Residents in Bowerhill have launched a campaign against the controversial plans for an ‘enormous’ warehouse development in the area.
Local company, Gompels Healthcare Ltd, has submitted plans to build a warehouse and office space on 5.5 hectares of land south of the A365 Bath Road, west of Turnpike Garage.
Gompels, which has operated in the town since 1967, says the development is vital to its future, following a six-year search for a suitable site. The company states the development would be “the town’s first major investment in 20 years, injecting £40m into the local economy, creating 275 new jobs, and safeguarding 600 more.”
However, many local residents have objected to the plans, launching a campaign displaying ‘Stop Gompels Warehouse Here’ posters on their properties and calling for other sites to be considered for the development. Residents gathered at the site on Saturday 8th March to voice their concerns.
Greenbelt land
Local resident Steph Gee said, “We had a letter suddenly appear through the door. It was very shocking to hear that this enormous warehouse is being built. It feels that this is not the right location for it. It’s not appropriate. It’s an area full of housing, an area full of children, and it’s agricultural, greenbelt land. There’s a perfectly decent area of warehouse space purposely built over in Bowerhill Industrial Estate.”
“The issue I have too is with the claim that ‘these will be jobs for Melksham people.’ How can they guarantee that the people recruited for these jobs are genuinely Melksham residents?” she added.
Cate Gwilliam, who lives 80 metres from the proposed site, said, “Our biggest concern is the impact on the Grade II listed farmhouse that we currently own and care for. The amount of traffic that goes by on the A365, the lorries, and how they shake the house – it causes cracks throughout. It should be built in a similar industrial zone, not in the middle of green fields.”
Unsuitable location
Toby Christman, a former Melksham resident and managing director of a logistics company, expressed concerns about the location of the development. He stated that the site is unsuitable for a logistics business due to its lack of access to a motorway and its proximity to residential areas. He suggested that the warehouse should be located on a proper carriageway, not in a greenbelt area.
Dale Robinson, who has lived on Bowerhill Lane since 1998, said, “As residents, it’s got a huge impact on us. There are other sites that this could go. At Lackham in Chippenham, they are developing a huge site there at the moment; there would be more than enough space for them to position there and that is literally only 15 minutes up the road.
“Wiltshire Council has made no provision for this development and it isn’t included in the Neighbourhood Plan for any additional employment land. The obvious place would have been south of the existing commercial site where Gompels is now. Then you have got the Christie Miller site, which is being used almost as a car park.”
Melksham resident Gary Fossey said, “The proposed development is simply not in the right place and could create a dangerous precedent, if it is approved by the Wiltshire Council Strategic Planning Committee, in terms of future industrial planning applications in areas where they will cause unacceptable harm to the landscape character.”
The application will be decided by Wiltshire Council, but both Melksham Without Parish Council and Melksham Town Council discussed the plans at recent planning meetings.
Melksham Without Parish Council did not object to the planning application but called for several conditions to be met, including more mature planting to screen the development and a graduated colour scheme to reduce visual impact. The parish council also expressed its desire to safeguard jobs. Melksham Town Council also did not object to the application, requesting that conditions be implemented to mitigate the effect on local residents.
Chair of Bowerhill Residents Action Group (BRAG), Mark Blackham, said, “BRAG generally and genuinely remains neutral in issues of planning and development in Bowerhill unless there is some factor that has a negative impact on residents. For example, BRAG has not, and will not, engage with any party to either support or oppose the proposed Melksham Bypass.
“However, the group committee is very conscious that there has been a groundswell of objections to the proposed Gompels Warehouse development, and feels compelled to support the residents in their objection to said development.
“It is plain to see that the development is completely out of context with its surroundings in both scale and character, as well as being planned on agricultural land outside of the town and village boundary. Looking at material considerations that impact the environment and residents, the proposed plan seems to have a negative material impact on a large number of areas including; noise and light pollution, increased traffic, road and pedestrian safety, loss of privacy, loss of light or shading, listed buildings impact, and loss of natural habitat.
“Some members of the group committee were at the Melksham Without Parish Council planning meeting and were saddened that the planning committee failed to debate any material considerations presented to them by the public, nor did they bring forward any of their own using their extensive planning expertise.
“The panel simply decided to vote to hold no objection to the plan, citing that employment, based on some flimsy employment figures from Gompels, outweighs any material considerations.
“It is for these reasons that the BRAG Committee wish to express support for a search for an alternative location for the planned Gompels Warehouse.”
Some residents however, are in favour of the development. In comments on Wiltshire Council’s planning portal, one resident said he ‘fully supports’ the proposals and the long-established Gompels business. He said, “I fully support the development which will provide many jobs to the local community and economy.”
Another resident in support of the development said, “Local businesses need to be supported by the council so that in turn these businesses can support the local communities. Employment being the most obvious benefit. Plenty of residential homes are being built and these families require employment. If the council objects, then this supportive business to the local town will have to relocate, thus prohibiting economic growth to the area.”
Gompels owner, Sam Gompels, said, “This planning application is a game-changer for Melksham’s future. It’s the town’s first major investment in 20 years, injecting £40million into the local economy, creating 275 new jobs, and safeguarding 600 more. With industries like Avon, Dowty, and Spencers long gone, it’s crucial to secure employment for Melksham’s growing population—especially the 150 students who leave Melksham Oak each year looking for work.
“After six years of exhaustive site searches, this is the only viable option. Businesses like Gompels and Knorr Bremse, Herman Miller and Broughtons are bursting at the seams, and if we can’t expand here, we risk losing top talent—like George, a programmer working with Oxford University robotics. Moving to another town isn’t realistic; employees can’t afford the extra commute or childcare costs.
“Yes, not everyone loves the look of a warehouse, but they are essential to everyday life. This one will be discreetly screened with thousands of trees, deliver a 20% biodiversity gain, and meet the highest sustainability standards. It’s carbon-neutral, BREEAM Excellent, and emits no noise, pollution, or odours—far less disruptive than housing development.
“This is exactly the kind of investment that planning policies are designed to support. Let’s secure Melksham’s future with high-quality jobs and sustainable growth.
“If you look at the Home and Communities Government website, it shows that the new site would employ at least 200 people and the vacated Gompels site would employ another 200 people based on the type of business and the area of the site. The 275 new jobs is likely to be an understatement compared to Gompels stagnating on the existing site and stopping further growth.”
Wiltshire Council is due to make a decision on the development by 21st March.
Support Local News
Help us keep your community connected and informed.
Local news is under pressure more than ever. For just £2 a month, you can support independent reporting that shares local stories, investigates the issues that affect you, and keeps residents up to date.
Choose a monthly subscription or a one-off donation. All donations will be reinvested into producing local journalism for Melksham.
Donate Now
As a past resident that visits Melksham rarely these days I am always shocked about the increased building work Bulking up the town to a point that I barely recognise it, what was once fields is now housing estates or new businesses all of which seem to have no soul or in anyway conducive to a better living environment to people living in Melksham in my opinion so I feel compelled to write a reply to this article. You know in my opinion signs to stop Gompels should start popping up in Melksham and along the A365, and they should be everywhere in Melksham so that people understand this travesty coming their way if people don’t stand up and say NO! Mr Gompels NO!. This planned industrial monstrosity is not just a minor inconvenience; it’s a full-scale assault on the countryside, an act of vandalism disguised as ‘progress.’
Let’s be clear: Melksham does not need a monstrous industrial warehouse plonked onto pristine greenbelt land. We are talking about a development that will scar the landscape, disrupt the local ecosystem, and increase traffic congestion to an already busy road—one that happens to have a school on it. Yes, a school. Children, fresh lungs, and HGV fumes do not mix well.
BRAG and other concerned residents have raised every possible objection, from the impact on listed buildings to noise pollution and the destruction of natural habitats. And yet, the promise of jobs—always the dangling carrot—seems to override every other concern. Jobs that, by the way, are not necessarily going to local people, no matter what the developers claim.
Let’s not forget that there are existing industrial sites,, which are far more suited for such a development. But no, why use sensible, purpose-built space when you can carve up the countryside instead?
And then there’s the Avon and Kennet Canal, a stunning waterway enjoyed by walkers, cyclists, and nature lovers alike. Who wants their peaceful afternoon stroll ruined by the sight of a towering, soulless warehouse looming in the distance?
This is not progress. This is greed, plain and simple. If Gompels truly cared about the town and its future, they’d find a way to grow without bulldozing and concreting over the very things that make Melksham special. The council must reject this proposal and protect the countryside before it’s too late.
If you care about Melksham, now is the time to act. Put up a sign, write to the council, make your voice heard. Once the greenbelt is gone, it’s gone for good.
To those that are running the campaign I am here to help track me down on social media.
Rupert Rivett