Melksham Chamber of Commerce - Response to Wiltshire Council's Core Strategy Consultation, December 2009
This response prepared by Graham Ellis, in his role of President of the Melksham Chamber of Commerce, to represent the views of Melksham businesses.
Although the author personally endorses the views and suggestions within this document, it should be noted that they have been formed with and reflect the inputs of many people, including but not limited to:
* Colin Harrison - Melksham Chamber of Commerce / Chair
* Other members and committee of the Chamber of Commerce, including former Mayor, deputy Mayor, Tourist Information Centre Manager.
* Paul Johnson - Knorr Bremse (Melksham)
* Peter Blackburn - Federation of Small Businesses
* Richard Wiltshire - Mayor of Melksham
* Jim Law - Melksham Community Area Partnership (Travel and Transport lead)
* Lisa Ellis - Well House Manor / Well House Consultants
* Melksham Town and Melksham Without Councils
* Open Poll (70 respondents / mostly town centre businesses) on Chamber web site
There is an overwhelming concensus within and between the above group of people with regard to the direction and content of this submission, though you may find a difference of emphasis in any responses submitted by other groups outside the Chamber of Commerce.
Thanks also to the following for their keen help and support, although to some extent their roles require them to reflect the views expressed to them rather than adding their own views.
* Ann Marie Estcott - Melksham Chamber of Commerce / Secretary
* Miriam Zacarelli - Melksham Community Area Partnerhsip staff
Note - some text is shared with the response from the Melksham Railway Development Group. However, the responses are different in nature and each represents the view of a different grouping of people as described above. We note that the next phase of the core strategy is community engagement up to July 2010, followed by a further consultation in the autumn, and we look forward to weoking with you through this period.
Overview of response to core strategy - from a Melksham viewpoint.
The Core Strategy proposes (in its headline) that major growth in Wiltshire be concentrated on Salisbury, Trowbridge and Chippenham, with much more limited growth in "Market Towns" of which Melksham is the largest by quite a way, and very little additional housing, employment and facilities in smaller settlements and the countryside. However, there is already more additional housing authorised / being built in Melksham ... even than in some of the strategic growth towns; the detailed plans show large [potential] areas for both housing and business development. So to some extent, the broad brush strokes of the headline are contradicted by the detail; that's a natural state of play, since it's not practical to draw an artificial barrier between "towns over 25000" and "towns under 25000", and there will be some crossover.
If a town is allowed to grow as a complete community, with good housing, jobs, education, health and leisure facilities with appropriate economic conditions, transport connections, law and order, etc, then it will thrive; some services may be shared with neighbouring towns, with neighbouring towns using some of its facilities. - "Model A"
If a town is constrained from growing by planning restrictions, or be a significant lack of the facilities listed in the "Model A" paragraph, it will be reduced to being either a dormitary or satellite town - "Model B", or an employment hub with in commuting - "Model C" or a town of slowly declining significance and perhaps economic prosperity too - "Model D".
Finally, it is possible for a town to become a tourism centre or a specialised town, with an individuallity that steps outside the models given above - "Model E".
Which model is Melksham suitable for?
All five models could be followed for Melksham. Proposals / illustrations / comments as to how the proposals could be
Which model is proposed for Melksham by the Wiltshire Council's actions and documents?
The headline proposals suggests model D - nor explicitly, but rather the headlines deprive Melksham of the strategic backing necessary to develop as a complete community.
Countrywide Farmers have been in the town for many years and asked for permission to move their retail facility less that 100 yards with the same entrance and without green field development. The Strategic Planning section of Wiltshire Council suggested that permission should be refused, and that the company should seek new premises in Chippenham or Trowbridge, at what would have been a cost of 30 to 50 jobs (direct and indirect) in Melksham. This suggests that the council has already been working to a strategy that is not far off model D, although in the case of Countrywide the decision has now been taken to grant permission and thus permit the jobs to stay in town. The concern is that a similar recommendation might be made for every company looking to move within Melksham for the next 20 years.
Current house builds, with more to come, indicate model B - a satellite or dormitary town, with (at present) not a great deal of employment / industrial growth going on.
Detailed plans, under the current consultation's headline proposals, show significant areas of land for business / commercial / industrial development, and also for residential. It is noted that those are maked as POTENTIAL sites, though, with different maps showing subtle differences, and some of the areas probably being impractical to be developed. There are also opportunities / areas where further housing or commercial building would (subject to further investigation) be practical and help us work towards a sustainable, intelligently urbanised environment which do not appear to have been fully considered.
What does the current population of Melksham want to happen?
It is very difficult (especially in current times, where the economy has changed many people's live dramatically) to get people to look ahead 15 to 20 years and to give a strategic view when they're worried about much shorter term issues. It is doubly difficult when the consultation document is so large, and most of us are not in a position to fully understand the document, nor the implications of one aspect on another. So large scale feedback from the community has been limited. There are, however, some pointers.
Both the Town Council and the Parish Council of Melksham Without come down very strongly indeed in favour of economic and commercial growth - (e.g. recent public planning meetings concerning the core strategy and Countrywide Farmers, also town regeneration meetings). Melksham Chamber of Commerce, and also liaising with other larger businesses based in the town who are members of the Wessex Association of Chambers are also strongly in favour of such economic and commercial growth, and with appropriate housing growth for employees who wish to be able to live in Melksham too, reducing commutes and having reduced footprint / more sustainable transport. There was little / no appetite to try to stay static, supporting services on a lessening proportion of the Wiltshire population as time goes by and other grow.
That means that the current population of Melksham, via its representatives, is saying "yes, we want to grow as a 'Model A' town too - that's the direction for Melksham. We do NOT want to have jobs / commerce leached from (or drifting from the town), with businesses as they expand being told that they'll have to move to grow".
A conversation between myself (Graham Ellis) and Jim Sherry (Wiltshire Council), standing in a cold caravan that was parked in the Market Place in Melksham on 26th November, clarified the view:
Jim: "But to be a [model A] town, you would need to have the housing and business growth in the same way as Trowbridge and Chippenham - do you really want that?"
Graham: "We already have more housing growth, and yes, the town does want the business too".
My evidence? At that point, we had 2 votes on the Chamber of Commerce's web site poll to back up Jim's recommendation to get Countrywide to move to another town, and over 60 votes against Jim's recommendation - calling instead for Countrywide to be allowed to stay as the employment on their site develops.
A little more detail
Resources
Melksham has a number of great resources and opportunities.
1. Land suitable for further expansion of industrial / employment opportunities as an expansion from the current Bowerhill Industrial Area across to the A350 "Semington Bypass" and further to the old Semington Road and perhaps to the south of Berryfield.
2. Areas to the East and North East of the town suitable for residential development
3. An excellent link (the A350) to the main dual carriageway network; the earthworks / bridges are already in place around Chippenham for a strengthening of this link to the M4 motorway.
4. An area to the North West of the river / South East of the railway line which already includes a wide variety of more affordable homes, industry, and retail, but with land and (re)development potential
5. A railway station and rail infrastructure with land in the local authority's ownership that is on area (4) and is suitable for development into a transport hub, being close to the A350 through which most traffic and public transport passes
6. Additional land above flood level to the North of current development but to the South of Beanacre, taking in the railway and A350 roads and with good connections to them.
7. 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.
Vision
a) A growing Bowerhill Industrial area - allowing some of the innovative companies we already have there to expand and encouraging more into the area. This area has / will have good infrastructure links onto the A350.
b) Growing residential areas as already authorise to the East, with potential further expansion to the North East (already marked as possible), for those who are looking for a suburban lifestyle
c) Mixed development in the area from the river to the station and beyond - closer housing for those who wish for a more urban / less car intensive style of living, with good links to public transport and well within walking and cycling distance of a wide range of shops and other facilities.
d) A wide variety of independent shops and eateries to be encouraged for Melksham town centre, capitalising on the existing businesses that do well and setting Melksham apart from other towns around. With the town centre merging with the mixed development area (c), there is scope for waterside development such as cafes and housing if / as / when land were to become available.
e) A new leisure complex to the south of the A365 / East of A350 - to include multiscreen cinema, sports facilities, drive through, restaurant; facilities to be such as to attract customers from neighbouring towns that lack such facilities, or where such facilities are being outgrown / in need of replacement.
f) An updated public transport integrated network that offers a "carrot" to people to use such a network. Existing bus services that pass through the town would have minor amendments to their routes to take in key developments rather than just having "Melksham" as a calling point on their routes as they pass through. Rail service raised to the level proposed by Wiltshire Council as appropriate (hourly each way) and validated by the Greater Western Route Utilisation Strategy. Rail station / Wiltshire Council land there used as a transport hub; the station is uniquely placed in North/ West Wiltshire as being close to a trunk road as well as the expanding / to expand North Melksham area.
g) Retaining some "green belt" and leisure areas - the potential to build on the land to the south of the A365 and to the west of Mallory Close has been heavily criticised by people I have spoken with, as has the proposal to build houses on a narrow strip of land behind from Snowberry lane leading behind the Spa towards Melksham Oak. The Conigre Mead Nature Reserve should be preserved (though the river alongside may be made navigable), also various other areas such as the King George V area, and the green 'strip' out along the course of the Clacker's brook. These green areas can provide suitable through routes for cyclists
h) Re-arrange parking in Melksham's town centre to encourage daytime "pop in" use and to limit congestion. That means re-arranging current parking fees so that car parks which have an access congestion issue encourage long term parking, and those which are easily accessed yet close to the town centre have a higher turnover
How would that fit into county plans / the wider Wiltshire?
Remarkably well, it would appear. And indeed many of the proposals in the vision above are in the core strategy in detail, even if they are not in the headlines. With the adjustments suggested above, which have the broad support of the members of the Melksham Community who have given this consideration, we'll be moving forward to a vibrant largely self-sustaining community with reduced commuting needs (though both public and private transport improvements will make outward - and inward - commuting much easier). However, with Melksham going forward just maintaining a "status quo", we would be moving towards a town that would stagnate - more empty shop fronts, higher unemployment and less affluence, with all the associated problems that would bring.
A very high (and growing) proportion of Wiltshire's population is on what has become known as the "A350 Corridor" - Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge and Westbury, and these towns are all within a few miles of each other. People require to be able to travel easily between these centres - not just to and from Melksham - and the provision of an appropriate TransWilts train service (Wiltshire Council has already define that as hourly each way) will be significant for Chippenham and Trowbridge too. I noted at the public consultation in Chippenham that that there were public responses calling for improved train services to Trowbridge and Salisbury. From Trowbridge, rail offers the possibility of 18 minutes to the centre of Chippenham, and 32 minutes to Swindon.
Provisional local changes / transport development
Potentially too much detail at this stage, but connecting both within Melksham and to neighboring areas, the following bus routes (changes shown based on existing route numbers) would provide intelligent integration of transport within the community, and linking on to other communities.
Bus Routes
14: Melksham Oak - Hornchurch - Pilot - Village Hall - Christie Miller - Knorre Bremse - Great Bear - Leisure Complex - Kenilworth Road - Town Centre - Avonside - Asda - Station - Leekes - North Melksham - Station - Asda - Avonside - Town Centre (Library) - Methuen Avenue - Pig and Whistle - Savernake - Ingram - Queensway - Snowberry / new housing - Spa - Melksham Oak
234/x34: (From Trowbridge)- Semington - Police Station - Berryfield - Leisure Complex - West End - Town Centre - Avonside - Asda - Station - Leekes - Beanacre - (to Lacock, Notton and Chippenham)
237: (From Seend?) Melksham Oak - Spa - Snowberry - new Housing - Sandridge Road - Queensway - Pembroke Road - Town Centre - Asda - Station - Broughton Gifford - Holt - (to Staverton and Trowbridge)
272/273/x72: (From Bath) - Atworth - Whitley - Shaw - North Melksham - Station - Asda - Avonside - Town Centre - Hospital - Leisure Complex - Bowerhill (Current route) - Melksham Oak - Sells Green - (to Devizes)
Route 237 to operate hourly; all other routes to operate every half hour. Note - these are initial draft frequencies. There is an argument for the 237 to start half hourly, and for extra (fill in) services to increase the other routes / all routes to every 15 minutes. Up to a certain point in public transport provision, if you increas the service you'll get more extra customers PER SERViCE - i.e. double the service, more than double the customers. Study needed, but rule of thumb says a journey of x minutes reaches its optimum usage per service if it runs every x minutes - so a 15 minute journey should run every 15 minutes, but a bus every 30 minutes to Bath, 30 miutes away, is enough provided that the bus has the capacity.
Route 14 may be a circular route or may run in alternate directions. Extra resources needed - one vehicle (route 237 / extension / extra frequency) not budgetted and one vehicle route 14 / can be the Asda / section 106 agreement service. Need to ensure that the 234 and 272 routes run half hourly with interchangable tickets, and NOT 2 buses an hour, 3 minutes apart, non-interchangable as at present. Timing need to connect with trains at station.
Road changes required by buses
These routes would also require the link road from Bowerhill to the A350 to be completed, the link from the station to North Melksham (McDonalds) and a bus gate (but why just limit it to buses?) from Heather Avenue to Dorset Crescent (50m / already tarmaced)
Cycleways
The National Route 4 passes along the Kennet and Avon Canal, and also through Melksham from South to North, but much of the latter is on road. A new route from the town centre South is suggested.
1. Market Square - existing path to King's Street Car Park - back of current car park to old Wilts and Berks Canal line (between Spa Court and West End) - Wilts and Berks Canal line over Waverley Gardens to Longford Road - along to Conway Crestent and via new cut-through connect to existin cycle path / footpath at A365. Existing crossing, then existing public footpath through what will become leisure area to Shail's lane, onward past edge of current playing fields and through fields to Kennet and Avon Canal.
2. Branch from 1. across the Bowerhill Industrial Area to Halifax Road (Bowerhill)
3. From "The Pilot" on Bowerhill via green section along Bowerhill's spine and out to A365 to link up with existing cycle route there, utilising crossing at Wellington Drive.
4. From the A350 / B3107 roundabout (Asda / Countrywide farmers) over the Avon bridge (current path over bridge) the past Melksham Cemetry and using exiting wide footpath to Laburnum Drive. Via Hornbeam Crescent to Semington Road, Cross into Longford Road to join up with (1).
5. From Conway Crescent (Routes 1 and 4). Nwe bridge over brook to existing fotpath behind Burnet Close, link in to Speedwell Close. Follow Speedwell close and then footpatgh out to Spa Road to join existing Sustrans route opposite entrance to "The Spa".
6. From A350/ B3017 junction (route no. 4) beside the A350 to the underpass to the station. Beyond the station through alongside new road to Spencer's Gate and North Melksham to join existing cycle way
7. From King George's Playing fields (Link to riverside walk / town centre/ existing route to Melksham North across the river) along Clacker's brook (existing foot route) out to new Melksham East Developments
Additional Walking Routes
The proposed cycle routes also cater for people using walking as a means of getting from one point to another.
Additional footpaths of note include the Riverside walk (from the Town Bridge to Melksham Cemetry, with a branch into the Churchayard and Church Street. It is not proposed to turn this section of the Riverside Walk into a cycle path.
THE FOLLOWING APPENDIX is background to accompany the submission rather than being a part of the actula submission. It examines elements behind the plans suggested in the core strategy consultation, with a view to ensuring that the inputs / suggestions made are of a practical quality.
A Vision for Wilsthire ...
Where should Wiltshire be going in the next 20 years? What will your home town and your lifestyle be in (say) 2026, or the years leading up to it and thereafter? Is this a place that you'll be proud to live in, or have your children living in? Is it going to be somewhere that's a safe, happy, practical, and environmentally and economically sustainable for everyone?
Wiltshire Council is currently soliciting views under their ""Core Strategy"" consultation so that they can take those views into consideration as the formulate strategic plans leading up to 2026 and beyond. There are bold decisions to be made - and the question "where do we want to be in 2026?" needs to be asked and answered prior to the question "how do we get there?"
Overview
Wiltshire has been described as a "largely rural county" but at the current time, that applies only to the fact that most of the land is not built up, but rather is agricultural or open. The majority of the population lives in towns or the city of Salisbury rather than in villages, hamlets or isolated dwellings, and the majority of the working population and economic wealth is within those towns and cities rather than in the villages and countryside.
However, a disproportionate expense attaches to the village / isolated dwellings; it costs more to provided a bus service five miles to a village of 500 people than it does to server 500 people who live in the next streets in a town to where a bus serves another community, and furthermore the children in the village will need to be provided with transport to school, whereas as an extension of the town they'll simply be able to walk to school. So this urbanisation is not only efficient when it comes to cost, but also when it come to the time, efficiency, sustainability for the people involved.
Under the Regional Spatial Strategy that's already in place, considerable population growth is called for in Wiltshire, and we should be looking at growth of between 15% and 40% in the number of individuals in the County. On current trends (which look set to continue), average household size is reducing and where a typical home may have 2.6 people at present, it will have 2.3 in 20 years. The population is also aging, which means there is a need for a disproportionate growth in services for the elderly - health care, mobility, leisure activities, home support, etc.
Will we have the resources to see us through to 2026 and beyond (and should we be looking beyond)?
1. Even with the additional housing stock implied by the plans being built at low density on what is currently agricultural land, well under 2% of such land would be taken up. In practise, with grouped housing / higher density living in affordable homes, sheltered and cared accommodation, the figure will be considerably lower. However, not all agricultural land is suitable for development, with issues such as flooding, waterlogging, and access to be considered.
2. Fossil fuels and other materials are limited resources; at current rates of use, some resources are set to run out (it is said) within 20 years, whereas other resources will continue to be available into the distant future. Whilst further resources may be found / available / forthcoming, it is prudent to make efficient uses of what resources we have, and to use alternatives which are less limited or are replemished / sustained into the future.
3. The effect of human life on the wide environment is also under consideration - be it in the form of 'global warming', carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, effects on the strathosphere such as the ozone layer. These items may be much argued over - is it indeed the effect of human life and our way of living that's effecting the environment around us, or is it just natural cycles? But once again, it is prudent for us to reduce the effect we have on the wider environment around us - if we damage our environment, it may be permanent - but if we preserve it, the worst we'll be doing is taking some unneeded precautions.
4. Local waste is also an issue - the immediate fouling of the area that we live in, quite apart from the wider area. We're looking at rubbish, clogged roads, overrun services, and once again it does no harm to go forward with a less heavy footprint even though (in the benefit of hindsight) it might not turn out to have been necessary.
To make more use than is really needed of resources that may run out in the future, and in doing so to perhaps produce a negative global and local environmental is hypocritical. To cherish resources, using less resource rather than more, and using something that's more replemishable rather than less, is the only logical and caring way for us to go.
So what does putting this together mean for Wiltshire?
The growth necessary for to support the future population can come in several ways.
a) The extra growth could be allowed to happen ad-hoc, with commercial interests taking he lead and with infrastructure provision following.
b) A new town could be built, with the extra growth being placed there and existing towns continuing on with little change
c) Extra growth could be channelled into the existing towns
Ad-hoc development would lead to a sprawl of communities - a growth of villages and hamlets, of bottlenecks and no-go zones. There's no natural geography in Wiltshire (as perhaps there would be in a land of valleys such as the Norwegian Fjords) which would provide an external influence to channel ad-hoc growth in modern society whereas there was in the past - with towns developing in valley bottoms or at defendable positions.
A new town could be provided in Wiltshire - indeed "West of Swindon" is such a suggestion - but it will cost a great deal to provide complete and new infrastructure not only for a town, but for a substantial town with the facilities to be considered complete. And such a new town, with the corollary of ceasing most moves forward at other towns in the vicinity, could lead to those other towns moving into a slow decline.
Extra growth into existing towns will mean some growing pains, but also some huge opportunities; towns need to be looked at individually to see what suits them best. There are some towns which are currently of a natural size and with a natural character where substantial growth would detract from that balance and character which should be retained ... where current infrastructure is not easily extensible, and local opinion is in favour of the status quo. There are other towns for which growth would be a positive benefit, bringing them to a size where that can have a much more complete range of facilities, and where such growth is welcomed and encouraged from within the town.
There is a natural desire on the part of many people to ask for their own area to be left alone, and for development to carry on elsewhere, and if everyone succeeded with this argument ("NIMBYism") then nothing would get done. But a town that's being left alone will typically going into a quiet decline, and it won't be that the status quo is maintained - it's likely that you'll see a slow degredation of services, and an increase in poverty.
Wiltshire Council's draft strategy
The council's draft strategy calls for substantial growth in Chippenham, Trowbridge, and in an are known as "West of Swindon". (Salisbury and South Wiltshire have their own plan and are outside the scope of the current consultation).
For the next level of town - ranging from Melksham (largest in the group) down to towns with populations of around 4000 to 5000, it calls for a lower level of growth - essentially looking at what the current setup will support, with an expectation that an increasing number of services will need to be accessed from "the big three". These towns are know as the "market towns" in the Wiltshire Council documents
For smaller towns / and villages, the plans are broadly for infill, with many places not mentioned in the plans because nothing will be added, and others mentioned because a pocket of land has been identified within the town / village where extra houses could be built.
New communities / development in hamlets with minimal services / isolated homesteads and small clumps of houses are discouraged by the strategy.
The strategy has much to commend it, and congratulations are due to Wiltshire Council on many areas of the strategy. However, a more detailed looked and further comment needs to be made, and plans amended to take account, in a number of areas.
Areas of Concern
a) Has the correct division been made between the larger towns and the Market Towns? Have the aspirations of the local population been truely considered, and is it right to treat a town of 23,000 in the same [headline] way that you treat one of 4,000, rather than treating it similarly to a town of 28,000? Statements made by staff (and planning recommendations already made by them) from the spatial planning unit conflict with the view of local businesses and population.
b) The individual area plans each need considerable local review. Some appear to have been drawn up in haste (and to be fair, this IS a consultation excercise), with information shown on plans being directly contradicted by Wiltshire Council employees who were on hand at the exhibitions held around the area in November and early December.
c) There is concern that not enough opportunity is being taken to implement the sustainability issues as defined earlier in this document within the plans; although they are being spoken of, that's not followed through as much as it could be to the detail of planning for people to enjoy a high standard of living and services with a practical reduction on the use of resources (including their own time) and production of waste to have such a standard.
Glossary:
"County" -> Unitary Areas
"Towns" -> Towns and City of Salisbury
"Larger Towns" -> Towns that are proposed as major centres - currently Salisbury, Chippenham, Trowbridge and West-of-Swindon
"Market Towns" -> Towns with population of 4,000 to 25,000, proposed for more limited satellite growth
Having cleared my mind with some of those broad brush strokes and asking "where are we going and why?", I have come up with the following which are worthy of detailed review / possible input:
1. Should Melksham be considered / treated as a larger town, or a market town?
2. Where should the planned growth in the Melksham area be placed / where should be ungrown?
3. What infrastructure changes should be made for Melksham
4. How does travel and transport work within, through, between and beyond Wiltshire's settlements?
5. Tourism, culture and leisure
These points are addressed in the main consultation response, to which this in an appendix |
