On behalf of Save Our Cirencester (SOC), the group opposing the size of the Bathurst Development Limited (BDL) plan, we are annoyed at the remarks of an anonymous CDC spokesman.

In the article, in last week's edition of the Standard – ' housing places unfair burden on our town' which reported our survey of similar sized towns to Cirencester, SOC were accused of only using figures that suited our purpose.

That is not the case and the accusation reflects very badly on CDC.

From our list of 21 towns, the spokesperson takes issue with one set of figures for Maldon in Essex. He or she, then confuses the town itself with the much larger geography of the Maldon district for which 4430 houses are planned and claims that this figure greatly exceeds the allocation for the "strategic site" at Chesterton.

This is a misleading comparison, as the population (62000) of Maldon district is over three times the population of Cirencester town.

The proportion of new housing to population for Maldon district is only 7.1/100 residents compared with Cirencester's 12.3/100 residents and, if you include the new housing built or approved since 2011, Cirencester's burden is a whopping 17.5/100.

These figures and the results of our survey can be made available to anyone who wishes to see them and we will willingly publish them if requested.

SOC cannot stress strongly enough, and it’s important that people know this – Cirencester has been treated shabbily by the allocation of housing in the Cotswolds District, mainly because of the plan to build far too many houses on a huge estate south of Chesterton - a burden which is much greater than other towns.

This has come about because of a woeful lack of strategic thinking by CDC, the grateful seizing of a once in a lifetime opportunity for Earl Bathurst and a missed opportunity to provide housing for the Cotswolds where people would like to live.

PATRICK MOYLAN & DR DAVID JAMES On behalf of Save Our Cirencester