerospace: working on personalised transport system – technology is there, but 

the will is not there. 

Wiggly Bus Scheme development – could integrate with railway – may not be selffunding. 

May be a cost, but need to invest. 

The example of rapid transit in Hong Kong was mentioned – but high density is 

needed for a rapid transit system. 

At present bus services are provided by private companies, and a profit is 

therefore required. 

Improved bus system is needed. Marlborough/Pewsey/Bedwyn so people can get 

to the railway station. 

Local approach – small electric cars – car share idea – don’t belong to anybody. 

Still need to be parked. Parking is an issue. 

Employment land in villages is an issue – not swamping villages. 

Start up businesses – need to sign lease – need short leases. Affordable 

business premises are needed. 

Parking charges in Marlborough are higher than elsewhere. Low wage town. 

Need way of reducing traffic. 

Example of Ireland in attracting high quality employment – need this in 

Marlborough. 

Problem with Marlborough Business Park – leases are assumed to be quite 

expensive. 

Many jobs are provided by global companies – which can then move away. 

Therefore we need to encourage micro-businesses and provide people to work in 

them – educated and trained with relevant skills. Worried about education levels 

in the area. 

Swindon are planning to have free WiFi access by a certain target date. 

Need to make sure that Marlborough is connected to broadband (e.g. G4). 

Issue of masts – but attitude is changing. 

Change concept from subsidised housing/transport – change to community 

investment. 

Broadband is needed across Wiltshire as economic platform. 

Firms in Marlborough have moved out because they couldn’t expand. 

Need small companies – which are part of supply chain – therefore less 

vulnerable. 

Marlborough has selling point – that there is high quality of life. 

Swindon – university is needed. 

Marlborough is a nice place to live – therefore needs leisure facilities, green 

space, tourism is important in the area. 

No big hotels in Marlborough. 

Natural beauty of countryside = important draw. 

Need high quality hotels – to bring in big spenders. 

Regulations – end up leading to not being able to do anything. Need to think 

outside the box and come up with ‘unthinkable’ even if this goes against 

government policy. 

JS: Plan should reflect government guidance and local community views. 

Problems with the preferred option: 

- Bat sanctuary 

- Water extraction point 

- Environmental protection 

JS: Map of preferred option not intended to show precise boundaries –not set in 

stone. 

191



 

 

 

 

Waste: still using landfill in this area – not using any of the innovative solutions for 

waste. Pilot plant in west Swindon is already running. 

Preferred option: Road to link across to new school – to link with Pewsey Road. 

To help alleviate issues at George Lane. 

Started process – but so huge and important therefore this one meeting is not 

enough. 

The Wiltshire 2026 document should include a plan in between – linking 

overarching strategy to detailed section on the community area. 

192



4.77 Melksham community area 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 1 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 3 


Strategic Site Allocations 

Supporting 0 


Objecting 9 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 2 


Total number of comments relating to Melksham: 75 

* Melksham Community Area Partnership also provided the results of a survey. This survey was carried out in January 2010, 

and 157 people took part. The results of the survey are summarised in appendix 5 

193




Support for the identified key issues and opportunities for future employment 

growth, helping to provide a good balance between housing and jobs. 

Melksham Town Council agrees that levels of out-commuting need to be reduced, 

and that more employment should be encouraged in Melksham. The Town 

Council also agrees that the town is reliant on a single employer, which could lead 

to a huge impact on the town if this were to disappear. 

Town Plan welcomed providing it helps deliver a stronger retail centre. 

Melksham Town Council agrees that regeneration of the town centre is an issue. 

Persimmon supports the objective to promote Melksham's role as a market town. 

Support for Wilts and Berks Canal restoration through Melksham. 

The Town Council supports the Wilts & Berks canal, dependent on which route is 

agreed. 

Agreement that there is a need for a greatly improved rail service at Melksham, 

and that there would be a big advantage in more trains stopping at Melksham. 

Support the move by Wiltshire Council to safeguard land around the station. 

All public transport needs to be improved. 

Train services need to be expanded considerably, the station should be improved, 

and bus services should also be expanded, with more regular services to 

elsewhere in the county. 

Bus timetabling should be improved between Melksham and Bath. 

Question as to whether Melksham should have its employment base enlarged, 

given current high vacancy rates, shrinking retail area, and high out commuting. 

Disagreement with the statement that “there is currently a good range of facilities 

within Melksham”: there is no Minor Injury Unit, and the town has recently lost its 

hospital and job centre, as well as numerous shops. 

Disagreement with the statement that “possible development of a new leisure 

centre” could improve provision of facilities further: this will only be the case if the 

new facilities are better than those at the Christie Miller Centre. Moving the 

swimming pool to Woolmore Farm would result in less community use as it would 

be less easy to access. 

Bridle paths and cycleways need to be increased to be a safe route to the new 

school. 

Need better cycle links through the town. More bridleways needed. 

Issues around road safety and new school – particularly regarding the A350. 

Poor access to the new Asda store for pedestrians. 

Improvement of walking and cycling links to minimise traffic should be added to 

the identified issues. Particular issue in that access to the new secondary school 

by cyclists is poor and needs improving. 

Proposed restoration of the Wilts and Berks Canal offers opportunity to deliver 

safe walking and cycling links within the town and with surrounding settlements. 

More cycleways through town centre. Centre of town is big issue for cycling. 

More funds need to be spent on creating a better cycleway network for Melksham. 

A safe footway should be provided from Berryfield to the new school to encourage 

children to walk/cycle to school. 

Upkeep of public footpaths is an issue. 

Pavements are filthy (dog’s mess). 

Still no barriers on pavements – too expensive? 

The proposed Kennet and Avon Canal link to R. Avon needs to be identified. 

Canal is an attraction. Should we do more on the river front? 

The Town Council is keen to see improvements to the river area. 

194



The Environment Agency states that there are implications for protected species if 

the restoration of the Wilts and Berks canal goes ahead. 

No agreed route for canal – issue with Berryfields. 

Canal is a waste of money. 

Build/develop new canal with marina and moorings. 

With regard to highway capacity, adequate demand management and 

containment must be constructed prior to any future development. 

The issue of increased traffic congestion on the A350 as a result of development 

should be addressed. 

Support for development of link to A350 from Bowerhill, although this would 

require provision of an alternative site for a possible future village green. 

Serious consideration should be given to extending the new A350 to link up with 

Lacock or Beanacre. 

The Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Railway Development Group state 

that Melksham has an excellent link (via the A350) with the main dual carriageway 

network, and there are opportunities to strengthen the link with the M4 through 

work around Chippenham. 

Issue of through route for HGVs in the town centre. 

Road works through town centre have caused difficulties due to length of time 

they have taken. 

Do not want to encourage lorries on A350. 

Concern that extra housing will cause extra traffic and congestion, which are 

already issues on the A350 at peak periods. 

School traffic causes issues, particularly in the wet. School buses would help. 

Lorry park – feasibility study has been commissioned into moving it. No proper 

provision in current area used near police station. 

If eastern ‘bypass’ is built, main traffic route to the M4 would be via Lacock. 

A better link is needed between Bradford on Avon and the motorway. Lots of 

Bradford traffic comes through Melksham at present. 

Most people drive. Very few people walk or cycle. Especially in villages. 

Should provide infrastructure to satisfy what people want, not what they should 

want. 

Just having a Town Plan will not necessarily lead to regeneration. 

If there is no town centre improvement then more housing will turn Melksham into 

a dormitory town. 

Serious decisions are needed to improve the town centre, including the pulling 

down of Avon Place, and the removal of other buildings. A modern, covered 

arcade with well-known names should be provided in the centre. 

There should be proper mention of the need for improvements to the physical 

fabric and infrastructure of the town, including renovation of the town centre. 

Concerns that Melksham town centre will become less used unless employment 

is brought into the town. 

Some of the 1960s developments would benefit from a facelift, which would help 

to attract people into the town centre to shop. 

Current imbalance in retail provision – lots of takeaway outlets and cheap shops 

but few quality retail outlets. This should be addressed (Melksham Without Parish 

Council). 

Rail service needs to connect well with Paddington/Bristol line. 

Should be more mention of potential benefits of improvements to Melksham 

station, and there is a need for a shuttle bus to take people to the station and 

town centre. 

An improved town bus service is needed. Links with the Greater Bath bus network 

also need to be considered. 

195



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need public transport. Bus services are poor and should be improved – there 

should be regular reliable buses to Bath/Devizes and Trowbridge/Chippenham. 

Railway station should be moved to behind the new housing development on 

Beanacre Road, and the line dualed to Westbury, with service improvements. 

The Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Railway Development Group suggest 

that provision of an hourly TransWilts train service will be significant for 

Chippenham and Trowbridge, as well as Melksham. 

Transport links are important to create a sustainable centre. 

More trains may lead to more dormitory status, but need more facilities for people 

who do commute. 

Trains would help businesses relocate to Melksham. 

More trains and variety of bus service destinations. 

Better bus services will increase job opportunities. 

Melksham is only a little smaller than Chippenham – can we have a station and 

service like this please? 

Please introduce a Wilts Train between Chippenham-Melksham and Trowbridge. 

Increasing train services to serve commuters would increase viability of town’s 

businesses and keep roads less busy and improve air quality. 

Restore train link to Bath – would reduce car use, pollution and congestion. 

Salisbury to Chippenham (through Melksham) rail link desperately needed to 

provide transportation through the county. 

Transport link-ups are needed (taxi rank at rail station, bus stopping at station 

etc). 

Bus and coach travel will be cheaper and more efficient than train travel. 

More buses to local villages. 

There should be a more regular train service for Melksham and trains should 

inter-connect with services to larger towns of Salisbury, Swindon and Bath. 

More planning is needed to provide the town with an integrated transport system. 

Support for Wiltshire Council securing land at the station for future development. 

Cllr Richard Gamble states that improvements to the railway station and to train 

services would greatly benefit the town. The council has recently purchased land 

adjacent to the station to ensure that such improvements can be made. 

More frequent rail services needed, especially to Chippenham, Trowbridge, and 

Bath. 

The Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Railway Development Group provided 

detailed suggestions for improvements to bus routes and frequencies (including 

suggestions for associated road improvements which would be required), 

suggestions for a new route for the National Cycle Route 4, and suggestions for 

additional walking routes. 

Shopper’s bus would be good. 

Better transport links needed. 

Melksham Town Council states that businesses should be encouraged to use 

existing empty shops rather than build new ones. The right sort of shops should 

be encouraged to create a good mix. Melksham currently has a number of small 

specialist shops, and there is little room for larger stores to come in. A strategy is 

needed for retail for the town centre, and there needs to be better provision whilst 

supporting the smaller shops. An argument could be made for business rates to 

be set locally by Wiltshire Council. 

Melksham Town Council state that existing companies should be encouraged to 

develop their existing sites, rather than being forced to move to Chippenham or 

Trowbridge if they wish to expand. 

196



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Cooper Tires is to close by 2026, then Melksham Town Council states that the 

site should be used for mixed use development, comprising mainly employment 

land, followed by housing and retail, with housing being on the water front. 

Melksham Without Parish Council state that more thought should be given to the 

potential issues arising if Cooper Tire and Rubber were to close. This should 

include addressing what type of industry could use the same skills base, so that 

the Core Strategy can encourage these types of industrial into the town. 

Planning for when Cooper Avon Tires goes. 

The Environment Agency suggests that river corridor enhancement should be 

added to the list of issues/opportunities. 

Concern about loss of free parking as a result of the Market Square 

redevelopment. Suggestion that replacement free parking could be provided at 

Lowbourne Car Park. This would ease difficulties arising due to on-road parking 

around the Manor School, and could ease traffic flow issues on Church Street. 

Retention of in-town parking helps retain trade. 

Summer car park should be provided at Countrywide Roundabout, on land 

between electricity substation and river. Footbridge over river to link with town 

centre. 

Improve (free) car parking to encourage people into town. 

Ease of car parking. More free car parking to encourage in-town trade. 

Melksham has a good supply of car parking compared to Devizes. 

Parking issues lead to congestion in the town centre. Peripheral parking would be 

good. Central car park should not be free for an hour, whilst peripheral car parks 

should be free for an hour. Should allow cars to flow to the town, but not through 

the town. 

There should be medical provision in Melksham for as many as possible of the 

basic diagnoses, tests, and treatments. 

The Town Council states that there is a need for better services (doctors services, 

Minor Injuries Unit, First Aid Station), and also a better spread of doctors services 

(currently all located in the south east of the town). Particularly important given 

the planned growth in the town. 

The Town Council raised a concern that the new school will be too small to meet 

demand: education planning needs to reflect strategic planning. 

The Town Council does not support the move to place all recreational facilities on 

one site at the new secondary school. Christie Miller should not be replaced 

unless an equivalent facility of the same size and quality was constructed. It is 

more sustainable for the Blue Pool to remain in the centre of the town. The 

existing astro turf at George Ward School should be retained. 

Infrastructure and services needed. 

More primary schools needed. 

People should not have to travel out of town to get first aid. 

Three doctors’ surgeries are currently all located together, not evenly around the 

town, and are over-subscribed. 

Lack of facilities for young people. 

Atworth residents rarely use Melksham facilities. Often travel to Bradford on Avon, 

Trowbridge etc. 

People currently travel to Devizes cinema. 100-300 people come to the monthly 

cinema – not enough to sustain a full time cinema. 

Entertainment facilities are currently mainly private. Assembly Hall is main public 

site. 

Town needs good size park and country walks. 

Any major development almost depends on an 'act of faith' in the area and in the 

works to be carried out. Surely, such faith is part of the work of development. 

197



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Railway Development Group identify 

a number of areas of land which provide opportunities for development: 

- Expansion of Bowerhill industrial estate to A350, further to old Semington 

Road, and possibly to the south of Berryfield. 

- Areas to north east and east of Melksham suitable for residential 

development. 

- An area to the North West of the river / South East of the railway line with land 

and (re)development potential. 

- The area around the railway station is suitable for development into a 

transport hub. 

- Additional land above flood level to the North of current development but to 

the South of Beanacre. 

- Land to the West of the A350 Semington bypass and to the south of the A365 

Devizes Road - between the town and the industrial area of Bowerhill. 

The Town Council identifies employment, affordable housing, housing need, and 

services as key issues in Melksham. 

Steeple Ashton Parish Council notes that, although Steeple Ashton is within the 

Melksham Community Area, it is more closely aligned with Trowbridge. The 

Parish Council has concerns about increases to the level of traffic on the A350 as 

a result of development of the preferred option at Trowbridge. Steeple Ashton 

Parish Council would wish that Green Lane should remain unsurfaced, and not 

bring more traffic to the unclassified Ashton Road between Stony Gutter and 

Hilperton. 

We are lucky to have the employment area at Bowerhill. 

Melksham has attracted some prestigious employers (e.g. Knorr Bremse). 

Local jobs needed for local people. 

Need ‘quality’ jobs. 

Need more permanent jobs. 

Tourism and retail jobs should be provided in the town centre. 

Perhaps need to think about smaller scale economy – mix is needed with family 

and partnership businesses. 

Portfolio of different types of jobs needed both in and out of town. 

Town centre is important but should think about jobs peripheral to the town. 

Community needs more jobs, but more jobs will not revitalise the town centre. 

Promotion of the town and having sites available are important with regard to SO2 

(economic growth). 

Provide space for employers to grow. 

What can the council do to influence house builders to raise the local skill set? 

Disagreement with the idea that local employment should be the aim (as stated by 

another respondent). 

More business and industry should be encouraged into town and the industrial 

estate. 

Need to safeguard employment land so not reliant on one major employer. 

Too many houses, little industry. 

Melksham’s central position in the county is ideal for its transport links to 

encourage mixed use industry and for leading high street chain stores to bring in 

visitors from surrounding towns. Companies seeking out premises in town should 

be given every encouragement to do so. 

Retail provision should be made on the south or east of the town (e.g. 

Tesco/warehouse stores). 

Historic town centre unable to cope with number of shoppers. 

Little scope in town centre to create new shopping facilities. 

198



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First priority in town centre should be to fill empty shops before creating new 

ones. 

Town centre has suffered over the years. 

Need to change perception of Melksham as an industrial town – possibly use 

Market Place. 

May be tourism opportunities – tapping into flow of visitors to Bradford on Avon 

and Lacock. Should utilise canal/river for this. Think about what attracts people to 

Bradford on Avon. Need complete package of tourist features. Melksham is 

ideally placed as centre from which to explore. 

Bring the market back. Should have a marketing strategy for the town centre. 

Possibility for antique shop? Honiton is a good example of specialist shops/cafes. 

Rents in town centre too high. 

Need shops first, then car parking. 

What’s in the town centre to entice young families? 

Retail: Need to look at why people are leaving Melksham to go to Curry’s. No 

where to put a large shop at present – larger retailers would want a car park. 

Leekes brings people into town without having a detrimental effect on the town 

centre – Melksham could fight out of town shops at Trowbridge, but with its own 

out of town shops like Leeks. 

Natural turnover of shops e.g. due to the internet. 

Melksham town centre has coped well with the recession due to independent 

retailers. It could not sustain larger stores. 

Important to have links between businesses so that people can visit multiple 

shops on one outing. 

Should develop Melksham more in the middle, so people can drive to the centre 

and walk around. 

Bowerhill post office will be reopened soon. It is well used. 

Regeneration of Melksham’s town centre is a must, and employment 

opportunities. Must have useful bigger shops. 

Need to ensure we draw people into the town centre rather than sending them out 

to Trowbridge/Chippenham. 

More help needed to bring retailers to the town. 

Town centre has been allowed to change to charity shops/takeaways/estate 

agents. Lower business rates would help alleviate this problem. 

More variety of shops in Melksham. 

Shopping precinct is a disaster – even Halifax closing. 

Nothing at present to draw in customers (especially men). 

Weatherspoons would be useful. 

Problems with current range of shops (too many takeaways) 

Wilkinsons is excellent, as Woolworths used to be. 

Peacocks, factory shop, Boots and Superdrug are OK. Leekes and Countrywide 

are OK, but not in town. 

Melksham Without Parish Council state that Melksham Town Council and 

Melksham Without Parish Council agreed that Melksham needed a more 

comprehensive retail centre and that shops on the fringes of the town should be 

well connected via good footpaths and cycleways. 

Much building work has been bodged, detracting from protected buildings. 

Melksham Forest offers opportunity for putting the forest back. 

There are problems with affordability of housing for certain employment 

categories. 

Existing affordable housing has been put in car-dependent locations. 

Criteria for affordable housing – single people too. 

199



 

Natural environment: nature reserve behind Sainsbury’s needs promotion. Quality 

of spaces is important. Importance of spaces between development. Creative 

design of flood mitigation measures. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support for the strategy for the town centre to achieve greater self-containment 

over time. 

Support for addition of affordable housing within Atworth parish. 

Agreement that Steeple Ashton should require only limited infill development to 

meet local needs. There are particular access problems in the village due to C 

class roads (Steeple Ashton PC). 

The package as a whole works well for the sensible development of the area 

(Melksham CAP). 

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust has concerns about the statement that “the A350 provides 

an important north/south route adjacent to Melksham but there is limited highway 

capacity around the town, which will need to be addressed”. Concern that this 

statement provides a green light for a bypass. Wiltshire Wildlife Trust therefore 

objects. 

Melksham Without Parish Council states that all current formal sports pitches and 

informal open space should be retained. 

Established residential gardens and small green spaces should be protected from 

development (Melksham Without Parish Council). 

Melksham Railway Development Group and the Chamber of Commerce state that 

there is support in the town for economic and commercial growth. 

Melksham Community Area Partnership states that Atworth Parish Council would 

like to know where development in Atworth is proposed. 

Need quantification of the term ‘moderate development’ in relation to Atworth. A 

large development would not be welcome. 

All new building should be sustainable and built to higher than required standards. 

Consideration should be given to a sensible road development (a particular issue 

is identified regarding congestion at the Countrywide roundabout and along the 

Chippenham road). 

Consideration should be given to an eastern bypass to link the new Semington 

bypass and the A3102 Calne Road. This relates to a particular issue of 

congestion in the town centre, and competition for space between pedestrians 

and lorries/buses. 

Transport and access considerations for sustainable growth: 

Limited road building is needed (link Bowerhill to A350, dual A350 past 

Chippenham, rearrange town centre car parking), Improve the rail service, revise 

local bus services to give an integrated public transport system (Melksham CAP). 

The Highways Agency stated that development at Melksham is unlikely to have a 

direct impact on the Strategic Road Network. 

A350 link for Bowerhill, linked to employment development. 

An eastern bypass may help to alleviate traffic issues, but would it just move 

problems elsewhere? 

Missing section of road by Cereal Partners towards Westinghouse Way needs 

high priority. 

Object to any eastern bypass, or part of it. Where is the public enquiry? 

The Wilts and Berks Canal corridor should be delivered in parallel to 

improvements to the A350 within the lifetime of the core strategy. 

Improvement should be made to the Kennet and Avon Canal towpath within the 

plan period. 

200



There should be improvements to the walking and cycling network in Melksham 

within the plan period, to ensure there is a real choice of transport modes. 

The Core Strategy or a Town Plan should include clear requirements for 

developers to contribute to community benefits through Section 106 agreements. 

The local (town and parish) councils should be involved in drawing up the S106 

agreements. (Melksham Without Parish Council). 

Melksham Without Parish Council states that there should be no further housing 

or industrial development in Melksham without comprehensive supporting 

community facilities. All physical and social infrastructure should be designated to 

Melksham prior to any new development taking place. 

There is a need for more formal pitches and a wider range of leisure facilities 

(including youth facilities) if the town is going to expand. Facilities at the Christie 

Miller centre should be retained and expanded. (Melksham Without Parish 


A Minor Injury Unit is required to replace Melksham hospital. (Melksham Without 

Parish Council). 

The Highways Agency stated that any development should be supported by an 

appropriate level of infrastructure, and sustainable transport links to the town 

centre. A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan would be required. 

Many people regularly play Bowls at the Christie Miller Centre, and would be 

looking for somewhere else to play should the centre close. Facilities could 

possibly be provided at the new school. 

Play areas and other community facilities needed, not just roads. 

The Town Council would like to see more recreational land provided to the north 

of the town. There is also a possibility of recreational space between Bowerhill 

and the A350. 

Need to provide more affordable housing (also links with sustainability 

requirements). 

History in Melksham of land allocated (e.g. for health purposes) but ultimately not 

utilised. 

Infrastructure and services should come first, but who pays? 

Playing fields for Bowerhill. 

Leisure development – dual use with school. Relocation of existing facilities – 

Christie Miller and Blue Pool (current leisure review). 

Infrastructure has to be a big consideration and should come first. 

Could the new school and facilities be open to community use outside school 

hours? 

Would like to see a leisure centre on the road between Melksham and 

Trowbridge. 

What happens when the Sports Centre closes? Is it moving to the school site? If 

so, what will happen to the golf course? 

Entertainment? Leisure Centres? Or do we have to travel for those? 

Retain multiple facilities at Christie Miller and full replacement if building closes. 

GP practices are currently focussed on the town centre: it would be sensible to 

have a wider spread of surgeries as the town expands outwards. 

New schools should be placed in new centres of population. 

Leisure facilities can be provided on land between the A350 / A365 junction to the 

south of the town and the industrial side of Bowerhill (Melksham CAP). 

There should not be coalescence between Berryfield or Bowerhill and Melksham. 

Separate identities should be retained. (Melksham Without Parish Council). 

Green belt should be left between Melksham and Bowerhill (Melksham CAP). 

Melksham Town Council state that the buffer zone between Melksham and the 

surrounding villages (including Bowerhill) should be retained. 

201



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historic setting of the Spa should be protected. (Melksham Without Parish 


A review of all existing historic sites is needed, in order to ensure that sites such 

as The Spa are not lost or spoilt before being formally designated as conservation 

areas. 

Employment development should not just consist of large storage units which lead 

to increased HGV traffic and provide few local jobs (Melksham Without Parish 


Larger and medium sized retail units should be provided to encourage companies 

such as Wilkinsons and Curry’s to come to the town (Melksham Without Parish 


Need to expand the retail base – possibly through redevelopment of the Avon 

Place precinct (Melksham Without Parish Council). 

Serious consideration should be given to the creation of a new pedestrian precinct 

between Church Street/High Street and the Lowbourne roundabout. This may 

also need to involve developing town car parking. 

Want Melksham to grow, rather than maintaining the status quo which may lead 

to stagnation and decay (Melksham CAP). 

Would like consultation on proposed changes to the Market Place by Mouchel 

Parkman. 

East Melksham Consortium state that additional housing will add to the 

regeneration of the town and assist in sustaining town centre shops and services. 

The East Melksham Consortium suggests that a larger East Melksham Strategic 

Site will help address some of the affordable housing needs and general market 

demands of the town and its surrounding rural hinterland. 

Request that the core strategy should recognise importance of existing and future 

retail uses within towns, alongside the focus on employment sites. Whilst the 

'railway cluster' is described as being part of a 'predominantly industrial zone' 

which follows the A350, there should be recognition of the established retail 

businesses that also occupy this area of Melksham and which are important local 

employers and integral to the town's local economy. The intensification of the 

railway cluster area of Melksham in the future, for both retail and other 

employment uses, will be important to the future consolidation and growth of 

Melksham's local economy - should be reflected in future policy drafts. 

The Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Railway Development Group set out a 

vision for Melksham which includes the following aspects (they acknowledge that 

many of these elements are included within the Wiltshire 2026 document): 

Expansion of the Bowerhill industrial area, potential further residential expansion 

to the north east of Melksham, mixed use development in the area from the river 

to the station and beyond, encourage a wide range of independent shops and 

eateries in the town centre, with potential, waterside development to link with the 

railway area, New leisure complex to south of A365, east of A350 (including 

cinema, sports facilities, restaurant, 

Updated integrated public transport network, including bus services which take in 

key developments and improved rail service, development of the area around 

the railway station (particularly Wiltshire Council land) as a transport hub, 

retention of ‘green belt’ and leisure areas. The Conigre Mead Nature Reserve, the 

King George V area, and the green 'strip' out along the course of the Clacker's 

brook should all be preserved, - Rearrange car parking in the town centre to 

encourage long stay parking in those car parks with access issues, and short 

stay parking elsewhere. 

The above adjustments would lead to Melksham becoming a vibrant and largely 

self-sustaining community with reduced commuting (although commuting by 

202



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

private and public transport would be much easier). This is preferable to 

maintaining the status quo, which would lead to stagnation of the town. 

Do not want Melksham to become a dormitory town. 

Need to think about balance between local facilities in new developments and 

effect on diluting the town centre. 

Need for local outlets within community too (not just town centre). 

Westbury View/Dorset Crescent risk of flooding due to planned development (east 

Melksham urban extension). 

Need high quality street architecture and maintenance, and litter picking. Issue 

around the number of organisations involved. 

Facilitate lower business rentals to attract employers. 

How about becoming a Walkers are Welcome (WAW) town? 

Development in Melksham should focus on town centre development and 

employment. Further housing development should follow this. 

Without employment before housing, the effect of inevitable increase in traffic will 

be detrimental to the environment. (Another person disagreed with this comment). 

Employment should be available before new homes are built. 

Great care must be given to planning the Cooper Tires site, if it is expected that 

they will move out of Melksham within the plan period. 

Melksham is a market town? Why don’t we have a market again in the Market 

Place? 

The Town Council raises concerns about flooding of attributing brooks 

(particularly Clackers Brook). A sustainable drainage system should be included 

in the current building programme, and any development up to 2026, so there is 

no impact on land further downstream. 

Existing companies should be encouraged to remain in the Melksham area and to 

expand. 

If Cooper Avon were to leave, site should be used for a mix of housing and 

industrial development. 

Melksham Without Parish Council state that Melksham Town Council, Melksham 

Without Parish Council and Melksham Chamber of Commerce agreed to support 

a new section of road between Dorset Crescent and Heather Way [assume this 

refers to Heather Avenue]. This could be used by both buses and cycles and 

improve public transport east of Melksham. 

The Blue Pool should remain in the centre of the town, and that the Christie Miller 

Sports Centre should not be replaced unless an equivalent facility of the same 

size and quality was offered. 

Recreational land should be allocated to the north of the town. 


Without Parish Council and Melksham Chamber of Commerce agreed that a 

Minor Injury Unit was needed for the town, especially in view of its planned 

extension. 


Persimmon support the proposed strategy for Melksham Community Area, in 

particular the identification of the preferred options at the south east of Melksham. 

Support mixed use development on land to the north and east of The Spa, residential 

development on land to the south of The Spa roundabout, and employment 

development in two phases on land to the south of the A435/north of the Bowerhill 

industrial estate. 

 

WPB Planning state that the future needs of Melksham should be fully restricted 

to the preferred option area. 

203



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melksham Without PC supports the existing employment development as shown 

in mauve block on the map and the potential employment sites shown on the east 

side of the A350 Semington - Melksham Diversion. The western boundary of 

employment land should be Semington Road. 

Melksham Without PC supports the existing industrial allocations surrounding the 

Countryside Farmers roundabout. 

Melksham Without PC supports the extension of employment land northwards 

along the railway line. 

Site 267 would be a natural location for employment land. 

Site 266 is ideally situated as a strategic site for housing and mixed use. 

The East Melksham Consortium commend the proposed Preferred Strategy for 

Melksham, but suggest that it is essential that more effective use is made of the 

existing opportunity at East Melksham Strategic Site (see further comments 

below). 

Melksham Town Council supports employment development to the south of 

Melksham adjoining the A350, but better transport links should be provided 

between Hampton Park and the town centre. 

Melksham Without Parish Council supports an extension of industrial 

development along the railway line and between new Broughton Road and the 

River Avon. This area could also offer retail and town car parking opportunities. 

Northern part of preferred option links well to the area already permitted for 

development. 

There should be no development on the rural buffer between Melksham Town 

and Bowerhill inclusive of the land adjacent to Pathfinder Way and Western Way. 

The buffer zone between Melksham and Bowerhill needs to be retained, and 

there should be no development on the buffer between Melksham and Bowerhill. 

Melksham Without Parish Council states that the reason given for development to 

be located between Melksham and Bowerhill (that it is a good location for access 

to the new school) contradicts the recent decision to allow housing development 

on the existing George Ward School site, which is the other side of town. 

Objection to development on the fields either side of Park Road [assume this is 

referring to Pathfinder Way] leading up to Bowerhill from the roundabout. This 

area should be preserved as green space. Traffic concerns. Present level of 

development is unattractive. 

The Town Council do not support development between Pathfinder Way and 

Western Way. 

Residents of Bowerhill are keen to remain a separate entity to Melksham, and are 

concerned that the proposed development between Melksham and Bowerhill will 

merge the two areas, which they are opposed to. 

CPRE Wiltshire states that the employment allocation seems to be high. 

Suggested allocations to the east of the A350 should be held in reserve, and only 

brought forward once other potential sites have been developed. 

Melksham Without PC objects to the preferred housing option adjacent Western 

Way and Pathfinder Way. House building between Bowerhill and the town is not 

supported. 

Bowerhill Residents Action Group objects to the fields on either side of Pathfinder 

Way Bowerhill being planned for residential development. Rural buffer should be 

safeguarded – important to keep Bowerhill separate from Melksham. 

Don’t like infill between Melksham and Bowerhill. 

Don’t support infill between Bowerhill and Melksham. 

Historically land between Bowerhill and Melksham has always been a rural buffer. 

Need to keep Bowerhill and Melksham separate. No new houses are needed on 

Western Way – expand east, not south. 

204



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melksham Town Council states that there should be no more housing to the south 

of the eastern distributer road. 

The two sites south of the main road to Devizes should not be used for housing 

due to road safety issues and in order to maintain Bowerhill as a distinct 

community. 

Site 1025 is located to the north of the Bowerhill employment area and would be a 

natural location for employment land. Should not be used for housing. 

The Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Railway Development Group mention 

criticism of the proposed development to the south of the A365 and west of 

Mallory Close [between Melksham and Bowerhill]. 

The Spa should be preserved as a future conservation area. There should not be 

any housing development behind and right up to the back gardens of the Spa, or 

around the Spa to spoil its setting. 

Melksham Town Council states that there should be no housing behind the Spa 

(objection to the preferred option). 

Melksham Town Council states that the Spa should be preserved as a future 

conservation area, and no housing should be built immediately behind it. 

Bowerhill Residents Action Group are concerned that development on land 

behind the Spa will ruin the historic setting. 

Preferred option is a threat to the historic setting of Melksham Spa. English 

Heritage was very concerned about development at the back of the Spa when the 

new school was being planned. 

To build housing on the narrow strip between the school and the Spa behind the 

conservation area would be very controversial. 

The Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Railway Development Group mention 

criticism of the proposed development on land behind The Spa. 

Employment development west of Semington Rd and south of Berryfield. 


Melksham Without Parish Council agreed that there should be no industrial 

development in the area west of Semington Road and south of Berryfield. 

The Town Council do not support employment development west of Semington 

Road and south of Berryfields. 

Melksham Without Parish Council states that Semington Road should form the 

western boundary of Bowerhill and Berryfield Industrial Park. No industrial 

development west of this road. 

Keevil Parish Council objects to the preferred option. More consideration should 

be given to the alternative proposals. 

Concern that retail in Melksham is moving west, housing east and employment 

south – therefore shops will not be easily accessible on foot. 

Issues of getting to the town centre from the preferred option by foot or cycle. 

Development on preferred option would be on opposite side of town from all the 

shops. 


Melksham Without Parish Council agreed there should be no industrial 

development in the triangle of land between Pathfinder Way and Western Way. 


Chamber of Commerce and Melksham Without Parish Council agreed that there 

should be no more industrial development along the river (land north and west of 

Countrywide Farmers roundabout) but that this area should be used for parking 

for the town with a footbridge over the River Avon. 


Without Parish Council and Melksham Chamber of Commerce agreed industrial 

development should take place between the existing Bowerhill Industrial Park and 

205



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A350 and between A350 Diversion and Semington Road (although Melksham 

Without Parish Council wishes to exclude Golf Course, as set out below). 

Melksham Without Parish Council does not support development of the Golf 

Course behind the Christie Miller Sports Centre as this recreational land is part of 

the Christie Miller Sports Centre which the PC wishes to see retained and 

improved. 

Melksham Town Council does not support employment development near the 

SEB site: the land should be used as a country park/car park, with a connecting 

footbridge to the town centre. 

CPRE Wiltshire state that some of the recent commercial buildings have been 

very large with a small workforce: this is not the best use of land in Melksham. 

Melksham Without Parish Council supports the alternative proposed employment 

land south of the caravan park and adjacent to the Sewage Works. 

Land south of Bowerhill (particularly sites 1005 and 1006) should be considered 

for employment development: the soon to be adopted Swift Way offers a viable 

link with Melksham. 

Prefer commercial use on the frontage of A350/A365 rather than housing. 

Melksham Town Council mentions plans in the core strategy to have more 

housing north of Snarlton Lane. 

Melksham Without Parish Council has concerns over the way in which sites have 

been selected. Some sites which logically follow on from existing housing have 

not been considered at all (e.g. land north west of Sandridge Common). Other 

sites appear to have been put in the plan simply because the land is owned by 

Wiltshire Council or the land owner has indicated that they would be willing to sell. 

Berryfield and Semington Road Action Group object to the potential future 

employment site identified on land south of Berryfield Brook (to the east of 

Semington Road). The group has concerns about potential increased traffic on 

Semington Road, light pollution, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, increased flood 

risk (Berryfield Brook and the River Avon are both close to the site) and the 

impact on plans to restore the Wilts and Berks canal. The group also highlighted 

existing unoccupied units to the east of Semington Road, and raised concerns 

about industrial development overwhelming the existing settlement, and 

undermining the separate identity of Berryfield and Semington Road. 

Object to allocation of Upside site as merely an employment site - should be 

mixed use. 

Many of the sites marked on the map as being "available" for future development 

are in fact already built on and fully developed, meaning that the actual allocation 

for Melksham is much reduced (map showing potential employment sites on page 

94 of the Strategic Sites background paper). 

An employer in Melksham has concerns over where they would be able to find 

land for future development, and would like to see different lots allocated around 

the town so that diversity is introduced. 

Area to south west of Melksham is a logical infill. 

Bowerhill is developed enough already – some industrial sites there are slow to 

let. 

Increased density of development at Bowerhill does not fit well with the older part 

of Bowerhill. 

The housing development on the road to Calne [A3102] is far too big. 

Site 648 should be included in the preferred housing and mixed use options, and 

should have been included in the SA (for further details see comment by Mark 

Chard and Associates). 

Objection to proposed housing site as Townsend Farm, to the south of the town, 

would be preferable. The allocation of Townsend Farm and the use of the Bath 

206



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road employment as a mixed use regeneration sites would meet the 400 

dwellings the strategy is looking to deliver. 

Melksham Without Parish Council objects to either employment land or residential 

land being allocated north of Boundary Farm, adjacent to Western Way on the 

south west side of Melksham. Western Way forms a clear boundary between the 

town and the countryside, this site is highly visible from Western Way, and 

development would mar the countryside amenity of this area with its rural 

farmsteads of Boundary Farm andWestward Farm. 

Would rather north Melksham for preferred option (forest area). 

Prefer the grey area to the north east of the preferred option. 

Development should go immediately to the north of the eastern extension instead. 

An alternative option would be to the north, for which the access would be via 

Woodrow Road. Transport would be difficult. 

Development ought to be north of Sandridge Road, opposite land already 

designated for development. 

Melksham Railway Development Group and Chamber of Commerce state that 

there are other areas which would be practical for further housing or employment 

development, which do not appear to have been fully considered. It is also noted 

that there are subtle differences between the maps of the sites identified by 

Wiltshire Council as potential sites, and that some of these areas would probably 

be impractical to develop. 

Additional site (which was promoted through the SHLAA) should be considered 

alongside the preferred option (need to look up details of the site). The site is 

opposite already planned housing development (south of Sandridge Common) to 

the east of Melksham. 

Land on Semington Road Melksham should be included in the proposed southern 

urban extension (further detail is included in the response from Simon 

Richardson). 

Atworth Business Park should be allocated as a future employment site. 

How about joining up all the gaps between the houses in Beanacre? Room for 

300+. 

Why has land north of A3102 not been considered? 

The Wilts & Berks Canal Partnership has identified a number of sites adjacent to 

the canal restoration where housing development would provide an economic 

opportunity and would wish that the sites are considered. The proposed sites 

include some areas of land which are within alternative options 1 and 3. Additional 

land is suggested to the south and north east of Melksham, and on the riverside 

area of the Cooper Tires site. 

Industrial development has been proposed on Grade A agricultural land to the 

south. Why has industrial development not been considered on other land, e.g. 

between Bowerhill and the road to the west. 

Melksham Without Parish Council suggests that the alternative land north of the 

A3102, between the A3102 and Woodrow Road, should be developed instead 

(however the parish council notes that this was not supported by Melksham Town 


The Kennet and Avon Canal Trust note that the preferred option for development 

should not impinge on the canal, providing that development does not extend 

further south than the current line of development in Bowerhill. Care should be 

taken to ensure that the size of individual industrial buildings is compatible with 

open aspect when viewed from the canal. 

Bowerhill Residents Action Group state that, if the fields either side of Pathfinder 

Way are developed, then bus services between Bowerhill and the town centre 

must be improved. 

207



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is decided to build on the fields either side of Pathfinder Way then Bowerhill 

Residents Action Group would expect a S106 agreement to secure community 

benefits for residents of Bowerhill, rather than general improvements to the 

Melksham area. 

Suitable infrastructure should be provided in the areas where development is 

planned (e.g. roads, public transport, recreation, healthcare and education). 

New development should be linked to the town centre, to encourage residents to 

visit the centre. 

CPRE Wiltshire state that the preferred option should be phased, as recent 

developments have not been matched with facilities in the town centre. 

Every house should have parking for at least two vehicles, since people will 

continue to use cars whether or not public transport is improved. 

The preferred strategic site option needs to include a high quality walking and 

cycling network, including links to the town centre and the Wilts & Berks Canal 

and the Kennet & Avon Canal. Street layouts should maximise priority for 

pedestrians, cycle parking should be provide, and smarter measures should be 

used to encourage reduced car use. 

A walkway from proposed new development of housing behind the Spa to enable 

children to walk to school would be excellent. 

Seend Parish Council highlights the need to consider the extra traffic generated 

by the proposed development: no provision is made for this in the report. 

The Spa should become a conservation area in view of the land allocated for 

future development. In the proposal there are no new green recreational areas in 

Bowerhill for people to walk to avoid heavy road traffic. Having parkland around 

the historical Spa area creates a buffer between developments. 

Seend Parish Council raises concerns that very little account has been taken of 

the need to provide facilities and services to support the proposed development. 

The area has seen a large amount of housing development, and there now needs 

to be an emphasis on services for social, commerce and transport as well as 

hospital and minor injury facilities. Substantial investment (local government and 

private) is needed to provide these. 

Concern that there is overlap on the map between the preferred option and area 

set aside for open space around the new school. Would like assurance that 

proposed open space around the school will not be lost. 

Proposed housing to the east should be linked to the town centre by a spine road, 

and should not be orientated around a developer-funded Melksham eastern 

bypass. The need for a bypass should decrease if the vision comes into effect, 

and there are fewer HGVs on the roads by 2026. 

Preferred option is on much used green space. Local people would need to have 

alternative spaces. 

Where are the jobs? It is easier to plan the houses than the future jobs. 

Where will the new families work? 

Phasing of new housing and work is essential. 

Concern over where the jobs will be coming from to support the extra housing, 

particularly in the current economic climate, and with the Wiltshire 2026 report 

identifying that Cooper Avon could be at risk. 

Concerns about providing employment and housing development in the same 

area. Are there examples to suggest that combining employment and housing 

development in the same area is likely to be successful? 

Location of distributor road round new development. 

Access to the preferred option – between the old A350 and the Semington- 

Melksham diversion? Site looks isolated, with entry via an industrial estate. 

208



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More detailed mapping of the preferred option site should be provided. The actual 

site could accommodate more than 400 dwellings. The current evidence base 

does not acknowledge the full extent of the preferred option site, and this should 

be rectified. The housing yields are artificially low and do not represent an efficient 

use of land. 

Mapping should include details of access to the site/road links. 

Flood plains are included in the Chippenham and Trowbridge maps, but not in the 

other plans. 

It would be helpful to include a map showing all the green open space and pitches 

in each community area. 

Melksham Without Parish Council has concerns about the depiction of the new 

school site on the map. The map should indicate which land belongs to the new 

school, and which land is being allocated for community open space and pitches. 

The community land should have separate access and parking from the school. 

How will Wilts and Berks canal restoration wind its way through the proposed 

industrial estate extension south of Berryfield Park? 

Map not up to date? Part of potential future employment site already developed 

(Cereal Partners). 

There needs to be more explanation of where the employment land is. 

In the short term the most effective way to provide housing at Melksham would be 

to increase the density at the existing East Melksham Strategic Site (Persimmon 

homes). 

The Town Council state that the houses planned for Snarlton Lane/Snowberry 

Lane area need to come under boundary of Melksham Town Council rather than 

Melksham Without Parish Council. 

The emerging Core Strategy should make clear that the East Melksham Strategic 

Site will be expected to accommodate an additional 160 dwellings over and above 

the current level of development, as part of the overall provision for Melksham 

(East Melksham Consortium). 

Environment Agency comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Environment Agency has no objection to the preferred housing option on 

flood risk grounds, providing that surface water drainage issues are addressed. 

There is a water course to the west of the site, so surveying would be needed to 

determine which species are present. This watercourse would also need to be 

considered in FRA. 

The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed employment land on 

flood risk grounds. 

The Environment Agency stated that SFRA Level 2 might be required for 

alternative option 1 (to the north east of Melksham) if development is planned 

near of within Flood Zone 2/3. Surveying of minor water courses on the site would 

also be required (with regards to biodiversity). 

The Environment Agency stated that SFRA Level 2 would probably not be 

required for alternative option 3 (to the south of Melksham) provided that 

development could be located in Flood Zone 1. Protection of Berryfield Brook 

would be required, including a suitable buffer between potential development and 

the watercourse. 

The Environment Agency stated that foul and water supply infrastructure capacity 

needs to be assessed as part of the SA. 

Section on the A350 could be used for high quality business development. 

209



Melksham CAP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hallam Land Management/Bloor Homes control the land to the east of Melksham, 

to the south of the existing committed urban extension, and believe that circa 400 

dwellings should be located here regardless of whether the other preferred option 

sites are allocated for residential/employment use. If more housing were required 

then this site could potentially be increased, or densities increased to deliver 

more. Any figure of less than 400 dwellings would jeopardise the optimum design 

and transport strategy. The two other locations identified between Melksham and 

Bowerhill would be far better locations for potential extensions to the existing 

employment land at Bowerhill. 

The Core Strategy should acknowledge the need to identify a further supply of 

specific developable sites, in years 6 to 15 (We see no reason why this is not 

possible for years 11 to 15) in accordance with requirements set out in paragraph 

55 of PPS3. 

Any development should only take place on the town centre side of any roads 

acting as a bypass for the town. 

Melksham Without Parish Council would like the Local Centre land at Hornchurch 

Road in Bowerhill to be allocated for community facilities and shops. 

Very few sites around Melksham are suitable for large scale retail uses, so should 

consider whether any of the other sites (e.g. employment sites on A350) would be 

suitable for large scale retail. 

Amount of land shown for possible employment looks a lot, but how many jobs 

per acre with modern industry? 

Boundary between Melksham and Melksham Without – growth of town into 

Melksham Without – possibility of boundary review? 

Should be one Melksham – not With and Without. 

Bowerhill development could follow later if the gap were developed. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreement that Keevil should be included in the policy of development restraint. 

Support for recognition of market towns such as Melksham as focal points and 

service centres for their community areas, and support that these towns should 

accommodate sufficient new development to enable them to consolidate and 

develop this service role. 

Persimmon endorses the identification of Melksham as a Policy B settlement as it 

is one of the largest market towns in West Wiltshire. 

The East Melksham Consortium welcomes the strategy which focuses 

development on market towns such as Melksham together with the strategically 

significant towns. 

The Town Council state that there are opportunities for smaller scale development 

in the surrounding villages, and the Town Council would support limited affordable 

housing development in the larger villages with facilities. 

Melksham Without Parish Council supports limited development in villages with 

good facilities to encourage affordable housing. 


Without Parish Council and Melksham Chamber of Commerce agreed to support 

limited housing development in the larger villages with facilities, providing this was 

for affordable housing. 

Melksham should be considered in the same category as towns such as 

Chippenham and Trowbridge, rather than alongside towns which have a much 

smaller population. Melksham should be allowed to grow as a complete 

210



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

community, possibly sharing some services with neighbouring towns (Melksham 

CAP). 

Mark Chard and Associates state that Melksham should be included in SSCT 

status, due to its position between Chippenham and Trowbridge, and its road links 

to the M4. 

Melksham should not be relegated to being a poor cousin of Chippenham and 

Trowbridge, especially as it has the prospect of 32,000 residents. 

Melksham Without Parish Council state that Melksham Without Parish Council 

and Melksham Town Council discussed what size of town Melksham should be in 

the future. It is significantly larger than Malmesbury and Marlborough and should 

not be restricted by being grouped with smaller towns. Melksham has more in 

common with Chippenham and Trowbridge than places such as Malmesbury and 

Bradford on Avon (note that this was not formally agreed just noted in the 

minutes). 

Development should be encouraged in the market towns, and not just in 

Chippenham and Trowbridge. 

Melksham should not be seen as a small town in terms of retail development. 

Glesson Developments suggest that Devizes, Calne, Melksham and Warminster 

should be identified in the core strategy as ‘primary’ Policy B settlements, being 

second only to the SSCTs. These towns carry out a primary function in terms of 

providing a concentration of business, public transport links and employment and 

community facilities that meet the needs of the settlement and the surrounding 

area. (Further detail is included in the response) 

Melksham Railway Development Group and the Chamber of Commerce suggest 

that the proposals outlined in the consultation document will deprive the town of 

the strategic backing necessary to develop as a complete community. It is stated 

that there is support amongst the current population of Melksham for the town to 

grow as a ‘complete town’, rather than having jobs and commerce leached or 

drifting away from the town, with businesses unable to expand in Melksham. The 

town should be allowed to grow, with good housing, jobs, education, and other 

services. 

Semington Parish Council expressed confusion as to where Semington sits: it is 

shown in the Trowbridge community area section complete with housing 

development already planned (affordable housing) but is also marked as ‘not 

suitable for development’ in the Melksham community area section. 

Melksham Without Parish Council has concerns that some facilities (such as a 

Minor Injury Unit and a Police Station) are needed in any population centre, and 

should at least be provided in towns of 10,000 or more residents. These facilities 

should not therefore be limited to the strategically significant towns. 

Melksham Without Parish Council requests information about how the decisions 

have been made as to the level of facilities and services criteria being used to 

identify small towns and larger villages. Is there a threshold population figure? 

Shaw/Whitley combined have a number of facilities. Shaw needs affordable 

housing. Broughton Gifford has specialist facilities and would benefit from a small 

amount of development to support the village school. 

Holt is a good model for what a village should be like – can be both lived in and 

worked in. However, it was also noted that lots of workshops in Holt have been 

lost. 

Village schools are threatened by demographics. Small number of new affordable 

houses could improve their viability. 

Importance of rural housing in the smaller settlements needs to be brought out in 

the strategy. 

Need for social housing in the smaller settlements. 

211



4.83 Housing distribution: Comments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melksham Without PC questions whether a further 400 dwellings should be 

allocated at Melksham, when the town is already expecting a 10.8% population 

increase over the period up to 2011 due to development already planned. This is 

a larger percentage population increase than that expected at Trowbridge, 

Westbury and Bradford on Avon. 

Melksham Without Parish Council does not support any extra housing for 

Melksham unless extra facilities are offered as well (particularly either a Minor 

Injury Unit or First Aid Station). Melksham Without Parish Council state that the 

parish council agrees with Melksham Town Council that 400 extra houses are far 

too many, but Melksham Without Parish Council will only support the construction 

of another 200 houses, as advocated by Melksham Town Council, as long as 

additional facilities are offered as well. 

Bowerhill Residents Action Group states that Melksham does not need any more 

houses. There are already 1000 houses planned without any increases in the 

facilities in the town (such as reopening the minor injuries unit, regular rail service, 

and a good cycleway network). 

The plans seem to indicate that Chippenham and Trowbridge will have most of 

the local facilities, whilst Melksham will have the most houses – there should be a 

better balance in each town (Bowerhill Residents Action Group). 

The Town Council feels that anymore housing would be excessive and a strain on 

current infrastructure. The report did not seem to take note of the 800-1000 

houses already planned for Melksham. Another 200 homes maximum would be 

enough before there is a change to the nature of the town. The current mix of 

social housing of 30% on new developments is adequate to keep the town 

vibrant. 

Concern that if Cooper Avon ever left the town, having so many extra houses 

would exacerbate the employment problem. 

Hellam Land Management and Bloor Homes suggest that Melksham could 

accommodate significant additional growth beyond that already committed, and 

that the town is very well placed to deliver a large proportion of the strategic 

housing requirement for the county. It is stated that Melksham has a range of 

services and facilities (including a department store), is well connected by public 

transport, and is well located for employment opportunities, both within the town 

itself and in the nearby settlements of Chippenham and Trowbridge. Additional 

housing development would help address affordability issues, and would increase 

the population base to encourage a better retail offer in the town centre and more 

frequent train services. It is suggested that whilst the self-containment of 

individual settlements is an important consideration, in defining a spatial strategy 

it is equally important to look at the wider strategic context and to understand how 

far residents are likely to travel for employment. 

Mark Chard and Associates state that Melksham has the potential for an 

increased housing allocation, due to its employment potential and access to the 

M4, Bath and Bristol. 

Don’t need any more development than the allocation already shown. 

More development of Chippenham, Trowbridge and Salisbury means less 

development of Melksham. This means more travel to the preferred towns – 

surely not desirable when you claim to reduce travel. 

Should be no more housing in Melksham until the infrastructure is in place. 

Fewer houses should be built. 

Bowerhill Resident’s Association states that Melksham does not need any more 

houses. There are already plans for an additional 1,000 homes without any 

212



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

improvements to infrastructure (minor injuries unit, regular rail service, good 

cycleway network). 

Melksham Without Parish Council states that there should be limited additional 

housing growth during the plan period. Time should be allowed for the new 

residents at the development already planned to become part of the community. 

Melksham cannot cope with the 1450 dwellings already planned, even before the 

extra 400 dwellings are considered. There are issues with traffic and parking in 

the town centre. 

Should not build more houses when the employment opportunities have not 

increased. Transport would inevitably increase. 

Already high level of development planned in Melksham (including 270 extra 

dwellings on George Ward School site): should be a stronger focus on affordable 

housing rather than more housing in general. 

Melksham Without Parish Council state that a chart should be provided to show 

the proposed percentage increases in industrial base per town as well and size of 

the new land allocations. It would also be useful to see the out-commuting rates 

per town so that real judgements could be made on whether proposals in the 

Core Strategy will actually make Melksham more sustainable. 

Melksham Without Parish Council is concerned that the strategy aims to develop 

Melksham at a faster rate than Bradford on Avon and Warminster, despite the fact 

that Melksham does not have basic facilities such as a First Aid Station. 

Melksham Community Area Partnership refers to objections to development at 

Brynards Hill in Wootton Bassett, and suggests that the core strategy should do 

more for Melksham, and less for Wootton Bassett, thus going along with the views 

of local residents. 

Melksham Without Parish Council states that analysis of Table 4.2. indicates that 

Melksham has expanded at a faster rate than even Trowbridge since 2006. The 

balance is disproportionate to the town’s facilities or existing retail space to meet 

the predicted increase in facilities demand. (A graph of this analysis is attached to 

the comment). 

Important to remember that inappropriate development elsewhere may be worse 

than it being located in Melksham. 

Attract industry/business to Melksham before adding housing. In Bowerhill, 

employment preceded housing. However there is a debate around which comes 

first, since an educated/skilled workforce is needed in order to attract employers. 

There is already planning permission for significant housing. 

Should create jobs alongside houses. 

Affordability of housing more important than numbers. 

213



4.84 Melksham community area: respondents 

Organisations 

Atworth Parish Council 

Bowerhill Residents’ Association 



Environment Agency 

Hellam Land Management and Bloor 

Homes 

Hills UK Ltd 

LPC (Trull) Ltd, agent for John Sheate 

Melksham C AP 

Melksham Town Council 

MMAT 


Seend Parish Council 



Berryfield and Semington Road Action 

Group 

Braemon Holdings 





Keevil Parish Council 

Mark Chard and Associates 

Melksham Railway Dev. Group 



Planning Potential Ltd 


Sustrans 


Individuals 

Pauline Baker Mr Rod Eaton Cuncillor Richard Gamble 

Mr Sam Gompels Mr Mark Scott Mr Richard Revell, c/o 

Michael Kavanagh 

Duncan Hames Lucy Hatton Brian Jennings 

Harvey Paris Mr and Mrs Wiltshire Jenni Rivett 

David and Christine 

Vaughton 

David Wickham 

214



4.85 Melksham community area: notes from exhibitions and events 

Melksham exhibition notes 26 November 2009 

Poster one - What is Wiltshire 2026? 

 

 

 

 

Importance of rural housing in the smaller settlements needs to be brought out in 

the strategy. 

Need for social housing in the smaller settlements. 

Children should go to the Oak School by cycle and walking paths across the 

fields. Some footpaths are already in existence. 

How can you have long term economic growth and a sustainable future and 

reduce carbon emissions? 

Poster three - How do we think Wiltshire will look in 2026? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about becoming a Walkers Are Welcome (WAW) town? Visitors come to 

stay in hotels and B&Bs because the path networks have been cared for and are 

accessible. 

More development of Chippenham, Trowbridge and Salisbury means less 

development of Melksham. This means more travel to the preferred towns: surely 

not desirable when you claim to reduce travel. 

Climate change is fuelled by what the sun is doing, not people. The climate has 

been changing for millennia before man existed. 

It is necessary to encourage development in the market towns, not just 

Chippenham and Trowbridge. Development in Melksham should focus on town 

centre development and employment, the latter to both encourage local growth 

and also guard against the withdrawal of Cooper Tires. Further housing 

development should follow the above. 

Should be one Melksham, not With and Without. 

How can you have more tourism and at the same time reduce car use? 

The first seven points are admirable – the problem is how you plan to implement 

them. 


Anthropogenic climate change is a myth created for control and regulation. It’s a 

non-problem. 

Bus and coach travel will be cheaper and more efficient than train travel. 

Car parking scheme that encourages use of outer car parks – as it is now, free 1 

hour parking in centre (behind Iceland) encourages traffic jams through the town. 

Make parking in centre all paid and outer parks 1 hour free (opposite of what it is 

now). 

Regeneration of Melksham’s town centre is a must and employment 

opportunities. Infrastructure surely has to be a big consideration, too. We must 

have more useful bigger shops and not keep missing out to towns either side of 

Melksham. 

More buses to local villages. 

Ease of car parking. More free car parking to encourage in-town trade. 

Without employment before housing, the effect of inevitable increase in traffic will 

be detrimental to the environment; local employment should be the aim 

(disagree with the above). 

Before more homes are built there should be employment! Also infrastructure 

first! 

215



 

 

Infrastructure as a concept needs to be re-thought to be more climate-friendly, i.e. 

cycle paths etc. 

Not just the supply of energy, embodied costs of building materials, especially 

with commercial development, should be influenced, if not controlled. 

Poster eight - How does Wiltshire 2026 expect Melksham to change? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Canal is a waste of money. 

The town needs a good size park and country walks, never mind more and more 

building. 

The missing section [of road] – by Cereal Partners – towards Westinghouse Way 

needs high priority. 

Could the new school and facilities be open to community use outside school 

hours? 

More business and industry should be encouraged into town and the industrial 

estate. 

Improve train services and (free) car parking to encourage people into town. 

Build/develop new canal with marina and moorings 

It is expected that Cooper Tires will pull out of the Melksham site within the given 

timescale. Great care must be given to planning on this important site. 

I think we need to ensure we draw people into the town centre rather than send 

them out to Trowbridge/Chippenham. Train and bus services essential. 

There should be no more housing in Melksham until the infrastructure is in place. 

Are you satisfied that village primary schools remain viable under changing 

demographics? A small amount of affordable homes in villages with schools 

could help keep them open. 

The town centre has been allowed to change to charity shops/take-aways/estate 

agents by the powers that be. Lower business rates would be helpful to alleviate 

this problem. 

Melksham a market town? Why don’t we have a market again in the Market 

Place? 

More help [needed] to bring retailers into town. 

And less houses being built, and better transport links. 

Object to any eastern bypass, or part of it – where is the public enquiry? 

How about joining up all the gaps between the houses in Beanacre? (room for 

300+) 

Poster nine - How were the development options assessed? 

 

 

Where are the jobs? It is easier to plan the houses than the future jobs. 

No houses to be built in the Rural Buffer between [Melksham] Town and 

Bowerhill. 

Poster twelve - The preferred option 

 

 

 

 

Housing should not be placed on the buffer area between the town of Melksham 

and the village of Bowerhill. 

Prefer commercial use on the frontage of A350/A365 rather than housing. 

Would also like to see a leisure centre on the road between Melksham and 

Trowbridge (cinema/bowling, etc). 

No housing on buffer zone between Bowerhill and Melksham. 

216



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infill development in the green corridors between Bowerhill and [Melksham] town 

and the town and the historic Spa is not welcomed. Development ought to be 

north of Sandridge Road, opposite land already designated for development. 

What happens when the Sports Centre closes? Is it moving to the school site? If 

so, what will happen to the golf course? 

We need to keep Bowerhill and Melksham separate. No new houses are needed 

on Western Way – expand east, not south. 

Agreed (with previous comment). 

Why has land north of A3102 not been considered? 

Where will these new families work? We need to safeguard employment land, so 

we aren’t reliant on one major employer. 

The housing development on the road to Calne is far too big! 

A walkway from new development of housing behind the Spa to enable children to 

walk to new school on Woolmore Farm land would be excellent. 

Entertainment? Leisure centres? Or do we have to travel for those? 

Do not agree with housing or any development between Melksham and Bowerhill. 

“Green lung” should be retained. 

How will the Wilts and berks Canal regeneration wind its way through the 

proposed industrial estate extension south of Berryfield Park? 

Poster thirteen - Why is transport important? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should not build more houses when the employment opportunities have not 

increased – transport would inevitably increase. 

Retain multiple facilities at Christie Miller and full replacement if building closes. 

More variety of shops in Melksham (lower business rates?). 

A3560 Countrywide Roundabout – put a summer car park with toilets on land 

between electricity substation and river. Footbridge over river to Riverside Walk – 

access to town centre Car park would serve river/canal – huge tourism impact. 

Restore the train link to Bath – only a small portion of the old line needs to be 

reinstated. Commuting to Bath by train would vastly reduce car use, pollution and 

congestion. 

Salisbury to Chippenham (through Melksham) rail link desperately needed to 

provide transportation through the county. 

Also needed are transport link-ups (taxi rank at rail station, bus stopping at 

station, etc.). 

Melksham is only a little smaller than Chippenham. Can we have a station and 

service like this, please? 

Increasing train services to serve commuters (i.e. not v. early and v. late) would 

both increase the viability of the town’s businesses and keep roads less busy and 

improve air quality. 

Poster fourteen - What are the key transport changes in Wiltshire? 

 

Melksham station needs more trains. Please help introduce a Wilts Train 

between Chippenham-Melksham and Trowbridge. 

Melksham – general comments 

 

 

Shops – high cost ladies’ clothes shops, estate agents (6 or 7), takeaways (too 

many), card shops, charity shops; “downgrade” shops (tattoos) expanding to large 

premises. 

Shopping precinct – disaster – even Halifax closing. 

217



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wilkinsons – excellent, as Woolworths used to be. 

Weatherspoons? [would be useful] 

Peacocks, factory shop, Boots, Superdrug – OK. 

Nothing [at present] to draw customers in, especially men. 

Leekes, Countrywide - OK, but not in town. 

Too many houses, little industry. 

Much building work has been bodged, detracting from protected buildings. 

Pavements are filthy (dog’s mess). 

Still no barriers on pavements – too expensive? 

In Ibiza, immaculate, marble-type pavements are hosed down at night time [every 

night] [born in Melksham; lived there for 60 years; also lived in Bradford on Avon]. 

Melksham Workshop Notes 


Attendance 

Name 

Atworth Parish Council 

Charles Boyle 

Councillor Roy While 

Duncan Hames 

Gill Shell 

Green Square Group 

Len Turner 

Melksham Chamber of Commerce 




Mid Wiltshire Economic 

Partnership 

Peppercorn Orchard 

Prospective Parliamentary 

Candidate 

Richard Wood 

Sarah Cardy 

Teresa Strange 


Organisation 

Bowerhill Residents Action Group 

Councillor Jon Hubbard 

Councillor Steve Petty 

George McDonic 

Graham Ellis 

Jim & April Law 

Mary Jarvis 

Melksham Climate Friendly Group 




Pauline Helps 

Phil Bowley 

Richard Wiltshire 

Rolf Brindle 

Shirley McCarthy 



Wiltshire Rural Housing 

Association Ltd 

218



Discussion one – Objectives 

The following relates to discussion 1 on objectives from the workshop. Attendees 

were asked to place blue stickers against their top three objectives. 

Objectives 

Group Group Group Total 

1 2 3 

1. To address climate change 3 0 2 5 

2. To provide for long term economic growth 5 5 3 13 

3. To meet Wiltshire’s housing needs 0 3 3 6 

4. To secure appropriate infrastructure and 

2 1 5 6 

services 

5. To enhance the vitality and viability of town 3 1 3 7 

centres 

6. To encourage safe accessible places 0 1 0 1 

7. To promote sustainable forms of transport 3 4 3 10 

8. To protect and enhance the natural 

2 4 1 7 

environment 

9. To safeguard and promote a high quality 

1 2 1 4 

environment 


Group one 

Discussion one: Objectives 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All are important, but the first one (Climate Change) does not fit with the plans. 

Long term economic growth is the most important. 

The risk of flooding should be high on the list. 

Number 5 (Vitality and Viability of Town Centres) should also apply to the rest of 

the area. 

The town centre is important, but we should also think about jobs peripheral to the 

town. 

We are lucky to have the employment area at Bowerhill. 

Local jobs are needed for local people, together with infrastructure and services. 

The historic town centre of Melksham is not able to cope with the number of 

people attracted to the shops. 

There is very little scope in the town centre to create new shopping facilities. 

The first priority is to fill the empty shops before adding new ones. 

People do not want Melksham to be a dormitory town. 

In terms of retail development, Melksham should not be seen as a small town. 

The town centre has suffered over the years, but employment possibly not. 

Our community is more of a problem than in the past. It needs more jobs, but 

more jobs will not revitalise the town centre at all. 

Retail in Melksham is moving west, housing east and employment south. Shops 

will not be easily accessible on foot. 

(Q. about RSS) Where does each of the towns sit in relation to each other? (JS) 

The focus in the RSS is on Chippenham and Trowbridge in the first instance, but 

with appropriate growth at the Market Towns, for example, there should be more 

growth in Melksham than in Bradford on Avon. The Council is interested in what 

sort of employment we are talking about. 

219



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Developing transport in Melksham is swings and roundabouts. Trains may lead to 

more dormitory status for Melksham, as more people commute by train. On the 

other hand we need more facilities for the people who do commute. 

(Melksham Climate Friendly) The first Objective should be above and beyond the 

others. Climate change impacts may mean there is no point in housing and 

economic development, etc. 

Consider what economic development means, e.g. charity shops represent a 

positive recycling method. 

Think about the embodied costs of building materials. Getting old buildings up to 

good efficiency standards is more expensive than for new buildings. 

There is support for making old buildings more efficient. 

We must remember that inappropriate development elsewhere may be worse 

than it being located in Melksham. 

(JS) The strategy is to focus development on large centres. 

(Chairman) Some villages would support development in order to retain schools 

and develop a shop. 

Holt put forward as a model of what a village should be. Could be both lived in 

and worked in. 

Lots of workshops in Holt have been lost. Perhaps we should think about the 

smaller scale economy, with family and partnership businesses. A mix is needed. 

We need a good portfolio of different types of jobs both in the town and out of the 

town to achieve a balanced community. 

The provision of work from home units satisfies both economic and climate 

change objectives. 

Objective 2 (Economic Growth) should include “sustaining” what is already here. 

To what extent should we encourage tourism growth in Melksham? Tourism 

growth does not need or interfere with economic growth. Could tap into flow of 

visitors to Bradford on Avon and Lacock. 

We should utilise the river/canal for tourism. 

We should think about what attracts people to Bradford on Avon. 

Industrial development is indicated potentially across where the canal is. This 

should be considered and possibly incorporated. 

What sort of jobs should Melksham provide? – tourism and retail in the town 

centre. 

Need to change perception of Melksham as an industrial town. Possibly use 

Market Place. 

People won’t come for one minor tourist feature – need a complete package: full 

day/half day of things to do in Melksham. 

Melksham is ideally placed as a centre from which to explore. 

Put the forest back into Melksham Forest. 

Very few sites around Melksham are suitable for large scale retail uses. 

Therefore need to consider whether any of the other sites (e.g. employment sites 

on the A350) would be suitable for large scale retail. 

Do we want to replicate Chippenham or Trowbridge, or do we want a different 

flavour? 

Yes, but we need to look at why people are leaving Melksham to go to Currys. 

(Chair) Melksham needs to have more confidence – it should recognise what it 

has that is good. 

Should develop Melksham more in the middle, so people can then drive to the 

centre and walk around. 

But there is nowhere to put a large shop at present. Larger retailers would want a 

car park. 

220



 

 

 

Melksham could be fighting against out of town shops at Trowbridge, but with its 

own out of town shops, like Leeks. 

Leeks brings people into the town without having a detrimental effect on the town 

centre. 

People who shop at big stores like Sainsbury’s need cars to take the goods home. 

Discussion two: How can we address these issues in the 

communities? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industrial development is proposed on Grade A agricultural land to the south. 

Why has industrial development not been considered or promoted on other land, 

for example between Bowerhill and the road to the west. 

Bowerhill development could follow later if the gap were developed. 

(JS) Stressed that more work needs to be done on employment land. There are 

issues with the land at Bowerhill. 

There needs to be more explanation of where the employment land is. 

The Parish Council has concerns about filling in the green buffer between 

Melksham and Bowerhill. 

There is also a threat to the historic setting of Melksham Spa. 

English heritage were very concerned about any development at the back of the 

Spa when the new school was being planned. 

To build housing on the narrow strip between the school and the Spa behind the 

conservation area would be very controversial. 

(JS) Why should we keep Bowerhill and Melksham separate? 

Historically it has always been thought of as a rural buffer. 

Development should go immediately to the north of eastern extension. 

(JS) no one has proposed this land for development. This raises the question of 

whether it is deliverable. 

An alternative option would be to the north, for which the access would be via 

Woodrow Road. Transport would be difficult. 

(JS) Emphasised the proposal for 400 dwellings. Put forward the idea that some 

land might not be needed if some houses were accommodated on other sites. 

Increased density of development at Bowerhill does not fit well with the older part 

of Bowerhill. 

Most people drive. Very few walk or cycle. 

Development on the preferred option site would be on the opposite side of town 

from all the shops, so people would have to drive to the town. 

A canal route (towpath and cycle path) could offer an alternative to driving. 

If an eastern “bypass” is built, the main traffic route to the M4 would be via 

Lacock. 

(JS) What about cycle routes through the new development? 

We need better links through the town. 

The equestrian industry is big in Melksham, therefore more bridleways are 

needed. 

You can get around Melksham, but you can’t get through it. 

(JS) Any burning issues? 

The rail service needs improvement. This would accommodate people who 

currently out-commute. There are two trains a day at present. 

The rail service needs to connect well with the Paddington/Temple Meads line. 

A better link is needed between Bradford on Avon and the motorway. Lots of 

Bradford traffic comes through Melksham at present. 

(JS) We hope that in future we will need to travel out of town less. 

Yes, but not everyone who works in Bath can afford to live there. 

(JS) We should look to public transport first. 

221



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But 80% of people use a car. Why are we saying cars last? 

(JS) Looking to the future, will people use cars as much in 20 years time? 

This is especially an issue in villages. 

Parking issues – the only free parking has moved to Church Street. Now all traffic 

comes into the town centre, which leads to congestion. 

Peripheral parking would be good, to intercept cars before they get into the town 

centre. 

Could walk or cycle into the town centre. 

We will have new technology, but we will still have cars, because that is the 

aspiration of youth. 

We should provide infrastructure to satisfy what people want, not what they 

should want. 

Out of town retail options and town centre would not survive without people using 

cars. 

Melksham has a good supply of car parking, yet Devizes is seen as a pretty 

market town. Devizes can’t offer free and easy parking. Melksham should sell 

itself as having good parking. 

Should change free 1 hour parking to the peripheral car parks. 

The central car park should not be free for an hour. 

- Support for this from around the table. Should allow cars to flow to the town, but 

not through the town. 

(JS) Should the A350 be dualled? 

The A350 is more important on the bit to the west of Melksham. 

An eastern bypass may help to alleviate traffic issues, but would it just move the 

problems elsewhere? 

Should possibly increase car parking on the A350, with a pedestrian link into the 

town. 

A shoppers bus would be good. 

Would like to see improved cycle links within the town. Dismayed that this is so 

far down the list for review. 

Group two 



 

 

 

 

 

Need public transport. 

Spatial planning to reduce home-work distance. 

People often don’t live near work, especially where 2 in household working. 

Complex issues in home choice. Attention to housing stock needed. 

Energy efficiency of housing. 


Attract industry/business to Melksham before adding to housing. 

(Debate) Which comes first, housing or jobs? 

In Bowerhill, employment preceded housing. 

But need (educated/skilled) workforce to attract employers. 

Not too far from the M4. 

Already planning permission for significant housing. 

A larger number of houses too soon would lead to in-migration, therefore a 

danger of out-commuting if jobs not created. 

222



 

A big advantage would be more trains stopping: 

- agree 

- agree, would put Melksham back on the map 

- we do have A350 

- trains would help the environment 

- facilitating out-commuting 

- but would help business to relocate to Melksham 

Housing needs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Play areas and other community facilities needed, not just the roads. 

Affordable housing – particular need to meet sustainability requirements. 

What’s the right balance between local facilities in new developments and the 

effect on diluting the town centre? 

It seems we are putting all the housing on one side of Melksham and all the food 

shops on the other side. 

The consultation document misses the need to provide more affordable housing. 

Isn’t there 30% social housing in developments? 

It is by negotiation. 

There is less opportunity to negotiate away now. 

There is a stigma attached to the term “social housing”. 

There are problems with affordability of housing for certain employment 

categories. 

Need “quality” jobs. 

Melksham has attracted some prestigious employers, e.g. Knorr Bremse. 

Need a flexible approach. 

Infrastructure and Services 

 

 

 

 

 

Always tags along behind. 

Should come first, but who pays? 

We have a history of land allocated, e.g. for health purposes, but ultimately not 

utilised. 

Will need more primary schools. 

Village schools are threatened by demographics. A small number of new 

affordable houses would improve their viability. 

Town centre viability 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honiton – good example of specialist shops/cafes. 

Rents were reduced – how? 

Should we do more with the river front? 

What’s in the town centre to entice young families? 

Bring the market back. 

Through route for HGVs doesn’t help. 

Car parking? 

- that’s the last thing; we need the shops first 

Canal an attraction. 

Marketing strategy for town centre. 

Antique shop? 

Rents in town centre too high. 

223



Safe places 

 

 

Linked routes/overlooked routes. 

Walking routes – tie in with town promotion. 

Sustainable transport 

 

 

 

Good if buses could get to the station. 

Only two crossing points over river. 

Bus service to RUH, Bath. 

Natural environment 

 

 

 

 

 

Could we plant a wood? 

I have lived in Melksham for 25 years and I never knew there was a nature 

reserve (behind Sainsbury’s) – needs promotion. 

Importance of the spaces between development – we don’t like the infill between 

Melksham and Bowerhill. 

The quality of spaces is important. 

Creative design of flood mitigation measures. 

224



Built environment 

 

 

 

 

Existing affordable housing has been put in car-dependent locations. 

Need high quality street architecture and maintenance - otherwise becomes 

untidy. 

Problem with uncoordinated street scene and maintenance is the number of 

organisations involved. 

Litter-picking and maintenance. 

Flooding 

 

Westbury View/Dorset Crescent risk of flooding due to planned development 

Discussion 2: How can we address these issues in the communities? 

Bowerhill is developed enough already. 

Some industrial sites there are slow to let. 

Prefer the grey area to the north east to the preferred option. 

Area to the south west of Melksham is a logical infill. 

There are issues of getting to the town centre from the preferred option by foot or 

cycle. 

Access to the preferred option (between the old A350 and the Semington – 

Melksham diversion? – site looks isolated, with an entry via an industrial estate. 

Map not up to date? Part of potential future employment site already developed 

(Cereal Partners). 

What can the council do to influence house builders to raise the local skill set? 

Don’t need any more development than the allocation already shown. 

The phasing of new housing and work is essential. 

More trains. 

Variety of bus service destinations. 

Facilitate lower business rentals to attract employers. 

Provide space for employers to grow. 

GROUP three 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Out of town vs. town centre locations. 

Creating more permanent jobs. 

Planning for when Cooper Avon Tires goes. 

Promotion of town and having sites available. 

Don’t support infill between Bowerhill and Melksham. 

The amount of land shown for possible employment looks a lot, but how many 

jobs per acre with modern industry? 

Housing 

 

 

Affordability of housing more important than numbers. 

However, residents often object to affordable housing - (NIMBYism) perception of 

the tenants. 

225



Town centre 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road works through the town centre have caused difficulties due to the length of 

time they have taken. 

There is a natural turnover of shops, e.g. due to the internet. 

Important to have links between businesses so that people can visit multiple 

shops on one outing. 

Bowerhill post office will be reopened soon. It is well used. 

There is a need for local outlets within communities, too. 

Concern over separation of town centre and housing developments, leading to the 

need for car journeys. 

Melksham town centre has coped well with the recession, due to independent 

retailers. It could not sustain larger stores.. 

Transport links are important to create a sustainable centre. 

Transport 

Train service is inadequate, bus service is quite good, but both need to be linked 

up and spaced out, e.g. two companies service the same route but run buses 

within minutes of each other. It would be better if they were spaced out to every 

30 minutes. 

Do not want to encourage lorries on the A350. 

Extra housing will cause extra traffic and congestion, which is already an issue on 

the A350 at peak periods. 

School traffic causes issues, particularly in wet weather. School buses would 

help and would help with parking. It needs to be affordable. 

Need to invest in order to change things. 

Better bus services will increase job opportunities. 


Doctors’ surgeries/first aid station – people should not have to travel out of town 

to get first aid. Currently 3 doctors’ surgeries are all located together , not evenly 

around the town, and currently over-subscribed. 

A350 link for Bowerhill, linked to employment development. 

Leisure development – dual use with school. Relocation of existing facilities – 

Christie Miller and Blue Pool (current leisure review). 

Boundary between Melksham and Melksham Without – growth of town into 

Melksham Without – possibility of boundary review? 

Playing fields for Bowerhill. 

Lorry park – feasibility study has been commissioned into moving it. Currently 

lorries are parking near police station – no proper provision in that area. 

Entertainment – mainly private. Assembly Hall is main public site. 

100-300 people come to monthly cinema – not enough for a full time cinema 

Devizes cinema is currently where people go. 

Atworth residents rarely use Melksham facilities. Often travel to Bradford on 

Avon, Trowbridge, etc. 

Lack of facilities for young people. 

No agreed route for canal – issue with Berryfields. 

226



Flooding issues 

 

 

 

 

Cycleways – would be a good link with canal – safe cycle route. 

More cycleways through town centre. 

Safe routes to new school – walking and cycling. 

Centre of town is big issue for cycling. 

Discussion two: How can we address these issues in the 

communities? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would rather north Melksham for preferred option (forest area). 

Northern part of preferred option links well to the area already permitted for 

development. 

The preferred option is on a much used green space. Local people would need to 

have alternative spaces. 

Upkeep of public footpaths is an issue. 

Location of distributor road round new development. 

Criteria for affordable housing – single people too. 

Summary of Melksham CAP survey results 

Melksham Community Area Partnership (CAP) submitted the results of a survey as 

part of their consultation response to the Wiltshire 2026 document. The survey was 

carried out by Melksham CAP in January 2010, with 157 people taking part. The key 

messages from the Melksham CAP survey are summarised below; the full survey 

report received from Melksham CAP is available to view upon request. 

Key statistics relevant to the Wiltshire 2026 consultation 

Do you agree with the Wiltshire 2026 vision? 

Agree with this vision: 71; disagree: 30 

Do you agree with the Wiltshire 2026 strategic objectives? 

Agree with the strategic objectives: 82; disagree: 24 

If the rail service was improved would you use it? 

Yes: 70; No: 13 

Are the road networks adequate for you? 

Yes: 55; No: 27 

Are the cycle routes adequate for you? 

Yes: 32; No: 32 

Are there adequate shopping facilities in your area? 

Yes: 23; No: 49 

Do you have ready access to good public services? 

Yes: 42; No: 20 

Do you feel there is adequate infrastructure (the above services) in your area? 

Yes: 24; No: 44 

227



Preferred housing and mixed use option 

Agree or strongly agree 14 

Disagree or strongly disagree 22 

No opinion 12 

Alternative housing and mixed use option 



No opinion 15 

Potential future employment sites 



No opinion 7 

Do you feel that extra housing provision would have a positive or negative effect upon the local 

area? 

Positive 23 

Negative 36 

No change to current 15 

Do you feel that extra industry would have a positive or negative effect on the local area? 

Positive 62 

Negative 7 

No change to current 8 

What kind of houses do you think should be built? 

Starter homes 2 

Affordable housing 36 

Social housing 12 

Family homes 48 

Retirement homes 18 

No preference 11 

Where in the Melksham area do you think the housing should be built? 

North 8 

East 11 

South 2 

West 4 

Mixture of areas 32 

Agree with proposed plan 13 

Summary of key messages 

228



A summary of the key messages from the Melksham CAP survey responses is 

presented below. This summary focuses on those responses which are most relevant 

to the Wiltshire 2026 consultation. The survey also included a number of questions 

regarding transport, and other general questions about the area which may not be 

specifically relevant to Wiltshire 2026. 

Issues and opportunities 

Employment 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need more employment. 

There is sufficient employment for current community. 

Need to encourage local businesses. 

Very limited employment opportunities currently. 

Limited employment in Melksham so unlikely to be a reduction in the need to 

travel. More houses without employment or services will lead to more out 

commuting. 

Needs to be more local employment. 

Need to increase number of businesses – too reliant on Avon Tires. 

Melksham is dependent on one or two large employers. 

Retail 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melksham needs more shops. 

Encourage local high street shopping. 

Melksham needs less takeaways. 

Town centre is dead. 

Lack of regeneration of the town centre. 

Too many fast food outlets. 

Not enough quality shops. 

Difficulties in buying certain items locally, such as shoes, clothing, sports 

equipment, hardware and electrical items. 

Facilities and services 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Needs more local amenities like doctors and dentists. 

Need more leisure and social activities. 

Need adequate health care facilities. 

Level of healthcare facilities should not be reduced to surrounding villages. 

Need more education facilities. 

Not enough leisure facilities. 

Lack of hospital facilities has resulted in additional travel. 

Lack of job centre and housing department. 

Loss of Minor Injuries Unit was a blow for the town. 

Lack of museum. 

Library should have been allowed to extend. 

GP services under pressure. 

Distance to nearest post office (and loss of post office in Bowerhill). 

No art or culture. 

Very poor broadband speeds in rural areas around Melksham. 

229



Public transport, and walking and cycling provision 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Needs a better bus service (e.g. more frequent services). 

Limited trains from Melksham. 

Station is on edge of town and is not accessible. 

Need to make public transport cost effective. 

Need better transport networks. 

Issues with train and bus services to e.g. Corsham and Bath. 

Poor public transport on Sundays. 

Issue of lack of clear information about public transport times etc. 

Service limitations in rural areas. 

Lack of cycle route 

Traffic/road capacity 

 

 

 

 

Issue with congestion on A350 - increase in housing/employment opportunities 

(particularly in Trowbridge) will add to this. 

Issues with potholes. 

Need better home parking so streets don’t get so restricted with on-street parking. 

Issue with heavy traffic in town centre. 

General comments 

 

West Wilts in general is becoming overcrowded. 

Change and delivery 

Dormitory town 

 

 

 

Concern that Melksham should not become a dormitory town. 

Need to allow development to take place in Melksham (e.g. of Countrywide) to 

reduce travel, and to enable every town to support its residents. 

Melksham needs significant levels of investment: will remain a commuter town 

until necessary infrastructure is in place. 

Employment 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More businesses and industry should be encouraged to come to Melksham. 

Employment should be kept at Bowerhill and around the station. 

Can we attract more high-tech companies and increase the average pay levels of 

the area? 

More employment needed in Melksham specifically, but also in Wiltshire 

generally. 

Need to retain local employment (Melksham is a very good employment town 

already) and encourage more. 

Need to attract larger employers in the new areas of development. 

Expansion of local jobs would reduce travel. 

Melksham should develop as much employment as possible, but commuting for 

better jobs is not necessarily bad. 

Retail/town centre 

 

More retail needed in town centre, other than supermarkets. 

230



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New shopping developments with adequate parking on the edge of town should 

be welcomed. 

Need improved retail core. 

Town centre requires improvement and investment. 

Pedestrinisation of the town centre could help encourage tourism. 

More retail businesses would bring more employment and local amenities. 

Old Woolworths store could become a market place. 

More thought needed towards retail development of the town centre. Proper retail 

study required. 

Change location of free car parking to reduce congestion. 

High Street could benefit from a face lift/rejuvenation. 

Would like better quality shops. 

Need to fill empty shops. 

Pull down precinct area and build a shopping mall in its place. 

Consider having a core shopping policy. 

Facilities and services 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hospital needs to be reinstated with a Minor Injuries Unit. 

If more houses are built we need a hospital. 

A new, bigger sewage treatment plant will be required and should be located well 

away from the town. 

Would like to see a cinema, theatre, more restaurants, thrill-seeking activities (e.g. 

Go Ape), community sports pitches, improved play areas for children in 

Melksham. 

Melksham Forest needs a community hall. 

Water sports, outdoor gym, expansion of skate park, fishing lake would all be 

welcomed. 

Christie Miller is planned to be closed at some point: will it be replaced or 

updated? 

Concern that the Christie Miller will disappear – every effort should be made to 

retain it. 

Leisure centres should be eco-friendly exemplars. 

Concern about shortage of recreation space in Melksham. 

A small shop and pub in Keevil would be welcomed. 

Would be useful to have a council outstation in the town, perhaps located in the 

town hall. 

Services are not evenly spread throughout the community (e.g. primary schools 

and doctors). 

Would welcome a concert and arts venue, and museum. 

Would like to see more NHS dentists and doctors. 

Post office needed in Bowerhill. 

Public transport, walking and cycling provision 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development of bus and train routes should be a priority. 

Better walkways to station. 

Extend public transport towards Sandridge Road. 

Local transport should be expanded and based more on buses and coaches, not 

rail. 

Bus services run by different companies should be staggered. 

Regular train service from Melksham to Trowbridge or Chippenham would assist 

in reducing journey time to place of work. 

231



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cycleways might reduce the volume of vehicles to and from Melksham. 

Can we have bus service Bowerhill and town centre to station? 

Bus route connecting local villages to Melksham would be good. 

Level of public transport should not be reduced to surrounding villages. 

The railway station should be extended into a public transport (and taxi) 

interchange. 

Improvements needed to cycleways. 

More footpaths should be provided. 

Road network/lorry park 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road network around town needs an upgrade. 

Melksham needs an eastern bypass. 

More thought needed towards highway capacity within and around the town. 

A350 link road to Bowerhill is required. 

Should turn King Street lorry park into a lido. 

The Lorry Park should be moved to Bowerhill Trading Estate. Is illegal in current 

location. 

Further detailed suggestions for potential improvements to the road network 

(including suggested traffic calming measures). 

Canals and rivers 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreement with restoration of canal to encourage tourism. 

The canal or river could be made a very attractive feature. 

Consider developing a marina in conjunction with the Wilts & Berks canal. 

Allow river/canal side amenities. 

Further detailed suggestions for improvements to make better use of the rivers 

and canals. 

Use rivers for energy production. 

Route of proposed restoration of Wilts & Berks canal should be safeguarded. 

The river and Clackers Brook should be recognised in the plans as green 

corridors for Melksham. 

The evidence supporting the theory that the Wilts and Berks canal will provide 

tourism and jobs in Melksham is very poor and based on incorrect statistics. 


 

 

 

 

Would like to see a real park in Melksham. 

Better wildlife habitats. 

Keep open spaces between estates as far as possible. 

Maintain green corridors through and around new developments. 


 

 

 

 

Local facilities, transport, carefully tuned parking should encourage people who 

work in Melksham to make use of local services, even if they don’t live there. 

Development of bus and train routes and enhancement of support services (such 

as hospitals) should be priorities. 

The 700+ houses planned for Melksham, and the down turn in local employment, 

will add to transport and global warming issues. 

Should get on with Riverside development. 

232



 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure need to be re-thought to be more climate-friendly: e.g. cycle paths 

from the start, wildlife areas etc. 

Each area (Bowerhill, Shurnhold, Queensway, Berryfields, Forest etc) should be 

almost self-contained areas, each with their own community centre, park and 

shops. 

Infrastructure as a concept should be rethought with environment as a main 

focus. 

Why not amalgamate the town and parish councils to have one council for 

Melksham. 

Stronger police presence needed in the town. 

Vision and strategic objectives 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concern that Melksham will not benefit from the vision and that Melksham has 

been omitted from the vision. 

Concern that there will not be sufficient investment to achieve the vision. 

Unlikely to be a reduction in the need to travel. Should be trying to improve 

transport rather than trying to reduce it. 

Concern that past developments (for example in Chippenham) have created an 

imbalance which needs to be addressed before more houses are built. 

Vision should be written in plain English using simple words. The word 

‘settlements’ should not be used as it is retrogressive. 

Good quality affordable housing is more important that sustainable housing or 

‘carbon friendly’ buses. 

Disagreement with the focus on climate change and questions over the theory 

behind climate change. 

Endorsement of emphasis on sustainability. 

Support for the vision. 

Can see no reason for towns to become more self-contained. 

Three most important issues are population growth, development of pollution-free 

energy mechanisms, and re-use of all manufactured product materials when 

products reach end of their life. 

Local energy generation is not of any benefit: bulk supply is more efficient, reliable 

and cost effective. 

Melksham Climate Friendly Groups agree that climate change should be put first, 

and hope that drastic steps will be taken if needed. 

Concern that some of the strategic objectives conflict with each other. 

Don’t forget the villages. 

Concern that the strategic objectives are in the wrong order. 

Addressing climate change is not of primary importance to the residents of 


Attempts to ‘encourage’ people not to travel are unlikely to work. 

The strategic objectives are not borne out in the council’s actions. 

Transport considered as convenient to the majority should have priority (80% of 

families in Melksham have access to one or more cars). 

The objectives should include something about the happiness and prosperity of 

people in Wiltshire. 

Wiltshire council is the education authority and there should be a strategic 

objective relating to the provision of schools. 

Should be a strategic objective relating to waste management. 

Wording of strategic objective 1 is too woolly and needs tightening up. 

Investment in public transport is a waste of money. 

Strategic objective 2 should include the word ‘sustainable’. 

233



 

Strategic objectives should include more about employment. 

Preferred strategic site allocation 

Support for preferred option 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No problem with area proposed as long as infrastructure is provided. 

Accept that more housing is needed, and that preferred option is the ‘least worst’ 

option for this. 

Glad that the preferred option plan shows the old rail line as the boundary of 

development to the south – would be very unhappy with any development beyond 

this line. 

Development sounds sensible. 

Support for expansion of Bowerhill Industrial Estate through infill development to 

the east of old Semington Road. 

Agreement that commercial development could be provided on the land to the 

south of that adjoining Berryfield. 

The northerly half of the northerly red area is fine for housing development. 

Land for employment on either side of the A350 Semington-Melksham diversion 

(excluding the Christie Miller golf course) is well located to extend existing 

employment areas. 

Light industrial use around the Bowerhill Estate is understandable. 

Development of some industry is a necessary evil and would seem best 

concentrated in the marked areas. 

Happy with proposals. 

Reasoning for Option 1 is sound, but infill between Melksham and Bowerhill will 

not be popular. 

Concerns about preferred option 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict between the strategic objective to minimise flooding and proposals to 

build on existing flood plains (such as behind Spa Road). 

The proposed development area is in completely the wrong place. 

Disagrees with more housing on Bowerhill site. 

Buffer between Melksham and Bowerhill should be preserved as open 

space/green lung. 

Separate identity of Bowerhill should be retained. 

Development should not take place on the fields either side of Park Road 

[assume this refers to Pathfinder Way] leading from A365 roundabout to 

Bowerhill. These fields were designated as green space. 

Concern over extra traffic hazards as a result of development near Pathfinder 

Way, particularly in combination with Melksham Oak School traffic. 

Land south of the A365 is not suitable for housing. The road will split new 

residents from the town centre and inhibit the avoidance of the car for short trips. 

There should be no development in the rural buffer area at the Spa. 

Industrial development should not be considered on high grade agricultural land 

to the west of Semington Road. 

Concern about impact of extra housing located in Bowerhill and surrounding 

areas on the bottleneck of traffic from the A350 from Trowbridge through 

Melksham. 

Strongly disagree with all areas as the areas are prone to flooding. 

Concern about impact on infrastructure of the town. 

234



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment development should not extend beyond Semington Road. Land to 

the west around Berryfield is high grade agricultural land and should not be 

considered for development. 

Concern that public transport systems will be inadequate to cope with increased 

demand. 

Concern about impact on roads. Adequate bypass or ring road is necessary. 

Concern about flooding. 

Concern about pressure on water/sewage system. 

Concern about road works. 

Concern over the use of Greenfield sites. 

Concern over the loss of green belt land. 

Need extra facilities with extra housing i.e. doctors, dentists, hospitals (A&E). 

Healthcare infrastructure will be inadequate to cope with the housing increase. 

Road congestion is already a problem – concerns about increased congestion 

(and particular issue mentioned regarding road usage to/from the new school). 

Not enough facilities to support additional housing. Examples of infrastructure to 

be provided include: Primary Care Centre, possibly another school, cinema, 

bowling, national restaurant chains, improvements to public transport. 

Should be enough housing without building beyond the Savernake estate. 

Problems with drains (smells) in the area would need to be rectified. 

Question over where are the jobs for the new residents. Houses should be placed 

close to employment to reduce travel. 

Area should not just become somewhere to live – need to build communities. 

Too much housing and not enough infrastructure planned. 

Employment/retail development is on outskirts of town and will require transport. 

Plan shows limited planned employment space. Just look at the numbers of 

vacant property already available. 

There is no provision for infrastructure to be put in place before more housing and 

industrial development. 

There is no emphasis placed on regenerating existing developed sites. 

Question about how employment growth will tie in with new housing build. 

Too much on the south east side and joining Bowerhill and Melksham. 

Concern that Melksham will become one large housing estate with no amenities 

and no green space. 

Pointless expanding residential areas without ensuring people use their local 

town. 

Concern that roads and railway are to the west, development is to the east. 

Concern that light industrial use of scrap yard by train station would require large 

scale decontamination and draining of the marsh. 

Preferred housing development by new school would be detrimental to 

environment, given the development that is already taking place at Snarlton Lane. 

Alternative sites/options 

 

 

 

 

 

Thought should be given to the capacity for more housing to the East. 

The alternative option [not specified which] is currently enjoyed by the immobile 

and elderly, and should not be developed. 

People in Melksham have much closer ties to Bath and Chippenham than they do 

to Devizes, so development should be concentrated on the northern side of the 

town. 

Why will nobody consider merging Melksham and Beanacre? 

Land to the west of old Semington Road (south of Berryfield) should be allocated 

for housing. Possibly also infill to north of Berryfield for additional housing. 

235



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development is unacceptable between Melksham and Berryfield/Beanacre/Shaw. 

The 3 options fail to consider all possible sites. Not all undeveloped land has been 

assessed. 

Land north of the A3102 (east of Burniston Park) should be considered. 

Alternative option to the north east of Melksham is not suitable for development 

as the road system into the town and around the east side is already under 

pressure. 

Land to the west of Countrywide farmers, between the railway line and Bradford 

on Avon road could be used for further commercial development. 

New Road Farm land is good for development. 

Alternative housing is practical in the grey shaded areas, and in the area marked 

for industry adjoining Berryfield. 

Resident of Sherwood Avenue, and not in favour of Alternative Option 1 for 

housing and mixed use. 

Brownfield sites such as off the B3107 near Countrywide. 

Brownfield sites such as the car lot/petrol station opposite Awdry Avenue 

Infill area around proposed Wilts & Berks canal route. 

Scope for housing between Melksham and Berryfield. 

Brownfield sites and empty properties should be used for housing. 

Employment sites 

 

Future employment sites should be located to the north of the town, close to the 

railway station. 

Infrastructure requirements 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All development would have a negative impact without proper planning. 

Lack of facilities (primary school, doctor’s surgery, dentist) north of the river. 

Footpath through new school fields from new development would relieve Spa 

Road. 

Footpath should be provided between Semington Road and Spa Road for school 

users. 

Doctor’s surgery needs improvements and relaying. 

Fields should be more open and should have stile access. 

Building on the preferred option should enable a weight restriction in the town 

centre and Lowbourne. 

New road should be built through the planned development to the east of the town 

to take pressure off the town centre. 

Question about where is the plan for the new hospital. 

Future employment development is fine, but concerned about large scale new 

housing putting too much strain on schools and Doctors. 

Inadequate road infrastructure and parking. 

Local bus service should be provided to be in place as soon as people move in to 

the new housing. 

Requests for further information 

 

 

 

Request for detail as to the access and density of the housing. 

Query as to the height of the new dwellings. 

Query as to why the Wilts & Berks canal is not shown on the map. 

236




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residential areas should grow in Bowerhill, Snowberry Lane area, Berryfields, 

Shurnhold [near station]. 

Traffic and industry should be located as far away from the new school as 

possible. 

Detailed suggestions for mix of uses/aspirations in the Bowerhill area. 

Need to keep canal environment free of industry on the banks. 

The Cricket Pitch beside Avon Rubber on Lancaster Road should be preserved 

as green space. 

Keep part of Newtown Farm green. 

Should be a balance between housing and employment land. 

Green area north of Hazelwood Road and Alder Way [to south of the railway 

cluster] needs to be protected from development. 

Development at the Sahara sand pit [Sandridge Hill, located to east of Melksham, 

not close to preferred or alternative options] would meet a lot of local opposition. 

The land between Melksham and Bowerhill could be used for playing fields, with 

the fields to the west used for leisure/health. 

Possible adverse effects such as wildlife and drainage can be lessened with 

careful planning. 

Concern that developers never deliver all the planning gains promised. 

Development should not be considered on the flood plain. 

If development goes ahead, Melksham Town and Melksham Without Parish 

Councils should be combined. 

Concerned that Melksham should not have too much social housing that houses 

tenants from other towns. 

Concern over trends towards small gardens and 3 storey houses, which lead to 

crammed in development. 

Should be eco-friendly houses. 

Buffer between Atworth and Melksham should remain the same. 

Any new houses should incorporate solar panels and underground heat 

exchangers. 

237



Settlement hierarchy 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development should not all be focussed on Chippenham and Trowbridge. 

Melksham is a critical gateway to both Salisbury and Trowbridge, and should not 

be overlooked. 

Concern about how the villages will be connected to the larger towns. 

Concern that the focus on ‘urban’ areas will be to the detriment of rural village 

communities. 

Other villages besides Atworth should be considered for limited development. 

Limited development could benefit Shaw/Whitley and Broughton Gifford. 

Concern that all the focus is on Melksham: should also involve villages and 

include them in your thinking. 

Housing distribution. 

Ensure there is a need for additional housing before planning it. 

Melksham does not need more housing: it is already a dormitory town with 

nothing at its heart. 

Housing increases will lead to more commuter travel and less local usage, as it is 

easier to get to Trowbridge or Chippenham. 

Melksham has had a greater increase in houses since 2006 than Trowbridge, but 

without any commensurate increase in facilities. A further 400 dwellings is too 

many, and the number should be restricted to 200 at most. 

Too much housing. 

Additional housing should attract investment (employment and retail). 

Query about whether the 400 houses are for Melksham, or for the whole area? 

[from wording of Q in CAP survey]. 

Question over ability to service more housing: against more than the 750 homes 

already planned. 

Large increase in housing in Melksham/Wiltshire is ill thought out. No new 

housing should be built until new facilities are made available to cope with the 

additional population. 

Can’t build another 400 homes with no amenities. 

Comments on the consultation material. 

Map is such poor quality as to render detailed comment impossible. 

Map is too small to actually see where in Melksham it is. 

238



4.86 Pewsey community area 



Supporting 4 


Objecting 0 



Supporting 5 


Objecting 0 



Supporting 

N/A 

Supporting with conditions N/A 

Objecting 

N/A 

General comments N/A 


Supporting 0 


Objecting 0 


Total comments relating to this community area: 16 

239




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need to address the limited self-containment of Pewsey through the provision of 

housing and jobs together. 

Important to recognise the importance of the AONB. 

Opportunities exist in villages such as Burbage and Great Bedwyn to secure 

affordable housing provision associated with wider development. 

The dissection of Upavon by the A342 and A345 is an issue. 

The Kennet & Avon Canal towpath offers an opportunity to improve tourism and 

access to the countryside. 

Currently the towpath east and west from Pewsey is only usable by able walkers. 

The core strategy should consider proposals for long-distance walking and cycling 

routes between Avebury and Stonehenge. 

Tourism accommodation will need to be increased during the plan period. 

When assessing any rural community for residential developments there are likely 

to be issues to overcome, such as out-commuting. 

The core strategy must clearly set out the opportunities arising from future growth 

in locations like Pewsey, such as the need to provide affordable housing and 

services. 

One of the main attractions of Pewsey is the access by train to London but an 

increase in inhabitants who are London commuters does little to help local traders 

and others serving the village. 

Several local shops are currently unoccupied. 

The Core Strategy needs to deliver safe cycle routes to East Chisenbury and the 

Woodbridge Inn. 

Pewsey should be recognised for the key role it plays as a service centre for its 

rural hinterland. 

The Pewsey community area falls within the statutory height safeguarding zone 

surrounding Netheravon aerodrome. 

Pewsey has a substantial level of self-containment due to its provision of services, 

but also due to its sustainable links to other SSCTs by provision of public 

transport which allows movement within the rural area and for wider employment 

services. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any development in Pewsey village should be within the current development 

boundary. 

The Core Strategy fails to set out a clear Vision for Wiltshire - and especially for 

Warminster. It is not clear how the RSS requirements for housing will be 

translated into practice. This is a serious failing in the context of PPS12. 

Safeguarding the future of local shops and services by increasing usage will 

attract inward investment. 

Growth is essential to ensure the vitality and viability of the town. 

Important to deliver affordable housing to meet an acute and growing need. 

The idea of promoting Pewsey as a heritage village is worth considering. 

It makes sense to expand housing in areas which can offer job opportunities and 

in a predominantly farming area; this possibility is limited although some 

expansion in the industrial estate outside the village for clean and quiet industry 

might be encouraged. 

Much more coordination is required for a relevant local bus service. 

Pewsey village itself does not seem to have made up its mind on whether it 

wishes to remain a large village or develop into a small town. 

240



 

 

 

 

If Pewsey develops into a small town, it could cause a great deal of disruption to 

surrounding villages with the consequent increase in traffic. 

Important to consider the delivery of employment land within Pewsey. 

The main focus of growth within the community area should be at Pewsey, which 

will provide growth, to assist with maintaining existing services and the diversity of 

the settlement. 

Encourage developers to provide more live-work units within future developments. 

Strategic site options: Comments 

No strategic sites proposed within the Pewsey community area 

4.90 Settlement hierarchy 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The town should be encouraged to develop and allocations should be made to 

build upon the facilities already in place to support its role as an important rural 

centre. 

The settlement hierarchy should not be the sole indicator used to determine 

housing distribution and location, particularly when considering growth at market 

towns. 

Agree with the 'larger village' category within which Pewsey has been placed as 

its services, retail and employment are limited, yet play a significant role in 

supporting the local rural economy and social infrastructure. 

Support the approach indentifying community areas. However the distribution of 

housing within the community areas must ensure growth is directed to the most 

suitable settlements capable of absorbing growth and ensuring self-containment 

is increased and the role of service centre is enhanced. 

The housing distribution must not be based on rolling forward historic trends in 

housing delivery. 

Focusing growth on Pewsey and reducing growth at surrounding villages will 

maintain the sustainability of the community area. 

The spatial strategy for the Pewsey Community Area should recognise the 

potential of Burbage and Great Bedwyn to contribute towards sustainable 

communities. 

It is considered that an alternative settlement hierarchy is adopted with Pewsey 

re-designated as a Policy B settlement. 

241



4.91 Housing distribution 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concerned that if housing growth within the Pewsey Community Area is not 

centred on Pewsey the impact of development will be greater than if development 

is focused on a settlement with existing services, infrastructure and public 

transport. 

Pewsey could accommodate a significant proportion of Wiltshire’s housing 

requirement. 

Pewsey has land available for development that is relatively unconstrained at the 

former Pewsey hospital site, comprising pdl and abutting the built edge of 

development. A provision of residential growth could help maintain Pewsey's 

existing employment and retail base whilst increasing the opportunity for people to 

live and work in the town by securing the economic future of the town. 

If development is focused many issues can be overcome, such as parking for rail 

users. 

Support growth to Pewsey and the provision of small scale housing allocations. 

Agreed that there should be no strategic housing or employment allocations within 

this area. 

The figure of 500 houses being delivered in the next sixteen years is high and if 

averaged out between the four communities it would be rather more than organic 

growth for Burbage, Great Bedwyn and Upavon. These three villages should be 

limited to small developments only. 

There are currently small site options in Pewsey which are within the development 

boundary which it is agreed could be developed. This would provide development 

land for a significant number of the 200 required houses. The Whatley site is an 

example. 

If the objective of the Core Strategy is to achieve the 10 strategic objectives set in 

Section 2, then additional development should take place at Pewsey as it is a 

focal point and service centre for that part of Wiltshire. 

Pewsey lacks critical mass to accommodate significant amounts of housing and 

employment growth. 

There is potential to accommodate and support sufficient new development on the 

former Pewsey hospital site. 

Dwellings (during the plan period) should be allocated to the Pewsey Community 

Area (more specifically Pewsey) to ensure that a critical mass in terms of 

population can be reached to maintain the viability of the existing services and 

facilities that Pewsey currently benefits from. 

Greater provision should be given to Pewsey as it has a main line railway. 

Pewsey, being fully within the North Wessex Downs AONB, should only have 

allocations suitable to meet specific local need. 

Other settlements such as Burbage, Upavon and Great Bedwyn warrant a degree 

of protection from growth by limiting growth at these settlements, with only units to 

accommodate local needs at Shalbourne. 

Sites such as the former Pewsey hospital should be considered for sustainable 

residential development. 

No more housing growth for Pewsey. 

242



4.92 Pewsey community area: Respondents 

Organisations 


Agency 

Clerk Haydon Wick Parish Council 






MoD 


Parish Clerk Ham Parish Council 

Pewsey Parish Council 



Sustrans 





Wilcot & Huish Parish Council 

Carter Jonas 

Community Area Partnership 

CPRE N Wilts and Swindon 



Group Secretary Ramblers North East 

Wiltshire Group 


NHS Swindon 

Oliver Canal Partnership 

Pewsey Community Area Partnership 











Individuals 

Ann Orr-Ewing Diana Thombs Edward Raker 

Elizabeth Wilson Francis Sheppard George Axiotis 

George McDonic MBE John Rainbow Martyn Parrott 

Mr and Mrs Page Mr and Mrs W Hunt Mr and Mrs W Hunt 

Mr C Cornell Mr David Sweet Mr John Harmer 

Mrs C Spickernell Mrs Jane R. Smith Mrs Kate Robinson 

Mrs Sarah Foster 

Ms Sarah Higgins & Malcolm Neil Etheridge 

De La Haye 

R Williams Roy and Marion Hobbs S W Matthews 

S.A, P, E.A, and P Booy The Bowerman Family 

243



4.93 Pewsey community area: Notes from exhibitions and events 

Pewsey workshop 


Attendees were asked to place blue stickers against their top three objectives. The 

groups placed these on the laminated A4ish cards. As they had to be reused for a 

subsequent exhibition, the results are recorded below. 

Objectives 

1. To address for climate change 

2. To provide for long term economic growth 

3. To meet Wiltshire’s housing needs 

4. To secure appropriate infrastructure and services 

5. To enhance the vitality and viability of town centres 

6. To encourage safe accessible places 

7. To promote sustainable forms of transport 

8. To protect and enhance the natural environment 

9. To safeguard and promote a high quality environment 

10. To minimise the risk of flooding 

Total 

Workshop attendees: 

Dr. James Raff (Great Bedwyn P.C.) 

Jane Brown (PEAT) 

Bob King 

Steve Humphries (Stanton P.C.) 

Ben Braine (Wiltshire Police) 

P Keers (Pewsey P.C.) 

Peter Deck (PCAP & Pewsey P.C.) 

Judith Deck (Tennis Club) 

Richard Fleet (Wilcot P.C.) 

Group discussion (Chris Minors and Mathew Pearson) 


Top three objectives: 

4. To secure appropriate infrastructure and services. 

5. To enhance the vitality and viability of town centres 

2. To provide for long term economic growth. 


 

 

Road quality throughout the villages is poor. HGV routes through the villages is 

part of this problem and is a general nuisance to both villages and any other road 

users (walkers/cyclists) as they feel unsafe. 

A number of the group felt that the lack of growth will further erode services, while 

others did not feel the lack of ‘strategic development’ was an issue and were 

happy with the level of development. There was widespread agreement that the 

support of small businesses and other services within the town centre must be 

maintained. 

244



 

 

 

A number of employment and services in the town centre have gone for housing 

there is a need to protect what currently exists before Pewsey becomes nothing 

but a commuter town. There is also a lack of public transport in Pewsey for local 

commuters. Long distance commuters are well served but local people struggle 

for access to larger surrounding settlements and services. 

There is a general eroding of services and facilities and little in the way of 

innovative solutions to address or reverse this situation. A number of solutions 

were put forward including combining and supporting facilities in smaller villages 

and ensuring that business start ups and new ventures are given enough time to 

succeed. 

Marlborough and other surrounding education facilities need to provide for 

Pewsey beyond 16 and if the Pewsey secondary school is able to develop it will 

be important to try and bring sixth form and HE. However, some of the other 

schools are at breaking point – Bedwyn for example is over subscribed as pupils 

travel from Marlborough and development beyond the boundary of the community 

area needs to be considered. 

Town centre 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the amount of retail store in the town centre has actually stayed the same 

there was a feeling that the overall quality of retail had dropped. 

The protection of local services and facilities was not felt strong enough through 

council policies. However, it was agreed that there was an erosion of all services 

not just local services in Pewsey. 

It was generally suggested that rent and business rates were counter productive 

in rural areas. Kennet DC were able to entice start up businesses with favourable 

rates initially but there seemed to be longevity issue with profit margins especially 

when rates went back up. 

It was felt that more imaginative transport schemes could be very helpful in both 

giving more people access from surrounding communities and helping to support 

local businesses. Schemes need to create better public transport access at the 

appropriate times and also give alternative means of transport a serious options 

then people will be more people will be more open to using local facilities. 

It was felt that the level of facilities and retail options was much more consistent 

with the level of housing and employment development currently proposed. It is 

felt though that more employment in the town centre was need before housing 

sites come forward. It is important that the proposal for ‘mixed used’ on the Old 

Hospital site is retained as there is nothing to suggest that without the take up of 

employment land Pewsey can accommodate new housing. 

There was widespread agreement that Pewsey should look to promote it self as a 

tourist destination as the natural idyllic countryside in the Vale had much 

marketable attraction as did the settlements themselves. However how this was 

achieved was dependant on rents and business rates being dovetailed with the 

ability of the right kind ‘tourist attracting’ business to prosper long term and give 

proper thoughts to Pewsey’s long term tourism and leisure offer. 

245




 

 

There is land available in Pewsey that has not been taken up and it is important 

that in the next development period Pewsey concentrates securing some inward 

employment investment. There was some discussion regarding the lack of 

appropriate business support, but there is a clear need to ensure that all 

employers are retained. 

There was a discussion about economies of scale and again while it was 

recognised that there was more limited development proposed for Pewsey, there 

seemed to be more of consensus that Pewsey would be better served by 

maintaining its current status than by attempting to ‘over expand’ and ruin what 

people value about the character and appearance of Pewsey. 


What infrastructure, services and facilities are needed to ensure future 

development benefits Pewsey? 

 

 

 

 

 

The spatial strategy was discussed at length with a number of the parishes stating 

that they felt that the policies towards villages were overly restrictive. Unless a 

little more development was allowed in villages many will be left in ‘aspect’ for the 

next 20 years. 

There is also a big issue in the type of development coming forward across the 

CA. There are not enough housing for local people, while all agree there is a need 

for affordable units, this is not being met by the type of houses being developed, 

as well as other policies hindering this process. Examples of bad policies include 

too many smaller dwellings being combined. The integrity of current dwelling 

stock needs to be maintained for smaller families. 

While there was much support for extra schemes in regard to affordable homes, it 

was felt that often these homes were going to people from further a field in 

Wiltshire and not truly local people who have lived and grown up in Pewsey or the 

surrounding villages. There have also been a number of developments that have 

been built without integrating into the local community. This has been because of 

people who the houses are sold/rented too are not local, and because of the poor 

design/location of the developments that sees them poorly integrated to the 

remaining community facilities/community. 

A number of developments have taken place without the necessary infrastructure 

improvements. An example of this is to the south of Pewsey near the flood zone 

where residents are continually struggle with flood and drainage issues. This and 

other infrastructure issues need to be addressed before more development 

comes forward. 

Ultimately it was felt important that flexibility and decision making be given the to 

the parish council. Wiltshire should work with local people and groups and let 

them make the decisions regarding the type, size and location of future 

development in their villages. 

AOB 

. 

There was concerns raised over the lack of representation by some of the major 

bodies, such as the AONB and CPRE, who are major operators in the Pewsey 

Community area. 

246



4.94 Tidworth and Ludgershall community area 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 1 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 9 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 15 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 6 


Total no. of comments relating to Tidworth and Ludgershall: 54 

247




Need to address imbalance with existing military presence, which is dominant, 

with other, fresh development. 

Need for development of all types to improve the quality and facilities of the area. 

Housing development supported. However affordable element should.... 

Support Drummond Park as a Housing Site. 

Support Castledown Business park as suitable employment site 

Affordability requirement should not be so high as to discourage developers 

Areas of Disagreement / Concern 

Potential for flooding in Tidworth needs addressing in planning policy. 

Housing development should be held back until Railway station is re-opened. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development for civilian use could balance military presence. 

We need to create a thriving retail centre to stop outsourcing of goods from the 

major towns nearby; good retail shops will only come with a reasonable footfall to 

support it, which is why housing is so important. 

This is effectively a military area – how likely is it that a policy to balance military 

development with civilian uses will actually work? 

Additional troops to support the ‘Super Garrison’ will only widen the 

military/civilian imbalance and we question if 1,700 additional houses within the 

community area is sufficient? In the Halcrow Economic Strategy Report in 2004 a 

figure of 3,000 civilian houses was needed to balance the numbers and that was 

aimed mainly at Tidworth developments. 

Infrastructure Concern – capacity of A303 regarding development at Tidworth 

(Highways Agency). 

Infrastructure Concern – capacity of water treatment and sewerage in 

infrastructure in relation to development at Ludgershall (Southern Water). 

Are Tidworth and Ludgershall too small to allow significant growth? Is there 

degree of self containment / facilities too low for this? Concern that these 

locations inherently unsustainable in this and transport related respects. 

There is currently a requirement for some light industrial units, especially linked to 

retail and this requirement does not fit on the Castledown Business Park, 

especially as we are about to try and find an ‘anchor’ company to relocate to the 

area, hopefully office based. 

When the old medical depot (MSA) submits planning it is felt that a section of this 

application could fit this requirement. Any development between Castledown 

Business Park and within the Tidworth Town can only add to supporting a vibrant 

town centre. 


 

 

 

 

Some support for Drummond Park as a housing development (with mixed use 

option. Past attempts to create employment development there have failed and 

site is sustainably located for housing. 

Support need for more civilian housing, but plan doesn’t go far enough in 

quantum. 

Better sites exist in Tidworth than the ones selected (e.g. South or Railway and 

East of Garden Centre). 

No major wildlife concerns, but impact on nearby designated sites needs to be 

watched. Ashdown Chalk SU24.12 is adjacent to the alternative site for Tidworth 

and Windmill Hill Down SU25.31 and Pickpit Hill SU25.32 are adjacent to the 

248



 

 

 

 

alternative options for Ludgershall. Strong proactive policies are required to 

protect and enhance these sites. 

Landscape concerns regarding the AONB. 

Scale of development proposed will stretch infrastructure. 

Locating employment development close to A303 will encourage unsustainable 

transport, undermining Strategic Objective 7. 

Need to ensure social infrastructure keeps pace with development (schools, 

community facilities etc.). 

Response from EA regarding water (edited) 

All options proposed in Tidworth overly the Inner groundwater Source Protection 

Zone (SPZ1). We regard this area as very sensitive, and if it is proposed to take 

these options forward, a hydro geological assessment indicating the potential risk to 

groundwater is likely to be required. The findings of this should be included in the 

SA.. We are pleased that the tables (page 107 [Sustainability appraisal report 

appendices]) mention groundwater protection, but we consider this should be brought 

into the main SA document. We note, however, that these tables refer to the 

Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3) as if it were a designation. It is the Source 

Protection Zones that are the constraint (along with aquifers), GP3 is where you will 

find our policy and, for example, further details of the restriction to development in 

SPZs. We consider the text in the tables should be amended to reflect this. 

We note in the SA the likely requirement for a water cycle study, if significant 

development at these settlements is proposed. We recommend that this is done as 

early as possible. This is required to establish the capacity of the foul drainage and 

water supply infrastructure serving Tidworth and Ludgershall, and should also identify 

infrastructure improvements … required, and how these would be delivered. 

The water cycle study should also consider the requirements under the Groundwater 

Regulations 2009, because the sewage treatment works serving Tidworth and 

Ludgershall both discharge to soakaway Careful consideration will also need to be 

given to surface water disposal. Given the sensitivity of groundwater, discharge of 

surface water to ground via infiltration systems may not be acceptable. 

All sites in Tidworth and Ludgershall incorporate SuDS into their developments using 

infiltration techniques to return surface water to the ground. 


 

 

 

 

Support Ludgershall as a market town suitable for development. 

Too much development at Ludgershall – move some to Devizes. 

Development of this scale in villages with few facilities is inherently unsustainable. 

Development Policy B of the SWRSS sets out the criteria which must be met in 

order for a settlement to be considered a Market Town. Tidworth and Ludgershall 

do not meet the criteria and therefore should not be classified as Market Towns. 

The SWRSS does acknowledge that in some instances, settlements may be 

identified as Policy B towns that do not exhibit all of the above criteria however, in 

order to do this a council must support this case with a Local Accessibility 

Assessment demonstrating how accessible the settlement is in relation to the 

wider District. The council have not done this and instead have acknowledged 

that the A303 is already at capacity. The location of Tidworth and Ludgershall in 

the very south of the District means they are not well related to East Wiltshire and 

are actually better aligned to Salisbury and the Salisbury Housing Market Area. 

249



The description of Tidworth and Ludgershall as Market Towns is not in 

accordance with SWRSS and section 4.6 should be amended to remove these 

two towns from this. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Development welcomed – suggest housing on Strategic Site at Drummond Park 

rather than mixed use. 

Too little infrastructure / facilities to support growth proposed. 

Will lead to unsustainable patterns of travel. 

No demand for civilian housing – attempt to balance community viz a viz military 

bound to fail. 

Better to direct most growth to Devizes. 

Infrastructure concerns (water and highways – especially the SRN – A303). 

Tidworth and Ludgershall community area: respondents 

Organisations 

(South West) Holdings Ltd 

Bloor Homes 






Montagu Evans LLP 

Officer Test Valley Borough Council 


Rolfe Judd Planning 



Town Clerk Trowbridge Town Council 




C Mercer 

D Mercer 



Land & Development Stakeholder and 

Policy Manager National Grid 

MoD 






Sustrans 



(TCAF) 


250



Individuals 

A Hackett 

Adrian, Lucy and Sheena 

Lewis 

Alan Chilton-Bates 

Alastair King Alison Hicks Amanda Wilkes 

Andy Jelly Andy Stainer Ann & Geraint Owen 

Ann Bass Anna Kavanagh Arthur and Marjorie Darby 

Basil Howell Beverley Brimble Captain and Mrs Richard 


Carole Meling CGJ Hart Chris Roberts 

Cllr Mark Connolly Colin Bowden Colin Davison 

Councillor Ernie Clark D J Vince D.J. Durbridge 

David Feather David Foxon David Frampton 

David Rigby David Stephenson David Trethewey 

Denis Jones Derek Harford Duncan Hames 

E J Lister E Pitts Edward Clark 

Emily Clark Emma Richards Geoffrey Richards 

H.N Potts Hayley Mitchell Hazel Frampton 

Henry Crook Ivar Baxter J Fisher 

J Langley Jacqui Clark Janet Cassidy 

Janette and Gordon Jill Crook 

Joan Howarth 

O'Brien 

John and Sheila Ralph John and Sue Holcombe John Cross 

John Van Leer JR Broome Judy Buxton 

Julia Goodwin Kate Hayes Keith Frampton 

Ken Hughes 

Kenneth and Catherine L.J and L.I Brown 

Warr 

Linda Westmore Lucie Castleman Lucy Wilcox 

Lynda Trigg M and J Beadle M Cottle 

M J Stefanoski Mark and Jill Funnell Mark Birkitt 

Mary and Len Humphreys Maurice Baker Michael West 

Mike Brown Mike Rennie Miss A Taylor 

Mr Alan Daly 

Mr and Mrs Alan & Eileen Mr and Mrs Barrett 

Needham 

Mr and Mrs Hamlen Mr and Mrs Mitchell Mr and Mrs P Dickens 

Mr and Mrs P.J and S.J Mr and Mrs Parfitt 

Mr and Mrs Parfitt 

Hurren 

Mr and Mrs Pocock Mr and Mrs PW and ME Mr and Mrs Ransom 

Ellis 

Mr and Mrs Robert Dudley Mr and Mrs W G Conway Mr and Mrs Woodcock 

Mr and Mrs Yamina 


Mr F and Mr B Tucker Mr H Stubbs 

251



Mr Jack Morten Mr K J McCall Mr LC and Mrs A Lee 

Mr Michael Green Mr N Pratt Mr Peter Barnett 

Mr Ric Gower Mr Ross Gifford-Pike Mr Tim Hounsome 

Mrs Ann Piper Mrs Denis Pocock Mrs Hazel Fitchen 

Mrs Hulbert Mrs Ivy Scott Mrs J Kenna 

Mrs J Waller Mrs M King Mrs Moss 

Mrs Patricia A Hunn Mrs S.A. Godwin Mrs Susan Evans 

Mrs V Jones Mrs Wendy Harrison Ms Margaret Almond 

Ms Tracey Curzons MV Cottle Natalie Glaysher 

Nicola Walker 

Norman and Margaret 

Rogers 

Norman Swanney 

P Staddon Paul and Nicola Hammond Pauline and Richard 

Hanke 

Pauline Baxter 


Fairbairn 

Peter Collins 

Peter Hayes Peter Westlake Prospect Land Ltd 

Rob Coles Ron Pybus Ross Kavenagh 

Rowena and Neil Heard S Clark S Payne 

S Randall SA & SD Brown Sarah Richardson 

Scott Uncles Sheila and Arthur Lunn Stanley and Pat 

Thompson 


Stuart Crook Susan King Terrie Hanson 

Thomas Clark Tim Wilson Tony Allen 

Trevor Carbin Councillor Trixie Lewis 

Vanessa Heard 


252



4.100 Tidworth and Ludgershall community area: 

Notes from exhibitions and events 

Tidworth workshop notes 18 November 2009 

Attendees 

Alex Bostock, Clarendon Junior School, 

Tidworth 

Chris Williams, Wiltshire Council 

David Burke, Chairman Netheravon 

Parish Council 

David Wildman, Tidworth Chamber of 

Commerce 

Janet White, Town Council 

Owen White 

Bill Dowling, HQ 43(Wx) BDE (Jellalabad 

Barracks) 

Darren Masini, Wiltshire Fire and Rescue 

Service 

David Marks, HQ Tidworth Garrison 

Humph Jones, Tidworth Town Council 

Mark Connolly, Wiltshire Council 

Phil Bowley, Greensquare 

Discussion one – objectives 












253



Group one – M Pearson/S Drinkwater 


Priority objectives 2, 5 and 3 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Castledown is for ‘clean’ business but space is needed for other business types; 

need a better balance/ mixture. 

Need an improved choice of employment land. 

Firefighters come from a variety of employment backgrounds and ‘offices’ will not 

provide enough. 

Does A303 bring people in or allow them to leave? 

Restricted local employment opportunities – needs to be addressed. 

Dormitory town/ settlements with diminishing services (decrease in rural shops 

and services). 

Sparse and remote communities. 

Need a better retail offering to encourage growth. 

Need ‘selling points’ to attract employers/ business: 

- Academy 

- More stable population because of super garrison 

Development in itself will promote business and local commerce. 

Enhance town centres 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tesco has been a real boon and arrested exodus to Andover. 

Tesco has also helped define town centre – Station Road. 

Develop the old station site. 

Need greater diversity in Ludgershall – no hardware store. 

Lack of facilities – one pub in Tidworth, no cinema but several take-aways, good 

Indian restaurant. Not enough facilities for young people – which leads to youth 

causing nuisance – need more recreational facilities. 

Military self-containment impacts on the economy and town centre vitality. 

Put a recreational facility on Castledown Business Park. 

Economy ‘insulated’ by stable military jobs. 

Housing needs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Housing development is welcome. 

Maybe more is required in Tidworth – better balance between Tidworth & 

Ludgershall. 

20% affordable housing in North Tidworth is not considered appropriate 

elsewhere. 

Development contributions need to be proportionate to the proportion of 

affordable housing. 

Need to integrate military housing. 

Local housing for local people – affordable housing, social housing – better 

balance between local people and military. 

Set the balance right – appropriate housing types. 

254




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lack of buses in the outlying villages. 

Tidworth may need a town bus. 

Development needs to have access to bus services. 

Rail freight potential for Ludgershall. 

Need better access to medical services – ambulance, dentists, doctors – PCT 

need to expand service. New services in Devizes are difficult to access. 

Border location not conducive to service provision. 

Schools find it difficult to respond to the dynamic military population – can 

Tidworth schools cater for all the pupils. 

Need a new primary school. 

School hall is fully booked from 7am to 9pm daily and cannot cater for more 

activities so demand goes unmet. 

Need more flexible predication mechanisms for identifying demand for 

educational facilities/ buildings. 

PCT/ school link to provide medical services jointly. 

Put in school provision before housing. 

Lack of medical services increases school absenteeism – dental visits to Andover. 

Admin capital moving to Trowbridge presents some difficulties for community. 

Group two – C Gibson/ M Aldam 

Discussion one – objectives 

Objective two – economy 

Improving what we have – services in towns and villages. 

Success if same services available in 2026 as 2009. 

How? 

- Make accessible to local people, balance housing (affordable) + employment 

- Therefore, development in every area to support 

- Doing nothing not an option 

Economic support for village services, e.g. shops – rate and protect sites. 

Multi-use community ‘hub’ – services provision and shops. 

Has Station Road benefitted from Tesco’s 25k shoppers per week? 

Outcome – better provision shops/ balance to Tesco in/out. 

Military population make business peak/ slumps. 

- Redress balance for business stability 

Also need community cohesion. 

Salisbury Plain super garrison – less transient population. 

Super garrison plan – help cohesion by staying in areas but need housing and 

employment allocation to do this. 

Objective three – housing 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Redress civilian/ military housing stock. 

New housing need to (be) affordable % of rented housing stock now? Tidworth. 

Housing needs – Ludgershall – more open market; Tidworth – more open market; 

Villages – more affordable. 

2010 – drive to let Business Park. 

Is there demand for 600 new houses, what size unsure but mix sizes. 

Threat commuter belt – houses maybe cheaper. 

255



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long term goal could be achieved to have residents working and living in 

Tidworth. 

Time lag from housing to jobs being available. 

Post Office duel use – community hub. 

Public house. 

Business rates - fairness to small v big. 

Rates – new economic strategy – supporting services local especially village 

shops (hubs). 

Economic partnership – no representatives present.. 3 acres meet all three. 


Spatial growth between Ludgershall and Tidworth – bringing them closer together. 

Help promote sustainable community, esp. post 2026. 

Benefit from development: 

Recycling facility. 

Sell lifestyle – get on yer bike – live and work in cycling distance. 

More opportunities for walk & cycling, bus services, safety for vulnerable users. 

Centre of excellence for sport. 

Housing not all ‘eco’ style only a proportion. 

Tidworth .. low cost affordable – but balance mix & style. 

Ludgershall – larger houses ‘eco’. 

Military need share facilities – help cohesion, especially ‘outside wire’. 

Economy – lack of light industrial (not available at Business Park) – accessibility, 

key issue for old med site. 

Netheravon camp likely to stay. 

Issue – remarket Tidworth. 

Infrastructure – broadband enable/ improve for home working. 

Education – Wellington Academy and primary school ok. 

Childcare facilities – lack of both military & civilian. 

N.E. quadrant mixed school proposed on site. 

Core strategy – how to deliver a more cohesive community – share facilities, e.g. 

new auditorium/ cinema. 

Integration has started (mil/ civ). 

Tidworth New Community Centre – cater child care? 

Unique population – young and married, kids, specific needs. 

Protect Station Road – expansion last time for Tesco, need to ensure another 

store opposite so people walk along Station Road, reinforce commercial area. 

Must deliver: 

1. additional affordables non-rented H9 

2. enhance/ protect/ and development of viable retail centres in the community 

area 

3. marketing, promote and develop ‘1community concept’ 

4. successful mix housing/ employment/ leisure. 

256



4.101 Warminster community area 

4.102 Key issues and opportunities 

Supporting 1 


Objecting 1 



Supporting 3 


Objecting 3 



Supporting 5 


Objecting 14 



Supporting 3 


Objecting 1 


Total number of comments relating to Warminster: 62 

257




The issues and opportunities that have been identified in the Warminster 

Community Area are a sound analysis of the existing situation. 

The Warminster Chamber of Commerce fully endorses the Wiltshire 2026 

document. It is considered to be consistent with the Warminster Town Plan 

currently under preparation which is also supported. 

A number of responses noted many of the issues identified for Warminster 

including the high demand for employment space, a number of environmental 

constraints including the AONBs, high grade agricultural land, a Special 

Landscape Area, SSSIs and also flood plain issues. 

The principal issues facing the town are i) economic stagnation; ii) becoming a 

dormitory town; and iii) a deteriorating urban environment in the town centre. 

These require a radical and bold re-design of the town’s infrastructure coupled 

with increased housing and employment allocations. 

The reliance on employment provided by the MoD is a key issue for Warminster. 

It will be important for the Core Strategy to encourage employment diversification. 

The emerging proposals at Bore Hill Farm could play an important role in 

diversification into low carbon renewable employment industries. 

It is suggested that the 60 % occupancy of the Woodcock Trading Estate is due to 

the poor condition of the site. High level of demand for employment space in 

Warminster overall. 

The relationship with the MoD provides an opportunity to encourage defence 

related jobs which support the military presence in the town. 

There is considered to be a high level of demand for quality employment space in 

Warminster. 

Although the MoD and Aspire are the largest employers in the town, there are 

other significant employers such as Centre Parcs, Lyons Seafood’s and 

Warminster School. 

The town should consider what type of employment it is looking for. Much of the 

new businesses locating in the town are at the lower skills level. Highly skilled 

individuals from the town are generally out-commuting. 

Much more employment provision will be needed to ensure that any future 

development is balanced. 

Heritage related tourism presents a real opportunity for Warminster. 

The amount of existing employment land in Warminster of 19.6 hectares is 

questioned and should be reviewed. Further employment land is needed. 

It is disputed that there is a high level of interest for businesses to locate in 

Warminster. 

The present secondary school in the town lies to the east and is close to capacity. 

Proposed development lies to the west. Cross town traffic and wider infrastructure 

provision should be considered. 

There is a need to improve walking and cycling routes to the town centre, schools 

and to nearby Westbury. Safe routes for cyclist are needed between local towns. 

The statement that Warminster benefits from a number of good transport links 

overall, is misleading. There are particularly poor links to the M4. 

It is indicated that the good transport links such as the A350, A36 and Wessex 

main line should be presented as an opportunity. 

Unless roads in the town centre are improved, new residents to the west of the 

town will shop in Trowbridge and Frome, not in Warminster. An inner relief road is 

needed to take traffic around the Market Place bottle neck. 

Improved bus services, particularly during the evening will be essential. 

258



It is contested that the concentrations of water phosphate should preclude 

development in the town. A pragmatic approach is required to address any issues 

surrounding phosphate directly related to new development. 

Technical details are supplied by the Environment Agency concerning the issue of 

water phosphate concentrations in the River Wyle. The Environment Agency 

believes that the proposed level of new housing can proceed without risk of 

breaching the existing water discharge consent limits. It is suggested that a 

Phosphate Management Strategy might be appropriate as there are many other 

sources of phosphate such as agriculture in addition to sewage treatment. It is 

hoped that the policy proposed for the South Wiltshire Core Strategy (Core Policy 

20) will be carried forward into the Wiltshire Core Strategy. 

The Environment Agency suggests that the current flood zones extend into the 

areas proposed for town centre regeneration. A Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk 

Assessment may therefore be needed before development can occur. The SFRA 

should identify a Flood Risk Management Strategy (FRMS) to alleviate flood 

hazard for this area. 

It is suggested that new development in Warminster will provide an opportunity to 

contribute to new community, leisure and social infrastructure. This could include 

a new fire and ambulance station which is currently in need of improvement. 

It is considered that there is no funding available to improve the current library 

building. It is suggested that Section 106 agreements could be used to deliver 

necessary infrastructure improvements. It is suggested that in the past there has 

been ineffective implementation of planning policy in the town. 

Unless a planned integrated military and civilian leisure facility is built on civilian 

property there will be security restrictions on its use. 

The need to expand gym facilities in the town is questioned. There are five private 

gyms and a district leisure centre. 

Concern is expressed that the infrastructure and social issues arising from 1800 

new homes in an arterial position have not been addressed. 

The level of new housing proposed will require new drainage and sewage 

systems, new roads, and many new services. 

Agents acting on behalf of Morrison Supermarkets Plc, who have a store located 

in Warminster, suggest that the Core Strategy should confirm a retail hierarchy. A 

clear statement on the need for retail development over the plan period is 

required based on the findings of an up to date retail study. 

Improved sewage treatment is urgently required and main sewers should be 

provided in Sutton Veny. 

A full time police station is needed. 

There is a lack of facilities for young people and these should be improved. 

More town centre parking will be needed if house numbers increase. 

It is suggested that the level of housing in Warminster in recent years has been 

low and that housing needs and demands in the town have not been met. 

It is suggested that there is a shortfall in the planned housing provision in the town 

and that the need for a further 247 houses should be added to the list of issues 

facing the town. 

It is suggested that evidence demonstrates that mixing social and private housing 

does not work. 

It is suggested that another 900 homes will make a huge difference to the balance 

of the town. 

259




The comments can be summarised as follows: 

The section ‘How we expect Warminster to change by 2026’ refers to a mediumterm 

view. There is no agreed long-term overview for Warminster. A long term 

spatial vision is needed. Medium term strategic site allocations should be taken 

forward in the context of coherent long term planning. A paper outlining how 

Warminster performs in relation to balance is supplied. 

Additional employment is encouraged particularly as part of a comprehensive 

urban extension. 

It is suggested that due to the incline in the high street, markets would be better 

located more centrally, perhaps in the vicinity of the Information Centre. 

Support is provided for the principle of town centre regeneration. 

It is suggested that Crusader Business Park is substantially developed and so 

further employment opportunities will be required to ensure that the proposed 

housing development is balanced. 

The ongoing preparation of the Town Plan is noted. It should be made clear the 

relationship between the Core Strategy and the Town Plan. Will the Town Plan be 

a formal LDF document? If the Town Plan includes proposals to strengthen the 

retail core this may be contested. However, this should be consistent with any 

retail policies in the Core Strategy and with national policy, in particular PPS 4. 

Warminster is located within close proximity to the A36 trunk road. The 

opportunity of increased employment provision within the town as a means of 

improving the self-containment and reducing out-commuting is acknowledged. 

Although the suggestion that the existing County Wildlife Site (CWS) can be 

protected through provision of additional green space, habitat creation and areas 

of flood protection is noted, similar comments should also have been made for 

other CWSs and SSSIs across Wiltshire. A county wide policy to this effect would 

be expected. 

Sections of the town centre identified for regeneration are floodplain. Benefit to 

the community should be sought through off site flood protection and mitigation. 

Will allocating additional housing in the town will help to deliver additional 

infrastructure. There is no evidence of public funding increasing to support 

infrastructure delivery. 

4.104 Strategic site options 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The need for a high quality walking and cycling network are raised within any new 

development in the town. Measures should include safe links to the town centre 

and excellent provision of cycle parking and interventions to reduce car use. 

Infrastructure improvements will be needed as part of any new development. 

It is suggested that additional employment will be required in the town to ensure 

that employment is more balanced with housing and to help meet strategic 

objective 7. 

An alternative development site to the east of Warminster is identified. 

A number of other small alternative development sites are also identified. 

It is suggested that large scale development in Warminster is regretful. However, 

the identified preferred site is probably the best option. Public funding is however 

required to ensure adequate infrastructure is developed alongside any new 

housing. 

It is recognised that volume house building can only be located on the west and 

north-west fringe of the town. However, smaller sites to the east should also be 

considered. 

260



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is suggested that the Bath Road area is an excellent location for additional 

employment provision being located close to an existing employment site with 

good public transport connectivity and the A36 Trunk Road. 

A number of comments have been received which support the proposed 

development in Warminster. 

It is suggested that a mixed-use urban extension can provide improved 

connectivity and infrastructure to relieve pressure on West Street and be sensitive 

to landscape considerations. 

The proximity of Crusader Park is noted and hence the suitability of the preferred 

option for expansion of employment land. 

Details are provided from developers on how the proposed development sites 

could be master planned. Considerable detail is provided supporting the proposed 

site and outlining the advantages of this option. 

Building 900 houses on the outer fringes of Warminster is considered to be 

ridiculous. There are no supporting services such as doctors, schools, dental 

surgeries or supermarkets. The road system is considered inadequate. Local 

residents have been told in the past that infill to the bypass would be strongly 

rejected. 

It is suggested that any increase in development to the north-west of Warminster 

will increase traffic flow on Vicarage Street and West Street. Improving road links 

to the town centre will be necessary. 

A number of responses suggest that 100 homes will be built adjacent to 

Smallbrook Meadows. This is a very valuable open space in the town and 

important area to wildlife. Several responses object to such a proposal. It should 

however be noted that this site is not part of the identified preferred option. 

It is suggested that an additional 1000 houses in Warminster is bad news. 

Warminster is a small market town with exceptional surrounding countryside. The 

town should grow organically. Large allocations of housing will not allow growth to 

be sympathetic for residential and commercial facilities to grow together. 

The fact that much of the preferred site is high quality agricultural land is raised. 

It is suggested that any development around Warminster will negatively affect the 

AONB and that further evidence is needed before a preferred site can be 

identified. 

An issue relating to water phosphate concentrations is identified which affects the 

River Avon SAC. This will need to be tackled through the HRA process if any 

development is to proceed. 

The Environment Agency highlight that some sites within the area identified for 

town centre regeneration are within the floodplain and that a Strategic Flood Risk 

will be required if such sites are put forward for development. 

A large part of Warminster overlies the Inner Groundwater Source Protection 

Zone (SPZ1). A hydro-geological assessment will be required. The delivery of any 

mitigation measures will need to be identified in the Core Strategy. 

The Environment Agency are concerned that much of the identified preferred site 

is high quality agricultural land and that a further appraisal of alternative sites 

should be made. 

The Environment Agency raise concern on the impact of additional housing on the 

strategic road network and have requested additional details of site scale, access 

and how they will be linked with the rest of Warminster. Particular concern is 

raised about the possibility that the preferred site will be linked directly to the A36. 

It is suggested that the scale of development envisaged will have a harmful effect 

on the character and appearance of the area. 

The development of a single urban extension would have a disproportionate 

impact on the form of the settlement. It is suggested that identifying more than 

261



one urban extension would be more deliverable. Details are provided for an 

alternative development site located to the east of the town. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The settlement hierarchy, which follows the settlement classification in the 

emerging RSS, is supported. The identification of Warminster as Category B in 

the settlement hierarchy is considered to be appropriate given its size, service 

centre function and range of facilities. 

The identification of Warminster as a principal location of increasing levels of 

housing, employment, retail and service provision is supported. Warminster is one 

of the largest settlements in the county and is well-placed to provide strategic 

scale development in a sustainable manner. 

The proposed distribution of new housing and employment development to 

Warminster is supported. 

It is suggested that market town status should remain for Warminster. The town 

would not like to lose this status. 

It is suggested that insufficient housing has been allocated in Warminster to meet 

the needs identified in the RSS. It is suggested that the allocation should rise to 

1430 from 900. 

It is suggested that the distribution of housing and employment to Warminster 

could be increased from that proposed, especially given that the town has been 

identified as one of seven markets towns in Wiltshire suitable for strategic 

employment growth. Development in the surrounding villages is supported in 

addition to the main town of Warminster. 

Other smaller settlements within the Warminster Community Area are considered 

suitable for some additional growth. These include Chapmanslade which is well 

placed between Westbury, Frome and Warminster with good bus links to all three 

of these towns. 

The village of Sutton Veny should be added to Codford and Heytesbury allowing 

limited infill development to serve local need. 

Sutton Veny has an identified housing need, as evidenced by a survey completed 

in the last three years. Few houses have been built and many sites are available 

which would not encroach on the village policy limit. The village has a popular 

school, pub and two trading estates and a nursing home. The village does not 

lack employment opportunities and services to make development sustainable. 


The comments can be summarised as follows: 

The proposed distribution of new housing and employment development to 

Warminster is supported. 

It is suggested that insufficient housing has been allocated in Warminster to meet 

the needs identified in the RSS. It is suggested that the allocation should rise to 

1430 from 900. 

It is suggested that the distribution of housing and employment to Warminster 

could be increased from that proposed, especially given that the town has been 

identified as one of seven markets towns in Wiltshire suitable for strategic 

employment growth. Development in the surrounding villages is supported in 

addition to the main town of Warminster. 

The proposed level of growth is supported compared to previous low levels. 

The requirement for 1800 dwellings for the community area is supported. 

It is suggested that more than 1800 dwellings are required in the community area 

during the plan period. 

262



 

 

 

 

The plan needs to explain how the figure of 1800 new houses was reached and 

where these people will come from to gain local support. 

It is agreed that Warminster has seen lower levels of growth than other towns in 

West Wiltshire. 

Furthermore, that higher levels of growth would help facilitate the improvement of 

services and facilities provision in the town along with strengthening the vitality of 

the town centre. 

It is suggested that higher levels of growth will be needed across the whole 

community area and not just within the Town of Warminster. 

4.107 Warminster community area: respondents 

Organisations 


Eton College 


Hannick Homes 

J & P Hussey & Mrs S Cooper 



Sustrans 


WM Morrisons Plc 



Greatworth Properties Ltd 




Stockland UK 

Warminster Civic Trust 


Individuals 

C Godwin Michael Mounde N P Parker 

Nicola Harris Peter Blackburn Philip Clark 

Valerie King 

263



4.108 Warminster community area: notes from exhibitions and events 

Warminster exhibition comments 

Poster eleven - The preferred option 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Development to the west is fine if Victoria Road traffic flow can be improved. It is 

a nightmare already & this aspect must be considered before housing is permitted 

that end of town.” 

“There is a need for starter homes for young people.” 

“More houses bring more people, which can only be good for local businesses.” 

“Huge access problems to be resolved with this option. West Street/ Vicarage 

Road are a nightmare now!” 

“How do you propose access to the Smallbrook development? It is right on single 

lane around the site and adjacent to the nature reserve.” 

Warminster is dead, nothing to do. We want a cinema, more quality shops, M&S 

etc. What happened to Waitrose?” 

“Every extra dwelling produces at least 1 extra road vehicle. Parking in town can 

be difficult. 100s of extra homes is likely to cause chaos. On your head be it!!” 

“Can Warminster have a town hall around the park? Or common? Or wild life site? 

“Warminster seems to be the only town with no development. I think this is long 

overdue.” 

“More houses means less ground to soak up water resulting in more floods. More 

housing means more pressures on services such as fire brigades (who are short 

of money and staff) I don’t think Warminster can cope!!!” 

Poster twelve - Why is transport important? 

 

 

 

 

 

“No bus runs from Salisbury to Warminster after 6pm”. 

“If Stockland develop the central car park, the bus/ coach terminus/ exchange part 

will be deleted. There seems to be no plan to relocate it.” 

“Carrots not sticks to reduce use of cars.” 

“Confusion about parking restrictions in different car parks. Not enough parking in 

central areas.” 

“How will Highways Agency/ Police cope with major incident(s) on the A36? Town 

centre already too narrow.” 

Poster thirteen - What are the key transport challenges in Wiltshire? 

 

“Promote the pedestrians!! Zebra crossings – promote walking!!! Cycle paths 

around Warminster.” 

Transport poster - Transport implications of proposed strategy and 

development growth 

 

 

 

“Victoria Road area is a nightmare for traffic now. I don’t think sending more this 

way is a good idea, it needs to go out by the bypass. 

Improve commercial shopping facilities to encourage local people to use local 

shops. Lack of local facilities, e.g. job centres, hospitals. 

Rat run in Upper Marsh RD, v. busy esp. when town was one-way during road 

works in town. 30mph signs in Lower Marsh Rd – I tried several years ago to get 

30mph signs in Upper Marsh RD – no luck. 

264



Poster seven - What do we already know about Warminster 

community area? 

 

 

 

Many people would vote against more town centre ‘development/ enhancement’ 

given the opportunity. 

Parking in the town is in danger of being made a whole lot worse if Wiltshire 

Council allow Stockland to “hijack” the town car park for the supermarket! 

Lack of facilities for all age groups; not just confined to the young. 

Poster nine - What are the significant sustainability issues for 

Warminster? 

SA objective 9 

Important too 


Access is being made more difficult, not easier, on facilities meaning increased 

travel, e.g. health facilities, job centres, police stations 


This is the most important 


Do you mean ‘sites’ for employment 


 

 

 

Climate change is happening and will happen. Plan for these scenarios of change 

(re: objective 6 ‘ safe accessible places.’) this appears to be getting worse already 

as the services provided (e.g. health, police station, job centres) have all been 

reduced recently. People already travel further to access them than 5 years ago. 

Re: keeping people in the county for work (to reduce travel impacts) – perhaps 

each town could identify/ establish a local ‘hub’ for people who normally work out 

of the county, but who could do their work at the ‘hub’, i.e. e-work. The region’s 

larger employers could be surveyed to enquire/ gain their buy-in for flexibly 

working employees and survey people regularly about where they work. 

Poster three - How do you think Wiltshire should look in 2026? 

 

We need more houses in the town to support the town facilities. 

Poster five - Where are the new homes being proposed? 

 

 

 

 

We could start by learning to spell and checking our work! 

Local employment is necessary. The level of development for Warminster is 

ridiculous. Many residents already have to travel out of town to their work. 

Local and county demographic info would be useful to see. How many single 

households/ families/ families/older households/ young people – their work 

potential to housing. 

Where is Salisbury? The Salisbury (south Wiltshire) numbers are part of Wiltshire 

too? 

265



Warminster workshop 

The following relates a discussion on objectives from the Warminster workshop. 

Attendees were asked to place stickers against their top three objectives. 

Objectives 

Group 

1 

Group 

2 

Total 












The top three objectives identified by participants were: 

economy 

housing 

town centre 


included: 

General 

 

 

 

 

 

We want to develop a town where people want to come to live and work/ if we do 

nothing the town will decline/ therefore we have to accept that there will be a need 

for some growth. We need to consider where / what infrastructure is needed etc. 

I have come to the conclusion that the planning system, both nationally and 

locally, is completely inept and is not fit for purpose. We should choose objectives 

which are as operational as possible. For example, if our objective is to build 50 

houses, this can be delivered by planning. If the objective is to improve the town, 

this cannot be done by planning. 

What about east of Warminster? Imbalance between west and east. 

Why include Grade 2 agricultural land? This is not a constraint! Why is some of 

the built up area shown as agricultural land? 

Important character of the town is not changed. Warminster is a delightful place/ 

don’t want to destroy character. Sustainable development yes/ but not at any cost. 

We need to preserve the character of the town centre. 

266



Housing 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warminster has not had any large housing developments recently but new 

housing needs appropriate transport infrastructure. 

Housing growth will promote a viable economy and town centre. 

Preferred housing is on good agricultural land which will be lost. 

Should the bypass be the natural boundary for development? 

Need the right sites for housing development to assess if it is viable to develop it. 

Need a new school – Kingsdown is the wrong side for the new development; may 

need two sites. Lower and upper schools to spread the educational needs. 

Affordable housing is needed in villages – not just Codford and Heytesbury – this 

would provide valuable homes and help support schools. 

Brownfield site development should be the priority. 

Why is there a fixation with building more houses? Has the Government got it 

wrong (answer = yes!). We don’t want any more houses. 

Is meeting housing need the priority for Warminster? 

44,000 new houses = 100,000 people/ this is a 25 % increase in population. 

However, households are getting smaller and therefore need more houses/ so 

population will not rise as much. 

Some doubt on revised housing numbers (in the RSS) these are all up in the air. 

The danger of a large urban extension is that we get another Westbury Lee. If this 

functions as a village/ sustainable urban extension/ then could be successful. 

We need infrastructure before housing. 

Town centre 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A study has been commissioned to identify what needs to happen to improve the 

vitality and competiveness. 

Warminster cannot attract the diversity of facilities that Trowbridge can. As such, 

better transport links are needed to get people to/ from Trowbridge. 

A new town plan is being developed for Warminster – need new food store, reorganisation 

of main car park but no loss of parking is desirable. 

Car parking should be for shoppers/ visitors rather than commuters – to promote 

the economy. 

Need short stay parking. 

Lack of modern office development in the town centre, only edge-of-town options. 

The number 1 priority should be improving the vitality of the town centre. 

Need local centre/ or need to enhance town centre? An additional 900 houses is a 

real problem. We need to address infrastructure needs. 

If we want to build town centre vitality, then the town centre will have to grow. The 

population of Warminster is now 23,000, has grown and will need to continue to 

grow. No issue with this need for further growth. 

Town plan 

Isn’t this why we are preparing a town plan? To help guide future development. 

Warminster Town Plan will be published in June 2010. 

Unfortunately this is the experience of hope over reality. 

But, this has been tried across the Country; the ability to guide development is 

negligible. 

267




No allocation of future business/ employment sites. 

Need to improve access to Furnax Lane sites. 

Roads to/ in Woodcock Lane business park are sub-standard and new major work 

– vehicles can’t get in leading to vacant premises. 

What other sites are there – beyond Crusader Park? MoD site (in grey on maps) 

access via Boreham Road (deliverable in plan period?). 

If we assume 900 houses and half are pensioners/ then we need at least 800 new 

jobs. Crusader Park is not big enough. Will be a dormitory = out commuting. 

Reality of new document/ all employment to Westbury/ therefore why houses to 

Warminster? 

Do we assume that everybody in Wiltshire will want to live and work in the same 

town? 

Crusader Park does not have 7 ha available for development/ the Workspace 

Strategy is wrong. Therefore we need more employment land. 

However, employment and infrastructure is needed before the housing. 

One of the aims is to reduce out commuting. Therefore employment should be as 

close to where people live as possible. 900 additional houses will worsen the 

employment position not improve it (unless we get the balance between housing 

and employment right). 

Any new employment should be suitable / need to attract relevant employers. 

In the past Westbury has had larger areas of employment land allocated/ what 

they end up with is large areas of parked cars. It is difficult to attract specific types 

of employment. 

Education 

 

 

The secondary school is to the east of the town. The development is proposed to 

the west of the town. How do we deal with this imbalance? 

An additional 900 houses = 1 primary school and maybe a secondary school? 

The existing secondary school is too big (biggest in Wiltshire). This is a real issue 

and we need a new secondary school. 

Transport 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, there is need for a new road across the preferred option. 

Cannot allow more development to the west of Warminster as will increase 

problems on existing roads. 

Create better balance between jobs/ houses in the town and keep vibrant town 

centre to reduce the need to travel. 

Town centre scheme has/ will promote the town centre vitality. 

Town centre not great for emergency service access/ through movement. 

Should the ambulance station be re-located and to where? Under-performing 

ambulance service in Wiltshire. 

School run causes congestion at peak times. 

Issues not identified – cars coming from Station Road slow traffic on High Street 

in the evening rush hour. 

More school buses required (compulsory?). 

Encourage more walking and cycling – new cycle routes to new development. 

Need access improvements to/ from villages to town centres. 

Need more wiggly buses. 

268



Flooding 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flooding is low priority and has been overturned at the planning appeal stage. 

Flooding should be number 1 issue (not climate change). 

Flooding can be solved through engineering. 

Flooding is a big issue (comment from Fire Service). One of the main things we 

do is to deal with flooding. 

Flooding = bad design/ bad maintenance. 

In planning terms there is guidance to cope with flooding/ the implication from our 

discussion is that this guidance is inadequate. 

Everything we do should take into consideration the consequences of flooding. 

But, this should not be the number 1 priority. 

Community facilities 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need more facilities for young people in the town – provided for by development 

(although current facilities aren’t bad). 

Drive-in cinema. 

Opportunity for shared facilities with military – leisure/ sport etc. However, there is 

no evidence that there is a lack of sports facilities (possible perception of officials). 

Social capital – can the community run their own community facilities. 

Celebrate what is unique in Warminster – small arms museum with very limited 

public access (by appointment). 

A field studies centre could be established in Warminster Wylye/ Salisbury plain/ 

chalk downland. 

Tourism 

 

 

 

 

 

Competitively priced/ middle priced accommodation is needed. 

Thurlestove House and golf course could be developed as a draw. 

Need something to get people to visit when travelling between Bath and 

Salisbury. 

Crop circles are a big financial benefit. 

The Maltings is interesting and could be developed as an attraction possibly. 

Villages 

 

 

What about from the village perspective? The exercise is all about the town of 

Warminster. What about villages? Apparently there will be a new consultation on 

Village Policy Limits. Rural Areas don’t want development (actually some of them 

do and some don’t). How tackle the overall housing numbers if will look at the 

village element later on? 

Some villages are in danger of dying/ too much high quality accommodation in 

villages/ not enough affordable housing. 

Consultation document 

 

 

 

The document is very wordy. 

Why has the area marked in red been drawn the way it has? Why up to ‘x’ 

boundary/ what is the purpose of the red area? 

Some discussion about site at Folly Lane. Why not included as preferred? 

269



 

 

 

 

The boundaries of the site are “barmy”. We will have to allocate something more 

sensible. We cannot leave out a single house because it belongs to an individual 

who does not want to sell it. 

Is it the purpose of this consultation to look at apportionment between the market 

towns? Has this been consulted on yet? 

RSS sets out need for 6300 new dwellings in West Wilts area not in Trowbridge. 

Has this been consulted on? 

The way the consultation is currently set up means that each town says what they 

think. What mechanisms are there for getting discussion between individuals from 

different towns? What about the issues that relate to both Westbury and 

Warminster? 

Future growth of Warminster 

Discussion points and comments included: 

Is the site larger than is needed? 50 % will be needed for roads/ open space/ 

infrastructure etc. 

Some discussion about Westbury Lee. Problems with how much land was 

allocated/ difference between what was promised and what was delivered. The 

preferred option for Warminster will be the Westbury Lee for Warminster. This 

needs to be well designed and controlled. Experience elsewhere is that this is 

difficult. 

Is 1800 of the 6300 for West Wilts (not Trowbridge) correct? This is the first basic 

decision to take. 

If this figure is correct where should the additional houses go? And should it be in 

one location or spread about? 

The whole direction/ justification within Wiltshire 2026 for the housing allocation in 

Warminster is to deliver new infrastructure! Can’t see any other purpose! 

In terms of protecting the character of Warminster; would a single urban extension 

be better or worse than lots of small sites? 

In principle, if go with the urban extension option, we suspect that the preferred 

option is probably the best location. 

Work done by the Town Council in the past concluded that Warminster needs 

approx 1000 houses over the next 10 years/ this was joint work with the 

Warminster Chamber of Commerce. This was for ten years not to 2026 so 

therefore agree with the number. Also agree with the site proposed. 

Participants 

Chris March (Warminster Town Council) 

Christopher Newbury (Wiltshire Council) 

Cllr F. Morland 

Len Turner (North and Mid-Wiltshire 

Economic Partnership) 

Mike Carroll (Sutton Veny Parish Council) 

Peter Blackburn (Warminster Chamber of 

Commerce) 

Sue Frazer (Warminster Town Council/ 

Deputy Mayor) 

Chris Montagu (Warminster Civic 

Trust) 

Cllr Andrew Davis (Community Area 

Chairman) 

Darren Masini (Westlea Fire Station) 

Michael Mounde 

Peter A.T. Crane (West Wilts CPRE 

Group) 

Richard Church 

Tony Nicklin (Warminster Town 

Council/ Mayor) 

270



4.109 Westbury community area 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 4 



Supporting 0 


Objecting 0 



Supporting 1 


Objecting 6 



Supporting 2 


Objecting 11 


Total number of comments relating to Westbury: 55 

271




 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor walking and cycling links between Westbury and nearby Warminster or 

Trowbridge (Sustrans feasibility study highlighted severance caused by B3098), 

and within the town from the town centre to the schools. 

Weight restriction on Station Road bridge felt to contribute towards poor access to 

West Wilts Trading Estate for heavy goods vehicles and, also, prevents buses 

from coming over the bridge. 

Particular agreement with the need for a rail crossing if any increase in 

employment is to happen. 

Concern over access to Westbury Railway Station. 

It is suggested that there is an opportunity to focus development around the 

railway station, with its two rail links and the possibility of revisiting the bypass 

issue making this a good option. 

Some support for a western route for a Westbury bypass, with some objections to 

development along proposed (eastern) bypass route. 

Suggestion of an access road into the West Wilts Trading Estate from the A36, 

following the railway line and entering the estate from the west. 

Concern over subsidies to bus companies to run near empty buses (possibly old 

and environmentally unfriendly and contributing towards congestion). 

There is a need for a pedestrian link between Morrisons car park and the high 

street. 

Any improvements to the road network should have clearly demonstrable 

sustainability benefits and not increase road traffic. 

Concern over whether relocation of Matravers school to an edge of town site is 

the best option (see comments below on strategic site options for further 

discussion on this issue). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need to emphasis interdependency with Trowbridge, considering facilities, 

services and employment. 

Landscape constraints to development on the south east of the town. 

Greater focus on rural issues, particularly the need of the villages to support small 

businesses, local facilities and services, and demand for housing among young 

people, who would prefer to stay in the village. 

Concern over number of vacant units at the West Wilts Trading Estate. 

Questions raised over whether library really is ‘not fit for purpose’ and whether 

there really are limited brownfield sites in the town and, thus, a need for green 

field development. 

There is an opportunity to re-use the LaFarge cement works site, possibly as a 

strategic employment site, or for burning waste and using the heat produced for 

electricity. 

Woodland Trust owns 18 woods in Wiltshire and there is an opportunity for these 

to form key elements of a green infrastructure strategy, as linkages. 

Westbury community area falls within the statutory height safeguarding zone 

surrounding Keevil Airfield. 


 

To achieve greater self-containment, the core strategy should focus on improving 

services and facilities within the town, improve public transport links to 

surrounding towns and villages and support more homes, services and jobs in 

smaller villages (at appropriate scale and to help them thrive and become more 

self-sufficient). 

272



 

 

 

 

To minimise traffic growth in the town, the core strategy should focus on 

improving walking and cycling links both within the town, between key facilities, 

and with nearby Warminster and Trowbridge. 

To achieve greater public transport integration and improve services, Westbury 

Railway Station should be regarded by the core strategy as a strategically 

important regional station, for which it should propose better access for buses, 

improved waiting areas for buses and taxis outside the station, and improved rail 

services (more frequent and more carriages) to Melksham, Swindon, Bath, Bristol 

and other west Wiltshire towns. 

To rationalise provision of community facilities, the core strategy should 

encourage multi-service centres, including libraries. 

The core strategy should address other primary healthcare issues, such as 

community care for an ageing population and obstetric services for an increasing 

childbearing population. 


Preferred housing option 

 

 

Many concerns over preferred option, involving the relocation of Matravers 

school: 

- Less accessible by foot / cycling; existing site more so for children / 

sustainable travel. 

- New site poorly located for residents on eastern side of town. 

- New school on this site intrusive to nearby properties; disturbance / traffic. 

- Increase no. of car journeys and less public transport infrastructure than 

current location. 

- Children unable to use town centre shops on way to school. 

- Doubt that 300 extra houses will improve the town centre; proposed housing 

only. 

- Available in mid to long term. 

- Uncertainty over viability of this option. 

- Call for more detail on Matravers relocation in the plan – not properly thought 

through. 

- What will be impact on travel figures when school moves to outer town 

location? 

- Further development on land at Penleigh may lead to flooding problems. 

- Opposition to housing on current school site and Redlands Lane Playing 

Field. 

- Suggestion that the school remain on existing site and is expanded to include 

Woodland. 

- Trading Estate, which would give better vehicle access, allow the school to 

rebuild in Stages and might provide enough land for new primary care 

facilities. 

Some support for preferred option, and both Highways Agency and Environment 

Agency (provided no development in Flood Zone 1; area of search for new school 

partially within FZ2 and 3) have no objection in principle. 

273



Alternative/ additional housing options 

 

 

The following sites were put forth again as alternative/ additional options to deliver 

the housing requirements for Westbury, having already been identified in the 

SHLAA: 

- Land at Fairdown Avenue 

- Land to the north of the Mead 

- Land north of Bitham Park 

- Land at Gas House Farm 

- Land at Slag Lane 

- Land at Wellhead Farm 

- Land south of Leighton Park* (is this the same site referred to as ‘Land rear of 

Leighton 

- Recreation Centre’ in the SHLAA?) 

Other suggestions, that may or may have been considered before in some way or 

another: 

- Area H14 plus E1C (employment land) plus corridor plus landscaping = 12+ 

hectares, enough for 480 new homes (includes Local Plan allocations). 

- Land at Black Horse Lane, Westbury Leigh, c.2.5 acres. 

Preferred employment option 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supported, but unambitious, given Westbury’s potential based upon its location. 

How dependent is meeting employment land requirements on this area and is 

existing employment land is being safeguarded? 

Land at Hawkridge, Mill Lane – not suitable for employment use given nearby 

residential uses and should be omitted. 

Majority of Northacre and Brook Lane employment areas shown on map already 

‘developed’. 

Proposed employment allocations excessive: 

- Exclude or reduce large site to north. 

- Adverse effect on Brook House listed buildings. 

- Need proper rail crossing before further employment sites to the north of the 

railway. 

Proposed additional employment land at Oxen Lane unnecessary, lead to 

increased traffic. 

Land at Hawkridge, Mill Lane, not included in WWDC Core Strategy Issues and 

Options consultation. 

- Sub-standard highway infrastructure serving existing employment areas at 

WWTE, Northacre Park and Brook Lane. 

- Additional employment will exacerbate the situation. 

- Other existing traffic problems not considered. 

- No account of effect on Hawkridge village and Norleaze to the north 

Wiltshire Workspace and Employment Land Strategy July 2009 ‘wholly 

inadequate’ to inform the core strategy: 

- Not enough reasoning for allocating so much employment land in Westbury 

Area. 

- Employment allocations should be in line with housing allocations – other 

towns with higher housing allocations should be getting higher employment 

allocations. 

- Amount employment land allocated to Westbury (56.6ha) greater than that for 

Trowbridge (50.8) but Trowbridge has much higher housing allocation than 

Westbury – people have to travel to work outside Trowbridge. 

274



 

 

 

- Use same methodology to calculate employment allocations as for housing 

allocations. 

- Also include detailed assessment of level of out-commuting and ways of 

reducing this. 

Site to south-west of Hawkeridge Park, at rear of the Ham, between Storridge 

Road and Hawkridge Park – not mentioned in WWELS2009, no existing access to 

site, closely bound by residential dwellings – remove from preferred options. 

Site between Hawkridge Park and WWTE (Glenmore Farm area) – not mentioned 

in WWELS2009, affect Hawkridge Park children’s play area and nearby 

residential amenity north-west of Hawkridge Park and Ham cottages 

(Alternative/ additional employment options). 

The following suggestions were received for alternative/ additional sites for 

employment allocations: 

- North-west of railway lines, already allocated for industrial usage. 

- Land to the west of the WWTE, off Storridge Road/ North of Northacre 

Business Park. 

Other development 

 

A suggestion to reallocate the BT exchange site for retail use was also received. 


 

 

 

 

 

Support for smaller villages to be allowed to have more homes, services and jobs, 

at an appropriate scale, to enable them to thrive and become more self-sufficient. 

Concern that the role of Dilton Marsh, which is larger than Bratton and provides 

rural services, though not a GP surgery, is not fully recognised in the spatial 

strategy. 

While there is some support for Westbury as a Development Policy B settlement 

(RSS)/ market town, many disagree with Westbury’s position in the settlement 

hierarchy, even arguing that Westbury should be reclassified as an Strategically 

Significant City/ Town (SSCT), or it should have been identified as capable of 

absorbing more growth. 

Westbury’s sustainable location and relative lack of constraints are thought to 

make its current ranking a bit of a missed opportunity. 

Need to more fully assess the travel needs of Westbury residents, where people 

are out-commuting and what skills are required for the available jobs in the town – 

all before settlement hierarchy can be established. 


 

 

 

Some objections to level of development up until 2026, while others support the 

reduced rate of housing development. 

Concern over reliance on windfall development to provide up to 250 dwellings, 

which is considered to be uncertain, and suggest identifying additional land now 

to meet this number and adjust the scale/ phasing later if need be. 

Concern also raised over what is perceived to be an unequal distribution of 

housing and employment allocation to Westbury, in that there is a greater 

employment allocation to Westbury than Trowbridge but more housing to 

Trowbridge than Westbury. 

275



4.115 Westbury community area: Respondents 

Organisations 





Edington Parish Council 


Hallam Land Management 

Heywood Parish Council 

Highways Agency Hussey, J. P. & Cooper, S. 

Industrial Property Investment Fund LaFarge Cement 

MoD 

Natural England 




Robert Hitchins Ltd 

Sustrans 




Individuals 

Bowley, John Cherrett, Trevor Cunningham, Ian 

Feather, David Francis, V.P. Osborne, John 

Scott, Mark Spickernell, Mrs C. Turner, Mr A. E. 

276



4.116 Westbury community area: Notes from exhibitions and events 

Westbury exhibition notes 25 November, 2009 

Strategic objectives 

Summary of comments 

Many comments raising transport issues, such as encouraging more sustainable 

modes like walking, cycling and public transport and promoting a more integrated 

transport system. The need for a rail crossing and, also, for existing bridges to be 

strengthened, prior to further housing and, particularly, employment growth are also 

highlighted. Providing sufficient local facilities and services will also be important in 

ensuring further development is sustainable. 

Broad support for Matravers School to be relocated, as there is an appreciation of the 

current capacity issues, however concerns are raised about moving it to an edge of 

town location. These include the transport and accessibility implications, such as less 

children walking or cycling to school and the encouragement of travelling by car. The 

benefits of an increase in leisure and sports provision, not only for the school but for 

the wider community, are, however, realised. 

The key issue is the need to direct appropriate housing and employment 

development to the villages, such as Edington (but not forgetting other such as Dilton 

Marsh and Bratton), hand in hand with the provision of local services and facilities, so 

that they can sustain current and future generations. 


 

Encourage more use of sustainable modes of transport, e.g. walking, cycling and 

public transport. 

Economic development 

 

The expansion of the employment area is a problem in terms of traffic without a 

western bypass. It would also encourage commuting into Westbury – bad for 

climate change. 

Housing 

 

 

Does affordable housing mean more houses (and thus smaller) to the acre, 

which, in time, becomes problematic for families? 

What happens if Regional Spatial Strategy is withdrawn after election? 


 

 

 

 

Shortage of GPs. 

Level of hospital services decreasing and situated too far away. 

Library building not ‘unfit for purpose’; good central location and recent repairs to 

roof. 

Huge development in Westbury Leigh without good facilities being put in place, 

e.g. community hall, doctors’ surgery and a better selection of shops. 

277



Town centres and retail 

 

 

Agree that town centre remote from train station, so what about more buses to the 

station and better access to the railway station. 

What does ‘improved’ town centre mean? 

Transport 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic congestion not bad, just slow, and worse since 3 tonne limit on railway 

bridge, which should be strengthened to take the weight of modern lorries. 

The railway bridge at the end of Oldfield Road should be built to link with Brook 

Lane. 

What has happened to bridge over railway/ Oldfield Road/ Leigh Park? 

Concerns on Slag Lane being used by busses long-term. Erosion of very soft 

verges. 

Strengthen Station Road Bridge to allow it to carry 44 tonne lorries. Better access 

needed to Trading estate from A36 – Western Link Road? Why not implement the 

£1.5 m package of environmental improvements proposed with the bypass now! 

Need a bridge over the railway from Oldfield Road – remove traffic from in 

existing housing estate. 

Bridge at Oldfield Park needed second bridge over to Northacre business park 

would be better. 


 

Constraints should include the Special Landscape Area – see the Structure Plan 

and the Inspector’s report on the Westbury Bypass Inquiry. 

Strategic site options 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moving the school to the edge of town is a very bad idea with regard to people 

movements, e.g. the school run. Bad for climate change if the school is not 

central! 

New school badly need as current site is unsuitable for the size of the school. 

Agree, if more houses are necessary. Existing school site is well-located for 

children to walk and cycle to school – which should be encouraged. A new school 

site would be likely to discourage sustainable transport use, contrary to 

objectives. 

If school to be moved, this should be conditional on transport improvements 

already being in place, i.e. a bridge over the railway and traffic calming. 

Agree, provided there are walking paths and cycle tracks to the school. 

The proposed area of search for new school site is in Flood zone 3b – need to 

ensure this is taken into account and no adverse effect on properties further back 

along Biss Brook. 

Relocating Matravers… School to Leigh Park with improved sports facilities … the 

town excellent idea. But the increased traffic will cause problems for Oldfield Rd. 

and must be sorted out. 

If the new secondary school is built on the edge of Leigh Park on the Dilton side 

of Westbury, more children will need bussing or transporting by family. 

Support for Railways better access to Westbury Station. Joined up cycle ways 

good for integrated school site with large sports facilities bad for encouraging 

more car use. Concerns about development zones shown on the rejected eastern 

bypass route. NB. They are shown. 

278



Settlement hierarchy and housing distribution 

 

 

Edington does not feature in plans at all; need some development to retain young 

people. 

Restrictive policy for smaller villages, based only of presence of key services and 

should consider housing and employment need (in close consultation with parish 

councils and local communities). 

Sustainability appraisal 

Most important sustainability objectives: 

3,4,5,9,13,15; 

6 - This may happen if traffic is managed 

8 - Need to make more of our historic town 

9 – Could make more reference to walks/trails/info boards 

13 – More facilities 

17 – SA. 

1,7,8,9,11,14,17; 3, 6 and 7 and most important to support achieving 7. 

1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 – (most important) 

1,2,4,9,14,16,17 – (most important) 

7, 8,9,10,14,16,17 – all positive; Why no comment on travel problems 

279



Westbury workshop notes 25 November, 2009 

List of attendees 

Colin Bloodworth D Pearce David Jenkins 

David Wincless Frances Moorland Greensquare 

J Bowley Joyce Field Len Turner MWEP 

Mayor of Westbury Penny Stirling Russell Hawker 

Sue Ezra Westbury Bypass Alliance Westbury Resident 


Overall, the top three strategic objectives were ensuring long term economic growth, 

securing appropriate infrastructure and services and promoting sustainable forms of 

transport. 

While welcoming more employment for Westbury, there was a desire for more high 

quality employment opportunities. Many commented that the provision of 

infrastructure prior to or in step with development should be the priority for Westbury. 

The cost and connectedness of existing public transport, including bus, rail and cycle 

networks, was also highlighted as an area of concern. More use should be made of 

Westbury railway station, particularly improving its profile and connections to the rest 

of the town. The suggestion of an additional stop at the White Horse Business Park 

was made on a number of occasions. 

There were concerns that the relocation of Matravers School would lead to 

unsustainable travel patterns and increase the town’s carbon footprint. There was 

some support for extending the school because of its central location and the 

possibility was raised of extending into the nearby trading estate. 

Comments were also made in relation to housing, the town centre and the built 

environment. Concern was raised at a lack of affordable housing, particularly of 

smaller units. The town centre is seen as lacking facilities, having a poor mix of shops 

and unattractive to young people, disabled people and new uses (rents too high). 

Westbury is also seen as lacking an identifiable core area, with recent housing 

development having fragmented the built environment. 

280



Ranking of Strategic Objectives 

Attendees were asked to prioritise their top three Strategic Objectives. The results 

were captured in the table below overleaf. 

Objectives 1 2 3 Total 

1. To address climate change 2 0 4 6 

2. To provide for long term economic growth 2 3 2 7 

3. To meet Wiltshire’s housing needs 1 1 0 3 

4. To secure appropriate infrastructure and 

3 1 2 6 

services 

5. To enhance the vitality and viability of town 4 2 3 9 

centres 

6. To encourage safe accessible places 0 1 0 1 

7. To promote sustainable forms of transport 2 4 3 9 

8. To protect and enhance the natural 

1 1 3 5 

environment 

9. To safeguard and promote a high quality built 0 3 1 4 

environment 

10. To minimise the risk of flooding 0 1 0 1 

Discussion of Strategic Objectives 

The top three strategic objectives were then discussed in more detail. A 

the main points raised is included below. 

summary of 


 

 

 

 

 

 

There was a concern that the economic growth forecast did not match the 

employment skill set of the local area. 

Have had some business losses; Lafarge/trading estate /Tesco. 

Convert BT site to retail and link to High St; extend road and bridge links from 

Mane Rd. > Slag Lane to avoid Station Rd. 

Plans for more employment are welcome, but in the past too much of this has 

been low-grade work. Perhaps we should build on the local traditional base of 

construction. 

The quality of employment developments is important. High tech businesses – but 

don’t these prefer university towns (training/education)? 

Possibility of encouraging some professional employment in the villages (e.g. IT 

based and creative industries). 


 

 

 

 

 

Concern that the strategic planning process is too aspirational and focussed too 

much on houses and not infrastructure (capacity of roads / leisure). 

Infrastructure is essential and must be provided in phase or ahead of with 

development. Infrastructure is the biggest planning challenge for Westbury. 

Development contributions – more formal system to pay for infrastructure/ 

concern over timing of Infrastructure v Housing. 

Community Care does not get the mention it should. 

Possibly a new doctor’s surgery more important (than the relocation of the 

school). 

281



Sustainable transport 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was felt important to: 

- co-ordinate sustainable transport from villages to towns and to the wider 

community. 

- secure buses for peak periods to link up travel modes (e.g. better links with 

rail). 

There is a lack of rail link between Salisbury and Swindon – two of the biggest 

towns in the area. 

Existing railway lines need to be more fully utilised. 

Important to maintain and improve transport links between housing and 

employment. Existing constraint of the £T limited bridge a problem. 

Careful planning needed and upgrading of bridge with bus access to businesses 

important. 

Bus services need to be improved – for instance a better service to the trading 

estate. Earlier and later buses and cheaper fares would encourage sustainable 

commuting patterns. At present services to and from station / hospital are limited. 

Bus routes have been removed. 

Cycle routes need to be improved. 

Westbury has a role as a railway hub that is not fully exploited. Good potential for 

sustainable transport to combat climate change. Needs better marketing / better 

accessibility to station. On the other hand, so we want to encourage outcommuting? 

Nevertheless, an overall shift to trains from use of the A350 would improve 

sustainability. Train station at White Horse Business Park would benefit both 

Westbury and Trowbridge extensions. Strong support for rail subsidy and more 

stops / better use. 

A train station at White Horse Business Park would benefit both Westbury and the 

Trowbridge Urban Extension. 

Encourage businesses to incorporate Green Travel Plans / organise shared 

transport. 

Strategic sites 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The preferred option for strategic housing development in Westbury, the 

relocation of Matravers School and a mixed-use development with 300 houses, 

attracted the following comments during the discussion: 

There was concern that movement of the school, as proposed, from its current 

location will change the pattern of traffic, potentially leading to problems and 

undesirable effects. (Transport). 

Is the school redevelopment really the most important objective for Westbury? 

Moving the school would create unsustainable travel patterns and should not be 

done. Extend and improve existing instead. (Transport) 

Carbon footprint worsened by relocating school. (Climate change) 

Extend school as preferred option – central location, community focus, room to 

expand into adjacent estate. Need overall better facilities. 

282



Housing 

 

 

Important to retain identity of settlements- buffer zones needed. 

Lack of affordable housing – this needs to be supplied as small units, as that is 

what the greatest need is for. 

Town centres 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Town Centre is fragmented and needs redeveloping. 

New houses but no other facilities. 

Poor mix of shops – needs improving. 

Better access for disabled needed. 

High rents – discourage new uses, competing supermarkets offering free bus 

travel. 

Historic buildings open to public but need investment (Library / Pool); DDA, Raise 

profile of town. 

Encouraging young people to stay in / move to Westbury is essential in ensuring 

vitality. Out of town nightclub with no access by public transport. 

Need facilities to upgrade town’s appeal. We already have some ‘positives’ to 

build on – swimming pool. Leisure centre, improvements to Park, new Bandstand, 

pro-active town council, street fair, ‘community’. 

Built environment 

 

 

 

Westbury lacks an easily identifiable core area. 

New development estate will further fragment retail built environment. 

Need to safeguard existing built environment. 

Other comments 

 

 

Are these the Right Objectives? 

- Notwithstanding that the above topics were thought to be the most important 

of the objectives identified, questions were raised as to whether the list of 

objectives was correct and complete. 

Other main concerns in Westbury were: 

- Wellhead Springs development. 

- The Future of the Cement Works. 

283

This document was published by Wiltshire Council. 

You are welcome to contact us at: 

Spatial Planning 

Economy and Enterprise 

County Hall 

Bythesea Road 

Trowbridge 

Wiltshire 

BA14 8JN 

Email: spatialplanningpolicy@wiltshire.gov.uk

Wiltshire 2026 Consultation Methodology and ... - Wiltshire Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?