C.H. Pescod
Implementation Team Leader,
Development Control,
NWDC
14/08/07
Dear Mr Pescod
Re: Planning Applications - 07/01986/FUL/ 07/0187/LBC.
Erection of dwelling in the garden of 54 Gloucester St, Malmesbury SN16 0AA and re-instatement of pedestrian access off Burnivale.
Thank you for your letter to me of 30/7/07. I own Westgate Cottage, 56 Gloucester Street, and I write to object to the above applications for the reasons below.
1. Views, vistas & panoramas within and beyond the Malmesbury Conservation Area.
In 1963, the late Sir John Betjeman, Poet Laureate and the first president of the Malmesbury Civic Trust, wrote of his affection for what he called "the Queen of hilltop towns" and its beautiful views: "Malmesbury is lucky in having been built of the local limestone, and being a place for affording numerous vistas of Abbey and Tudor Market Cross, houses, cottages and chapels, and every now and then between these are glimpses of green hunting country and winding water below".
Betjeman detected here a "sacred" atmosphere, deriving not just from its ancient buildings but by also from the stunning views through the gaps between them, across gardens, over Cotswold stone walls, through little pockets of open spaces from the footpaths, snickets and rows of steps. The far reaching rural views across to Arches Farm and beyond, from Abbey Row, Jubilee Gdns, and Betty Geezer's Steps. and the amazing sunsets and cloudscapes are prime examples. Views from the River Walk, particularly at Daniels' Well, and from the footpaths a mile or so south west of Malmesbury, back to the town are equally enchanting, cherished by residents and visitors over centuries.
Such stunning vistas, views and panoramas, and the whole character of the area described are now in jeopardy.
The Malmesbury Conservation Area Statement, and subsequent Malmesbury Conservation Area Appraisal document (April 2007) remind us of the continuing need to disallow developments that would fail to "preserve and enhance" the "character and appearance" of the Area.
1.1. The views, vistas and panoramas mentioned as having "significant" or "extreme" importance include those from Abbey Row, and Jubilee Gardens towards open countryside; and those back to town from Daniel's Well, and the south western/ southern part of the Malmesbury River Valley and the River Walk Permissive Path.
Such views, to a greater or lesser extent, would undoubtedly be scarred, if not completely ruined, should permission be allowed.
1.2. "The plateau of garden belonging to 54 Gloucester Street is very attractive and any attempt to erect sheds etc. should be discouraged" – Para. 3.14 (Area: Burnivale, Malmesbury Conservation Area Appraisal Document - 2007). Clearly the planning application for a 3- bed, 2 storey house is rather more than a shed. I believe therefore, that any new dwelling, should be most strongly resisted on this site, at the heart of the Malmesbury Conservation Area.
1.3. The need to protect such views, the character and appearance of Conservation Areas are highlighted in the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 (page 32; Heading 7. Historic Environment Topic Area - specifically HE1 Development in Conservation Areas ( Please see enclosure).
1.4. If Malmesbury is to continue to prosper as part of a thriving rural economy, it needs to attract ever more visitors and tourists. This is unlikely, if new houses are allowed in such a sensitive and beautiful spot as this. People from all over the world are captivated by these views – I often meet visitors and enjoy pointing out landmarks and answering their questions about this lovely area, and how they can access various viewpoints and walks.
2. Access, traffic congestion, public health/ safety issues, parking.
Residents and visitors to Burnivale and The Maltings already have problems by foot, cycle or by car, particularly as there is a blind bend a few yards east of the proposed house building site and the proposed re-instated pedestrian access to/ from the newly configured garden of 54 Gloucester Street. I understand from looking at the plans that the current garden of 54 would be split in two, if the application is approved.
2.1. The proposed re-instated pedestrian access from the garden of 54 (planning application ref 07/01987/LBC) to Burnivale is very close to the blind bend in the lane which is already a hazardous spot for drivers and pedestrians passing along Burnvale towards the entrance to The Maltings; also towards the alleyway down to Daniel's Well and the River Walk, and the alleyway linking Burnivale to Kingswall, and Gloucester Street at the Mirror - a few yards away from the Market Cross.
2.2. Double yellow lines are shortly to be painted, I understand,, along Burnivale. Though welcome in many respects, I believe these additional parking restrictions, will exacerbate existing problems if the application is approved. The plans are for a three-bedroom house, with no dedicated parking for the proposed new property; the plans claim "existing parking" opposite the bottom of Betty Geezer's Step; in fact this is private property.
2.3. The only access to the proposed new house would be via a garden gate accessible from Betty Geezer's Steps – about 19 steps up from Burnivale. These steps comprise a long established, and much used public pedestrian thoroughfare, linking Gloucester Street and Abbey Row with Burnivale – and onward to Kingswall and Daniel's Well. This thoroughfare is likely to be regularly blocked – causing great disruption to visitors and local residents – during construction work – if the plan is approved.
2.4. The building of any new dwelling, as proposed, and prior proposed archeological survey of the site; and proposed the re-instatement of the pedestrian access to/ from Burnivale will surely cause chaos both to local residents and visitors to the area, by foot, cycle or motor vehicle for many months. In the long-term this would also cause similar problems.
3. Housing need.
This planning application will not meet any NWDC affordable/ starter-home objective – it is for a three bedroom house. It is a speculative housing development proposal which would serve no community/ social/ economic/ re-generation need as identified by NWDC – indeed it would undermine attempts to meeting such needs, for the reasons stated above.
4. Historical precedents.
I appreciate that until the 1950s, when they were apparently demolished, there were possibly three "one- up- one-down" cottages on the site.
4.1. It would appear to me that the rubble remains under the current level of the site. I would like to ask NWDC whether any investigations have been made as to whether this may be a contaminated site, and if so whether therefore the Environment Agency has been alerted by NWDC or other statutory consultees to the possibility of such contamination, and the consequent need to arrange investigations to this end.
4.2. Planning applications to build on the site were made in the 1980s – and rejected.
5. Sustainable development & climate change impacts.
In their stated policies, NWDC and national government are committed to taking action to oppose unsustainable development wherever it is proposed. This proposal is unsustainable on all the grounds cited above. Additionally, I suggest:
5.1. We should not build in gardens, as gardens provide valuable natural flood defences, soaking up rainwater that might otherwise penetrate homes or block roads.
5.2. Gardens provide "green lungs" that enable urban areas, especially, to "breathe" and help offset the effects of carbon emissions. Anyone who concretes over their garden contributes to climate change, and its impacts, now and in future.
6. Conclusion.
What a shame it is that these applications have been submitted, and so made public, at the height of the summer holiday season, when many people are away, and therefore not able to comment formally before the deadline of August 23rd. If these applications are approved, then I believe that some of the finest views in England will be wrecked for ever; no garden, or valued piece of open space, in the Malmesbury Conservation Area, for example, will be safe from inappropriate housing development; NWDC has the power to accept or reject these proposals. I and many others in and around the town regard this as a test case. I therefore appeal to the officers and the committee to reject the applications.
Yours sincerely,
Judy Jones
28 Back Hill,
Malmesbury,
Wiltshire
SN16 9BT
Tel. 01666 824678
