THE Standard recently (April 28) featured an article on the independent research work I did on future housing densities in various towns in the UK, all approximately of the same size as Cirencester (about 20,000 residents).

All the data was drawn from Local Plans being either already written or in preparation and were from government websites. 

In all, 30 towns were selected at random and the data subjected to statistical analysis.

In this objective way Cirencester was shown to be hit the heaviest with two and a half times the national average of new houses per 1000 residents i.e. 17 as opposed to an average of about seven. 

Cotswold District Council’s (CDC) response to this, from an anonymous spokesman, that “there is little point in making comparisons as no one place is identical to any other” is as irrelevant as it is ludicrous. 

The obvious logical reply to CDC is: ‘Why would you want to compare anything with anything if it was identical?’

Making comparisons of like with like has always been the basis for individual choice and indeed for public policy making.

It is even used by residents to choose their local politicians and local councillors. No one said they had to be identical.

In the end it doesn’t matter what CDC say, the residents of this town can see for themselves that with the heaviest burden of new housing of all comparable market towns throughout England we will be the worst off for parking, for public services, for medical care, and for traffic congestion and pollution, unless the size of this burden is considerably reduced. 

Only this will prevent Cirencester sleepwalking into a planning disaster.

DR DAVID J JAMES 
Cirencester