I UNDERSTAND that there is to be an unsurprising unveiling of the latest wave of development in the Hilperton area removing the previously known Hilperton Gap from existence with an increase of house building. I understand that there is a protest planned outside county hall on Tuesday, no doubt likely to be small in scale considering the development has almost been snuck in and a meeting planned in the week when many are at work.
Please do not draw conclusions from the size of this crowd, that this reflects a lack of protest. If I was not a full-time employee of Wiltshire Council I would also add my face to that protest, as would my wife.
I understand the need for housing, having friends of a similar age who struggle to get on the ladder, but since when is destroying our environment and wildlife needed to meet this need? There are huge areas in the centre of Trowbridge which are ripe for redevelopment and have been for years (Bowyers, and more recently East Wing). I also very much doubt much more than 10 - 15% of these new houses will be “affordable” which will render that argument inert anyway.
I do not feel that our green space/belt should be encroached upon, not because of a “not in my back yard” mentality but because of the needless destruction of the environment for corporate greed and profiteering. What right do we have to destroy the environment of a badger sett that has lived there for 50 years because we can’t afford/be bothered to knock down a disused factory?
I understand that this voice is likely to be ignored, as is the protest, but I would like to see at least consideration to how the core strategy is failing the environment, the redevelopment of brownfield sites and also that great consideration is given to the wildlife that has lived there for years. I also expect involvement of agencies such as The Badger Trust to complete a full assessment of the amount of badgers present in the sett, and the type of badgers. According to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 the best option is to maintain the sett where it is, otherwise a new sett would need to be built elsewhere, relocation of the badgers managed, and gradual rehabilitation into the new site. Surely the expense and time needed to complete this endeavour should place this area at the bottom of the list of possible development areas? (I don’t think there are many badgers at Bowyers Site).
When we do move on to a need for developing greenfield sites, surely greater consideration should be given to areas that don’t have the same impact on wildlife? (The site already earmarked, off the new Leap Gate road).
The sheer numbers of people walking in the fields on a regular basis should indicate that people also use these spaces (unlike the field off Leap Gate). 
From a social perspective building a stronger and more resilient community, alongside getting exercise can only help to reduce the burden on our services, in line with the council’s desire for more preventative rather than reactive public health. This asset-based approach is line with our new social care policies and desire to use community assets to reduce isolation and improve public health.
David & Fiona Wilson
Paxcroft Mead