ON December 3 your newspaper included an article about housing growth figures from Cotswold District Council.

Some statements in the article made by Save Our Cirencester – based on a study it had produced – sought to compare proposed growth at Cirencester with similar-sized market towns in other parts of the country, including Maldon in Essex.

In the same article you kindly included some factual corrections by CDC.

SOC subsequently sought to counter CDC’s factual corrections in your letters page on December 10, and it appears that they have further confused and misinterpreted the facts.

To be absolutely clear, the 62,000 population quoted last week by SOC is, indeed, the figure for Maldon District.

However, that geographical area is the equivalent of Cotswold district (population 84,000), not Cirencester.

The contiguous settlements of Maldon and Heybridge (combined population 22,000) are the equivalent of Cirencester and Stratton (combined population 19,000).

In much the same way that Cirencester is the dominant centre for Cotswold district, Maldon and Heybridge is the dominant centre for Maldon district.

Growth planned for Maldon and Heybridge adds up to 2,830 houses over the 15-year plan period 2014-2029, with 1,600 proposed elsewhere in the rural parts of that district.

It is worth noting that about 64 per cent of Maldon district’s 4,430 housing requirement is planned to take place at Maldon and Heybridge, compared with a Cotswold equivalent of about 44 per cent being planned at Cirencester.

Making simple comparisons between towns in different parts of the country is, actually, irrelevant because it fails to take account of local context and circumstances.

However, if comparisons are going to be attempted, it is important to get the facts right and not seek to compare apples with pears.

CHRIS VICKERY CDC

Forward Planning Manager