summary of representations on proposed submission south ... · pdf fileproposed submission...

Summary of Representations on

Proposed Submission South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028

January 2013

(For Submission to the Inspector)

Contents

Page Summary of Representations on Proposed Submission South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 - January 2013 1

Glossary 218

Annex 1: District Housing Provision – amended text and Policies SS4 and SS5 220

Annex 2: Revised Wording of Policy SS3 and Supporting Text 227

Annex 3: Housing Trajectory and Implementation Strategy 235

Annex 4: Balancing Homes and Jobs 239

Annex 5: Contingency and Risk Assessment 240

Annex 6: Additional wording of Policy EQ 3 and rewording of supporting paragraph 12.40 242

Yeovil Inset Map 15 showing land to be removed from Buffer Zone 243

Proposed amendment to Ilminster Direction of Growth (Ilminster Inset Map 7) 244

Inovem Ref Name Ack date

Policies/ Proposals/ Paragraph

Ref

Summary of IssueMajor Change

Required (if yes see separate report)

Minor Change

RequiredReason for and Nature of Change

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 Introduction 1.1- 1.4

Controversial and contentious document which will have massive effect on communities of South Somerset No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 1.1-1.4

Whole plan based on pre-conceived idea without serious or proper consideration given to alternatives. Evidence at times contrived and manipulated and consultation manipulated to suit pre-conceived idea. Elected member for affected area, heritage Champion, professional background with qualifications to comment on all aspects of plan. Object to whole plan - not sound or deliverable and not compliant with European or UK law, regulations or national policy (NPPF).

No No

6701281 P Cameron 06/08/2012 1.5Object - ref to Sustainable Community Strategy and its relationship with the Local Plan. SCS written 6 years ago and only 64 respondents.

No No

4103553

Somerset County Council (SCC)

09/08/2012 1.5 - 1.8 para 1.5 last sentence confusing should be reworded. Footnote on SCS implies 6 themes not 5 No No

1251393

South Petherton Parish Council (B Davolls, Parish Councillor)

09/08/2012 1.9

Objects. Front loading process and proposals in Draft Plan worked well. However SSDC swept this process aside and increased housing provision on the basis of a few representations from landowners without further reference to the Parish Council.

No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 1.9

People represented not NIMBYS, scale of proposal too large given recent ONS figures, consultation stage on 6 options favoured NW, eco town bid was on premise of Southern option, developer interest in land to south, Summerhouse Village as phase 1 of eco town only sensible if urban extension is to south so direction clearly already determined. Should have necklace of sites around Yeovil particularly on southern side near Bunford employment or north near Primrose Lane, regeneration also important. Members should not have Local Plan on agenda before considering NPPF.

No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 1.9

Object. SSDC have ignored earlier front loading Town and Parish Council engagement and increased numbers at South Petherton without further reference to PC or public.

No No

1 Introduction

Summary of Representations on Proposed Submission South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 - January 2013 (For Submission to the Inspector)

Page 1 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 1.11Object. Increased figures for South Petherton not legally compliant. Members have been misled regarding response to draft Plan.

No No


Object. Increased figures for South Petherton not legally compliant. Members have been misled regarding response to draft Plan.

No No

4616897 P Benham 10/08/2012 1.12-1.17 No recognition in document of need to preserve agricultural land for food production. No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 1.12-1.18

SA is inadequate and constraints not properly identified. Baseline data not properly collected. Presumptions taken forward into plan. Insufficient criteria used in making SA assessments, weight not properly accorded to different elements. Parts of SCS ignored e.g food strategies and agricultural land

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 1.13 - 1.17Objects. Sustainability Appraisal is incomplete. Little attention paid to natural environment, failed to identify merits of using existing rivers as potential transport routes.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 1.16

Agree principle of delivering sufficient jobs & homes whilst conserving the natural & built environment and addressing climate change. Problems occur over definitions of what might be sufficient in existing & foreseen economic conditions

No No

6758433 K Pritchard 24/07/2012 1.16

Challenges the statement "minimising the need to travel". This should instead read "minimising travel by non-sustainable means". In modern communities it would be possible not to travel - to use a roving library, paying for council tax online, meeting with friends via skype, and only venturing out for essential needs - this is not a healthy attitude. What should be encouraged is development that enables movement sustainably - investment in rail / electric car charge points etc. Phrase can be interpreted as discouraging the community from integrating with neighbours.

No No

7067425Hammonds Yates Ltd, Agent M Orr

13/08/2012 1.17 The Sustainability Appraisal is flawed. The scoring of various topic areas does not withstand testing No No

1 IntroductionPage 2 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 SD1, 1.18 Object. Localism agenda not observed. Delivery and implementation should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 SD1 Support No No

1403585Hopkins, Agent M Kendrick

13/08/2012 SD1 Requirements of NPPF - policy context laid out; no comments specific to plan. No No

1540481 Transition Langport 13/08/2012 SD1

Plan does not respond to challenges of developing a low carbon generating local sustainable community. Should include adequate health services for population needs. Promoting health lifestyles inc. walking, cycling, canoeing and possible "Green Gym". Promoting community areas for family activities. Consideration of "low carbon death" e.g. green burial site.

No No

1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 SD1

Inbalance in provision of small 1 or 2 bed houses need more family homes, suggest large proportion of homes can be met by infilling. The nuclear nature of the earlier town should influence the choice of sites.

No No

4310881

Redrow Homes South West (Agent G Williams Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners)

13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic

Objectives & Vision,

SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

SD1 - support. Strategic Objectives & Vision - support. SS1 - support the fact that Yeovil is the main focus for growth however, rate of completions envisaged at SUE is over optimistic, other sources needed to fill the gap e.g. from Market Towns.

No No

4315809

Abbey Manor Group (submitted by Boyer Planning)

14/08/2012 SD1Seeks reference to viability in general presumption to develop policy. Obligations and requirements in the plan e.g. for housing mix will serve to make schemes less viable.

No No

5813729

Perrin Construction Ltd, Agent J Terry

13/08/2012 SD1

Based on the model policy set out by Planning Inspectorate but it is not clear why SSDC have watered down that policy & it is questionable if it is legally compliant. In particular with regard to working with applicants.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6701281 P Cameron 06/08/2012 SD1

In current climate of uncertain environment the wilful destruction of best agricultural land foolish/criminal. Should ensure future generations have the means to live. Plan founded on unsound understanding of the publics requirements.

No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 SD1, 1.18 Object. Localism agenda not observed. Delivery and

implementation should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

7066529

Gleeson Developments (Agent Jackson)

13/08/2012 SD1 Requirement to comply with the NPPF No No

7284289

East Coker Preservation Trust (Agent R Burgess)

10/08/2012 SD1 Support in principle, but fails to comply with concept of SD and NPPF. YUE in conflict with it. No No

7329185

J T Cullen, Agent K Price Brooke Smith

10/08/2012 SD1

This will rightly encourage new development to be situated in sustainable locations. Support the intention that applications that accord with the Local Plan will be approved without delay as this will enhance developer's confidence and lead to an increase in schemes being implemented.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 1.22

Errors of fact and assumption in evidence base, methodology of assessment not accurate despite repeated pointing out. Process disingenuous. E.g, location of SUE and alternatives not the distances stated, have not been corrected and been relied upon. Reports are out of date and too much emphasis on aspirations. Reliance on rapid return to high levels of economic growth and high growth rates which are not justified. Also relies on massive investment in non car travel which is not included in the infrastructure plan.

No No

1284353Bull (Environment Agency)

13/08/2012 Figure 2 No reference to Somerset's Waste Plan No No

4103553


09/08/2012 Figure 2 Should include other SCC policy documents in the list No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 1.24Lack of importance attached to NPPF and neighbourhood plans under Localism Bill, lack of community involvement of plan so doesn't follow NPPF.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7066529

Gleeson Developments (Agent M Jackson)

13/08/2012 1.24 Duty to cooperate not referred to No No

7066529


13/08/2012 1.24 Govt recognises greenfield development can be sustainable. Strategic greenfield sites should be appraised. No No

4308001

Dorset County Council, Ms G Smith

13/03/2012 1.27

Duty to cooperate, concerns with potential implications that the SUE has for infrastructure. County Council seeks assurance that there will be on-going involvement with the development of any masterplan & any other proposal close to the Dorset border.

No No

4308001


13/03/2012 1.27

Implications of the proposed level of growth in Yeovil on local infrastructure. Yeovil TTWA extends well into North and West Dorset and the possibility it could exacerbate already high levels of in-commuting has not been addressed. No consideration of the proposed level of growth at Sherborne.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 05/08/2012 1.30Objects. SSDC have demonstrated that they are not committed to Neighbourhood Plans - prevented East Coker from starting the process.

No No

6758433 K Pritchard 24/07/2012 Next Steps

Interested to know how children are being consulted - have the schools been visited by SSDC representatives/ notices placed in youth centres/local youth services promoted an input?

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1205057 D Keen 20/07/2012 Spatial Portrait Census shows higher level than quoted in the plan No Yes

Replace South Somerset District has a population of "159,700" with '161,300' with footnote to identify 2011 Census as the source.

7016321Paull & Co, Agent Ms C Phillips

13/08/2012 2.1 General support for spatial portrait, however there are opportunities to deliver growth much needed in rural areas No No

7042273

Summerfield Homes, Agent Ms C Phillips

13/08/2012 2.1 Agree with the Spatial Portrait for the District No No

7043297

Persimmon Homes, Agent Ms C Phillips

13/08/2012 2.1 Agree with the Spatial Portrait for the District No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 2.4

Unrealistic to expect half the growth to occur during plan period to that of the previous plan period. Yet this plan expects the number of jobs to increase by 9,200. There is a lack of investment in new business and many employment sites are undeveloped.

No No

4616897 P Benham 09/08/2012 2.11 - 2.13

Farming is a key industry in the District - likely impact of food security crisis in the future. All agricultural land should be protected and any current development proposals revised.

No No

1402209

South West HARP Planning Consortium, Agent J Sullivan Tetlow King Planning

13/08/2012 2.14Should add reference to the need to deliver increased care and accommodation for older people, given the ageing population.

No No

1402209


13/08/2012 2.14 Ageing population needs to be acknowledged No No

4103553


09/08/2012 2.19 - 2.22Suggest add comment re current walking and cycling patterns in Spatial Portrait given importance placed on these later in Plan

No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 2.21

Object - the plan admits that the District is geographically dispersed, therefore the car will be the dominant form of transport over the plan period. Object to the fact that the Plan does not take this into account.

No No

2 Spatial Portrait of South SomersetPage 6 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 2.22 more Carbon friendly should read either "more environmentally friendly or "lower carbon" No No

4103553


09/08/2012 2.22 Suggest don't put congestion and carbon friendly transport modes within same paragraph as two separate things No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 2.22

Object - Plan admits that there is a heavy reliance on car journeys and it will be a challenge to move to more carbon friendly modes of transport. This does not conform with the NPPF which states in paras 173 & 183 that a Plan should be deliverable. If the Plan cannot deliver more carbon friendly modes of transport then it is undeliverable, therefore object.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 2.23-2.26

Object - Yeovil SUE will affect the health and well being of the residents of East Coker. The SA does not assess the impact of the SUE on East Coker such as the village store and primary school. As the SUE will have its own shops and schools there will be a negative impact.

No No


13/08/2012

Spatial Portrait - Environmental Quality

Water quality and surface water drainage/flood risk are not sufficiently developed, only refers to air quality No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 2.27 Object - Yeovil SUE - Plan SA does not fully assess the impact on the Dorset AONB. No No

1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 2.30 Support No No

2 Spatial Portrait of South SomersetPage 7 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 3.1

Strategic Objectives and Vision fails to include any reference to South Somerset's cultural and heritage assets, suggesting the vision has not been tested against NPPF and Policy SD1 that require equal weight to social, economic and environmental issues.

No Yes

Add reference to the historic environment to the Vision in para 2: “There will be continued protection of distinctive historic, urban and rural environments.”


13/08/2012 3.1

Generally agree with the strategic objectives. However believe there should be reference to a need for a step change in the delivery of new housing, identifying the most suitable sites to deliver housing.

No No

7042273


13/08/2012 3.1 Support spatial vision for SS No No

7043297


13/08/2012 3.1 Support spatial vision for SS No No

7257313

Donne Holdings & Somerset CC (Agent J McMurdo Bell Cornwell)

14/08/2012 3.1 and Vision

Support overall tone, but delivery depends on public subsidy as development will not just happen. Must be viable, clients site could deliver approx 200 houses, 3 ha employment land, new link road and new school

No No

1402209


13/08/2012 3.4 Amend strategic objective to enhance the role of older person care and accommodation. No No

1402209


13/08/2012 3.4 Justified to include objective to enhance role of older people care & accommodation No No

3 Strategic Objectives and VisionPage 8 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 3.4

Object - Yeovil SUE is in direct conflict with Strategic Objective 9. The SUE will destroy the natural environment, reduce biodiversity, reduce distinctiveness of adjacent settlements (East Coker) and increase risk of flooding (Barwick and Stoford).

No No

7042273


13/08/2012 3.4

Generally agree with strategic objectives, however should reference to a need for a step change in the delivery of housing specifically identifying the most suitable sites to deliver housing in the short term

No No

7043297


13/08/2012 3.4

Generally agree with strategic objectives, however should reference to a need for a step change in the delivery of housing specifically identifying the most suitable sites to deliver housing in the short term

No No

7085985

Yeovil Agricultural Society (Battens)

10/08/2012 3.4 Support Strategic objectives of the plan No No

7085985



7086113Messrs P & J Yeatman (Battens)


7086241

Trustees WH Batten 73 Discretionary Settlement (Battens solicitors)


7130561

Barratt Developments (Agent S Fitton)

14/08/2012 3.4

NPPF requires succinct Local Plans. Consider Local Plan Vision over 2 pages long, could be more concise. Advises growth will provide 'better housing'. Not clear what constitutes 'better' or how it can be quantified. NPPF requires plans proactively support & drive housing delivery. Suggest replace 'better housing' with 'additional housing'.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7401761

Mactaggart & Mickel (Agent J Edwards Colliers International)

13/08/2012 3.4

General thrust of objectives reasonable plan must be shown to deliver development which puts confidence in plan-making and decision making as reflected in para 154 of NPPF. Suggest a new first objective re: clear, robust deliverable plan in a timely way (text provided). Suggest Vision amended to state "The significant growth planned for Chard will have been delivered throughout the plan period. It will......"

No No

1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 3.4 (9) Propose change to include historic environment. No Yes Add 'historic environment' after "natural

environment" in strategic objective 9.

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 Strategic Objectives

Objective 2 only refers to physical health. Mental health is an issue. Physical exercise helps but so do community facilities. Increased density and reduced community provision does not deliver mental health benefits.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012Vision

(between 3.4-3.5)

Should transport be considered explicitly here? No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 Vision for 2028

Objects. Vision contradicts reality of the damage that will be caused to the environment. Especially introductory claims in 1.7 to 1.14 and especially 1.15 re: evidence to show how benefits outweigh adverse impacts.

No No

4616897 P Benham 08/08/2012 Vision for 2028

Objects. Vision is a "dream essay". Population growth must be discouraged we are already beyond the point of a sustainable balance to the natural environment. Council too close to developers.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012Strategic Vision for

2028

Objects to the Strategic Vision on the basis that the Garden City principles are only being applied to the Yeovil SUE and not the town as a whole.

No No


2028

Objects on the basis that incorrect assumptions on climate change are made. Assumption are based on DEFRA 2009 Climate Projections - these do not take account of the extreme seasons experienced in the UK since 2009 in particular the cold winters of the past 3 years and wet summer this year. Extreme weather should be mitigated against.

No No


2028

Objects to Yeovil SUE on the basis that it is in direct conflict with the Vision in particular the statement "South Somerset will have retained a viable agricultural base……food miles." Yeovil SUE will destroy many hectares of Grade 1 agricultural land. This should be retained for the Vision to succeed.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7284289


10/08/2012 Vision for 2028

No objection to a YUE if it is required in the plan period. However not persuaded there is a meaningful degree of job self sufficiency, it will follow principles of garden cities (unlikely to be possible)

No No

7329185


VisionThe Vision is generally supported but it is important to emphasise the importance of responding to market forces, providing new homes that are wanted by local people.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


10/08/2012 4.1Objects. No evidence to support limited growth in Stoke-sub-Hamdon - other settlements have constraints but have not been treated equally. Not mentioned in SA.

No No


Objects. No evidence to support limited growth in Stoke-sub-Hamdon - other settlements have constraints but have not been treated equally. Not mentioned in SA.

No No

7257313


14/08/2012 4.1Support strategy & hierarchy, but in absence of evidence, more housing and employment land should be allocated at towns like Castle Cary

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 4.2 - 4.4

Objects. 4.2 should include existing waterways as artery service routes. 4.3 should include floating transport systems - River Yeo as additional necessary infrastructure. 4.4 SA has excluded rivers on premise of flood risk instead of enhancing transport and recreational potential.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 4.3 The word "all" in this sentence covers a lot - reword No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 4.5 and 4.8

Plan started with presumption that urban extension is required and that half of the district's strategic housing requirement should be allocated to Yeovil. These presumptions never been subject to proper Sustainability Appraisal or SEA, out of date and should not be used to form whole Plan. Evidence contrived or ignored to fit presumptions and preconceived ideas. Other councillors support views expressed

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 4.8 Objects. Growth does not reflect community aspirations. No No

4 Settlement StrategyPage 12 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 4.9 What is "sustainable transport potential" - too vague. No No

6835681R Cobden, Agent D Evans

06/08/2012 4.13 Amend to read "to meet housing need". No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 4.18/SS1Reliance on settlement strategy not taken into account proximity to Sherborne of Travel to Work areas including Sherborne and West Dorset and West Wilts.

No No

1251393


10/08/2012 4.27

Object. No evidence supplied to substantiate "Rural centres…have particular restraints to growth". Report to committee Re: South Petherton raises issues- implies growth being allowed despite concerns over road constraints at several locations. Highways have voiced concerns over South Petherton. SA makes it clear South Petherton that may suffer potentially significant adverse environmental effects. But more sustainable Stoke-sub-Hamdon have reduced levels of housing. Inconsistent approach. Allocating 2.0ha employment land to all centres without concerns over constraints inconsistent

No No


Object. No evidence supplied to substantiate "Rural centres…have particular restraints to growth". Report to committee Re: South Petherton raises issues- implies growth being allowed despite concerns over road constraints at several locations. Highways have voiced concerns over South Petherton. SA makes it clear South Petherton that may suffer potentially significant adverse environmental effects. But more sustainable Stoke-sub-Hamdon have reduced levels of housing. Inconsistent approach.

No No

7016673

Church Commissioners for England, J Loxton (B Simpson agent)

10/08/2012 4.28Object to presumption against development in rural areas - ambiguous and unhelpful in planning and delivering growth in such areas

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7016673


13/03/2012 4.28 Object to the stated presumption against development in paragraph 4.28 No No

6823361Mr & Mrs P Smith, Agent Mr R Edge

03/08/2012

4.9, 4.58, 4.101, 7.47, Policy SS1, SS3, SS5.

SS1 and SS3 are too weak - should improve and extend local services and economic activity. Should be scope for greater mixed used development.

No No

1202881Huish Episcopi PC (Nicholas)

06/08/2012 SS1 Langport/Huish Episcopi should be identified as a Rural Centre. No No


13/08/2012 SS1 Agree settlement strategy No No

1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 SS1 Support settlement hierarchy No No

4103457 Greenslade Taylor Hunt 09/08/2012 SS1

Support Yeovil SUE and Market DOGs, but think that Rural Centres should also have DOGs to give the public some indication of the areas where development could take place.

No No

4122433 B Hartley SS1

There is a disconnect between the district wide requirement for housing, distribution of housing, jobs and employment land. E.g. 50 dwellings at Stoke sub Hamdon would mean a 1% decline in population given reducing household size, but allocates 2 ha of employment land with 70 jobs which will not grow the community. The plan is not flexible as it limits employment development outside Yeovil to establish the urban extension. Jobs, population increase and employment allocations are not consistent or based on a methodological approach.

No No

4213697K Duffield (c/o Boon Brown)

13/08/2012 SS1 Support designation of South Petherton as a Rural Centre. No No

4288321

Bath & Wells Diocesan Board, Agent R Hull

10/08/2012 SS1Support Langport/Huish Episcopi as a Rural Centre. However consider a Village designation as per Structure Plan STR3 should be included

No No

4288321


10/08/2012 SS1 10 of the larger villages should also be Rural Centres No No




Ref



Minor Change


4308737Pradera UK (Agent Keywood)

10/08/2012 SS1 Support No No

4308833

Taylor Wimpey (Exeter), Agent H Sedman (Origin3)

18/07/2012 SS1

Templecombe should be a Rural Centre based upon its level of employment and facilities. Inadequate to rely on historic evidence of Local Plan Inspector's report at Templecombe and not elsewhere in the District. The impending planning application at Slades Hill will provide additional housing, employment and community facilities.

No No

4315585

Mead Realisations Ltd (Agent J Board Man: Origin3)

SS1Objects - fails to recognise Templecombe as Rural Centre - not consistent with evidence base, consultation document inconsistent and unjustified.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 SS1

Support the designation of Yeovil as a Strategically Significant Town, but the scale of growth at the town is insufficient and should reflect the RSS proportion, and should be delivered through additional urban extensions to the south west and north east of the town.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 SS1

Accepted Yeovil is of major economic significance, however high grade agricultural land in important. Building higher density on allocated land & re-use of industrial land, will mean no requirement to building on greenfield sites.

No No

4322625 P J Burrows 13/08/2012 SS1

The focus of most new development at Yeovil is unsound as the growth of home working renders this unnecessary; the change in working practices of the aerospace industry means that there is unlikely to be a significant increase in employees; additional housing will not improve retail; rural communities would benefit from more development.

No No

5411105

David Wilson Homes, Agent Mr A Penna

13/03/2012 SS1The strategy as proposed is flawed. Difference in approach/status of Stoke Sub Hamdon to other Rural Centres. Stoke Sub Hamdon should be downgraded

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS1 Object No No

5543585Highway Agency (A Roberts)

13/08/2012 SS1 Support the focus of growth at key locations and promote self containment No No

6762945 J Adams 16/07/2012 SS1 Forton should have a Development Area as it is a sustainable settlement near Chard. No No

6835681R Cobden, Agent Mr D Evans

06/08/2012 SS1Housing in Rural Centres should not be restricted only to affordable housing- policy states to meet local housing need.

No No




Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 SS1 Support designation of Martock No No

7016673


13/03/2012 SS1 Support the hierarchy No No

7016673


13/03/2012 SS1

Object to the proposed treatment of rural settlements as part of the countryside. This does not reflect the need for organic growth & will choke off much needed growth in rural communities. Should have development boundaries for each settlement

No No

7017473Lloyd Family, Agent Ms C Phillips

13/03/2012 SS1 Support the designation of Langport/Huish Episcopi No No

7018337

Seaton Automotive, Agent S Travers Boon Brown Planning

13/03/2012 SS1Development areas are out of date and bear no resemblance to the current form. Development area should be reviewed.

No No

7033761

Probiotics International Ltd (Lewis), Agent M Frost Boon Brown

10/08/2012 SS1Fully support South Petherton being a Rural Centre given its range of services and facilities, the existing Local Plan, and evidence in the Settlement Role and Function study.

No No

7042273


13/08/2012 SS1 Support designation of Chard, Crewkerne and Sparkford No No

7043297


13/08/2012 SS1 Support designation of South Petherton No No




Ref



Minor Change


7044449

East Chard Development Area Consortium (Agent Hunter Page Planning)

13/08/2012 SS1 SS1- support identification of Chard as a Primary Market Town. No No

7044449


13/08/2012 SS1 Support Chard status No No

7071809

W & R Frankpitt (Agent S Gitsham GTH)

10/08/2012 SS1 Support Martock as Rural Centre No No

7080353Lift West Ltd, Agent: Boon Brown)

13/08/2012 SS1Fully support South Petherton being a Rural Centre given its range of services and facilities, the existing Local Plan, and evidence in the Settlement Role and Function study.

No No

7085985


10/08/2012 SS1 Support settlement strategy No No


10/08/2012 SS1 Support settlement strategy No No

7130561


14/08/2012 SS1Broadly support settlement hierarchy. Concern at split of Market Towns. Justification underpinning this decision unclear. Inconsistent approach

No No

7222785

Mr & Mrs A Noel and Charles Bishop (Agent M Dobson Pegasus)

13/0/2012 SS1

Settlement strategy broadly supported particularly emphasis on Yeovil. Note hierarchy based on SCS with Yeovil as Prime economic driver. However, believe strategy should balance housing and employment more closely. Believe could increase Yeovil focus more and have smaller balance of housing at PMT and LMTs. Chard has landownership problems which should be reflected in growth within plan period and beyond. Support distinction between PMT and LMTs

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7257313


14/08/2012 SS1

Do not agree with split of market towns into primary and local and difference in growth between them. This doesn't reflect AMR. Castle Cary should be equal in status to Ilminster.

No No

7329185


SS1Support Yeovil being identified as the primary focus for development. It is considered that the SUE will strengthen the viability and vitality of the town.

No No

5743009Greenslade Taylor Hunt (A Preston)

07/08/2012 SS1 & SS2

Objects. Settlement Strategy is unsound, no guidance on how development will be delivered in Rural Settlements. Likely to result in a "first past the post" approach putting local communities in a catch 22 position. Likely to lead to a plethora of appeals and or/ legal challenges. Lack of defined development boundaries for Rural Settlements will cause uncertainty and confusion for the public. Neighbourhood Plans will take time to prepare. Approach likely to stifle smaller developments, particularly small infill plots - takes away opportunities for small builders harming economic development. Viability likely to become more of an issue particularly with CIL coming in. Should introduce another tier in SS1 "Other Sustainable Settlements". SS2 should be redrafted to facilitate further development outside the retained settlement limits.

No No

5975873

Messrs A J & P C Jotcham c/o A Preston

07/08/2012 SS1, SS3 & SS5

Support SS1 - identification of Langport /Huish Episcopi as a Local Market Town. Support SS3 - additional 3.44 ha of employment land Langport /Huish Episcopi. Support SS5 - additional 400 houses Langport /Huish Episcopi. Support principle of strategic growth to the south east but object to it being for employment use only - considered suitable for housing or mixed use. Employment use may not prove deliverable or viable. Mixed use would be more sustainable. Area identified in to the south east has only limited potential for growth - Conservation Area, St Mary's Church, potential flooding and impact on Bewick Swans. Propose an alternative or additional growth option to the south east comprising land at Ducks Hill Field on north side of A372 - considered to be suitable, available and viable.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6906145 J Willy c/o A Preston 07/08/2012 SS1 & SS5

Supports SS1 - identification of South Petherton as a Rural Centre but propose it should be a Local Market Town - consider that it fulfils the criteria to such. SS5 - support the additional 245 houses. Concerned that there is no guidance on where or how development will be delivered. Likely to result in a "first past the post" approach putting local communities in a catch 22 position. Likely to lead to a plethora of appeals and or/ legal challenges. Neighbourhood Plans will take too long to prepare to be of use. Propose that have DOGs or an allocations DPD for Rural Centres. Objector land should be considered capable of accommodating 94 dwellings & up to 2 ha of employment land and community infrastructure.

No No

6960097 C Buzzard 13/08/2012 SS1 - 5 Delete all reference to Barwick and East Coker and allocate at the soon to be vacated Yeovilton Air Base No No

4103553


09/08/2012 4.33 Word "all" covers a lot - consider rewording No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 4.35

Objects to whole para as SSDC have not entered into meaningful consultation over the Yeovil SUE with the residents to East Coker, Barwick and Stoford. The minimum legal requirement has occurred but SSDC have not listened to the hundreds of objection against the SUE. These rural settlements will be joined to Yeovil if the extension goes ahead.

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 4.36

Object. Has the potential to clash with localism. Each community would need to be in agreement otherwise control is lost by the host community - potential to undermine local control. Should be removed.

No No


Object. Has the potential to clash with localism. Each community would need to be in agreement otherwise control is lost by the host community - potential to undermine local control. Should be removed.

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 4.44

Objects. Statement too broad - offers no protection against unsustainable development. No definition of what may be regarded as a cluster of settlements. Has the potential to undermine the more protective policies for development in the open countryside.

No No




Ref



Minor Change



Objects. Statement too broad - offers no protection against unsustainable development. No definition of what may be regarded as a cluster of settlements. Has the potential to undermine the more protective policies for development in the open countryside.

No No

4322625 P J Burrows 13/08/2012 4.45

Para 4.45 states the NPPF states that housing in rural areas should not be located in places distant from local services - this is incorrect. Last sentence of SS2 should be deleted to allow more development in rural areas.

No Yes

Amend supporting text (para 4.45) to reflect final NPPF rather than the draft. Replace 2nd sentence of para 4.45 with "The NPPF states to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities".

1251393


09/08/2012 SS2

Object. SA figure 6.1 calls for protection of best quality agricultural land this should be added to all development policies. Policy does not protect development in the countryside when combined with targets in SS3 - contrary to NPPF. Policy should be revised to ensure only small-scale start up expansion opportunities are allowed. Limits on scale should be included to avoid accumulative and disproportionate growth.

No No

1280257

Waite Chartered Surveyors (M) Waite

31/07/2012 SS2

Object - policy does not make adequate provision for future residential growth in villages such as East Coker. Policy is too restrictive, as only allows affordable housing to be developed in Rural Settlements.

No No

1402209


13/08/2012 SS2Broadly welcome an innovative approach to delivering affordable housing in rural settlements, however would prefer a rural exceptions policy.

No No

1402209


13/08/2012 SS2

A separate rural exceptions policy should be added to provide clarity on the Council's position on schemes outside development limits; allow the policy to be applied to Rural Centres as well as Rural Settlements; provide guidance on whether it should remain affordable in perpetuity; set out level of general housing appropriate; provide a policy for more detail in an Affordable Housing SPD, such as use of the cascade principle for the allocation of housing to local people.

No No

1536321 Combe St Nicholas PC 10/08/2012 SS2 Support policy SS2 No No




Ref



Minor Change



Not consistent with the NPPF and need to indicate positive and active support in promoting rural enterprise, sustainability and retention and development of local services and facilities in a village or cluster of villages. There has not been proper engagement with local communities in drafting this policy.

No No

4122433 B Hartley SS2 Need to maintain the provision for rural exception sites to be consistent with the NPPF. No No

4288321


10/08/2012 SS2

Too little emphasis on the importance of allowing development in rural settlements. Believe approach to development is too rigid and inflexible. Assumption of affordable housing only very restrictive and no exceptions for individual houses for someone needing to live close to their work (i.e new vicarage)

No No

4308833


18/07/2012 SS2

Guidance on the acceptability of development size is inadequate and unsustainable. There should be more flexibility to allow development on a settlement by settlement basis depending on services and local needs.

No No

4315585

Mead Realisations Ltd (Agent J Board Man: Origin3)

SS2 Objects - wording is inadequate and unsustainable in terms of housing development sizes and suitability. No No

4315809


14/08/2012 SS2Support this policy, but there is an over reliance on the need to secure local support for otherwise acceptable development.

No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 SS2Coker ward is rural with numerous heritage sites and buildings and impact of single SUE is missed. Affordability would be harmed by CIL if set too high at £150 as proposed.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 SS2 Accepted as reasonable No No

5411105


13/03/2012 SS2

Welcome wording of Policy SS2, however object to the supporting text. One conflicts with the other. Wording of supporting text needs to be amended to clarify the intentions of the policy

No No




Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS2

Object and recommend alternative wording supporting growth in rural areas, including clustering of settlements and to ensure proposals are in keeping with community led plans and supported by the community

No No


13/08/2012 SS2 Support provision of local needs of appropriate scale No No

6701281 P Cameron 18/07/2012 SS2

Sparkford and Queen Camel should be considered as one rural centre and in order to support their services, more housing is required in that area. Policy SS2 seeks to restrict growth unless needed for rural settlements, except for East Coker which will be coerced into becoming a suburb of Yeovil.

No No

6760609 A Handcock 25/07/2012 SS2SS2 should read "wholeheartedly supports proposals and commits to the subsequent provision of community, education and faith facilities."

No No

6775297

Yeovil Labour Constituency Party

30/07/2012

SS3, SS5, PMT3, YV2, EP11, SS2, HG4,HG5 HG6, YV5

Object that the plan does not show any commitment to low cost housing across the district that would support villages. No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 SS2

Object. SA figure 6.1 calls for protection of best quality agricultural land this should be added to all development policies. Policy does not protect development in the countryside when combined with targets in SS3 - contrary to NPPF. Policy should be revised to ensure only small-scale start up expansion opportunities are allowed. Limits on scale should be included to avoid accumulative and disproportionate growth.

No No

6902625 R & H Stephens 02/08/2012 SS2 Support No No

6902625 R & H Stephens 06/08/2012 SS2 Support SS2 No No

6929825

T Sienkiewicz, Agent J Smith

14/08/2012 SS2

Too widely drafted and will not effectively protect the countryside. Not in line with NPPF. Against policies designed to protect countryside (employment), not all B1, B2 and B8 appropriate in rural settlements.

No No

6947297 P Lines 10/08/2012 SS2 Support policy SS2 No No6959681 Rimpton PC 10/08/2012 SS2 Fully support No No




Ref



Minor Change


7016673


13/03/2012 SS2 Object to the wording of SS2 which will restrict growth at a large number of settlements across the district No No

7042273


13/08/2012 SS2 Support the objective of this policy No No

7042273


13/08/2012 SS2Consider that the Local Plan should allow for development in rural locations where it may not be consistent with general strategy but there are exceptional circumstances

No No


13/08/2012 SS2There is no difference between rural centres and Yeovil. A wider strategic vision and more evenly distributed spatial growth

No No

7079681 D & G MacDonald 10/08/2012 SS2 Support Policy SS2 in relation to Combe St Nicholas No No

7284289


10/08/2012 SS2 Not compliant with NPPF. Is not positive enough with regard to need to foster rural communities No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 4.52

Plan gives prominence to a single urban extension, more dispersed growth hasn't been seriously analysed - been overly simplistic and not tested other outcomes sufficiently - preconceived agenda. Rural settlements sustainability not properly thought through and is discouraged by policies of the plan and impact on other areas of Yeovil not considered.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 4.52

Ignored strong work and travel to work patterns with Sherborne and treat Yeovil in isolation. There is evidence of migration from West Dorset to South Somerset. Will patterns change?

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 4.53

Objects. Working on past economic performance is flawed. SSDC has continually allowed businesses to grow in rural areas. Para needs honing to direct development only to those areas with an established need on an appropriate scale.

No Yes

Amend para 4.53 to clarify that the methodology for projecting the district-wide scale of jobs growth is not based on past performance, but on the growth scenarios undertaken by Baker Associates (and amended by SSDC). Also amend para 4.53 to clarify that the methodology for distributing jobs across the settlement hierarchy is based on past economic performance. Cross refer to Policy SS2 in para 4.58 to explain that jobs growth in Rural Settlements will be in the context of Policy SS2 (increasing sustainability of Rural Settlements) rather than in the open countryside. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.


Objects. Working on past economic performance is flawed. SSDC has continually allowed businesses to grow in rural areas. Para need honing to direct development only to those areas with an established need on an appropriate scale.

No Yes

Amend para 4.53 to clarify that the methodology for projecting the district-wide scale of jobs growth is not based on past performance, but on the growth scenarios undertaken by Baker Associates (and amended by SSDC). Also amend para 4.53 to clarify that the methodology for distributing jobs across the settlement hierarchy is based on past economic performance. Cross refer to Policy SS2 in para 4.58 to explain that jobs growth in Rural Settlements will be in the context of Policy SS2 (increasing sustainability of Rural Settlements) rather than in the open countryside. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.

7033761


10/08/2012 4.53Agree that the approach to job distribution should be derived from past economic performance given there are no significant changes to the settlement hierarchy.

No No


13/08/2012 4.53Agree that the approach to job distribution should be derived from past economic performance given there are no significant changes to the settlement hierarchy.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 4.55 - 4.59, 4.63

Objects. Working on past economic performance is flawed. Based on early 2011 data which will be overly optimistic - should be revised to a more realistic level to prevent over supply. ELR inaccurate, approach to economic development inspirational - no supporting evidence to suggest it is the aspirations of local people. Jobs totals in SS3 under stated. 9,200 jobs increases to 11,882 due to these allocations. If Yeovil's 49% ratio to remain 5,134 jobs would need to be allocated to Yeovil and Rural Centres reduced accordingly. Jobs growth for Rural Settlements not based on individual settlements past performance. ABI and BRES data does not reflect current circumstances - hierarchy being eroded by allocating 11% of jobs to Rural Settlements and 9% to Rural Centres. Rural Centres and Settlements have not complied with two-thirds B uses ratio - should not apply an urban approach to Rural Settlements. Lack of employment allocations is flawed. If the 2.0 ha to remain identification of land is vital.

No Yes

Replace Policy SS3 and para 4.52 to 4.69 with new text which takes into account the revised jobs data published in September 2012 by NOMIS and demonstrates that the number of jobs in the District has grown from 2010 to 2011, and consequently the economic projection for jobs has increased to 11,250 jobs district-wide by 2028. Revisions to Policy SS3 and SS5 result in a better balance (in relation to new jobs) between Rural Centres (9%) and Rural Settlements (10.5%), Yeovil retains 49% of new jobs. Revise land requirements identified in SS3 to take into account revised density ratios and projection that 61% of jobs will be in B uses, IT, creative industries, high-tech and manufacturing being prominent. New text added to note that an allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) will be produced. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 4.55 - 4.59,

4.63 & 4.66

Objects. Working on past economic performance is flawed. Based on early 2011 data which will be overly optimistic - should be revised to a more realistic level to prevent over supply. ELR inaccurate, approach to economic development inspirational - no supporting evidence to suggest it is the aspirations of local people. Jobs totals in SS3 under stated - 2.0 ha in Rural Settlements (is arbitrary - implies that small sites are not viable - badly flawed) brings total jobs to 10,478 (from 9,200). If Yeovil's 49% ratio to remain 5,134 jobs would need to be allocated to Yeovil and Rural centres reduced accordingly. Jobs growth for Rural Settlements not based on individual settlements past performance. ABI and BRES data does not reflect current circumstances - hierarchy being eroded by allocating 11% of jobs to Rural Settlements and 9% to Rural Centres. Rural settlement have not complied with two-thirds B uses ratio - should not apply an urban approach to Rural Settlements. Lack of employment allocations is flawed. If the 2.0 ha to remain identification of land is vital.

No Yes

Replace Policy SS3 and para 4.52 to 4.69 with new text which takes into account the revised jobs data published in September 2012 by NOMIS and demonstrates that the number of jobs in the District has grown from 2010 to 2011, and consequently the economic projection for jobs has increased to 11,250 jobs district-wide by 2028. Revisions to Policy SS3 and SS5 result in a better balance (in relation to new jobs) between Rural Centres (9%) and Rural Settlements (10.5%), Yeovil retains 49% of new jobs. Revise land requirements identified in SS3 to take into account revised density ratios and projection that 61% of jobs will be in B uses, IT, creative industries, high-tech and manufacturing being prominent. New text added to note that an allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) will be produced. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.




Ref



Minor Change


7033761


10/08/2012 4.58

Agree that the Rural Centres should provide a strong employment function commensurate with the settlement hierarchy, ensuring better self containment and according with the NPPF.

No No


13/08/2012 4.58

Agree that the Rural Centres should provide a strong employment function commensurate with the settlement hierarchy, ensuring better self containment and according with the NPPF.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 4.60 and Table 1

Need greater explanation as to why 5 ha is suitable as the degree of flexibility and not 10ha or else No Yes

Agree, need to explain in Table 1 the origin of the 5ha for Yeovil. Amend column 5 in row 2 of table 1 to insert the following explanation: "the 5 hectare figure derives from the previous Local Plan’s Inspector’s report, in which he recommended at least an additional 10 hectares of general employment land be provided in Yeovil. These 10 hectares were never allocated. In the context of the current economic climate and the existing supply of land, an additional 5 hectares of employment land is considered appropriate, to provide for a range and choice of sites."

7033761


10/08/2012 4.63Support the 'development management' approach to the provision of new non-strategic employment sites, as allows flexibility to meet demand of the market.

No No


13/08/2012 4.63Support the 'development management' approach to the provision of new non-strategic employment sites, as allows flexibility to meet demand of the market.

No No

7401761


13/08/2012 4.64

English Partnership Development Ratios, 2001 are now superseded by Employment Densities Guide 2nd Edition, 2010 - this should form part of the evidence base - accuracy of Policy SS3 questioned.

No Yes

Amend Policy SS3 and Table 1 (Local Plan additional employment land requirement for Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension) to reflect the incorporation of revised employment density ratios (as suggested) and the resultant land requirements. Change has resulted in 5 hectares of land required for Yeovil SUE over the plan period, rather than 7 hectares. Amend Policy YV2 for the same reason, to read 8 hectares rather than 11 hectares of employment land. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.




Ref



Minor Change



06/08/2012 SS3Difficult to forecast requirement of additional 3 ha of employment land, when small business units at Old Kelways cannot be met.

No No

1251393


10/08/2012 SS3

Objects. Policy not evidence based. Position stated in SA (4.3.7, 4.3.3, 4.3.9, 4.4.1) indicates that it's not sustainable to increase economic dependence on manufacturing sector. Necessary to quantify type of B uses to be delivered focus on more B1 rather than B2 or B8. Clear from Baker report that requirement for B2 & B8 uses is very low compared with B1. Higher priority should be given to the delivery of B1 uses. ELR relies on data that is 2 yrs old - experts have identified that in that 2.5 yr period the predicted employment need has halved. 2.0 ha for Rural Settlements is not evidence based - implies any site below that is not viable - much evidence available to disprove this. Spread of job allocations across the District is inconsistent - does not marry with housing allocations. SSDC are in conflict with NPPF by setting targets in the countryside. Setting job target on aspirations is not acceptable. SA option discussed. ELR includes employment land that is not in South Petherton. 3 fold increase in land allocated- not justified, impact of oversupply worrying

No Yes

Replace para 4.52 to 4.69 with new text which explains methodology for jobs growth figure and explains that 61% of jobs will be in B uses IT, creative industries, high tech and manufacturing being prominent. As creative industries are new, innovative growth areas, likely that they will require a quasi B1/B2 'space', difficult to predict with accuracy, so retain approach which is based on past delivery and Council's aspirations for growth. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.


13/08/2012 SS3 Support employment land in Wincanton No No

1540481 Transition Langport 13/08/2012 SS3 Concern prime growing land will be built on for employment

where there is an abundance of empty units already No No

1558977East Coker PC (Vertex Planning)

14/08/2012 SS3

The scale of employment growth is unrealistic as the full impact of the recession has not been reflected (Somerset Economic Assessment), and agents are cautious about whether generic growth is sufficient to sustain the level of business growth planned (The Economic Profile of Yeovil).

No No


14/08/2012 SS3

The plan states that 16 ha of 'B' use employment is needed overall, of which 15 ha for the urban extension incorporating 11 ha in the plan period and 4 ha beyond - this uses different employment land requirements to the evidence base.

No No

1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 SS3

Agree need for additional employment land, this could be available in small parcels close to the town. Further linear spread to be resisted especially where land drainage is not well understood.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4122433 B Hartley SS3Have not taken account of the economic reality when considering job creation as economic growth will be weak for the foreseeable future.

No No


There is sufficient employment land to cater for the 4,500 jobs within the urban framework of Yeovil - Bunford Lane expects to create 4,500-5,000 alone, plus Lufton phase 3, Seafire Park, Cattle Market, urban village, Old Electricity board site, 3 key site primary schools, additional 5 ha of employment land proposed in the town. There is sufficient land to satisfy the realistic weak economic scenario of 4,800 jobs or the strong scenario of 9,200 without the need for a SUE to Yeovil.

No No

4122433 B Hartley SS3 The 343 jobs proposed at Ilminster is far short of the potential for the allocation of 23 ha of employment land. No No


Commuting for work within one of the largest districts in England is not a significant issue that requires such a significant step change in employment and housing policy. There should be a more balanced dispersal policy as the opportunity to live in one community and work in another enhances rather than detracts.

No No

4224385 T Watkins 31/07/2012 SS3

Objects to levels of employment land, feels the amount of land is spread to thinly across the settlements, and for economies of scale, would be better to provide the land in one location as opposed to many.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 SS3 Unlikely to need so many jobs, YUE not needed No No

4324961 Y Shayler 07/08/2012 SS3Do not need more employment land in Yeovil, existing sites yet to be developed. Other towns are well located re. A303 and should have more employment land.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS3 Object No No


13/08/2012 SS3Broadly supports as it appears to relate to the scale and function of the settlements. Further assessment on specific applications will be done through the DM process

No No

6293793 J Fagan 14/08/2012 SS3

Currently only 18% employment has any commitment, with zero growth do we need high level of land. This could be used for housing. Demographics show young people moving out 40% retired and low levels of unemployment, so is this land necessary.

No No




Ref



Minor Change



Objects. Policy not evidence based. Position stated in SA (4.3.7, 4.3.3, 4.3.9, 4.4.1) indicates that it is not sustainable to increase economic dependence on manufacturing sector. Necessary to quantify type of B classes of use to be delivered focusing on more B1 rather than B2 or B8. Clear from Baker report that requirement for B2 & B8 uses is very low compared with B1. Higher priority should be given to the delivery of B1 uses. ELR relies on data that is 2 yrs old - experts have identified that in that 2.5 yr period the predicted employment need has halved. 2.0 ha for Rural Settlements is not evidence based - implies any site below that is not viable - much evidence available to disprove this. Spread of job allocations across the District is inconsistent - does not marry with housing allocations. SSDC are in conflict with NPPF by setting targets in the countryside. Setting job target on aspirations is not acceptable. SA option discussed. ELR includes employment land that is not in South Petherton.

No Yes

Replace para 4.52 to 4.69 with new text which explains methodology for jobs growth figure and explains that 61% of jobs will be in B uses IT, creative industries, high tech and manufacturing being prominent. As creative industries are new, innovative growth areas, likely that they will require a quasi B1/B2 'space', difficult to predict with accuracy, so retain approach which is based on past delivery and Council's aspirations for growth. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.

6929825


14/08/2012 SS3

Flawed and unsound. Grossly overestimates need and risks a substantial over allocation of employment land. Large scale employment should be focused in the larger settlements and market towns. Requirements bear little resemblance to initial evidence base. Rural Centres no evidence or justification for 2ha. The Council's ELR show already enough employment land to 2026. Not sustainable and lead to increased commuting. This level of development should be allocated.

No No

7033761


10/08/2012 SS3

Support 2 ha of employment land at Rural Centres and specifically South Petherton to allow viable development to be delivered by the market. The previous provision of zero additional employment land would be contrary to the NPPF.

No No


13/08/2012 SS3Employment Strategy misguided, the preference for YUE at the expense of Local Market Towns and Rural Centres is unsound

No No


13/08/2012 SS3 No good reason to constrain employment land to a bare minimum size in rural centres No No


13/08/2012 SS3

Support 2 ha of employment land at Rural Centres and specifically South Petherton to allow viable development to be delivered by the market. The previous provision of zero additional employment land would be contrary to the NPPF.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7129537

A H Canvin, Agent S Travers, Boon Brown

10/08/2012 SS3

Agree para 4.53 providing proposed settlement hierarchy maintained. Agree para 4.58. Support development management approach to non strategic employment sites rather than allocations. Allows greater flexibility for delivery. Support SS3

No No

7130561


14/08/2012 SS3Welcome promotion of more optimistic growth targets, a robust approach. Adheres to NPPF pro growth agenda. Notwithstanding this unclear how 9,200 jobs derived.

No Yes

Replace Policy SS3 and para 4.52 to 4.69 with new text which explains methodology for jobs growth figure and takes into account the revised jobs data published in September 2012 by NOMIS and demonstrates that the number of jobs in the District has grown from 2010 to 2011, and consequently the economic projection for jobs has increased to 11,250 jobs district-wide by 2028. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.

7222785


13/0/2012 SS3

Overall vision supported with Yeovil as largest settlement. Need to reconsider policy constraints particularly on employment growth and certain adjustments are needed to Yeovil's housing and employment. Growth in Chard broadly supported subject to more housing being directed beyond plan period.

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 SS3

Agree with Somerset County Council's 'Economic Assessment', it's weakness in reliance on a few economic sectors (food, drink, tourism & public sector), which are unlikely to generate growth. No major educational institute means intellectual 'spin off' not certain. Acknowledge Yeovil's strength is high technology skills. Concentration of professional services = low GVA, South Somerset's position is reflective/more acute than County. Impact to economy of potential defence cuts. As such high rates of housebuilding somewhat tenuous. Previous Local Plan inquiry, Inspector discounted Keyford as a stand alone employment site, although may have future potential for mixed use. The Council's LP has made provision for significant employment uses, so surprising looking at employment on part of YUE. If no need for YUE on housing need, no justification for employment allocation on its own. No justification for YUE. Given access to strategic roads and Yeovilton YUE if required should be in the north.

No No

1276129 Bruton TC 02/08/2012 SS3/SS5/other

Support scale of housing/employment growth in Bruton. Want weight to town plans No No




Ref



Minor Change


4286497 R Clemas 13/08/2012 SS3 & 8.61 Objects. Plan underestimates effect of superfast broadband on reducing trips to work. No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 SS3/SS4Object - plan fails to take into account job losses from the defence industry, NHS and Local Government and impact on South Somerset economy.

No Yes

Replace paragraphs 4.70-4.77 with new text derived principally from the Housing Provision Review Report presented to the Project Management Board (meetings 19 & 20) updating the housing requirement in the light of representations made and the content contained in Business Requirement Employment Survey information and ONS population projections.Policies SS4 & SS5 are amended in consequence. See annex 1. Matters discussed in PMB meetings 21-23 also inform final wording of text and the policy

7042273


13/08/2012 SS3/SS4 These policies set the growth targets, which are insufficient and not based on the evidence No No

7252353

Mr & Mrs A Noel (Agent M Dobson Pegasus)

13/0/2012 SS3/2.5

Support emphasis on employment led plan. Support proposed levels of growth of 9,200 jobs . Approach to balance jobs and homes for self containment is welcomed. Flexible approach generally welcomed but if Yeovil is to be main economic driver proposed levels of growth should be the minimum and opportunities taken to exceed this number. Para 2.5 indicates high levels of growth achieved previously at rate of 450+ but future rates indicated at less than 50% of this. Employment land part phased beyond plan period - seem arbitrary and inconsistent with overall strategy. NPPF says planning should not impede sustainable growth. Footnote of Policy SS3 should be deleted.

No No

7257313


14/08/2012 SS3/SS4

SSDC have accepted that RSS is a material consideration and thus the overall growth should be accepted. Lack of evidence to the contrary so more housing and employment should be allocated within the district with proportionate amounts to relevant towns like Castle Cary

No Yes

Replace paragraphs 4.70-4.77 with new text derived principally from the Housing Provision Review Report presented to the Project Management Board (meetings 19 & 20) updating the housing requirement in the light of representations made and the content contained in Business Requirement Employment Survey information and ONS population projections.Policies SS4 & SS5 are amended in consequence. See annex 1. Matters discussed in PMB meetings 21-23 also inform final wording of text and the policy.




Ref



Minor Change


6773313 M Horsley 31/07/20124.45/4.70-4.77 and

tables 2a/b

Incorrect use of ONS data and wrong assumptions on scale of growth No Yes


1274689

West Coker Parish Council, A McPhee Chairman

10/08/2012 4.70-4.77

Demographic growth projections use figure of 2.1 per household - should be 2.25, ONS projections incorrectly used - huge difference in projected number of households, change in household size not properly analysed - data is unsound and equivalent to whole size of SUE

No Yes


4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 4.70

Aspirations based on economic situation, however as economic and demographic circumstance change rapidly, need to build in review on a regular basis. What is clear is primary cause for new housing is migration, which is declining. Also consideration declining average household size. Not happening as was predicted by DCLG. Also bad statistical practice to use household size figures to 1 decimal place.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


4616897 P Benham 08/08/2012 4.70-4.77

Objects. Premise that economic growth is reliant on ongoing house building is flawed. Economic health better preserved by consolidation and improvement. Tax payer are subject to a philosophy they do not support.

No Yes


1251393


09/08/20124.70-4.77

Tables 2a & 2b

Objects. Continued reference to RSS not relevant. Employment projects are swept aside in favour of "aspirations" - CLG makes it clear that it is the aspirations of local people that count - no evidence to suggest this approach is supported by local people. Projections on ageing population, residents per household and economic activity rate have not materialised. Additional 5000 dwellings to cater for economically inactive in-migrants is unjustified. Table 2b total no. of households in both scenarios are incorrect - ONS 2011 data indicates that, when compared to the ONS 2001 data and projected to 2028 persons per household is 2.19 (at 2028) therefore the figures for both scenarios are too high. Table 3 - population growth projection are all incorrect - use outdated persons per household figure. Council's economic aspirations are not relevant in establishing housing stock. Housing figures not supported by need. Over supply of housing does not maximise economic growth. Opening housing stock figures for 2006 are understated and should read 68,287 - revises figure down to 12677 home required.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012

4.70-4.77 Tables 2a &

2b

Objects. Continued reference to RSS not relevant. Employment projects are swept aside in favour of "aspirations" - CLG makes it clear that it is the aspirations of local people that count - no evidence to suggest this approach is supported by local people. Projections on ageing population, residents per household and economic activity rate have not materialised. Additional 5000 dwellings to cater for economically inactive in-migrants is unjustified. Table 2b total no of households in both scenarios are incorrect - ONS 2011 data indicates that, when compared to the ONS 2001 data and projected to 2028 persons per household is 2.19 (at 2028) therefore the figures for both scenarios are too high. Table 3 - population growth projection are all incorrect - use outdated persons per household figure. Council's economic aspirations are not relevant in establishing housing stock. Housing figures not supported by need. Over supply of housing does not maximise economic growth. Opening housing stock figures for 2006 are understated and should read 68,287 - revises figure down to 12677 home required.

No Yes


6996161 N Gage (Councillor) 09/08/2012

Chapter 8 economic prosperity/

Table 2

Object to overinflated figures used, data out of date, manufacturing base more likely to suffer with collapse of eurozone, consultants trends unrealistic and overestimate forecasts, need to update to BRES

No Yes

Replace Policy SS3 and para 4.52 to 4.69 with new text which takes into account the revised jobs data published in September 2012 by NOMIS and demonstrates that the number of jobs in the District has grown from 2010 to 2011, and consequently the economic projection for jobs has increased to 11,250 jobs district-wide by 2028. See Annex 2 - amended paras 4.52-4.69 & Policy SS3.

4210177 C Barker 07/08/20124.73-4.77

Tables 2a/2b

Accuracy of use of Census data used No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 4.78-4.80 Objects. Growth does not reflect community aspirations. No No

1251393


09/08/2012 SS4 Objects. Figure should be revised to 12,677 (based on 2.19 people per household at 2028). No No




Ref



Minor Change


1402209


13/08/2012 SS4

No detail on duty to cooperate. Housing shortfall sub regionally due to neighbouring authorities reducing their numbers. No justification for housing target. Housing total should be 19,000

No Yes


1402209


13/08/2012 SS4

The plan does not state how the Council has met the Duty to Cooperate, and no consideration of how un-met housing needs of adjoining authorities have been met given their reduction from Regional Strategy targets. A higher housing figure of around 19,000 dwellings (14,000 as per Scenario 1 plus 5,000 from economically inactive older migrants) is required to help meet the very significant level of housing demand and need.

No Yes



13/08/2012 SS4 Housing requirements not based on a sound evidence base should be 19,700 as per RSS No Yes



13/08/2012 SS4 5 year land supply carrying housing delivery shortfall forward No No




Ref



Minor Change


4122433 B Hartley 14/08/2012 SS4

District housing figure should be lower as 2010 population projection for 2028 show a significant lower population figure than the proposed housing figures would be required to support, reinforced by the 2011 Census which will become the baseline for future projections; and the economic evidence base supports a weaker growth scenario.

No Yes


4122433 B Hartley SS4 The increased percentage of empty homes is enough to absorb the potential military requirement of 300 homes. No No

4122433 B Hartley SS4The average household size was 2.12 in Officer briefings to the LDF PMB but 2.1 was used in the plan itself, therefore the housing figure was over-estimated in the plan.

No No

4122433 B Hartley SS4The previous plan target of 13,700 dwellings was not met and the three Yeovil key sites are currently less than 1/3 complete. The plan is not realistic or deliverable.

No No


At the Issues and Options consultation there was strong support from parish/town councils for housing growth in the region of 13,600 dwellings in line with the original RSS which was supported by the Council.

No No

4308833


13/08/2012 SS4

Housing provision figure of 15,950 is not justified by the material which precedes it. The first figure represents a spurious degree of precision. The detailed 2008 household projections indicate 17,900. NPPF requires full objectively assessed needs for market & affordable housing.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

SS4 - Employment led figure does not take account of number of retired moving to the District. No consideration of the impact of the ageing population - SNPP indicate a considerable increase (2008 & 2010). Baker report has assumed static economic activity level over the plan period. 2010 data means 49.6% and 2.02 figure should be amended to 48.8% and 2.07. Seems to assume that 2006 unemployment levels of 3% will be retained through the plan period - average was 4% 2004-2011 and 2011 rate was 5.4% HEaDROOM framework demonstrates 22,800 dwgs 2006-2028.

No Yes


4315809


14/08/2012 SS4

District-wide scale of growth should be a minimum of 16,500 dwellings and up to 20,100 dwellings because economic projections are flawed in dealing with latest BRES data, underestimate self employment and concerns with agricultural employment projections. Supporting evidence from SHMA, SHLAA, house prices, Infrastructure Plan, SA indicate a higher figure can be achieved.

No Yes


4320065 A J White 13/08/2012 SS4 Housing figures need to be rechecked No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 SS4 Housing figures too high, should be 13,000 No Yes


4322625 P J Burrows 13/08/2012 SS4

The plan takes an overly optimistic view of employment growth and consequent housing demand. Current difficult economic conditions will continue for at least another decade, inward migration is falling, and Government cuts in spending on health, welfare and defence.

No Yes


5411105


13/03/2012 SS4

Object to district wide housing provision, 15,950 not consistent with National Policy or based on appropriate evidence. Should be 21,670 (RSS). Jobs based approach no justified. Plan underestimates migration. 2008 household projections ignore migration. Proposed figure based on consultants work and other unjustified adjustments. Evidence base not robust.

No Yes



13/08/2012 SS4 Noted that the number of homes has reduced from previous plans therefore a slight reduction of the impact on the SRN No No

6293793 J Fagan 14/08/2012 SS4 Housing figures too high. No No




Ref



Minor Change


6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 SS4 Overall housing figure too high No Yes


6673153 M Sowerbutts 14/08/2012 SS4 District housing figure should be 12,355 dwellings No Yes


6716769 P Mileham 05/07/2012 SS4 Remove 'Listed' buildings and then there is no need for so many new homes. No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 SS4 Object - evidence base is out of date and does not reflect 2011 census data. No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6776577 N Colbert 25/07/2012 SS4

Number of new dwellings proposed is not sustainable. The Baker associates figure of 12,955 has been ignored and the Council has unrealistic economic aspirations. Figure of 12,955 should be taken forward which would allow for flexibility.

No Yes


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 SS4 Objects. Figure should be revised to 12,677 (based on 2.19

people per household at 2028). No Yes


6817921 N Boxall 06/08/2012 SS4 District housing figure should be 10,500 dwellings. No Yes


6963713

Powrmatic, Agent S Rackham (Pegasus Planning Group)

13/08/2012 SS4 SHLAA not up to date No No




Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 SS4Consider that the Local Plan housing requirement should be increased to reflect the objectively assessed evidence of need.

No Yes



13/03/2012 SS4

Housing shortfall from the Structure Plan period should be added to the housing requirement. Policy SS4 not justified or consistent with national policy. Fails the test of soundness

No Yes


7029153Vaux Family, Agent D Crofts

13/03/2012 SS4 Objection to housing figure of 15,950. Consider it should be 17,900 (2008 household projection) + 5% = 18,800 No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


7043297


13/08/2012 SS4Housing requirement should be increased to reflect the objectively assessed evidence of need. Consider policy unsound

No Yes


7044449


13/08/2012 SS4

SS4 - Policy considered to be inconsistent with para 47 of NPPF as plan not positively prepared. District wide housing requirement should be raised to 18,587 over plan period - 2008 ONS population projections, unmet need, vacancies, second home ownership and shortfall from last local plan should be 18,587 dwellings over the plan period. BANES Inspector said shortfall should be added.

No Yes


7044449


13/08/2012 SS4 Not the most appropriate strategy for South Somerset and not consistent with national policy No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


7066529


13/08/2012 SS4 Housing numbers for the District too low No Yes


7066529


13/08/2012 SS4 The pessimistic housing levels do not accord with the NPPF. Does not represent recent evidence of requirements No Yes



13/08/2012 SS4 Overall housing totals undersupply and not legally sound No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


7085665 C Humphreys 10/08/2012 SS4 Object to level of growth - not reflective of employment

opportunities and economy dominated by one employer No Yes


7130561


14/08/2012 SS4Housing targets should be based on population projections rather than economic projections. Recommended minimum housing target of 16,434

No Yes


7157313 M Trott 10/08/2012 SS4 Object to scale of growth as census indicates lower amounts No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


7222785


13/0/2012 SS4

Object: Concerned that growth in document is lower than that of the draft plan. Below RSS figures (adjusted to 2028 and below ONS latest projections. RSS still part of the evidence base and this figure of RSS levels growth not tested. Highest growth scenario tested is based on ONS 2008 and although based economic growth on upper need of scale, housing based on lower end. SSDC likely to have greatest in-migration of Somerset Districts - predicted to continue. Evidence base not accurate and not based on latest census 2011. Plan moving in right direction being based on economic growth but housing provision is lower than ONS projections and housing provision at Yeovil should be increased. Minimum provision should be on ONS projections = 17,765 dwellings in plan period.

No Yes


7284289


10/08/2012 SS4

The proposed housing requirement of 15,950 is too high, not supported by objectively assessed evidence. Recent evidence supports a requirement of 12,355 (full details of their calculations in their submission). Proposed housing in excess of demand and build rates exceed previously delivered.

No Yes


7329185


SS4

Support 15,950 dwellings as a minimum growth figure, but a 20% buffer should be added to this i.e. 3,190 dwellings to give a total of 19,140 dwellings to create competition in the market and help control house prices in the District. This is necessary to accord with the NPPF as there has been persistent under delivery with the average completion rate of 656 dpa between 1992-2010, less than the district target.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS4/4.72

Object. Alternative 1:- Substitute 15,950 with 14,000 being the optimistic latest forecast by consultants which is in the evidence base and sufficiently close to the 13,600 figure which has previously been appraised. 14,000 still too high but this approach superior to current methodology. No additional provision made for affluent older people as contended in SHMA and high figure unjustified. Extra migration on top of latest ONS mid year estimates is unsubstantiated . SHMA outdated and health warning on housing given in SHMA needs consideration as strong emphasis in SHMA guidance that there should be flexibility in responding to housing market demand. No convincing evidence as to why allowance for extra homes at Yeovilton made

No Yes


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS4/4.72

Object. Alternative 2 - the most robust alternative. Use the most recent population growth projections from ONS and divide the 2028 forecast figure, by 2.19 people per household (not 2.1) = 10,900 figure. Previous population growth figures and household projections discredited by recent ONS bulletins. Person per household not been falling as previously expected so 10,900 most robust figure

No Yes


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS4/4.72Object. Alternative 3 - use 13,600 as the requirement being somewhere between the figure consulted upon and the economic-led figure

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS4/4.72 Actual net in migration figure has dropped very substantially and is showing no sign of reviving. No Yes


6963713


13/08/2012 SS4/SS5

Proposed housing target of 15,950 does not meet housing need in full. SS5 identifies a total housing requirement of 16,751 & the Council's SA identifies 16,600 can be delivered. The target should reflect this. In line with NPPF should also provide 20% buffer. 938 shortfall on Structure Plan target should be added on.

No Yes


7066529


13/08/2012 SS4/SS5 NPPF sets high bar for future growth not catered for within SS Local Plan No Yes





Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 SS4/SS5 Overall housing target too low and undue focus on Yeovil & SUE No Yes


7401761


13/08/2012 SS4 & SS5

Reserve view on population figures until further data published by ONS. Council figure of 16,000 dwellings in response to employment led approach fails to respond locally and positively to any upturn in the local economy, accurately reflect population change; improvements to the planning system and the success of a sound plan; and access to private and public funds and in response to investment's schemes. Concerned that employment led approach in Chard likely to be affected by the delivery of a single key site (CEDA). Concerned that Council cannot delivery a 5 year supply of housing land. Failure to deliver Chard KS/CHAR/1. Policy table fails to differentiate between 'Completions' and 'Existing Housing Commitments' 2006-2011. In Chard the number of commitments is significantly less than presented reflecting slow delivery rates. Policy should be reviewed and updated in association with suggested changes. A 20% buffer should be given (particularly in relation to Chard) in order to achieve the Vision for the District.

No Yes


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 4.81 Object. Delivery and implementation should include Town

and Parish Councils. No No

4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

Support Chard's role. Para 4.86 - support an economic led strategy. No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251363


09/08/2012 4.86 Figure 5

Objects. Figure 5 is incorrect and misleading. Full effects of employment allocations in Rural Centres have not been taken into account. Overall jobs figure is 11,882 not 9,200. Rural Centres have over twice the jobs allocation indicated - bears little resemblance to SA Option 2.

No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 4.86 Figure

5

Objects. Figure 5 is incorrect and misleading. Full effects of employment allocations in Rural Centres have not been taken into account. Overall jobs figure is 10,478 not 9,200. Rural Centres have over twice the jobs allocation indicated - bears little resemblance to SA Option 2.

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 4.89Objects. No evidence to support allocations based on local aspirations and local factors. SA highlights some factors in South Petherton but these have been ignored.

No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 4.89 Objects. No evidence to support allocations based on local

aspirations and local factors. No No

7401761


13/08/2012 4.91

Conflicting evidence base - AMR 2011 projected delivery to 2013 has not been achieved. Trajectory in Submission Plan based on Thomas Lister report which suggests CPO process will be underway - so is out of date. Promoting Mount Hindrance - concern that development will not come forward on eastern edge of Chard in time. Thomas Lister report does not fully appreciate the impacts and effects of land ransoms (likely to be substantial) and it's impact on delivery and timescales. Sensible to consider development in other areas e.g. Mount Hindrance which will support Town Centre regeneration and help fund delivery of infrastructure.

No Yes Housing trajectory is updated and reflects amended provision. See Annex 3.

1251393


10/08/2012 4.99

Objects to housing allocation at South Petherton does not take account of highway concerns - A303 and internal road infrastructure, conflict with NPPF para 41, different treatment to Stoke Sub Hamdon

No No


Objects to housing allocation at South Petherton does not take account of highway concerns - A303 and internal road infrastructure.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 4.101

Objects. Approach flawed as demonstrated by SA findings in respect of dispersed approach. Option 2 must be used to conform to NPPF's requirement for sustainable development.

No No


Objects. Approach flawed as demonstrated by SA findings in respect of dispersed approach. Option 2 must be used to conform to NPPF's requirement for sustainable development.

No No

6823361Mrs & Mrs P Smith, Agent Mr R Edge

06/08/2012 4.58, 4.101 SS1, SS3

Para 4.101 too restrictive - not enough growth in rural centres - para 4.58 identifies that Rural Centres should deliver 950 jobs. A more supportive employment policy is required. SS1 & SS3 not effective - need to be strengthened - more emphasis on economic activity - greater scope for mixed development. SS3 should be promoting new and existing employment opportunities in Rural Centres and Market Towns.

No No


Objects. The accumulative surplus of housing numbers during each stage of allocation adds up to an unjustified over allocation. Uses out of date residents per household figure and projections.

No Yes


1251393


09/08/2012 4.102

Objects. The accumulative surplus of housing numbers during each stage of allocation adds up to an unjustified over allocation. Uses out of date residents per household figure and projections.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


10/08/2012 Table 4Objects. Housing allocations do not achieve objective of maintaining settlement hierarchy. Housing numbers not consistent with jobs.

No Yes

Revisions to Policy SS3 and SS5 have resulted in a change in the balance between new jobs and homes. Amend Figure 5 to demonstrate that jobs/homes balance is now as follows: Yeovil (47% houses, 49% jobs. Market Towns: 32% houses, 31.5% jobs. Rural Centres: 7% houses, 9% jobs. Rural Settlements: 14% houses, 10.5% jobs). Disagree that there is no balance or consistency between jobs and houses. See annex 4

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 Table 4

Objects. Housing allocations do not achieve objective of maintaining settlement hierarchy. Housing numbers not consistent with jobs.

No Yes

Revisions to Policy SS3 and SS5 have resulted in a change in the balance between new jobs and homes. Amend Figure 5 to demonstrate that jobs/homes balance is now as follows: Yeovil (47% houses, 49% jobs. Market Towns: 32% houses, 31.5% jobs. Rural Centres: 7% houses, 9% jobs. Rural Settlements: 14% houses, 10.5% jobs). Disagree that there is no balance or consistency between jobs and houses. See annex 4.

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 SS5

Table 5 advises the Urban Extension will commence in both 2016 and 2017. The Brimsmore and Lufton Key Sites were identified over 10 years ago but no building work has taken place. It seems unrealistic to expect a development 3 times the size to start in 2016/17

No No

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 SS5

Table 5 identifies an increase of 234 dwellings on the key sites. If more concentrated what is the threshold at which S106 agreements are renegotiated to provide additional community provisions for the additional population

No No

1251393


10/08/2012 SS5

Objects. Projected population growth selected at highest predictions - out of date. 2006 housing stock understated. Household residents should be 2.085 SSDC have used 2.1. Conversion from projected population at 2028 uses 2.1 residents per household - out of date, figure of 2.19 is more realistic. SA (figure 6.1) calls to protect best quality agricultural land - this should be added to all development policies. Distribution of housing growth closest to Option 1 in SA (5.4.5) - the least sustainable option. South Petherton & Milborne Port's housing growth have not been reduced - inconsistent approach. Allocations do not support settlement hierarchy. Housing and employment growth not balanced. Town and Parish Councils should be involved in delivery bodies.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1285057

Yeovil Without Parish Council

10/08/2012 SS5 Support Policy No No

1402209


13/08/2012 SS5 Welcome inclusion of housing trajectory for market housing, will need to widen the scope to cover affordable housing No Yes Replace table 5 with updated trajectory. See annex

3.

1402209


13/08/2012 SS5A housing implementation strategy is required, and the scope of trajectory should include affordable housing, as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

No Yes Insert new trajectory including clarification of Housing Implementation Strategy. See annex 3.


13/08/2012 SS5 Object to distribution of housing across the district. Wincanton should have more growth No No


13/08/2012 SS5 Proposed housing sites in Wincanton No No

1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 SS5 Proposed 84 dwellings is feasible, however concern for viability and vitality believe special attention need to be paid No No

1559489 D H Short 03/08/2012 SS5Objects. Housing will not be of the type needed, no support for this large scale development, environmental quality and character of Somerton are in jeopardy.

No No


Major concerns regarding the housing distribution SA as it appears to have been done in haste, fails to consider reasonable alternatives, and does not take key issues into account e.g. under capacity of rural primary schools, increased traffic congestion and air quality issues at Yeovil. There is no long term vision for rural settlements in providing a positive policy that supports the rural community and economy.

No No




Ref



Minor Change



There should be more growth in rural centres and rural settlements to support local schools, provide more affordable housing, will increase the demographic in-balance of more older people in rural areas. A modest population growth of 8-10% would mean around 3,500-4,000 dwellings in rural settlements.

No No


Due to reducing household size, communities need an increase in housing of 7% just to maintain population at 2006 levels. Stoke sub Hamdon population will decline by 1.1% yet the plan purports to welcome growth. An average population growth of 9% would be required to provide positive population growth, which would reduce Yeovil's requirement by 1,600 dwellings but still see Yeovil's population grow by 24% and still be the primary economic driver.

No No


The plan does not meet the needs of the area as a whole due to limiting development in rural settlements - there should be 3,500-4,000 dwellings in Rural Settlements. Housing numbers should be reduced commensurate with the current economic climate and the 2010 sub national population evidence base supported by the 2011 Census.

No No

4172129 J W Watson 02/08/2012 SS5Scale of development S Petherton too high for infrastructure particularly school, roads, drainage/sewers, lack of employment

No No

4172161 Mrs J Watson 02/08/2012 SS5

Scale of development S Petherton too high for infrastructure particularly school, roads, drainage/sewers, lack of employment

No No

4286497 R Clemas 13/08/2012 SS5, SS2

Objects. Was not able to buy a hard copy of plan for 5 days after deposit began - not legally compliant. Advent of the electric car and free charging points means that in terms of CO2 emissions the need to locate majority of housing in Yeovil, Market Towns and Rural Centres is demolished. Policy flawed, not consistent with Plan para 8.23. Level of housing 2,400 = 14% of total, this is 42% less than was delivered in Rural Settlements 2006-2009. SS2 envisages a large quantity of affordable housing this is not the type of housing that would be required by highly skilled workers. Will lead to inflated prices in Rural Settlements stopping young families being able to live there.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4288321


10/08/2012 SS5 Object to housing figure, should use RSS 19,700 No Yes


4297153 S Penfold 30/07/2012 SS5

Object. Too many houses proposed at Somerton. Infrastructure i.e. schools and medical facilities not in place to support the development. Majority of the new residents are unlikely to work in Somerton and will not bring new employment to a struggling economy. There should be proper landscaping.

No No

4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

SS5 - Chard - historic failure to deliver KS/CHAR/1, Millfield link renders the scheme unviable without SSDC input, CIL evidence base is questioned, will lead to reduced levels of affordable housing in Chard, 2016 start seem optimistic, cannot be relied on to deliver continuous supply of housing land. Need additional sites to fill the gap. Para 6.21-6.23 Concerns regarding weight that can be attached to Chard Regeneration Framework. Has not had transparent scrutiny -all details should be set out in local plan. Lack of consultation on formulating options. Each site was not evaluated, SA, traffic impact would have no significant impact on delivery. PMT1 & Inset Map 3 - policy does not flow logically from Vision & Objectives - no separate appraisal of individual sites. Approach inconsistent with national policy. 61 dwellings will not undermine CEDA. Snowdon Farm site is sustainable. Great need for housing in Chard. All alternatives have not been considered in accordance with SEA Directive. Should not enshrine development beyond the Plan period - should be done at review.

No Yes

In order to clarify why growth is planned beyond the plan period amend paragraph 6.21 by inserting the following additional text at the end of the last sentence: The strategic growth for Chard will be delivered within and beyond the plan period as part of a cohesive plan to regenerate the town and achieve build out. The number of homes expected to come forward within the plan period reflects market deliverability.

4313921 A Jayne 03/08/2012 SS5

Objects. Queries why so much greenfield land is being consumed by housing. New homes are not occupied by local people. SSDC has no obligation to provide homes for those outside the county seeking a rural lifestyle. Loss of agricultural land.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4315809


14/08/2012 SS5

Level of housing should be amended: Yeovil should be increased; Chard should be reduced; Wincanton should be increased; too much reliance on windfalls; lack of flexibility in the overall supply of housing land. Yeovil can be increased by another urban extension to the NE and enlarge Bunford Park to a mixed use development including housing. Chard will start later and deliver less and should therefore be reduced to 1,000 dwellings. Wincanton provision is already substantially complete so more should be provided. No evidence of the continuing supply of windfalls. 5% oversupply does not relate to a typical 10% oversupply in previous Local Plans.

No Yes


4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 SS5 Considering 3000 less dwelling required, YUE not required No No

4320929 C Adams 18/07/2012 SS5Object to scale of development at Somerton as there is no demand, will not enhance town, will be dormitory settlement, how will extra 251 jobs will be delivered.

No No

4322593 S Owen 13/08/2012 SS5

Disingenuous to manipulate numbers and allow for growth outside of the Plan period - why mention 15,950 dwellings then add 5% to 16,751, then a further 935 at the Yeovil SUE and 1,376 at Chard post 2028.

No Yes


4322593 S Owen 13/08/2012 SS5

Provision for 2,400 dwellings in Rural Settlements is too low given that 40% of the population live there, and people prefer to live in Rural Settlements rather than urban extensions.

No No

4324961 Y Shayler 07/08/2012 SS5 Houses should be distributed to other main towns to support their viability. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4326593 W Boize & S Perry 13/03/2012 SS5 Quantity of housing is overstated and should be spread

around the district No Yes


4328929 N G Lindsay 14/08/2012 SS5 Plan should be modified to spread development across the district No No

4330465 P Bradwell 13/08/2012 SS5Should focus housing on brownfield sites such as Horlicks site, Ilminster. Large scale development at Ilminster would require the dualling of the A303/358.

No No

5411105


13/03/2012 SS5There should be allocations for Rural Centres. Delivery of large numbers of smaller sites would be detrimental to the delivery of benefits to the communities

No Yes

Insert new heading after para 4.103 and following text to read "Delivering through allocations: This plan presents strategic Directions of Growth for Yeovil and the Market Towns and a specific allocation for Chard. It also identifies carried forward saved plan allocations for housing from South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011. In order to provide certainty for developers, public and other stakeholders the council will undertake as a priority a site allocations DPD for the Market Towns and Rural Centres where housing provision has yet to be met. A specific DPD for the Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension will also be undertaken as a priority."

5411105


13/03/2012 SS5

Object to the distribution of housing. Need to reassess windfall assumptions for Yeovil. This figure should be redistributed to Chard and other Market Towns. Stoke Sub Hamdon should be a rural settlement, with no housing allocation. Scale of development under SS2 should be reduced and growth reassigned. Increase provision to S Petherton & Milborne Port.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS5

Reject argument that the figures add up to more than the strategic requirement. There is no need for a SUE at all especially given environmental harm that will result. Reject concept of housing in SUE going beyond the plan period. 7815 figure for houses to Yeovil not properly evidenced, SA'd or in compliance with NPPF - not sound

No Yes



13/08/2012 SS5

Broadly supports as it appears to relate to the scale and function of the settlements. Further assessment on specific applications will be done through the DM process. The Agency also of the opinion that improvements are potentially needed to the SRN

No No

5813729


13/08/2012 SS5

Object to the reduction in housing growth. No reference to recent population projections, no account of cross boundary issues. Housing need should be taken from household and population projections rather than employment growth.

No Yes


5813729


13/08/2012 SS5 Overall support for the distribution of housing growth. No No

5813729


13/08/2012 SS5

Object to sites 'Allocated but without permission' if previous allocations, there is a significant question as to if they are deliverable and developable and should not be rolled forward

No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 SS5 At variance with NPPF in respect of the need to support

sustainable development in rural communities. No No




Ref



Minor Change


6701281 P Cameron 18/07/2012 SS5Projections not sound and over inflated. Object to the inclusion of housing beyond the plan date range, encourages developer land speculation

No Yes


6713793 Matt Driver 17/07/2012 SS5

Creation of 299 dwellings in Milborne Port will increase population of the village by 23%, lack of employment. Requirement to find 2 ha of employment land, when we have just built over the old tannery buildings. Plan unsound

No No

6716961 C J Tether 05/07/2012 SS5 Query need for new housing at Somerton and lack of infrastructure to accommodate this development. No No

6815009 C Langthorp 02/08/2012 SS5 Object to Ilchester growth, traffic, housing need for RNAS Yeovilton over stated. No No


Objects. Projected population growth selected at highest predictions - out of date. 2006 housing stock understated. Household residents should be 2.085 SSDC have used 2.1. Conversion from projected population at 2028 uses 2.1 residents per household - out of date - figure of 2.19 is more realistic. SA (figure 6.1) calls to protect best quality agricultural land - this should be added to all development policies. Distribution of housing growth closest to Option 1 in SA (5.4.5) - the least sustainable option. South Petherton & Milborne Port's housing growth have not been reduced - inconsistent approach. Allocations do not support settlement hierarchy. Housing and employment growth not balanced. Town and Parish Councils should be involved in delivery bodies.

No Yes


6826465 Tim Adams 06/08/2012 SS5

Too much growth at Yeovil. Need additional housing growth of 350-500 dwellings at Wincanton to support High Street, provide employment, support local facilities, and to be consistent with national policy presumption in favour of sustainable development.

No No

6935809 C M Bartlett 08/08/2012 SS5

Too many houses in west away from services and school so reliance on cars, lack of town centre parking, congestion in Bancombe road area from more cars at employment and housing sites

No No




Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 SS5Distribution of housing between Yeovil and rest of the district is disproportionate. Martock should have greater flexibility and should not be limited to 246 dwellings.

No No


13/03/2012 SS5 Disagree with the disproportionate distribution for Yeovil. Too much emphasis on long term larger sites. No No


13/03/2012 SS5Agree increase in housing provision for Langport/Huish Episcopi however feel it would benefit from greater flexibility. Plan should not seek to limit numbers to 400

No No

7042273


13/08/2012 SS5

Housing split between Yeovil and rest of district is disproportionate. Too much emphasis on long term larger sites not enough on short term deliverable sites. Settlements outside Yeovil would benefit from increased flexibility

No No

7043297


13/08/2012 SS5

Housing split between Yeovil and rest of district is disproportionate. Too much emphasis on long term larger sites not enough on short term deliverable sites. Should not limit South Petherton to 294 dwellings and majority of 151 commitments are former previous local plan allocations, so double counting them.

No No

7066529


13/08/2012 SS5 Potential for a new allocated site No No

7066529


13/08/2012 SS5 A reliance on the failure to deliver housing in the past justifies low housing figures No Yes





Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 SS5Significant allocation of spatial housing requirement should be made to rural settlements to generate a more buoyant market economy & less reliance on commuting to Yeovil

No Yes



13/08/2012 SS5 Housing should be distributed more evenly throughout the District No Yes


7085665 C Humphreys 10/08/2012 SS5 Should have dispersed pattern of growth in smaller

settlements across district No No

7127937 D Babb 10/08/2012 SS5 Object to level of housing proposed for Ilminster and Chard - too many, no infrastructure, question availability of work No No

7128161 B C Savill-Daw 13/08/2012 SS5

Objects to suggestion that every parish should take approx 10 dwellings - will despoil the villages. Odcombe not suitable.

No No

7128417 R Sothern 13/08/2012 SS5Haven't considered there are areas of Ilminster that will become flood plains, and no consideration that 100 plus homes are proposed in Winterhay Lane and Wharf Lane.

No No

7128801 C J Cleaves 10/08/2012 SS5 Other sites/commitments/PDL available in Castle Cary No No

7130561


14/08/2012 SS5

Concern at reduced housing growth for Somerton. Changes represent a departure of the Council's evidence base. NPPF says plans should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver homes. 500 dwellings more likely to maintain services and facilities. Fully support the 5% overprovision against Districts' minimum housing target.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7222785


13/0/2012 SS5

Housing distribution generally supported though could be more emphasis on Yeovil. Objected already to inaccurate numbers in SS4. Support principle of SUE but dwelling numbers need to be adjusted in AAP to take account of need for more dwellings and need for lower density so area being considered for SUE needs to be larger. Need larger area also if arguments on increasing housing numbers is agreed and density lowered in SUE. Chard appears to have disproportionate amount of growth compared to other PMTs. Problems with implementing growth at Chard and Crewkerne so should be greater emphasis on growth at Yeovil where no limits on delivery of housing in SUE

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 SS5

Policy is flawed and should be revisited. Conflicting information para 4.83 states half district's growth but policy SS5 direct 46% of housing to Yeovil. Amend to place greater emphasis on sustainable development in rural settlements to create balanced communities

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 SS5 Distribution of housing between Yeovil and rest of the district is disproportionate. No No

7329185


SS5

Support most new development being located at Yeovil, but the housing provision should be 19,140 dwellings to allow for an additional 20% buffer. Each settlement should have their housing figure increased by 20%; the 935 additional dwellings in the Yeovil SUE should be brought forward to the plan period. Existing commitments in Yeovil are out of date- 391 dwellings should be removed from the commitments, increasing Yeovil housing requirement to 4,502.

No Yes


1559137 N Hebditch 13/08/2012 SS5/Para 7.38 Put forward proposed sites for growth in Martock No No


13/08/2012SS5, paras 4.84, 4.85 &

4.99

Supports supporting text to SS5. Supports housing numbers for South Petherton (minimum of 94 within plan period). Supports change from Draft plan (previous comments included). Approach accords with NPPF (paras 14 & 28).

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6910881E & J Woodruffe-Peacock

07/08/2012 SS5, SS3

Object to proposed development at South Petherton and lack of local consultation and contrary to draft preferred options, lack of local employment prospects, no provision for improving local infrastructure, increase in local commuting.

No No

7071809

W & R Frankpitt (Agent S Gitsham GTH)

10/08/2012 SS5/Map 9

Support principle of 145 growth in plan period but without structure of location not convinced will be delivered. Will lead to problems for development management, unplanned growth in less than optimal locations, neighbourhood plans may assist but will take time. Need DOG for Martock or do allocations DPD, client has land in suggested direction of growth to west which is accessible and has services

No Yes


6773313 M Horsley 31/07/2012 Table 5 Wrong assumption on deliverability rates No Yes Insert new trajectory reflecting revised provision as tables. See Annex 3.

4103553


09/08/2012 4.105 Infrastructure can also deliver economic benefits, (cutting costs and unlocking developments) - suggest reword No No

4103553


09/08/2012 4.105-4.119

Infrastructure Plan (IP) needs to be live and reviewed regularly. Transport matters indicated as from FTP needs to take into account text of that document not just list of schemes. No decision or detailed plans done on infrastructure requirements for SUE until final location established. Work on YTSR2 underway and needs to be included - due 2013. SCC make several comments on the contents of the IP itself. "Open book viability" should be properly defined

No Yes

Amend Para 4.110 to add after services "and to ensure that the Infrastructure Report is kept up to date. The Infrastructure Report is a living document as changes to infrastructure requirements and funding for these will be constantly changing and the Council will work with the relevant stakeholders to regularly review requirements ." ADD following definition of "open book" to Glossary: "The sharing of verifiable information between the applicant and Local Planning Authority that might be potentially commercially sensitive for the purposes of establishing the degree of viability of the site in question under prevailing market conditions."

1274689

West Coker Parish Council, A McPhee Chairman

10/08/2012 4.108Infrastructure plan inaccurate as says site not in floodplain but SUE is in flood area, IP also states no requirement to expand hospital

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 4.109Objects. Report on infrastructure planning is not detailed enough to establish any potential restrictions to growth especially in Rural Centres.

No No


Objects. Report on infrastructure planning is not detailed enough to establish any potential restrictions to growth especially in Rural Centres.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 4.115 No overriding infrastructure issues could be misinterpreted as no new infrastructure being needed - suggest reword No Yes

Minor reword by adding text in italics to read "From the Infrastructure Report, it is evident that there are no overriding infrastructure issues which would prevent new development associated with…"

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 SS6

Council has not always used planning obligations to obtain the necessary resources. Community facilities is a vague term. The policy needs to specify community meeting space, retail provision, pre school and elderly. The document is not robust enough to ensure proper provisions.

No No


13/08/2012 SS6 Requirement to secure funding for protection of water quality strategic flood risk/drainage solutions No No

1285057



1402209


13/08/2012 SS6 Object to charges for facilities as well as CIL. Additional obligations have not been viability tested. No No

1402209


13/08/2012 SS6

Strongly object to intention to continue to charge for open space, sustainable transport and improvements to green infrastructure in addition to CIL - these should be on the Regulation 123 list so that viability is not threatened.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 SS6

Need to rebalance demography of the town to support cultural infrastructure, boost to broadband needed, support primary school, hydrology and sewage systems as well as traffic

No No

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 SS6

Introduction of CIL must be done flexibly having regard to prevailing economic conditions. Note caveat of open book negotiations but this causes huge delay and not always accepted by SSDC

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 SS6 Education is not mentioned and should be No No

4288321


10/08/2012 SS6Recognition on need to provide a range of infrastructure improvements but their collection needs to be carefully considered

No No

4308001


13/03/2012 SS6

Concerns in respect of transport and waste. Assurance sought from SSDC that for the proposed development in Yeovil, it is satisfied it will be able to secure the infrastructure necessary to ensure sustainable development that will not impact adversely on the neighbouring authorities

No No

4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

SS6 - important that policy adequately reflects tests in para 204 of NPPF - Will need to carefully consider viability. No No

4315809


14/08/2012 SS6 This policy requires review as the emerging CIL charge on residential development is too high. No No

4330721

Western Power (Agent A Wilson)

16/07/2012 SS6

Have a number of strategic electricity distribution circuits in some of the area's being considered for development. Would expect developers of a site to pay to divert less strategic electricity circuits.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS6Reject adoption of a CIL as this has not been properly appraised and will affect development. IP evidence is not sound

No No




Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS6 Proposed rates of CIL would choke development and no SA of what such rates would do. No No

5438913 S Osborne (Cllr) 13/08/2012 SS6 Lack of Infrastructure, schools and flooding No No

5541185 I Tipney (NHS) 19/07/2012 SS6

Provision of health infrastructure must be considered alongside any development. Extent of development will stretch health infrastructure particularly in Yeovil and Chard. It is imperative the Health and Well Being Policies be expanded to include the provision of health infrastructure as a vital component of development and adequately funded through contribution. Also expect Health Impact Assessment to be undertaken for new developments

No No


13/08/2012 SS6 Broadly support, recognises the potential need for highway improvements. No No

5813729


13/08/2012 SS6

Para 4.115 confirms no overriding infrastructure issues associated with proposed scale or location of growth. Differing cost implications can be secured either through S106 or CIL

No No

7130561


14/08/2012 SS6

Provisions of Policy reasonable having regard to viability. However given recent economic circumstances policy should confirm Council will proactively work with landowners & developers to facilitate delivery of sites where viability concerns. No flexibility in first para, inconsistent with supporting text.

No No

7252353


13/0/2012 SS6

Policy broadly supported as clearly sets out when S106 obligations apply. Important to ensure CIL charging schedule doesn't adversely affect potential for economic growth and need to ensure that for SUE s106 and CIL do not overlap

No No

7257313


14/08/2012 SS6 Agree with principle and support general thrust given it accepts that viability will be considered No No

7284289


10/08/2012 SS6

No objection in principle but consider that the urban extension will requirement extensive highway infrastructure to alleviate transport problems it will cause. May make the YUE unviable.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 SS7

Objects. The lands official grade should be the only determining factor - meaning PDL not as the Policy suggests, other non-PDL land being given similar development priority. Protection of best agricultural land should be added to all development policies. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils.

No Yes

Delete 1st sentence of policy SS7. Replace with "The Council will encourage early development of previously developed land" as the requested approach promoting brownfield development over greenfield does not accord with the NPPF.

1285057



4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 SS7

Object phasing of PDL not contained in NPPF, no reference to sequential test or brownfield first - will hinder development

No Yes


4315809


14/08/2012 SS7

Object as this policy may prejudice development. Amend last sentence to state "However the need to maintain a 5 year land supply of housing land will take precedence over the achievement of this target".

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 SS7 Support use of PDL before greenfield No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 SS7 Object No Yes


5813729


13/08/2012 SS7

The reference to 'a 5 year land supply need to pertain' is not clear but if it relates to imposing a sequential approach within the 5 year supply of PDL then this is not justified nor will it be effective. There is no longer a minimum target (NPPF) so no justification for a 40% target

No Yes



Objects. The lands official grade should be the only determining factor - meaning PDL not as the Policy suggests, other non-PDL land being given similar development priority. Protection of best agricultural land should be added to all development policies. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7044449


13/08/2012 SS7SS7 - NPPF does not apply a sequential approach - confirmed in recent planning appeal. Policy should be deleted.

No Yes


7044449


13/08/2012 SS7 National policy does not include a sequential approach therefore unsound No Yes


7066529


13/08/2012 SS7 Role of PDL strengthened but no reintroduction of a national target No No

7252353


13/0/2012 SS7Object Policy not justified and not supported by NPPF. Plan should provide choice of sites. Policy not consistent with NPPF para 157 and should be deleted.

No Yes


7257313


14/08/2012 SS7

Object. Cannot see a reason for a phasing policy as would delay delivery. Understand sentiment but brownfield is more challenging and costly. There are brownfield sites in Castle Cary - though permission has lapsed and thus what council is saying is these sites should come forward first even though that site (BMI) didn't come forward during the property boom so must question its deliverability. Policy should be deleted.

No Yes


7329185


SS7

Accept policy wording but applications for residential development on greenfield land should not be refused solely on the grounds that other previously developed land is available elsewhere. Greenfield sites may sometimes be more appropriate.

No Yes


7401761


13/08/2012 SS7

Minimum target of 40% appears to be unjustified having regard to the evidence base and does not sensibly reflect site allocations for some towns that are fundamental in encouraging more than piecemeal development. Suggest policy is amended ".....where this would not adversely affect delivery of local plan site allocations...."

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


7130561


14/08/2012 SS7/HG2

SS7 seeks a sequential approach to delivering development sites without any justification that this approach is applicable. No thorough assessment of the evidence base to support 40% PDL can be achieved. How will this be applied in the Market Towns.

No Yes


6773313 M Horsley 31/07/2012 4.121 Phasing doesn't allow for greenfield land No No




Ref



Minor Change


4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.2

Diminishing industry around eastern entrance of Yeovil provides opportunity for high quality office space with multi storey car park to accommodate vehicles exiting A30 dual carriageway from Sherborne.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.2 - 5.4

Objects. Presence of railway track should not be forgotten. Original passenger and freight shuttle could be easily reinstated. Returning navigation to the River Yeo will resurrect diversification of employment skills. Insufficient study of apathy towards existing facilities. Should be considered during preparation of SA.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 31/07/2012 5.3 Para conflicts with NPPF. No No6773313 M Horsley 31/07/2012 5.7 Data inaccurate, old census used. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.9Objects. River Yeo has been identified as detrimental to expansion instead of embracing it's value in promoting all goals in the Strategic Objectives and Vision.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.16 & YV1Objects. Most realistic location for Yeovil's future development is to follow flow of River Yeo - sustainable transport.

No No

1215937Yeovil Chamber (J Livingstone)

02/08/2012 YV1 Too many houses too quickly. Infrastructure needed first, numbers not sustainable. No No

1285057


10/08/2012 YV1

Support Policy. Object to any changes to include land at Primrose Lane as more development in north, alongside existing key site would create a "township" of 8000 population, contrary to other policies, lack of facilities, road network inadequate, development not viable, impact on Yeovil Marsh, Mudford, flooding from River Yeo.

No No

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 YV1

Support focus on Yeovil but object to reference to only 1565 dwellings within SUE in plan period. Figures seem to assume site cannot come forward quickly and that slower build out of SUE will make it more sustainable - reject both. Build rates in SUE should be normal housebuild rates in Yeovil, taking into account any site specific factors. Yeovil has higher sales rates than Chard or Crewkerne reflecting demand and jobs/facilities in area. No land ownership issues so SUE could start and exceed no. of dwellings indicated within plan period as build out rate of 112 - not excessive. Planned 6250 dwellings in urban area is optimistic -5800 more realistic, SUE could deliver more than 1,565 dwellings in plan period. Suggests rewording of YV1 to say "A minimum of 1,565"

No No

5 Yeovil - Vision and ProposalsPage 69 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


4223329 Mudford PC + petition 10/08/2012 YV1

Object Primrose Lane: highways at full capacity, impact on air light, noise and pollution, lack of infrastructure - hospital, schools, public transport, emergency services, employment opportunities are less, waste disposal in area inadequate, flooding.

No No

4273537 AT and PM Jay 06/08/2012 YV1

Support. Object to developer alternative at Primrose Lane - landscape and wildlife impact, flooding, no supporting infrastructure, A359 prone to accidents. Negative impact on Mudford and Trent.

No No

4288609 S Lewis-Cowlin 13/08/2012 YV1

No need for such a scale of development at Yeovil as its economy will be negatively affected by Government cuts to defence industry.

No No

4290721 W Fysh 14/08/2012 YV1 Not necessary as there is sufficient housing stock and available land. No demand for existing developments. No No

4304545 C & P Ivey 02/08/2012 YV1Object to Primrose Lane; visual impact, flooding, coalescence, infrastructure, highways, grade 1 agricultural land.

No No

4304609 C & D Eydmann 07/08/2012 YV1 Support omission of land at Mudford. No No

4315777 M Thomas 14/08/2012 YV1 Size of Yeovil SUE. No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 YV1

Object, eco town concept no longer valid, no longer in boom times, RSS never ratified so growth not required now, Census 2011 data not taken into consideration, plan shows 2.1 people per household fall from previously.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 YV1 Yeovil SUE not needed. No No

4322593 S Owen 13/08/2012 YV1 Need for 7,815 homes at Yeovil and 2,500 in SUE has not been convincingly substantiated. No No

4322625 P J Burrows 13/08/2012 YV1 Delete reference to an urban extension as there is no need for such a scale of development. No No

4328929 N G Lindsay 14/08/2012 YV1 Object, no evidence to the need for this scale of development in Yeovil. No No

4331201 LB King 27/07/2012 YV1

Object to Abbey Manor proposals for Primrose Lane due to loss of high quality agricultural land, unstable land, flooding at Mudford, lack of infrastructure capacity (including traffic issues), lack of need given Lyde Road and Brimsmore sites, loss of greenfield land.

No No

5403105 B Siddons 01/08/2012 LMT1/YV1 Supports growth going to Yeovil No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 YV1Object - delete policy and review on basis of proper evidence base and SA/SEA or amend to 6,250 and delete reference to Yeovil SUE which is not required.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 YV1

Propose consideration of SHLAA site S/WECO/0011 (Land OS 320 Watercombe Lane). Land available, viable and suitable for development, single solution for housing growth risky better to have range of housing options, infrastructure can be achieved through S106/CIL and be less costly than single large site, more holistic to have several smaller sites which can protect sensitive landscapes. Site close to employment areas, less difficulties with landscape and heritage, suitable access, logical extension to Yeovil, could be industry, housing, sports or masterplanned mix. Would aid bringing Bunford Business Park forward.

No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 14/08/2012 YV1 Housing can be met in urban framework so YV1 can be

deleted. No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/08/2012 YV1 Too much housing in Yeovil No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/08/2012 YV1 Housing requirement for Yeovil can be met within the urban

framework delete Policy YV1 No No

6760609 A Handcock 25/07/2012 YV1 Objects to developers proposal north of Yeovil (Primrose Lane/ Lyde Road). No No

6775521 J Prestedge 30/07/2012 YV1

Oppose proposal by Abbey Manor Group to promote land at Primrose Lane, Yeovil. Infrastructure not in place to support further growth - hospital in particular. Mudford Road/ Lyde Road will not support the influx of a further 1600 cars. Lyde Road key Site not selling and Brimsmore to come forward yet. The fields form a natural barrier between Mudford and Yeovil and is sensitive in landscape terms.

No No

6775553 D & M Powell 05/07/2012 YV1 Support No No

6775553 D & M Powell 30/07/2012 YV1

Oppose proposal by Abbey Manor Group to promote land at Primrose Lane, Yeovil. It forms no part of the Local Plan which has been properly prepared and this site has been discounted by the Council for good reasons - impact on farmland, impact on highways, impact on environment, flood risk and lack of community facilities. The northern part of Yeovil has taken far too large a burden of expansion in recent years and an intolerable increase in traffic on Thorne Lane and Western Avenue.

No No

6817921 N Boxall 06/08/2012 YV1 Should not include additional 935 dwellings at Yeovil SUE outside the plan period. Object to SUE on transport, loss of greenfield land.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6832641 T & U Wills 06/08/2012 YV1Support. Object to developer alternative at Primrose Lane. Do no want tax payers money spent on going over old ground. Traffic impact. Flood risk.

No No

6934881 M & C Graff 08/08/2012 YV1 Support omission of Primrose Lane from Plan. No No

6936577 M & J Adams 08/08/2012 YV1 Object to Primrose Lane and support current Local Plan proposals. No No

6938273 L Bird 13/08/2012 YV1 Object to proposed Abbey Manor development at Primrose Lane. No No

6939393 T, M & A Cavalier 08/08/2012 YV1 Object to Primrose Lane, no need for this in local plan. No No

7011425 N Davies 09/08/2012 YV1

Object to proposals to include Primrose Lane as part of plan - contrary to NPPF, impact on environment, flooding, lack of jobs, loss of bio-diversity, not sustainable development, loss of farming land, should use brownfield sites, limited public transport, will not support vitality of town centre, will not support rural economy, protection of green belt land, impact on wildlife.

No No

7080865

Sherborne & District CPRE, Mr P Neal, Chairman

09/08/2012 YV1

Object to any plan for extensive development on open countryside between Yeovil and Sherborne and Yeovil and the villages of Trent and Comptons. Traffic congestion and building on or near the floodplain are key issues.

No No

7085985


10/08/2012 YV1 Support 2,500 dwellings for SUE No No


10/08/2012 YV1 Support 2,500 dwellings for SUE No No

7131329 S Harris & G Daly 10/08/2012 YV1

Object to land at Primrose Lane being used for housing, Mudford should remain village, entrance on accident blackspot, blight of property, too much development to north of Yeovil already, surface water run-off, high grade agricultural land, food security, loss of natural environment, impact on tourism, wildlife, need to develop brownfield first.

No No

7131521 J & M Cary 10/08/2012 YV1

Object Primrose Lane: no need for further housing over what is already proposed; lots of housing already, no infrastructure, Yeovil lopsided already, traffic, flooding, cut off Mudford.

No No

7132001 P Lydon 10/08/2012 YV1Object to land at Primrose Lane being used for housing: traffic, drainage, impact on services, flooding, no school, lateness of scheme.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7151809 D Johnson 10/08/2012 YV1Object to Primrose Lane: impact on traffic, flooding, lack of services, anthrax in ground, thought development decided to south.

No No

7158593

Yvonne Rowlands (Mudford Parish Council)

10/08/2012 YV1

Objects - Highways at capacity and inappropriate. Air, noise, light pollution. Infrastructure impact - hospitals, schools, public transport, emergency services, employment opportunities. Drainage inadequate. Petition from residents included.

No No

7252353


13/08/2012 YV1

Support emphasis on growth in Yeovil but need to reinforce further. Not clear where some of the growth figures e.g. windfalls comes from and not sure this complies with latest definition of windfalls. Think given uncertainty of windfalls the amount of development in Yeovil SUE could be extended. Justification for phasing in para 5.16 is not supported; it appears to confuse justification for urban extension with justification for development beyond plan period. No consistency with Chard approach. Should delete the requirement for growth beyond plan period.

No Yes

Delete paragraph 5.16, as this suggests a brownfield first provision that does not accord with the NPPF, and amend the Policy to read: within the overall provision of 7,441 dwellings at Yeovil 5,876 are anticipated in the Urban Framework of the Town and 2,500 dwellings at a Sustainable Urban Extension. The Housing Trajectory indicates delivery of 1,565 dwellings in the Sustainable Urban Extension within the Plan period.

7284289


10/08/2012 YV1 The housing requirement for Yeovil should be 6,177 which can be met fully within the urban framework. No No

7284289


10/08/2012 YV1 Amend housing allocation from 7,815 to 6,380 and change rural settlements from 2,400 to 3,034. No No

7329185


10/08/2012 YV1

A 20% buffer should be added to the housing figures to accord with the NPPF, and the 935 dwellings anticipated to be delivered post 2028 should be brought within the plan period.

No No

7422689 A Johnson 10/08/2012 YV1 Object to Primrose Lane: impact on traffic, flooding, lack of services. No No

7442657Chairman East Coker Society

13/08/2012 YV1

Objects. Understands the need to grow but this proposal will impact on those in and outside of Yeovil - sense of community. More dispersed approach preferred - in and around villages. Not enough jobs for increased population. Impact on education and medical facilities.

No No


13/08/2012 YV1/YV2Further hydraulic modelling is required to determine actual risk of flooding in the area in line with EQ1, directing all development away from medium and high risk flood zones.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1468929

Jesus College (R Stansfield), Agent S Briggs

09/08/2012 YV1 & YV2

Object. Para 47 of NPPF identifies need to have 5 year supply of housing, strategy for Yeovil over reliant on SUE and no contingency if it cannot be delivered. Economic downturn - quarterly starts down by 40% to less than 26,000 per quarter (pre 2008 42,000 per quarter). Starts reduced over last 2 quarters. Viability has been impacted, consumer confidence in housing market undermined. Knight Frank UK Housing Market Forecast shows most likely recovery will not be until post 2015 with house prices not reaching 2007 levels again until 2018. Infrastructure costs are substantial making delivery within anticipated timescales less likely. No masterplanning has been undertaken so far, levels of local objection high therefore number to be delivered likely to be reduced. Little reassurance that sufficient development can be delivered in the short to medium term. Approach advocated in YV1 & YV2 are not consistent with national policy - SUE will not deliver sufficient housing in the earlier part of the plan period. Measures need to be put in place.

No Yes

Additional text to be added after para 13.5 on contingency and risk management - contingency planning is appropriate and advocated by Planning Inspectorate. See attached Annex 5 Contingency and Risk.

4171521 C Hollis 07/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Object; other options available, lack of evidence, grade 1 land, impact on villages. No No

4223329 Mudford PC 08/08/2012 All/YV1/YV2Agree with the current plan and proposals to go to south and west of Yeovil and rejects any alternative north or multi site options.

No No

4276097 I Begley 20/07/2012 YV1 / YV2

Object to population projections and need for scale of development. Impact on East Coker, grade 1 & 2 listed buildings, Roman Villa, safety concerns relating to AgustaWestlands, grade 1 & 2 agricultural land, steep gradients will prevent sustainable development options through cycling and walking to the town, transport modelling inadequate, quality of life, traffic generation, light pollution, public rights of way, impact on wildlife, traffic on Hendford Hill & Forest Hill.

No No

4322977 F A Joneleit 08/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Object to Primrose Lane area for various reasons, growth should be to south as per current plans. No No

4330081 A Cordwell 01/08/2012 YV1/YV2Object to direction & scale of growth and suburbanisation of East Coker, traffic, loss of grade 1 land, flooding, loss of paths & impact on wildlife.

No No




Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 YV1/2

Agency is supportive of the principle of growth at Yeovil. Consider the evidence robust and fit for purpose. Evidence also supports the location of the urban extension to the South. Improvements required at the Cartgate Roundabout can be achieved through joint working with the Councils on the Area Action Plan. Potential reassign to the Tintinhull and Queen Street/Bearley junctions could exacerbate existing safety issues. The Agency feels this should be recognised in the Local Plan.

No No

6813153 J Darvill 01/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Object to direction of growth due to traffic, flooding, impact on environment and wildlife. No No

6813185 P Furlong 01/08/2012 YV1YV2 Object to scale of growth and direction of growth due to traffic, flooding, impact on wildlife. No No

6813281 L Furlong 01/08/2012 YV1/YV2Object to direction of growth towards Barwick due to traffic, increased flooding, loss of grade 1 land & detriment to wildlife.

No No

6830561 R Fisher 06/08/2012 YV1, YV2 Support the Yeovil SUE. No No

6936321 J Joneleit 08/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Object to Primrose Lane area for various reasons, growth should be to south as per current plans. No No

6939457 A C Wilson 08/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Object to Primrose Lane, no need for this in local plan. No No

6939457 A C Wilson 10/08/2012 YV1/YV2

Support SUE and object to land at Primrose Lane being used for housing: traffic, drainage and flooding, lack of health and education infrastructure, impact on landscape and natural environment, no need for additional housing over existing proposed growth.

No No

6959521 M Salzer 10/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - impact on infrastructure, not enough employment, poor green credentials. No No

7012449 H Garvey 10/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Scale of Yeovil's growth unnecessary but if it is needed support SUE, object to anything at Primrose Lane. No No

7012545 P Garvey 10/08/2012 YV1/YV2 Scale of Yeovil's growth unnecessary but if it is needed support SUE, object to anything at Primrose Lane. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.19 Building new employment along water frontage better achieves enhancement of work/leisure ethos. No No


10/08/2012 5.22 Object, first sentence inconsistent with Retail Study update para 4.37. No No

6773313 M Horsley 02/08/2012 5.22 Object to vision due to number of retail units vacant . No need for retail expansion. No No


10/08/2012 5.23 Wording unclear - should be explicit that referring to "net" floorspace. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.26 Objects. Claims of comparative study with other options are unbalanced. Merit of River Yeo ignored. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 5.26

Nonsensical claims that need to improve A303 to Stonehenge not founded. Lack of local knowledge by stakeholders led to misinformation. Minimal differences in impact on A303 between north and south of Yeovil and no reference made to huge scale of growth proposed, impact on loss of agricultural land not properly considered - whole site is on grade 1 land not as written in document, only 5% of this left in country. SUE will take over 1.3% of all grade 1 land in south of Yeovil.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 31/07/2012 5.28 No reference to constraints mapping. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.32

Object. Para 5.32 reasoning is fallible. North-east sector of Yeovil has benefit of River Yeo for utilisation as a naturally sustainable transport route. Provides potentially unhindered route between Mudford Bridge and Yeovil Junction Railway Station. Existing centres of employment are closer to original Town Centre. Improved opportunities for walking and cycling - untrue if consultants had looked at all forms of transport the North East option would have scored higher. Bullet on environmental impact favours northern options. Transport access will aggravate air pollution. North East embraces contribution from Water Authority Agencies in addition to landowners. North East offers greater diversity of investors.

No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 5.32

SA for South and West of Yeovil SUE flawed on all counts. Highway assessment by Parsons Brinkerhoff finally confirms that development to NW would have easy access to A303 and anything to south will have to cross town with congestion at various junctions.

No No

1205057 D Keen 03/08/2012 5.33 Object as 45 dph too high. Lyde Road 41 dph crammed - small gardens, difficult parking. Target should be 35 dph. No Yes Delete 4th sentence of para 5.33 as density is a

masterplanning matter.

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 5.33 Object to density being 45 dph in SUE - think too high and

will lead to flats, family housing should be 35 dph No Yes Delete 4th sentence of para 5.33 as density is a masterplanning matter.

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.34 Objects. Need for Buffer demonstrates why South and West is not a sustainable option. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.34 Objects. This indicates the unsuitability of the SUE. Such expenditure not needed for North-East. No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 5.35

Highway Agency's comments are snapshot of whole document which isn't accurately reflected. A link on to the A3088 would relieve serious traffic congestion on Western Avenue, car use has to be accepted as fact.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 5.35

Too much reliance on highways reports. No clear and convincing evidence from SCC highways or Highways Agency. No significant strain on A303 predicted from routes generally out of Yeovil and opinion on sustainability of options differs. Concern is raised that modal shift will not happen in SUE and disagree that any one location for SUE would be more likely than others to achieve modal shift.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.35 - 5.37 Highways Agency seem to believe they can trap residents in their own homes. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.36

Although undertaken work to inform the location of the urban extension, work only now beginning on the detail in Yeovil Transport Strategy Review 2 (YTSR2) to identify specifics - due 2013.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.36Report not accurately reflected and could lead to misinterpretation of the contents. Various minor wording changes suggested to make clearer.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 5.38True cost of infrastructure for SUE, viability and practicality of delivery have been omitted. Serious deficiencies in assessment of alternatives especially North West direction.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.38 - 5.40Adding cost intimated in 5.39 & 5.40 to the South and West option incurs greater expense than the difference calculated between the 2 options of IDP findings.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 5.41 Density in proposed SUE too ambitious and not consistent with Garden City principles No Yes Delete 4th sentence of para 5.33 as density is a

masterplanning matter.

4103553


09/08/2012 5.41-5.45

Not clear whether applies to SUE or Summerhouse Village. Typing error on capitalisation of "however". Bullet 3 - delete word "usage" and change "retention" to "adoption". Bullet 4 change "controlled" to "constrained."

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.41 - 5.45Objects. Council are claiming sustainability whilst omitting requirements of Central Govt because they cannot be achieved to comply with NPPF.

No No

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 5.41-5.47

Garden City principle supported but believe greater proportion of greenspace should be in larger private gardens. Addition of extra area of land as public open space would also allow for more public amenity area.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.44

How will standards be measured? Also suggest bullet 3 amended to read - "access to at least one employment opportunity" suggest bullet 4 amended to read 400m not 10 minutes walk as people walk at different speeds.

No Yes Add 400m in brackets after "a 10 minute walk" in 4th bullet of paragraph 5.44 for clarity.




Ref



Minor Change


1200929Brympton Parish Council

19/07/2012 YV2

Support Yeovil SUE - extensive work carried out by officers and scrutinised by the Council. North and west is already massively developed, development to south would compensate the linear development of the town. South recommended by the Planning Inspector in original Local Plan, but not included. Concerned by the recent reduction in housing figures as the larger critical mass will make the site more viable. Delivery could be extended beyond the plan period. Under allocation in the current plan period lead to the loss of employment land to housing. North west area has far more Historic Environment and tourism income than the southern option. Benefit of schools being built to the south reducing the current road journeys to schools in the north. Land to south already in developers hands, northwest actively farmed by farmers reluctant to rescind ownership to development.

No No

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 YV2If leisure facilities are necessary they should be specified in the policy along with education and health requirements. Potential for SUE to deliver proper community facilities.

No No

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 YV2 IDP identifies the need for faith infrastructure. I commend this. No No

1225441 M Day 04/07/2012 YV2Location of the SUE is not sustainable and will increase car journeys and congestion on Hendford Hill and East Coker Road.

No No

1285057


10/08/2012 YV2

Support Policy - all recent housing been in north and north-east, further development to north would add extra burdens, time for other locations provided proper measures taken to protect historic villages. Recent key sites had some resistance to providing community facilities, placing burden on existing facilities in town. urban extension will be of a scale to merit provision of necessary facilities at lowest infrastructure cost including secondary school. Traffic congestion and road safety are major concerns and low carbon travel imperative so within urban extension economies of scale can be achieved.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 YV2

Consider the Plan provides insufficient consideration and protection of the historic environment and therefore unsound. Question how sustainable this policy will be and whether it reflects the requirements of NPPF. Subject to the principle of development being justified in this area, an historic character assessment and sensitivity analysis should inform any future masterplan. Any harm to the significance of the heritage assets & their settings affected should be minimised. Impact on Roman Villa is considered to preclude urban extension to south and west and a multi-site option for peripheral growth preferred instead.

No Yes

Add after 3rd sentence of para 5.33: The importance of the historic environment in and around the identified location has been a particular consideration, including the presence of a Roman Villa, listed buildings, Conservation Areas, and a Historic Park and Garden. A Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil's periphery (July 2010) was undertaken to ensure robust evidence on this issue. Add after 2nd sentence of para 5.46: The heritage assets in the vicinity of the direction of growth will require particular consideration and assessment through the master planning process in order to ensure that these assets are conserved and, where possible, enhanced.


14/08/2012 YV2

The Yeovil SUE would result in significant harm to local heritage and village identity which has not been properly assessed in supporting evidence and the Sustainability Appraisal, and cannot be sufficiently mitigated. E.g. includes a Roman Villa and Grade II listed buildings in the proposed development.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The East and North Coker Buffer Zone should include Pavyotts Mill and should extend further west to protect the ancient sunken lanes to the north of Burton Lane, North Coker. It is implied that the buffer zone will be a Local Green Space designation but this is not explicit.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The Yeovil SUE will cause a loss of a significant amount of Grade 1 agricultural land, contrary to the NPPF which does not group grades 1, 2, and 3a together as best and most versatile agricultural land but states that LPAs should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The presence of Hendford Hill is a barrier to walking and cycling and will increase journey time. The required changes for increases in walkers, cyclists and cars to Hendford Hill have not been fully assessed.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The impact of increased traffic on the surrounding villages (North Coker, East Coker, Barwick and Stoford) has not been fully assessed. Traffic travelling from the A37 to the A3088 will go through East Coker, and increased traffic to Yeovil Junction will go through Barwick and Stoford.

No No




Ref



Minor Change



14/08/2012 YV2

The location of employment land in the preferred location of the Yeovil SUE will increase travel and congestion as it is furthest from the main connection to the national road network i.e. the A303.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The Yeovil SUE would have a significant negative impact on water quality. The River Yeo is already failing to meet the Water Framework Directive, and the groundwater under the south of Yeovil is designated as a principle aquifer. There is no reference to the SW River Basin Management Plan.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The Yeovil SUE will have a significant negative impact on air quality, particularly nitrogen dioxide and particulate emissions and given the presence of the Air Quality Management Area fails to explain how high quality design will prevent additional air pollution.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The Yeovil SUE will lead to a negative impact upon biodiversity by putting the Biodiversity Action Plan priority species Sandy Stilt Puffball at risk by destroying its habitat at the Red House roundabout, and affect several bat species.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2It will be difficult to attract employers to the south of the town as skilled employees will require fast access to the Taunton, Bridgwater, Bristol and Exeter areas.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

A full assessment of the required infrastructure costs has not been carried out, as it states that further detail will be included in the Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension Area Action Plan.

No No


14/08/2012 YV2

The Yeovil SUE would have a significant negative impact on the adjacent flood zone 3 in East Coker, Barwick and Stoford. The SA failed to identify increased flooding in the future associated with climate change as a future trend. Run off will be significant and Sustainable Drainage Systems will not stop all of this.

No No

1561153 L A Bennett 14/08/2012 YV2

Include my land in the Yeovil SUE. It should be removed from the buffer zone as it does not 'buffer' development from East Coker. Inclusion of this land will help bring development back from the southern edge. Development should be around Yeovil

No Yes

The two fields proposed are considered generally acceptable for development as they are already adjacent to the urban area on two sides, their loss would not impact on the role and nature of the buffer zone, and there is evidence that they are now available for development. Amend Inset Map 15 to delete these two fields from the urban buffer (see plan attached to this Appendix).




Ref



Minor Change



Support principle of Yeovil SUE, already access to SUE from Redlands (A37), only 2 land owners at Keyford with 73% (242 acres) of proposed SUE within consortia ownership, agree with good sustainability criteria and support masterplanning approach and energy efficient measures. Object to density of 45 dp acre - too high, should be max 35 dp acre otherwise need flats to gain density.

No Yes Delete 4th sentence of para 5.33 as density is a masterplanning matter.

4122433 B Hartley YV2

A rural district such as South Somerset is not suited to such a large scale development. The NPPF states that Garden Cities can sometimes be achieved by working with the support of local communities, and is a broad concept rather than a panacea for urban extensions.

No No


Have not considered the impact of the Yeovil SUE on the community in the parish of East Coker and social impacts of restricting development in rural settlements. There will be a significant impact on land, heritage and highways. The economic projections are over optimistic.

No No


Traffic modelling evidence is flawed as final study did not assess the impact upon Cartgate, Tintinhull and Bearley Lane/Queen Street junctions from all options. Impact of Yeovil SUE on the road network is underplayed in plan and the SA. The Highways Agency failed to correctly assess the evidence presented to them.

No No

4154401 S Shayler 25/07/2012 YV2

Objects: loss of Grade 1 Agricultural land, health hazard from sewage disposal, traffic issues, walking and cycling difficult due to topography, a number of smaller developments around Yeovil would be better e.g. Primrose Lane/Lyde Road, additional housing in South Petherton / Ilminster area, economic climate - where are the jobs going to come from?

No No

4155105 C Phillips YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. Coalescence between Yeovil and East Coker and loss of independent communities. Environment Minister has stated that growth should the links between economy, the environment and human well-being - sustainable development goals. Land is not a commodity to be used at will by market dominated society. Hedges and paths are a reminder of the past. Impact of more traffic on village streets.

No No

4156801 M A Whipp 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No

4156833 B & CW Morgan 03/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4156897 D G Beckley 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE: impact of traffic, roads used as rat run, loss of grade 1 land, food production. No No

4157217 AD Gatcombe 02/08/2012 YV2

Object to direction of growth; loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic, infrastructure, schools & hospital, police, underused brownfield sites, wildlife.

No No

4157249 J Gatcombe 02/08/2012 YV2Object to direction of growth; loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic, infrastructure, schools,& hospital, police, underused brownfield sites, wildlife.

No No

4157345 J Marriott 03/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Flooding - Barwick. Consultation, traffic, economic need for houses not there, impact on countryside. No No

4157409 A Beardsley 07/08/2012 YV2 Traffic impact, and flood risk. No No

4158849 Ali Lewis 08/08/2012 YV2 Object loss of agricultural land, impact on roads, lack of hospital facilities, increased flooding, accessibility No No

4159905 M Gowers 25/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - impact on Grade 1 Agricultural Land, increased traffic, road system inadequate, housing numbers over inflated, flood plain- increased likelihood of flooding in Barwick & Stoford, light, noise and air pollution.

No No

4159937 J Gowers 25/07/2012 YV2

Object: loss of Grade 1 Agricultural land, alternatives have not been explored properly, housing numbers are too high, up to date projections have not been used, increased risk of flooding, increased traffic, walking and cycling difficult due to topography, brownfield development should come first, smaller communities could take growth like Queen Camel is planning. Somerset is a rural location and should be protected.

No No

4159969 Rachel Bayley 10/08/2012 YV2 Object Yeovil SUE: loss of grade 1 land. No No

4160289 M P Edwards 08/08/2012 YV2

Object Yeovil SUE; delays in timescale to accommodate council, grade 1 agricultural land, this site not identified in cluster workshops, housing should be spread, Highway Agency comments inaccurately reported, population and employment based on figures from before banking crisis, employment based on two main employers, access congested, landscape study at odds with allocation, light pollution.

No No

4160609 Paula Edwards 03/08/2012 YV2

Object - impact on Dorset AONB, specifically from light pollution; BMV land; flooding; traffic; more viable to spread development in several locations.

No No

4163169 J E Couchman 03/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of Grade 1 land, traffic impact, increased risk of flooding, evidence does not support the number of houses.

No No

4164289 V T Peacock 02/08/2012 YV2 Objects to direction of growth No No




Ref



Minor Change


4168865 A L Haylock 03/08/2012 YV2 Flood risk, traffic congestion, lack of need due to weak economy, brownfield first, loss of BMV land. No No

4170913 J M Brewster 13/08/2012 YV2

Yeovil SUE will lead to loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic chaos, lack of future jobs, lack of hospital capacity. Brownfield sites and empty properties should be used instead.

No No

4171521 C Hollis 10/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE - loss grade 1 land, traffic, lack of employment, modal shift. No No

4172289 J N Cordwell 27/07/2012 YV2

Object Yeovil SUE - impact on East Coker, lack of need due to economic downturn, other locations are better for access to employment and major roads, empty industrial units already exist so no need for more, increased traffic, flooding caused by increased 'tarmaccing', loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.

No No

4172449 J W Hollis 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No

4200065 G E Voizey 08/08/2012 YV2Objects to SUE: no improvement to infrastructure for roads, flooding, hospital, loss of grade 1 land, no evaluation of alternative sites, employment figures unrealistic.

No No

4210177 C Barker 07/08/2012 YV2

Flooding in southern option, lack of additional hospital provision in Infrastructure Plan, Grade 1 agric land, buffer needs extending to N & E Coker, poor road connections, escarpment.

No No

4214625 D Cloke 07/08/2012 YV2 Council has not used the statutory consultations in a legal way - pretended to consult rather than consult. No No

4216609 A Bradley 23/07/2012 YV2

Increased risk of flooding at Barwick - example cited at below Key Farm, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on the road network, walking and cycling aspiration supported but unlikely to occur in sufficient levels, rat running, light pollution, fears settlement coalescences of Barwick.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Detrimental to the environment and historic assets. Flagrant disregard of NPPF and Councils own dictates. No No

4220865 Mr &Mrs M Eyre 10/08/2012 YV2

Support SUE for southerly direction of growth for Yeovil. Previous development all to north, need to rebalance, close to town centre.

No No

4222305 A R Ford 10/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: loss of grade 1 land, food production, increased risk of flooding, traffic congestion, too many homes, should be more widespread.

No No

4222817 Mary Felstead 23/07/2012 YV2

Prefer a distribution growth strategy, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, walking and cycling is unrealistic, Two Tower lane is unrealistic, rat runs, increased flooding in Barwick & Stoford.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4224417 Robert Felstead 23/07/2012 YV2 Infrastructure - no by pass or park and ride, narrow lanes,

increased traffic, flooding. No No

4224513 G J Trott 07/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No

4273153 C Vince 27/07/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil urban extension due to impact on important historic assets, adverse traffic impact, lack of need for such a scale of housing, sustainable travel is not realistic as people will not use Yeovil Junction due to its divorced location and Hendford Hill is too steep for walkers/cyclists, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.

No No

4273249 P & M Pisani 24/07/2012 YV2

Main communication arteries to the north of the town, inhabitants of housing to the south will pass through the town to access it. Despite central govt policy need for housing near Yeovil must be established and then located where least impact, to the north. Not comprehensible to position it in one big lump on prime agricultural land. Other objections include congestion, traffic control, availability of facilities (schools, hospitals).

No No

4273441 G Hoad 23/07/2012 YV2

Traffic congestion along Dorchester Road, Quicksilver roundabout, road widening is not an option, development to the north is preferred - good connection to the A303, development in the South would need to traverse Yeovil, rat runs, bus routes is not an option, cycling to work is unlikely, object to employment allocation within the development, two way traffic, inadequate infrastructure, for business, unrealistic to expect one job per house, no proven need, existing unused allocations, under occupancy in main trading estates

No No

4273473 S Parham 13/08/2012 YV2

Number of homes required is based on flawed calculations, alternative options have not been properly reviewed, brownfield sites such as old ski slope area should be regenerated, employment forecasts are misguided, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, traffic congestion, historic environment, flooding.

No No

4273505 K Parham 13/08/2012 YV2

Number of homes required is based on flawed calculations, alternative options have not been properly reviewed, brownfield sites such as old ski slope area should be regenerated, employment forecasts are misguided, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, traffic congestion, historic environment, flooding.

No No

4273665 P V Riley 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, increased flood risk, PDL should be used, mischievous / opportune grab for power - should be a more dispersed approach amongst Towns and Villages.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4273697 B S Read 13/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. Loss of wildlife habitat. Loss of countryside. No No

4273729 P A Read 07/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE. No No

4273793 A E Lewis 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - loss grade 1 land, traffic, buffer, protection of countryside. No No

4274497 S L Duley 25/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: Impact on historic associations and community traditions, displacement of employment from the town centre, proposal to walk or cycle to town centre impractical due to topography, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, increased flood risk, smaller developments would be preferred where cottage industry can develop, lack of consideration given to alternative sites, brownfield first, impact on wildlife and environment.

No No

4274529 B Rawlings 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. No proper evaluation of brownfield sites. Lack of hospital facilities. No No

4274561 M Rawlings-Dickin 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. No proper

evaluation of brownfield sites. Lack of hospital facilities. No No

4274657 R Duley 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE as there are other sites in and around Yeovil, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, lack of need, impact on infrastructure, light pollution.

No No

4275041 P Dagnall 08/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE; traffic generation, location not encouraging walking/cycling, air quality, impact on environment, loss of grade 1 land, loss of public open space, wider buffer zone, housing numbers over inflated, negative impact on villages, consultation process too complex for most people.

No No

4275105 I White 08/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: impact on roads, housing number over inflated, loss of grade 1 agric land, flooding, negative impact on other settlements.

No No

4275265 D Mills 02/08/2012 YV2 Objects to direction of growth to south, short sighted use of land, increased traffic, steep escarpment, not sustainable. No No

4275361 D A Alexander 10/8//2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: wrong location and scale, no evaluation of alternatives especially brownfield sites, no evidence of housing numbers, loss of grade 1 land, flooding, lack of road improvements, traffic chaos, people won't walk or cycle, lack of hospital facilities, employment figures unrealistic.

No No

4275393 G R Alexander 10/08/2012 YV2

Object Yeovil SUE: object to lack of consultation, traffic impact not assessed, no provision for water supply, flooding, create a slum.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4275425 C S E Beddoes 06/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, houses not needed - no employment to support, flooding - Barwick and Stoford.

No No

4275617 J A Lewis 10/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE - loss grade 1 land, traffic, buffer, protection of countryside. No No

4275937 P Helliar 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - size of extension and impact on landscape and village life, loss of grade 1 land, increased in traffic, hospital not coping with demands, loss of footpaths, flooding, unrealistic buffer zone.

No No

4275937 P Helliar 13/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE due to landscape impact, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, impact on hospital capacity, loss of footpaths in East Coker area, flooding, owners of buffer zone land will be able to build in the future.

No No

4276001 A Bingley 02/08/2012 YV2Object to direction of growth; out-of-date population data, empty properties, grade 1 agricultural land, wildlife impact, flooding, traffic, heritage.

No No

4276033 J M Horwood 07/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No

4285921 D E Taylor 31/07/2012 YV2

Objects - loss of grade 1 agricultural land and impact on farming industry, no need as there are sufficient empty residential & commercial properties in Yeovil, will increase flooding, especially in East Coker and A37, impact on road network and increased congestion, pollution, noise and negative impact on surrounding villages.

No No

4286081 J Tazzyman 05/07/2012 YV2 No need, poor infrastructure - no improvements, Grade 1 agricultural land. No No

4286401 J Best 23/07/2012 YV2Still brownfield site available, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, Flood risk, traffic congestion, development will not support sustainable transport, light pollution, rat runs.

No No

4286497 R Clemas 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Option to extend Yeovil into Dorset was dismissed because it would encompass Over Compton - could be alleviated by having a Buffer as proposed for East Coker. No evidence that SSDC consulted with West Dorset DC.

No No

4286625 B Vaux 31/07/2012 YV2

Object - loss of grade 1 agricultural land, concentrating residential growth in one location will stretch resources of that area, majority of employment is to the north of Yeovil, therefore housing to the south will increase congestion, and rat runs will be created.

No No

4286721 E J Williams 10/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: will spoil countryside, loss of agricultural land which need for food, roads dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

No No

4286785 S, D & D Studley 06/08/2012 YV2 Object. Grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, increased

risk of flooding, cultural impact, scale of housing. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4286817 C Dolan 07/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE. No No

4286849 D Taylor 01/08/2012 YV2 Object to direction of growth due to traffic, loss of grade 1 land, flooding. No No

4286881 J Hall and C Cason 10/08/2012 YV2

Increase in traffic, grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife, heritage, pollution, other areas available, e.g. Football Club, are housing numbers needed?

No No

4286913 S Walker 08/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE, grade 1 agricultural land, access via Keyford is poor/Hendford Hill, flooding. No No

4286945 H Styles 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: Loss of grade 1 land, need food production in this country, negative impact on town centre and surrounding villages, impact on natural environment, built heritage, housing should be distributed, impact on facilities e.g. hospital.

No No

4287041 D J Nicol 02/08/2012 YV2Objects to direction of growth; historic environment, grade 1 agricultural land, lack of infrastructure, poor roads, flood zone.

No No

4287073 B E Nicol 02/08/2012 YV2Objects to direction of growth; flooding, road infrastructure, grade 1 agricultural land, dispersed growth strategy preferred.

No No

4287137 R & J Hodder 06/08/2012 YV2

Object. Transport infrastructure, destruction of East Coker, SSDC not listening, flooding - Barwick & Stoford, will be no open space, Yeovil can sustain itself without in migration. Build on Ham Hill or Exmoor.

No No

4287681 E Owen 09/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - impact on heritage. No No

4288577 M & W Weston 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: this is a new town, no demand on such a huge scale, industry unnecessary, traffic congestion, loss of grade 1 land, loss of heritage asset, no proper brownfield assessment, flooding, lack of hospital facilities, lack of parking.

No No

4288609 S Lewis-Cowlin 13/08/2012 YV2

Yeovil SUE will result in loss of grade 1 agricultural land, increased flood risk, traffic impact, costly infrastructure requirements.

No No

4288673 Mr & Mrs Harwood 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Foundations on which transport considerations have been made - burden on A30. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4288801 I Boswall 09/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: presumption in favour of development in relation to SUE, size of development, location - poor access to services, will not reduce poverty, will not improve health and well-being, will not provide sufficient housing, will impact on historic environment, Sustainability Appraisal is flawed, process and location being driven by developer intent, needs review in light of proposals at Primrose Lane, eco targets flawed, traffic chaos, impact on surrounding communities, will not protect wildlife, landscape or townscape.

No No

4289473 V Chelton 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - grade 1 agricultural land, increased traffic, villages will cease to exist. No No

4290497 CC & RJ Chant 20/07/2012 YV2

Object to development at Primrose Lane - support development at proposed Yeovil SUE. If went to North East settlement coalescence would occur at Mudford & Trent, flooding at Mudford, surface water and sewage disposal, landscape, traffic impact, development to the South will provide houses close to AgustaWestland, archaeology, wildlife impact.

No No

4290497

C Chant (includes petition with 98 signatures)

13/08/2012 YV2 Supports. Object to developer alternative at Primrose Lane, Yeovil. No No

4290497 Chant 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Primrose Lane area for various reasons, growth should be to south as per current plans. No No

4290625 J J White 07/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Over optimistic estimate of housing and employment need. Insufficient assessment of options to North and West of Yeovil as well as brownfield sites. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, increased risk of flooding. Traffic impact.

No No

4290625 J J White 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: size is grossly over optimistic based on employment trends, more appropriate areas to north and west of Yeovil including brownfield sites, loss of grade 1 land, flooding, lack of road planning and impact on A30/A37.

No No

4290689 J K Shaw 03/08/2012 YV2Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, highway impact, increased risk of flooding, negative impact on surrounding villages, impact on the environment.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4290721 W Fysh 14/08/2012 YV2

Objects, Yeovil SUE is unsupportable and unsustainable. Not necessary as there is sufficient housing stock and available land. No demand for existing developments. Even if housing and employment required there are better sites in & around Yeovil to place them. Development on a smaller scale in several smaller communities. Large urban sprawl will detract from the area. Not understood heritage, archaeology, culture, tourism, loss of identity, grade 1 agricultural land, traffic. Wishes of Parish Council over-ridden.

No No

4291009 A Owen 09/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE - impact on heritage loss of agricultural land, traffic, impact on tourism, other alternatives.

No No

4296801 G L Woodford 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects due to not considering other options, impact on heritage, ecological and agriculture. Growth rates too aggressive. Green Transport aspirational at best, insufficient infrastructure, traffic problems, flooding.

No No

4296833 G Bissex 01/08/2012 YV2 Objects to direction of growth due to traffic, loss of grade 1 land, flooding, & impact on environment. No No

4304449 J & D Pampling 06/08/2012 YV2

Original plan for Yeovil should be upheld objects to developer alternative at Primrose Lane: flooding, traffic, lack of market need, impact on natural environment.

No No

4305633 T R & H Ives 07/08/2012 YV2 Supports proposed DOG. No No

4305793 Mr & Mrs K J Helyar 07/08/2012 YV2

Support the location of the Yeovil SUE. Object to alternative at Primrose Lane due to flooding and traffic impact.

No No

4308001


13/03/2012 YV2

Proposed Yeovil SUE to the South provides the opportunity to deliver a local link road to enhance connectivity at the northern end of the A37. It would facilitate traffic movement from Dorset to the employment areas of Yeovil. Greater connectivity.

No No

4308001


13/03/2012 YV2Household recycling facilities must be addressed in the masterplan to prevent increased pressure on Sherborne's recycling centre.

No No

4309665 M A & J E Critchlow 08/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE, impact on historic environment,

impact on East Coker and Yeovil communities. No No

4309665 MA & JE Critchlow 10/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE - devastate village, scale too big,

traffic, invest in town itself. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4315777 M Thomas 14/08/2012 YV2

Object to loss of outstanding area of beauty surrounding Yeovil, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, grade A listed, designated green belt and additional traffic & pollution. Object to building industrial units and housing which would isolate us from village life. To preserve the parish of Wraxhill should be included in the buffer zone. Object to disturbance of the badger sets and bats. Objects to DOG.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 YV2

Site for around 800 dwellings plus associated community services/facilities at North East Yeovil (Primrose Lane) proposed with accompanying concept masterplan and landscape, topography, concept, highways, and habitat surveys attached. This will widen the choice and offer greater potential to deliver new homes at Yeovil.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 YV2 Seek additional urban extension of 400 dwellings to the south of the proposed Bunford Business Park. No No

4315809


14/08/2012 YV2

Support the principle of the Yeovil SUE, but not east of A37, or land not identified in the SHLAA, and land in the buffer zone adjacent East Coker should be removed (plan attached). The density should be amended to 35 dph as few, if any, housebuilders would develop at 45 dph. As a consequence, the capacity of the southern urban extension should be 1,500 dwellings. Support inclusion of land north of East Coker Road.


4315841 J K Snelling 14/08/2012 YV2

Objects due to loss of grade 1 land, inadequate car parking in Yeovil, consultation period due process not followed, traffic considerations, public transport use, infringement of due process, employment projection/innovation centre, buffer zone, scale of development in Yeovil.

No No

4315905 S Snelling 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, adverse traffic impact on Hendford Hill, car parking in Yeovil Town Centre, employment land and impact on Town Centre, light pollution, impact on well being, earlier consultations have been disregarded, other more suitable options have been disregarded, impact on village identity/community spirit. Heritage and ecological impact not properly assessed. Garden cities inconsistent with proposed density. Buffer should be properly managed by developer. All reference to Yeovil SUE should be deleted.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4316673 C M Field 08/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE; housing numbers based on projections, develop brownfield first, organic growth preferred, grade 1 agricultural land, noise and light pollution, buffer zone inadequate, history, wildlife.

No No

4316705 D Adams 08/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE; loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on roads, impact on villages, loss of heritage. No No

4316897 P Cullen-James 31/07/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No

4316929

West Dorset District Council (H Jordan)

13/08/2012 YV2 Support Yeovil DOG. No No

4320065 A J White 13/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE due to loss of grade 1 land, traffic, pollution, environment, infrastructure, wildlife, amenities. No No

4320257 L Whitsun-Jones 08/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: lack of proper consultation/ consideration of views, lack of consideration of other sites, population based on out of date figures, impact on heritage, ecological and agricultural impact, garden city principles inconsistent with plan, transport/highways, buffer zone welcome addition but cuts off part of Coker Parish from rest of Parish attaching it to Yeovil, lack of employment opportunities.

No No

4320321 J Sugg 13/08/2012 YV2Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, negative impact on wildlife, more dispersed approach preferred - in and around villages.

No No

4320321 J Sugg 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE due to loss of BMV agricultural land, lack of need, impact on infrastructure, development should be spread around villages instead.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4320449Wessex Farms Trust, Agent T Gent

06/08/2012

Spatial Portrait, Strategic

Objectives and Vision, SS1, SS5, SS6, SS7, YV1, YV2, YV6 HG1, HG3 TA1

General support but has 3 key concerns: a) Overall aim should be higher, b) More growth should be directed to Yeovil and C) level of housing the extension can and should deliver, phasing and concept. Many points in section 2 and 3 set the context for other comments - mismatch between jobs (50% in Yeovil) and homes (only 25% of population live there). Para 4.53 strategy loses its way - seeking to repeat past performance instead of improving it and para 4.82 which see only half of required homes directed to Yeovil. Between 60% and 70% of new housing should be directed to Yeovil. Jobs should remain the same. Some of the development proposed at Chard should be directed towards Yeovil (at least 500 dwgs) Crewkerne and Rural Settlement figures could also be reduced giving an additional 750-1000 dwgs to Yeovil. Provisions of SS6 should be handled carefully. SS7 could obstruct necessary and needed development - policy should be removed from plan. YV1 - Figure of 6,250 from urban area of Yeovil considered to be much too high - 5,800 would be more sensible and comes from the NPPF approach.

No Yes

Replace paragraphs 4.70-4.77 with new text derived principally from the Housing Provision Review Report presented to the Project Management Board (meetings 19 & 20) updating the housing requirement in the light of representations made and the content contained in Business Requirement Employment Survey information and ONS population projections.Policies SS4 & SS5 are amended in consequence. See Annex 1. Matters discussed in PMB meetings 21-23 also inform final wording of text and the policy. Delete 1st sentence of policy SS7. Replace with: "The Council will encourage early development of previously developed land", as the requested approach promoting brownfield over greenfield does not accord with the NPPF.

4320449Wessex Farms Trust, Agent T Gent

06/08/2012

Spatial Portrait, Strategic

Objectives and Vision, SS1, SS5, SS6, SS7, YV1, YV2, YV6, HG1, HG3 TA1

Fully support the proposed direction of growth. Concerns are: the explanation given for the choice and one location of site, use of "Garden City" as a cornerstone, high net density, provision for education, approach to greenspace, crude attempt to balance jobs and homes and amount of employment land triggered, modal split and sustainable transport and attention to bats. Until more info provided on these issues object to YV2 and YV6. Possible that plan could only deliver 1565 as the final size - plan should take account of this in terms of mix of uses and especially the amount of employment allocated. HG1- recommend smaller allocation of saving of housing over the plan period for Crewkerne. HG3 should recognise scope for variety of different housing to meet needs. TA1 - will not be possible to put all measures in place before first occupancy - some of the requirements should form part of guidance rather than policy to avoid conflict.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 YV2

Yeovil SUE not needed, however if growth is needed, greater emphasis should be given to protecting high quality agricultural land.

No No

4321377 D Bugler 10/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: loss of heritage site, building on grade 1 land, loss of night skies, increased traffic on roads that flood, numbers too big and buffer too small.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4321505

C Owen for Closworth Parish meeting

09/08/2012 YV2

Parish meeting Object to Yeovil SUE - road system over capacity at peak times, congestion, pollution, grade 1 agricultural land, proposal out of scale with current population, should have housing in each settlement.

No No

4321537 C Varley 23/07/2012 YV2Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, flooding, traffic, light, air and noise pollution, scale of development, impact on surrounding villages.

No No

4321665 R Vanderpump 02/08/2012 YV2

Objects to direction of growth; population projections, road infrastructure, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, Yeovil hospital is at capacity, heritage.

No No

4321729 M & V Cleal 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE: roads already struggle, parking at hospital limited, loss of grade 1 land, flooding. No No

4321857 J Hutchings (Mrs) 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Loss of agricultural land, destroying countryside,

traffic impact. No No

4321889 J Hutchings 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Too much housing, traffic impact. No No

4321921 Col & Mrs Armitstead 13/08/2012 YV2

Object. Own a Bed & Breakfast and proposals will have a detrimental impact on visitor numbers. Impact on infrastructure, particularly traffic. No need for homes, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, increased light pollution.

No No

4322049 G E Saunders 30/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE. Will cause congestion on all routes into Yeovil, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land and would have a major impact on East Coker and Barwick flood plain.

No No

4322145 N Clifton 08/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE; urban infrastructure at full stretch, walking/cycling impractical, lack of parking in town, lack of hospital places, wrong location for SUE, no jobs, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, need land for food production.

No No

4322273 C Keen 23/07/2012 YV2Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, inaccurate housing numbers, traffic, poor road infrastructure, drainage issues, flooding.

No No

4322273 C Keen 23/07/2012 YV2

Brownfield sites should be developed first, site is isolated from existing companies, unlikely that new residents will live and work in the same location, business vehicles will increase traffic, surface water run off .

No No

4322305 J & J Langdon 23/07/2012 YV2

Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic congestion the term eco housing as it implies carbon neutral housing, incorporate solar technology and insulation when in practice it referred to high densities, heritage environment of East Coker, no requirement for growth, scale of development in a rural environment, existing underutilised employment sites, dark skies.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4322593 S Owen 13/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE as steep hills are a disincentive for more walking and cycling, flood risk, and unacceptable that agricultural land and landscape constraints were given lower priority. Landowner and developer interest does not make it a reason to develop.

No No

4322625 P J Burrows 13/08/2012 YV2

Yeovil SUE should be removed as it would result in negative impacts on agricultural land, ecology, heritage, traffic. Unsound to give lower priority to agricultural land and landscape constraints. There has been a strong financial incentive for promoting higher levels of development and the location of the Yeovil SUE.

No No

4322817 R Bayley 13/08/2012 YV2

The Yeovil urban extension will cause huge traffic problems in the large number of homes planned and no road improvements. Walking/cycling is unrealistic due to steep gradient, and people no longer wish to live near where they work.

No No

4324673 Mr B Vaux 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - loss of grade 1 land, traffic, speed limits and risk to pedestrians. No No

4324801 J Denham 30/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE. Need for development of this scale has not been demonstrated, a dispersed approach preferable, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, negative impact on existing road network, negative impact on the environment - waste, flooding, wildlife.

No No

4324961 Y Shayler 07/08/2012 YV2 Development on BMV land, failed to present benefits for existing residents. No No

4325377 R Beardsley 06/08/2012 YV2Objects. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. Contrary to NPPF. Sustainable travel target of 50% unrealistic. Traffic impact, light pollution and loss of dark sky.

No No

4326113T S Eliot Society (Chinitz)

10/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE due to heritage, landscape, agricultural land, T S Eliot. No No

4326241 P C Griffin 06/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Impact on local environment, based on outdated economic projections, a more dispersed approach should be taken, flood risk, environmental impacts, impact on River Yeo - struggling to meet EU Water Framework Directive Standards. Traffic impact, Grade 1 agricultural land, contrary to NPPF, housing not needed.

No No

4326337 P J Taylor 02/08/2012 YV2 Object loss of agricultural land, congestion, flood risk, infrastructure, housing demand, dispersed strategy better. No No

4326369 P Hillard 08/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE, location and size, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, lack of road and infrastructure improvements, unrealistic job expectations, light pollution, landscape impact, flooding, hospital capacity.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4326529 G & J Leyshon 09/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE; negative impact on villages, traffic problems, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, built on Green belt, object to one large block of land.

No No

4326593 W Boize & S Perry 13/08/2012 YV2

Object due to light, noise and air pollution; impact on wildlife, flooding, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, heritage, traffic. Object to the retail park it should be directed to creating a quality town centre shopping. Should not build large quantities of social housing, which attract low income employees and unemployed. Quantity of houses unjustified.

No No

4326593 W Boize & S Perry 13/08/2012 YV2

Object. Should be more emphasis on PDL, should value the countryside more, need for housing over stated, should be a more dispersed approach including to villages, impact of light and air pollution, object to planned retail park on A37, impact on wildlife, increased risk of flooding, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. Buffer Zone inadequate, poorly located in terms of access to A303, A37 and M5, traffic impact, quality of Yeovil has been eroded over the years - plan seeks to destroy it's landscape, too much focus on low cost and social housing - needs to be a better mix to attract wealthier individuals to benefit the local economy. Plan should focus on increasing skills base.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4326945 K R Griffin 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Plan not in conformity with sustainability objectives of NPPF. Scale of extension likely to have a negative impact on air and water environmental quality and objectives. Fails to conform with Goal 11 of Sustainable Community Strategy and paras 109,110, 120 and 124 of the NPPF. River Yeo is currently failing the standards set by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) mainly due to elevated phosphate levels - SUE likely to exacerbate this. WFD should have been referred to in SA. SUE will worsen impact on Yeovil Air Quality Management Area. Increased risk of flooding in Flood Zone 3 in East Coker, Barwick and Stoford - contradicts paras 100 -103 of NPPF. Loss of Grade 1 Agricultural land - does not comply with paras 111 & 112 of NPPF. Will split the community of East Coker Parish - isolating Wraxhill Ward - contrary to paras 7 and 69 of NPPF. Would destroy 2.5 miles of rural footpaths - contrary to para 75 of NPPF. Puts UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species Battarrea phalloides (Sandy Stilt Puffball) at risk by destroying habitat at the Red House roundabout where it has been recorded - fails to conform with para 9 and 109 of NPPF.

No No

4327649 R Patten 13/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE due to traffic impact. No No

4328033 G Vanderpump 13/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Need for new infrastructure, traffic impact, impact

on Yeovil Hospital. No No

4328065 J Wells 08/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE: loss of grade 1 land, lack of infrastructure, particular roads, ignores flood zones, destroy heritage, natural environment, growth should be more spread out across district.

No No

4328097 M Wells 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to number of houses, grade 1 land, flood zone, steep hills, will result in decline of rural villages. No No

4328385 M Smyth 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Flood alleviation measures will be necessary. Impact on Coker Moor. Large scale development should not be proposed in flood plains. Traffic impact - impact on local road network has not been addressed by Parsons Brinckerhoff - radical infrastructure improvement required.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4328641 J M Lumley 06/08/2012 YV2

Object, building on grade 1 agricultural land, population projections based on unrealistic employment projections (current empty properties & 2 major employers have reduced in size over the last two years), flooding will increase and the flood mitigation has not been fully considered, road infrastructure is not designed to cope with the level of development which will lead to increased congestion (A303 to A37 is a freight route), effects of light & noise pollution as a result of development, negative impact on Yeovil Town Centre and East Coker's local facilities, no account taken of the importance of tourism, new employment sites will be divorced from existing sites. Strategy should spread development across the District, concentration will destroy rural villages.

No No

4328801 FT & OM Waterfield 01/08/2012 YV2 Object to direction of growth due to traffic, loss of grade 1

land. No No

4328929 N G Lindsay 14/08/2012 YV2 Object alternative sites should be considered, i.e. Primrose Lane. No No

4328929 N G Lindsay 14/08/2012 YV2 Object loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on historic environment, light & noise pollution, flooding and traffic. No No

4329025 P W Fitt 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE due to a lack of any detailed statement of traffic routes to and from the development, and the impact of the SUE on neighbouring counties.

No No

4329537 C Holliday 08/08/2012 YV2/TA6

Object to SUE; road congestion and Infrastructure Plan, extra deliveries, requiring walking/cycling unrealistic, SA report inaccurate, more parking required in town centre or high street will die.

No Yes

Delete ii) in respect of free bulk shopping deliveries in YV6, although retain in text as an example of what could be achieved.Suggested additional wording in 5.69 b first sentence: reducing the need to use the car for bulk shopping journeys (e.g. the weekly grocery shop), for example, by encouraging free deliveries by low emission/electric vans.This relies on a 3rd party to deliver, which may not be easy to achieve and is not a planning matter.

4329569 A Bissex 01/08/2012 YV2 Object to direction of growth due to traffic, loss of grade 1 land, flooding, loss of paths & impact on wildlife. No No

4329633 A T Kimpton 07/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - density is too high, will not accord with Garden City principles, BMV, traffic. No No

4329921 C M Bamsey 10/08/2012 YV2 Object SUE: heavy traffic on A37, building on grade 1 land, no proper evaluation of brownfield land. No No

4330049 M Field 13/08/2012 YV2 Object to scale of development that will engulf a precious heritage village with no road improvements. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4330113 J Carter 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE due to loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, no guarantee of job creation, impact on health infrastructure, lack of parking.

No No

4330241 L R Harwood 30/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, scale of proposal too big, not based on up to date data - lack of evidence, full consideration of alternatives not undertaken, development should be distributed more widely, dumping of 2,500 on a rural community. It will not be an Eco development. One job per household just a pipe dream, no need for more employment land when existing estates have got vacancies. There is a 50 % under estimate on traffic numbers impact will be significant particularly at peak times. Lack of thought re: impact on St Margaret's Hospice, lack of funding for highway improvements and other infrastructure. Parish Cluster meetings were not published at the time for public consumption - SSDC over ruled the findings. Objects to Members voting at Full Council without having had proper training on the NPPF and its interpretation and implementation.

No No

4330337 D M Miskin 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. SSDC have acted inappropriately. East Coker is the jewel in the crown. Traffic impact, impact on wildlife, light pollution, loss of agricultural land, increased risk of flooding.

No No

4330337 P & D Miskin 10/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE due to traffic congestion, impact on East Coker, should be brownfield first, adjacent to flood plain, unrealistic economic growth figures, historic and landscape impact, threaten riding stable, loss of BMV agricultural land.

No No

4330337 P & D Miskin 08/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE; Loss of agric land, loss of food production area, no coherent infrastructure planned, no proper evaluation of brownfield land, flooding, retiring people don't want urban areas, development should go to 100 villages with 10-20 in each, historic and environmental aspects, light pollution, flora and fauna, walking and cycling misguided, retail not attractive,

No No

4330401 P Woodford 13/08/2012 YV2

Object to proposed urban extension due to; growth levels too aggressive and should be distributed throughout the District, heritage, transport, infrastructure, landscape & grade 1 land.

No No

4545345 R E Hansford 13/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Traffic impact, alternative options should be

considered. No No

4564833 M Woolley 08/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE loss of grade 1 land and food production. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4564961 P Woolley 08/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE: traffic impact. No No

4575553 A J S Irwin 18/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - loss of grade 1 agricultural land, lack of necessary highway improvements, lack of information on flood risk at Stoford and adjacent A37, destruction of a beautiful and historic area.

No No

4659265 B Cloke 08/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE loss of grade 1 land. No No

5402209 C S Egan 06/08/2012 YV2Objects. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, brownfield sites should be used first, housing not needed, traffic impact, views of residents have been ignored.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 YV2 Objects - delete policy. No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 YV2

Concerned about heritage assets at East Coker - national and international importance. Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Impact on heritage not properly understood. Cannot mitigate the harm that would occur. Not compliant with UK policy on heritage. Need policy to protect whole of Parish. TS Eliot and Dampier connections. Lengthy history of village and Parish described in detail.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 YV2

Land in preferred option grade 1 agricultural land, perfect for food production, ignored heritage factors and landscape value, ancients monuments, dark skies, lack of mitigation, impact of employment land provision in Yeovil SUE and likely cross town commuting, uncertainty over cost of new infrastructure.

No No

5505761 F Larner 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE due to traffic impact. Why have the Council not had open discussions with Save East Coker campaigners and answered their concerns.

No No

5541953 R & L Aldridge 06/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE. No No

5541953 R & L Aldridge 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - traffic, heritage, flooding, grade 1

land, wildlife, employment and housing scale. No No

5542017 C Hewitt 13/08/2012 YV2The plan is detrimental due to inappropriate scale, traffic congestion, local anger and dismay. The town centre is in need of growth and so is tourism.

No No

5727777 E Glaisher 02/08/2012 YV2Support Yeovil SUE but think numbers should be increased as lost critical mass for public transport/infrastructure. Support Buffer Zone.

No No

5743009Greenslade Taylor Hunt (A Preston)

09/08/2012 YV2 Support direction of growth for Yeovil No No

6404673 Joan Powell 26/07/2012 YV2Objects to development to South of Yeovil not sustainable, no infrastructure, housing numbers too high, traffic congestion.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 YV2 Based on flawed out of date evidence. No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 YV2 Criteria chosen for the selection of the Yeovil SUE flawed,

discounted critical constraints. No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 YV2 Takes no account of traffic issues. No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 YV2

If housing required should be plural key sites to the north. This would reduce impact on the SRN as access from 5 junctions with A303. The consultancy work was very selective.

No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 YV2 Will seriously impact on the tourism and amenity value of

East Coker. No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 14/08/2012 YV2

Need for Yeovil SUE based on flawed evidence. The Plan does not conform to NPPF. The proposed 46% housing in Yeovil will result in accelerated decline in the sustainability of rural communities. Should be distributed across the District.

No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 14/08/2012 YV2

Criteria for selection of East Coker/Barwick flawed, critical constraints for heritage, agricultural land and landscape ignored. Also impact on traffic. Should consider plural sites to the north of Yeovil. Buffer zone contrived in haste to mitigate the impact on East Coker but gives no protection to Wraxhill area, nor protection to significant heritage assets and their settings. Serious impact on tourism and amenity of East Coker, loss of access to countryside for Yeovil residents contrary to 'promoting healthy communities'.

No No

6676609 J A Clarke 01/07/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE - Proposed development to the south of Yeovil too large and will create traffic problems. No No

6697057 A Davidge 11/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE . Increased traffic leading to unacceptable levels of congestion. Reduction of the tourist appeal of the villages. Development too large to blend with the existing environment, it should be shared with other parts of Yeovil.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6701281 P Cameron 18/07/2012 YV2

Object - Not all options around Yeovil have been considered, previous consultation comments ignored. Object to housing density - no justification, and building on agricultural land - will increase flooding risk and not enough attention paid to loss of grade one land; importance of food security. No evidence that best practice in Green Transport can be followed - concerned over traffic, cycle-routes and footpaths linkages to town centre. Object to impact on East Coker facilities and character - Parish Plan for village not taken into consideration. Development should be spread across District. Object to 1,000 dwellings being proposed outside the plan period, should only include years within the plan. No proposals to illustrate how the employment land will be introduced. Sustainability not inextricably linked with concentration of population in one location. Proposed Changes - Revise SS1-SS5, delete YV1-3 &YV6. Develop at Sparkford - a community that wants to grow, is close to A303 and 10 minute train journey to Yeovil.


6708801 P & P Shorter 06/07/2012 YV2 Potential increase in flood risk to Barwick as a result of the

new extension and loss of grade 1 agricultural land. No No

6713569 J M Rogers 05/07/2012 YV2 Increased flooding, traffic & loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. No No

6714817 L Chubb 05/07/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE flooding, traffic impact, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, loss of habitat and wildlife, impact on Barwick & Stoford, infrastructure pressures.

No No

6715777 R Chubb 05/07/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE Flooding, traffic impact, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, loss of habitat and wildlife, impact on Barwick & Stoford, infrastructure pressures.

No No

6715905 K R Crabb 05/07/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE flooding, traffic impact, impact on Barwick. No No

6716033 D Rogers 05/07/2012 YV2 No need, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, flooding. No No

6716257 D Soughton 05/07/2012 YV2Impact on Barwick, Stoford & East Coker, traffic impact, flooding, grade 1 agricultural land, wildlife impact, increased crime, no need.

No No

6716481 L Green 05/07/2012 YV2 Impact on East Coker. No No

6717153 J Kennett 05/07/2012 YV2 Loss of greenfield land, destroying identity of Barwick, Stoford and East Coker. No No

6717185 D Carter 06/07/2012 YV2 Increased traffic, loss of agricultural land, impact on wildlife, loss of rural tranquillity. No No

6717281 S D Risby 09/07/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE, impact on countryside, identity of villages, grade 1 agricultural land, wildlife. No No

6718849 C Story 09/07/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE, scale of development & traffic impact No No




Ref



Minor Change


6718913 M Yesson 09/07/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE, industry, flooding near Barwick & Stoford, St Margarets Hospice, Green Buffer. No No

6719553 J Williams 10/07/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No

6720033 A & S Summers 11/07/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE, more dispersed approach required, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, increase in traffic congestion, insufficient health infrastructure capacity i.e. Yeovil Hospital lacks space for expansion.

No No

6720193 L & E Inkelaar 11/07/2012 YV2

Yeovil SUE is too large, will overwhelm Barwick, Stoford, East Coker; increased flood risk; traffic congestion, noise and air pollution; loss of grade 1 agricultural land; impact on wildlife.

No No

6720321 C J Bowden 12/07/2012 YV2Agrees with six key concerns that have been raised by Barwick and Stoford Parish Council. Yeovil SUE would affect the lives of all residents and the elderly.

No No

6720673 K & M Nichols 13/07/2012 YV2

Objects to SUE: Water run off to Barwick and Stoford, pedestrian access to the town centre, congestion on West Coker Road/Bunford Hill, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, village of East Coker.

No No

6720705 D Clark 10/07/2012 YV2Scale of development, increased flooding in Barwick & Stoford, increased traffic, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife, loss of village identity.

No No

6723361 R & D Wright 16/07/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE: town centre sites should be used for employment, flooding, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife - slow worms, impact on transport network, will lead to urbanisation.

No No

6723809 A & E Morton 16/07/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE: will have a negative impact on Barwick, loss of identity and increase in traffic. No No

6723905 S M Hall 16/07/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE: Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, housing numbers based on projections from a time when economic growth different, object to location - traffic congestion, environmental impact, does not allow organic growth, displacement of employment uses.

No No

6723905 S M Hall 19/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - plan ill conceived, lacks intelligence, impact on the local environment, transport system and economic realities of the area. Grade 1 agricultural land, number of houses projected from better economic period. Object to the location of the development. Object to the environmental impact of the development and damage to the South Somerset landscape.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6724353 T Holt 16/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, increased flood risk at Barwick & Stoford, impact on road system, current economic climate, negative environmental impact, negative impact on Yeovil Town Centre and East Coker, would draw employment away from existing sites, will instigate a decline in East Coker and other rural areas.

No No

6724449 F A Ball 16/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: proposal is too big, will cause increased traffic with negative impact on Barwick and Stoford and impact of holiday traffic, flooding, negative impact on the community identify of Barwick, negative impact on wildlife & loss of habitat, loss of grade 1 agricultural land.

No No

6725473 J Ostheimer 17/07/2012 YV2

Supports Yeovil SUE - if Local Plan is not adopted unregulated development will take place without appropriate infrastructure, physical and social. South West option has good access to the A37 and further improvement to the road infrastructure will arise from the development. Due consideration has been given to the proposal including flooding and a Buffer Zone. SSDC evidence base sound.

No No

6725921 T Paul 18/07/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE - housing numbers too high, additional traffic, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, negative effect on historic village of East Coker.

No No

6726145 M Ostheimer 19/07/2012 YV2 Full support for Yeovil SUE to the south with Green Buffer to protect East Coker and North Coker. No No

6726177 R Burt 19/07/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE - increased traffic, dangerous road, scale too large, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife, loss of village identity and community life.

No No

6726241 A & C Alford 19/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - limited growth over next 5-10 years due to economic climate, loss of grade 1 agricultural land. Potential impact for flooding on neighbouring villages of Barwick & Stoford.

No No

6732225 Robert Howbrook 20/07/2012 YV2

Scale of development, increased flooding, traffic, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife, Stoford will lose its identity.

No No

6732257 Susan Howbrook 20/07/2012 YV2

Scale of development, increased flooding, traffic, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife, Stoford will lose it identity.

No No

6732289 N Yates 09/07/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE, traffic impact & flooding at Barwick & Stoford. No No

6732705 I Bruce 23/07/2012 YV2Traffic impact on A30 / A37, special protection should be given to East Coker, historic buildings, walkways and bridleways.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6732737 D Schlegel 23/07/2012 YV2 Increased traffic on road network, impact on East Coker, tranquillity and heritage character. No No

6734273 C Denney 23/07/2012 YV2Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, flooding, traffic, light, air and noise pollution, scale of development, impact on surrounding villages.

No No

6756257 P & J Harris 23/07/2012 YV2Urban extension is not in a flood zone, land has been promoted by a developer, land is well positioned to Yeovil, good access to rail travel & suitable for bus routes.

No No

6756481 J Hasker 23/07/2012 YV2

Scale of growth based on pre-recession population and employment growth, road infrastructure is unable to cope, rat runs. Speeding, access to Yeovil Junction station is dangerous, suggest no development in this location, flooding issues, Green Buffer for Barwick, relocate development to the North (Yeovil Marsh), advantage of two main roads (A37 & A359), Government priorities have changed, priority for brownfield first, four examples cited.

No No

6756769 R Pickford 23/07/2012 YV2 Traffic impact, at Stoford / Barwick, impact on health and hospital services, loss of agricultural land, flooding issues. No No

6758881 M & F Wragg 24/07/2012 YV2

Support plan. Housing to south would be much closer to Yeovil. Need all the valuable farming land around Tintinhull to feed future generations. Historically important and should be preserved for future generations. Important to keep the flood plain soil around Tintinhull. Houses should be built where there are adequate main roads to accommodate the extra cars.

No No

6760417 S Simpson 25/07/2012 YV2 Has the Council considered building a new hospital to accommodate the growing and ageing population? No No

6760449 Rev'd Hatton 25/07/2012 YV2

Object: Loss of grade 1 agricultural land - not a "sustainable" development, increased traffic congestion on West Coker Road and Hendford Hill, negative impact on the existing community of East Coker, a more dispersed approach to development would be better.

No No

6760609 A Handcock 25/07/2012 YV2

Supports provision of faith infrastructure (Infrastructure Plan Para 5.59-5.61). Need specific policies in the Yeovil SUE for community meeting space, faith facilities etc. Large development preferable to a number of smaller developments and SUE more likely to function as a community.

No No

6763617 SA Rust 26/07/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: housing numbers are overinflated and based on employment figures which assume better times.

No No

6763649 J & J Nutt 26/07/2012 YV2 Support South Yeovil SUE. No No6770497 L Luscombe 27/07/2012 YV2 Support South Yeovil SUE and buffer proposals. No No




Ref



Minor Change


6772353 S & G Clark 30/07/2012 YV2

Support the Yeovil SUE - amply demonstrated that compared with alternatives it is the least expensive means of achieving the Council's ends. The development option is the least significant in terms of effect on the historic environment and East Coker is protected by a large buffer.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 YV2Object - the housing numbers are based on employment numbers that fail to take into account the current economic climate.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 YV2 Object - the importance of the A303 has not been fully assessed in the decision to located the Yeovil SUE. No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 YV2 Object - the importance of the A303 has not been fully assessed in the decision to locate the Yeovil SUE. No No

6773313 M Horsley 30/07/2012 YV2 Object - the impact of the Yeovil SUE on East Coker's tourist economy and environment. No No

6774497 A Wiseman 30/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: negative impact on Barwick and Stoford. No need for all these houses, where will the employment come from? What about community infrastructure? Increased traffic through Barwick and Stoford on unsuitable small village roads. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, why greenfield over brownfield land? Why not develop run-down areas of Yeovil? Negative impact on wildlife, increased risk of flooding (recently an issue in Stoford). Village identity all the villages impacted have their own identity which would be jeopardised if they become part of an urban sprawl.

No No

6774881 J Wintersgill 30/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, increase in traffic, environmental issues. Object to houses and employment as do not know where the people will come from. Vast numbers of unused employment units in Yeovil so why build more? More appropriate sites have not been properly considered. Sets a precedent across the country.

No No

6775617 T C Tervit 30/07/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: will be many more cars on the road especially on Hendford Hill and Bunford Hollow. Major road planning will be required. Lack of cohesion between housing and jobs, loss of grade 1 agricultural land when brownfield sites are available.

No No

6776289 P G Taylor 31/07/2012 YV2

Object - loss of grade 1 agricultural land and impact on farming industry, no need as there are sufficient empty residential & commercial properties in Yeovil, will increase flooding, especially in East Coker and A37, impact on road network and increased congestion, pollution & noise and negative impact on surrounding villages.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6776577 N Colbert 25/07/2012 YV2

Not consistent with national policy (Para 112 of NPPF), no clear and convincing justification for building on grade 1 agricultural land between Yeovil and East Coker. Conflicts with section on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, historical status of East Coker. Many other sites that do not conflict with national policy in this way. It is not sustainable to transport vegetables to the UK from abroad.

No No

6776801 G Entwistle 31/07/2012 YV2

Objects - will destroy local environment and increase congestion. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, no economic need for housing, new local shopping precinct will impact on Yeovil town centre. Yeovil SUE is too big for the proposed location.

No No

6812545 T Peacock 01/08/2012 YV2 Objects loss of grade 1 land, impact on heritage. No No

6812609 N Garnett 01/08/2012 YV2 Support direction of growth to south, more sustainable location. No No

6814017 J Miles 02/08/2012 YV2 Object to direction of growth; grade 1 agricultural land, wildlife, traffic, flooding, heritage & tourism. No No

6814177 M J Sullivan 02/08/2012 YV2Object to direction of growth; loss of village identity, flooding, employment opportunities, agricultural land, wildlife, countryside.

No No

6815265 L Crisp 02/08/2012 YV2Object to direction of growth; historic connections, grade 1 agricultural land, wildlife, traffic, water shortage, flooding, air, noise and light pollution.

No No

6815713 A Mitchell 02/08/2012 YV2Object to direction of growth; flooding, road infrastructure, grade 1 agricultural land, dispersed growth strategy preferred.

No No

6817761 C Seaton 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Views of residents of East Coker (North Coker), Barwick and Stoford have been ignored. Localism & Neighbourhood plans have not been addressed. Highway infrastructure is not fit for purpose, bottle neck at Quicksilver Roundabout. Topography too steep for walking and cycling. Need a link road from the Red House roundabout to top of the Bunford roundabout. Has not been modified to fit with 2010 population figures or seriously considered alternatives -PDL or smaller dispersed sites. Fails to fit with historic, heritage and Conservation Area features of villages. Proposal is too big - should consider developer alternative at Primrose Lane, Yeovil (800 dwgs). Loss of grade 1 agricultural land.

No No

6820513 P Willingale 02/08/2012 YV2 Object loss of agricultural land, brownfield first, development should go west to Cartgate, poor infrastructure. No No




Ref



Minor Change


6821889 K Taylor 02/08/2012 YV2

Object lack of consideration of other viable sites, loss of grade 1 land, over inflated dwelling numbers, flooding, impact on roads, environment, impact on Yeovil Town centre, Barwick and Stoford, employment, services, negative impact on surrounding villages and SSDC as a whole.

No No

6821889 K Taylor 02/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE; other more viable sites, loss of agricultural land, numbers too high, risk of flooding, roads, environment, employment issues, impact on town centre and villages, overstretched services.

No No

6821953 J D Williams 02/08/2012 YV2Object to direction of growth to south, loss of agricultural land, impact on villages, roads, increased flooding, infrastructure.

No No

6821985 S Helyar 02/08/2012 YV2 Object to direction of growth; grade 1 agricultural land No No

6822785 S Fay 06/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE due to traffic impact, no buffer zone to protect Barwick and Stoford, additional flood risk at Barwick/Stoford, contamination of Mill stream, impact on protected habitats, loss of BMV land, scale is too high.

No No

6823169 G E Couchman 03/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of grade 1 land, traffic impact, increased risk of flooding, evidence does not support the number of houses.

No No

6823265 M & C Ball 03/08/2012 YV2

Supports Yeovil SUE. Will reduce school commute to the north, less impact on the environment, close to Town Centre, easier access for cycling & walking, closer to public transport nodes, land already in the hands of developers, land outside flood zone.

No No

6823649

East Coker Village Preservation Trust (A Davidge)

03/08/2012 YV2 Object. Highways, impact on Yeovil Hospital, impact on East Coker School, Town Centre has declined. No No

6825441 R Evans 03/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Flooding, traffic, loss of identity. No No

6825537 S Goss 03/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Impact on Barwick and Stoford. Traffic, landscape, flooding, wildlife, pollution. No No

6825729 D Austin 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Unsustainable, contrary to national policy, flooding. No No

6826689 S Griffin 06/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Impact on East Coker. More dispersed approach. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land. Impact on River Yeo - struggling to meet EU Water Framework Directive Standards.

No No

6826721 I P Griffin 06/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Impact on East Coker. More dispersed approach. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. Impact on River Yeo - struggling to meet EU Water Framework Directive Standards.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6828353 P Gray 06/08/2012 YV2 Objects. In sufficient road infrastructure. Car parking in Yeovil not sufficient. What about Police force? No No

6829249 E Snell 08/08/2012 YV2 Support Yeovil SUE and object to Primrose Lane proposals. No No

6829857 R Chorley 06/08/2012 YV2Objects. Evidence does not support housing numbers. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land. Impact on historic heritage - T S Eliot.

No No

6830177 D & J Fellows 07/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE - same reasons as previously given, plus negative impact on existing village centres as trade will be drawn away.

No No

6831809 H Quirk 06/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land. Numbers of houses excessive given economic climate. Traffic impact. Impact on Town Centre and East Coker. Will displace employment.

No No

6832705 M J McKay 06/08/2012 YV2Objects. No need. Impact on infrastructure, what kind of people and from where? Loss of agricultural land, impact on the environment.

No No

6832929 C Phillips 06/08/2012 YV2Objects. Grade 1 agricultural land. Coalescence with Yeovil. Should recognise the links between economy and human well being. Impact on footpaths and hedgerows. Traffic.

No No

6833121 M. Phillips 06/08/2012 YV2

Object, building on Grade 1 agricultural land, glut of empty industrial buildings, sensitive landscape area and other more suitable sites exist, road infrastructure is not designed to cope with the level of development, no local need for housing and no prospect of jobs.

No No

6913281 L G Legg 07/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No

6931873 D K F Mclver 07/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Loss of heritage and character, traffic impact, lack of consideration for the use of brownfield sites. No No

6932225 S Clapp 07/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE. No No6932257 M Salter 07/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Steep hill, traffic congestion. No No

6932289 S Smith 07/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE. Other sites should be developed first e.g Cattle Market of Pen Mill Trading Estate. Impact of light pollution, increased traffic problems - impact on Hardington Mandeville, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, increased risk of flooding, lack of communication from SSDC and use of out of date statistics.

No No

6932321 J R Lloyd 07/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE. Access from Hardington Mandeville to Yeovil will be more difficult. Harding Mandeville will become a 'rat run' especially with impact from proposed development at Crewkerne. Light pollution, increased risk of flooding, loss of grade 1 land, increased demand for places at East Coker school, loss of heritage value.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6932609 C & J Wooldridge 07/08/2012 YV2 Support the location of Yeovil SUE. Object to Primrose Lane

alternative for same reasons as above. No No

6932673 R J Chant 01/08/2012 YV2 Support direction of growth in Local Plan. No No

6932673 R J Chant 07/08/2012 YV2

Support the location of the Yeovil SUE. Object to alternative at Primrose Lane as far from proposed employment at Bunford park, AgustaWestland; landscape impact and setting of villages; flooding at Mudford; wildlife, BMV land; 800 homes will not support a new village centre.

No No

6932897 M G Bugler 07/08/2012 YV2 Traffic impact, should instead build a by pass in the proposed area, flood risk from extra run-off. No No

6933121 V A Hillard 08/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE: access difficult and no public transport, historic connections, wildlife, no work in Yeovil, not considered other areas.

No No

6934497 W R Schuchard 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE. Impact on heritage, landscape,

agricultural land. No No

6935329 E Brooks 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE inadequate road system with no proposed improvements. No No

6936129 C James 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE: flooding, traffic volumes, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife. No No

6937025 S Adams 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to impact on employment, road network, strain on services. No No

6937281 H Voizey 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE: traffic chaos, employment figures, flooding, loss of heritage, hospital facilities. No No

6937569 J McCue 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE; historical and literary aspects of village must be protected. No No

6937921 C Roles 08/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE; will destroy badger setts, flooding, traffic and light pollution, loss of village independence, devaluation of property, lack of infrastructure.

No No

6938273 L Bird 08/08/2012 YV2 Support Yeovil SUE and object to growth towards Trent and the Comptons. No No

6938561 J E Gilmore 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE, affects AONB, loss of grade 1 land. No No

6938753 J A Gilmore 08/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE, infrastructure inadequate particularly roads, where will everyone work? High unemployment and lack of opportunities.

No No

6938913 J Snell 08/08/2012 YV2 Support Yeovil SUE and object to Primrose Lane proposals. No No

6939393 T, M & A Cavalier 10/08/2012 YV2

Support Yeovil SUE as well thought through, object to land at Primrose Lane, area is of outstanding natural beauty, flooding, roundabout and traffic on dangerous road, traffic flows horrendous, land of health facilities, education, lack of public transport and social amenities.

No No

6944961 S Middleditch 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE: Chaos on roads, loss of agricultural

land, negative impact on community, light pollution No No




Ref



Minor Change


6944993 M Middleditch 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE light pollution, noise pollution from

traffic on roads, congestion. No No

6945025 N Thomas 08/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE; traffic impact, evidence not supportive of scale of growth, empty employment units. No No

6945281 D Boyd 09/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - impact on heritage, will lose tourism. No No

6945313 J Rose-Powers 09/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - same reasons as previously given. No No

6945601 R Goldie 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - Should be somewhere else. No No

6945921 S Brabbs 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - lack of employment, flooding, agricultural land lost, Impact on Barwick No No

6946017 J West 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - impact on Barwick, particularly school, loss of agricultural land, road congestion, flooding. No No

6946049 C Irwin 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - grade 1 land, loss of food production, not sustainable. No No

6946081 P Rash 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - traffic, flooding, wildlife, employment, modal shift unrealistic, grade 1 land, heritage. No No

6946177 C L Roy 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - traffic, grade 1 land, impact on Town Centre, impact on rural communities. No No

6946753 I & E Williams 10/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE - loss grade 1 land, traffic and road improvements, brownfield sites, destroy East Coker, loss of heritage.

No No

6946913 D Mitchell 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - loss grade 1 land, access - walking/cycling, traffic, impact on shops in town centre, lack of employment, buffer area, impact on heritage, flooding, too many houses, employment base on inaccurate figures.

No No

6959361 M Jones 09/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE, scale development too high, flooding/waste water, rat run through Stoford, no footpaths in village, shouldn't swallow up villages, loss of countryside.

No No

6959937 G McIntire 09/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE: impact on heritage assets, doesn't comply with national policy on heritage or agricultural land, Loss of Eliots/Dampiers tranquil location.

No No

6960097 C Buzzard 13/08/2012 YV2Plan unsound - option for growth not considered properly. Plan ignores heritage, ecology, agriculture, tourism and flooding.

No No

6960513 G B Fletcher 13/08/2012 YV2

Object, the proposals represent a short sighted approach to development which will have long term consequences in the destruction of the ambience of an internationally culturally significant place. Proposals contravene NPPF.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6960545 C Finch 09/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE: impact on road infrastructure capacity, grade 1 agric land, impact on environment - light & air pollution, household waste, wildlife, impact on history and heritage, figures overinflated and based on false assumptions.

No No

6967329 H Black Hawkins 13/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE due to serious impact on heritage assets & landscaping. Does not comply with NPPF & is not sound.

No No

6968385 J Stayer 13/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE: Significant harm to the heritage assets. No No

6968481 J Formichelli 13/08/2012 YV2 Object SUE: significant harm to the heritage assets, does not comply with UK national policy on heritage, landscape and agricultural land. Not sound or compliant with law.

No No

6992961 A P Stagg 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE - traffic, loss of natural beauty, grade 1 agricultural land, pollution, flooding, lack of hospital facilities. No No

6993089 R & H Gibbs 10/08/2012 YV2 Object SUE; negative impact on villages, traffic problems, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, flooding, wildlife. No No

6994817 A Rose-Powers 09/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE. No No

6996161 N Gage (Councillor) 09/08/2012 YV2

Impact on tourism, East Coker is a world heritage settlement with world wide interest, loss of agricultural land, impact on badgers, development in area known to flood.

No No

6996161 N Gage (Councillor) 09/08/2012 Chapter

10/YV2

Modelling undertaken fails to look at busiest roundabouts and commuter routes, fails to consider topography of Yeovil SUE, modal shift unrealistic.

No No

6996161 N Gage (Councillor) 09/08/2012

Chapter 12 Heritage/YV

2

Land at East Coker of significant archaeological and historic value, listed buildings, literary and naval associations, heritage environment not been properly assessed or understood, ignored English Heritage comments.

No No

7012385 Sati Chatterjee YV2 Preserve East Coker. No No

7012705

East Coker Society (S Owen, Secretary)

10/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE because of loss of BMV agricultural land, landscape impact and Monarch's Way, historic impact, damage tourism, impact on social cohesion, ecology, impact on road network, and air quality.

No No

7016257 C Greenslade 13/08/2012 YV2 Supports. No No




Ref



Minor Change


7016449 D Window & J Pearse 13/08/2012 YV2

Support Yeovil SUE due to inadequate infrastructure to the North East especially roads. South has existing roundabout at Red House and West Coker Road much wider than Mudford Road. Flooding in Mudford, additional houses on the steep incline will not improve this. Better flatter land to the south. Existing part built development to the north.

No No

7016481 P Chamberlain 13/03/2012 YV2

Object due to loss of grade 1 agricultural land, flooding, over estimation of housing requirement, lack of infrastructure, impact on wildlife, pollution.

No No

7018209 T Gibert 13/03/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: significant harm to the heritage assets, does not comply with UK national policy re: heritage, landscape and agricultural land. Not sound or compliant with law.

No No

7018241 K Wilson 13/03/2012 YV2

Object due to loss of grade 1 land, loss of footpaths and rural space, reducing opportunity to promote physical activity; changes to beautiful scenery & water courses, disruption to social cohesion, impact of health of local community.

No No

7029249 J Dalton-Leggett 13/03/2012 YV2 Support plan and DOG. Any development to north totally

unsuitable. No No

7029345 D Richards 13/08/2012 YV2Objects. Population and employment growth projections out of date, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, additional light pollution, walking and cycling unlikely.

No No

7029441 K & TD Gardener 13/08/2012 YV2

Object. Traffic impact on Sandhurst Road, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, unnecessary, unemployment will rise with increase in population, Yeovil Hospital fully stretched.

No No

7029857 D Lewis 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land - food security, detrimental impact on quality of life, impact on infrastructure, no evidence to show that Yeovil will be creating the jobs to support homes. Vision will not come to fruition.

No No

7029921 J Chadwick 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Detrimental impact on roads, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, inflated statistics used for housing need and employment, gross inadequacy of plan in terms of infrastructure such as hospital facilities, alternatives have not been adequately assessed.

No No

7029953 A & L Akers 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land - food security, detrimental impact on wildlife, traffic impact, no evidence to support huge number of houses with existing commitments yet to come forward.

No No

7030561 J F Birch 13/08/2012 YV2Objects. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, detrimental impact on road network, negative impact on the environment, negative impact on surrounding villages.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7031009 S E Phillips 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, Brownfield land should be developed first, lack of appropriate road infrastructure. Employment figures are not realistic, impact on infrastructure - hospital etc.

No No

7031297 K & C Fitzsimons 13/08/2012 YV2

Object. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, Brownfield land should be developed first. No evidence to support the number of new homes, destruction of heritage assets, detrimental impact on wildlife, increased flood risk, traffic impact, unrealistic expectations of walking and cycling, impact on town centre parking - will not be adequate, impact on infrastructure - hospital etc, economic forecasts do not support this level of expansion.

No No

7031585 F E Chadwick 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Figures based on out of date projections - no need, dispersed approach would be more appropriate, north side of Yeovil would be more appropriate, loss of amenity for residents due to traffic impact, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on infrastructure - has not be adequately costed, Yeovil is reliant on 2 major employers, Council has been unwilling to consider alternative view points. Plan will have a detrimental impact on tourism, Brownfield sites should be exploited first.

No No

7041633 A & T Graham 13/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE due to heritage, landscape and

agricultural land, Eliot & Dampier. No No

7041665 C A Karmel 13/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE due to heritage, landscape and agricultural land, Eliot & Dampier. No No

7044321 P Johnston 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE due to heritage, landscape and agricultural land, does not comply with national policy, Eliot and Dampier.

No No


13/08/2012 YV2 The preference for Yeovil SUE is not justified nor legally compliant. No No


13/08/2012 YV2

Yeovil SUE is too large, unsustainable, in the wrong location, will cause environmental damage. Object due to topography, heritage, ecology, agriculture, transport and infrastructure. SA fundamentally flawed.

No No

7071137 F Dickey 10/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: impact on heritage assets, landscape, lack of mitigation, contrary to UK policy on heritage, whole landscape should be respected.

No No

7071361 E Holt 10/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE: other places more appropriate, East Coker of international importance. No No

7082145Woodside Cattery (W Streatfield)

10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: parking problems, over stretched hospital, schools etc, supposed not to build on arable land/grade 1 land, historic importance of East Coker, already high unemployment.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7085665 C Humphreys 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE, too many in one place, additional pressure on roads and other infrastructure, loss of grade 1 land.

No No

7085761

Slater (Chair East Chinnock PC)

14/08/2012 YV2

Evidence including transport modelling appears not to take account of a significant problem of increased traffic and wider economic, social and environmental impact. Concerned about knock on impact of any proposed junction improvements. Improvements to bus services.

No No

7085985


10/08/2012 YV2

Support Yeovil SUE and green buffer but consider plan should be amended to include land at Barwick (shown on attached map) within Yeovil SUE as housing and sports facilities (Yeovil Showground and Rugby Club) land is available and requires minimal infrastructure provision in accordance with policies YV1, YV2 and YV6, would have minimal impact on Barwick park, would work with masterplanning process/AAP.

No No

7085985


10/08/2012 YV2

Support YV2 with urban extension to South and west of town. Land shown within Yeovil SUE is confirmed as available and can be developed with minimal infrastructure provision thus according to YV1, YV2 and YV6, is available, would work with masterplanning process/AAP.

No No


10/08/2012 YV2

Support YV2 with urban extension to South and west of town. Land shown within Yeovil SUE is confirmed as available and can be developed with minimal infrastructure provision thus according to YV1, YV2 and YV6, is available, would work with masterplanning process/AAP.

No No

7086241

Trustees WH Batten 73 Discretionary Settlement (Battens solicitors)

10/08/2012 YV2

Support Yeovil SUE but consider plan should be amended to include land at Barwick within Yeovil SUE, would allow better assimilation to town, could be open space, land is available, would work with masterplanning process/AAP.

No Yes

Agree there may be potential to provide walking/cycling links through this land from the urban extension to the town centre. Add to the end of para 5.46: …and will include potential links to and from the urban extension such as through the Aldon Estate.

7130241 F N Hunt 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - loss of grade 1 land, encouraging greenhouse effect and import of food, proposed numbers in one place excessive better to integrate within villages, impact on roads, scale will overrun existing services with no plans to expand.

No No

7130529 J Pomeroy 10/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE: no plans to improve infrastructure, loss of agricultural land, too many houses in area of beauty. No No

7130817 A M Smith 10/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE - loss of prime agricultural land, land needed for food production, Yeovil unattractive, queues ridiculous.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7132257 D S Creed MBE 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, no proper evaluation of Brownfield sites, increase flood risk, evidence does not support housing and employment figures, impact on social infrastructure - hospital, schools, traffic impact.

No No

7150529 D Berryman 13/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Site of Roman Villa should be avoided. High density should be avoided. No No

7150593 J Warrick 13/08/2012 YV2 Supports Yeovil SUE. Will rebalance housing and employment land is relatively close to the Town Centre. No No

7150625 R Chatwin 13/08/2012 YV2 Objects. Traffic impact, loss of grade 1 agricultural land. No No

7150721 S Copley 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Size of proposal is out of proportion, already empty homes in the town and existing commitments such as Brimsmore Key Site. Alternative sites have not been properly explored particularly to the north of Yeovil where there are no heritage sites or grade 1 agricultural land. Housing should be more dispersed including to other villages. No plans to improve road infrastructure - modal shift will not work, public transport is insufficient. Poor access to A303. Parking in Yeovil already difficult. Impact on public services such as the hospital. Would be a modern slum.

No No

7150753 P B Cook-Perry 13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Need for large number of homes not established. More dispersed approach should be taken - villages would welcome growth. Already have 2,600 empty homes. Existing commitments not started e.g. Brimsmore. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land - should make more use of PDL. Insufficient consideration given to economic climate. Fails to understand the benefits of Eco aspirations. Traffic impact, people will not drive. Negative impact on the environment, increased pollution. Job projections are unfounded. Social housing could put pressure on policing.

No No

7150785 W Weston 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: this is a new town, no demand for such a huge scale, industry unnecessary, traffic congestion, loss of grade 1 land, loss of heritage asset, no proper brownfield assessment, flooding, lack of hospital facilities, lack of parking.

No No

7150849 P Comley 10/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: too many houses in one area - should be distributed, road network unsuitable, walk and cycling won't happen, flood plain, countryside destroyed.

No No

7150977 I Comley 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: no need for so many houses or in one area, need social housing near employment areas, traffic on narrow roads, flood plain, impact on light, air and noise pollution.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7151009 M & L Mead 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE as there are other sites in and around Yeovil, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, lack of need, impact on hospital capacity.

No No

7151041 C Vallis 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE as it will be a huge blot on the landscape, loss of heritage, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact.

No No

7151137 J Notley 13/08/2012 YV2 Insufficient consideration has been given to the numerous historic buildings in the vicinity of the Yeovil SUE. No No

7151393 M J Larcombe 10/08/2012 YV2

Support Yeovil SUE - extensive evidence base, close to town centre, good transport links, critical mass for new school, buffer.

No No

7151521 R Comley 13/08/2012 YV2The Yeovil urban extension will ruin the rural character of the area. Development should be in existing towns which need more investment and have infrastructure in place.

No No

7151553 R Seymour 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE due to loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact in small narrow lanes, loss of heritage and subsequent tourist impact.

No No

7151585 A Lewis 13/08/2012 YV2Object to Yeovil SUE as road infrastructure along Hendford Hill is not sufficient, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, loss of heritage and history.

No No

7151617 J Thomas 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - will cut off properties in Wraxhill Road area from rest of Coker parish and village life, loss of heritage, countryside, impact on wildlife, loss of grade 1 land, increased traffic, noise, light and air pollution, size and scale of development would have major impact on countryside around Yeovil.

No No

7151649 D Prestedge 10/08/2012 YV2Object to Primrose Lane proposal by Abbey Manor due to traffic impact, flooding, and loss of open countryside. Therefore support Local Plan.

No No

7151713 E A Horwood 14/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE due to loss of grade 1 land, dwelling numbers, traffic, environment, heritage. Eliot & Dampier. No No

7151777 H M Marshall 13/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE due to traffic impact, increase in flooding, loss of BMV agricultural land. No No

7151937

Mr Moorhouse (East Coker Village Stores)

10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: Object to loss of rural living by creating suburb, devaluation, more cars on roads, steep hills with queuing cars, urban extension unnecessary, eco standards can't be achieved, won't get local employment on scale required, how will people afford dwellings? should be dispersed to other villages, impact on local village shop of any new retail, loss of grade 1 land, though number of dwellings reduced the amount of land required hasn't been, lack of proper consideration of alternatives including Primrose Lane, risk of flooding, inadequate drains.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7152001 M Sperring 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: loss of grade 1 land, increased risk of flooding, single carriageway roads, congestion, impact on unspoilt countryside with heritage connections, roads will be rat runs.

No No

7152097 G Studley 10/08/2012 YV2 Objects to Yeovil SUE: chaos on roads, increased flooding, loss of grade 1 land. No No

7152129 D & K Martin 10/08/2012 YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE: loss of farmland and local farming employment/accommodation, loss of best grade farmland, impact on wildlife, many empty houses, lack of employment, lining developers pockets.

No No

7152161 R Carignan 13/08/2012 YV2 Object to Yeovil SUE as it will ruin the character of the area, lack of evidence for proposed housing numbers. No No

7152289 P & H Best 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE: Scale will increase flooding, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, increased traffic and chaos on Hendford Hill, needs major investment in new roads, large amount of empty housing stock at present which with infilling would fulfil needs, scale of development unnecessary in current economic climate.

No No

7152353Mr and Mrs M N Rowswell

13/08/2012 YV2

Objects. Traffic impact & negative impact on Yeovil Town Centre. Impact on infrastructure, hospital, Police, Fire Brigade, loss of heritage - TS Eliot impact, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, impact on wildlife, existing Trading Estates vacant, where is the additional population coming from?

No No

7152417 A J Quick 10/08/2012 YV2Objects to Yeovil SUE: good land wasted, roads not good enough, insufficient jobs, sewerage system not good enough, flooding will be worse.

No No

7157313 M Trott 10/08/2012 YV2

Objects to Yeovil SUE - merge village to Yeovil, heritage asset, lack of infrastructure, roads under strain, more accidents, health and safety paramount, won't walk into town, destroy grade 1 land, should distribute growth across lots of smaller settlements, need land for food production, will lead to flooding, insufficient employment opportunities for new growth, alternative sites not properly considered, brownfield not investigated properly

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7252353


13/0/2012 YV2

Support in principle but points of detail need clarifying. Considerable part of the allocation previously looked at by Local Plan Inspector who recommended additional land at Keyford - this indicates possibility of extending land southwards without significant harm. No reason why this can't happen. Archaeology can be protected, land has good access, no coalescence, well related to urban area. Yeovil SUE to south and west therefore supported consistent with NPPF para 52. Consider more development should be in Yeovil and could come forward within plan period. Do not agree with land lying east of A37 unless is low density and a buffer to Barwick. Density of 45 dph also not supported as too high and will not be attractive or be Garden City.


7252353


13/0/2012 YV2

More land could come forward within plan period in Yeovil SUE as all landowners now working together to agree site assembly and masterplanning approach supported. Note comments of Highways Agency and requirement in infrastructure plan and the need for highest possible sustainability and applaud trying to achieve exemplar scheme here but this needs to be tempered by viability as lots of issues remain outstanding. e.g. Code for Sustainable Homes, garden city principles. Phasing in policy should be deleted and "should" changed to "could" in first sentence.

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 YV2No objective evidence to support the Yeovil SUE. The housing and employment requirements can be met without the need for a greenfield urban extension.

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 YV2

No objective evidence & in the absence of justified need the Yeovil SUE is unsustainable and compromises the high quality natural, built and historic environments, most versatile agricultural land, heritage assets, landscape, cultural issues, transport & infrastructure. Would not be sustainable, lack of any green transport proposals & the densities proposed. The Yeovil SUE is likely to achieve a conventional (non sustainable) traffic scenario.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7329185


YV2

Support the principle of the Yeovil SUE, but the 935 dwellings should be within the plan period. The principle of a location to the south and west is supported, but the current location is not as it comprises areas that are significantly constrained. 45 dwellings per hectare is too high and will not promote high quality or enhance distinctiveness and character, contrary to Garden City principles and inconsistent with Policy EQ2. Highly unlikely that 50% non-car travel can be achieved within early phases.


7329185


YV2

The land south east of Red House roundabout is not suitable for residential development as it borders an area of high flood risk, is in a foraging area for bats, potential to impact on water species, historic assets, visual impact, the proposed high density will have a negative impact on Barwick, and it is not indicated in the SHLAA. Land to the east of Holywell should be included instead.

No No

7329185


YV2

The land west of Dorchester Road/south west of Red House roundabout is not suitable for development due to being adjacent to an area of high flood risk, includes a flight area for Noctule bats, is adjacent a Roman Villa where records indicate several artefacts have been found and surrounding area has potential to contain other remains, western part of this area has not been identified in the SHLAA so no justification for its inclusion.

No No

7329185


YV2

Land east of Nash Lane should not be within the urban extension due to being a likely habitat for several bat species, and there is no evidence in the SHLAA that the site is suitable, available or viable.

No No

7329185


YV2

Land to east of Holywell to the south west of Yeovil is proposed for approximately 194-240 dwellings as it is accessible, deliverable, will not have a significant highways impact, is not constrained by any statutory land designations, and would not have a detrimental impact upon any recognised historical, geological, or archaeological feature in the site or surrounding area. Any ecological impacts would require mitigation or compensation. This site could complement existing location for the Yeovil SUE or replace sites which are overly constrained. This site features highly in the site selection process but was not included in the indicative masterplan.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1202497

Chilthorne Domer Parish Council

30/07/2012 YV2 / YV3

Support Yeovil's growth to south. Proposal researched in great depth and outside bodies consulted and scrutinised by PMB and individual Cllrs. A similar proposal was recommended by the Planning Inspector when the existing Local Plan was drawn up. The north and west of Yeovil has already been massively developed with 2 further key Sites due to commence. Would question reduction in projected numbers due to the expansion of Yeovilton, from proposals at Hinkley and the general population increase. Retention of the original 2,500 dwgs would make the site more viable. The north west is of more historic value and outstrips the south in terms of income from tourism. Flooding is not an issue in south. Inclusion of Green Buffer is seen as positive and will ensure that East Coker is not swallowed up. Development to the north/west would amalgamate Chilthorne Domer and Thorne Coffin into the urban area. Development to the south will bring infrastructure and reduce the number of school journeys. Closer to railway stations and is most sustainable option. Land farmed and not for sale in NW.

No No

4170817 A Dowsett 23/07/2012 YV2/ SS4

Loss of agricultural land, risk of flooding, additional trading estate while empty units exist, scale of housing development based on high employment figures that no longer apply.

No No

4209537 R Boyden 13/08/2012 YV2, YV3

Object. Evidence base out of date - based on 2008 figures - contrary to NPPF. Traffic impact - contradicts strategic objectives. Predicted employment growth will falter due to poor access to A303. Location in conflict with need to access clusters of highly skilled professionals. Consultation process flawed - feedback from Dec 2010 Clusters ignored. By grouping Grades 1, 2, 3 & 3a agricultural land together has a negative impact which could be mitigated by focussing growth in the outlying rural areas close to A303 - if this is not possible they should be applied grade by grade which would show the north west option as more favourable. Buffer Zone has no legal status and therefore not sustainable. Process has been overly complicated, secretive and disingenuous - final consultation coincides with school holidays and Olympics.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4220321 A E Hartley 13/08/2012 SS5, YV2 & SS4

Objects. Response would be greater if online system was easier to use. % split between Yeovil and rest of the District -many rural communities need natural growth. Not convinced a scientific approach has been used - towns will have a young population and rural areas an older population. Alternative options have not been properly explored. Incomprehensible to use an economic scenario the determine housing numbers. Insufficient regard has been given to East Coker Parish Plan. How can 2,500 houses be added to a civil parish of 800 would the interests of the original parishioners be taken into account? Outstanding heritage settlement - deserves respect. Should be an 'exclusion zone' around East Coker 'in perpetuity'. Should be given the same consideration as Montacute House - SSDC should consider a Green Wedge or a Strategic gap to protect the village for all time. Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land and lack of consideration given to brownfield land - site available in Ilminster.

No No

4273121 J J Mornement 10/08/2012 YV2/YV1

Object to Yeovil SUE - housing and employment numbers wrong, lack of employment, poor roads, flooding, loss of agric land, shouldn't concentrate in one area.

No No

4275969 C Bingley 02/08/2012 YV2 / YV1 Object to direction of growth; out of date population-growth, empty properties, grade 1 agricultural land, heritage. No No

4285985 R & S Dawson 10/08/2012 YV2/YV1

Object to Yeovil SUE - grade 1 Land, too many houses, flooding, traffic and roads, topography, highly visible, light, air pollution.

No No

4286689 C Mornement 10/08/2012 YV2/YV1 Object to Yeovil SUE - too many houses, increased traffic,

impact on rural population. No No

4289249 W Vincent 13/08/2012 YV2 & YV3Object. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land, traffic impact, increased risk of flooding. Buffer Zone incomplete - does not surround the whole village.

No No

4304513 M & L Tuck 12/07/2012 YV2 & YV3

In favour of proposed Local Plan. Green Buffer supported and Yeovil SUE well thought out - proposed by elected council, less visual impact than development to the north of Yeovil, has easy access to A303, environmental issues have been addressed (development to north could exacerbate flooding in Mudford).

No No

4309537 Mr & Mrs C Murrell 06/08/2012 SS4, SS5,

YV2 Object to location and scale of Yeovil SUE. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4316737 J & S Mitchell 10/08/2012 YV2/YV1

Object to Yeovil SUE - grade 1 agricultural, traffic problems, not sustainable, need for employment, brownfield first, walking cycling, eco aspirations misguided.

No No

4322881 M O'Neill 03/08/2012 SS4, SS5, YV2

Object to housing numbers and their distribution; the need for a single block of urban extension; the location of Yeovil SUE.

No Yes

Replace paragraphs 4.70-4.77 with new text derived principally from the Housing Provision Review Report presented to the Project Management Board (meetings 19 & 20) updating the housing requirement in the light of representations made and the content contained in Business Requirement Employment Survey information and ONS population projections.Policies SS4 & SS5 are amended in consequence. See Annex 1. Matters discussed in PMB meetings 21-23 also inform final wording of text and the policy.

4328129 H Murrell 07/08/2012 SS4, YV2 Object to scale of development as calculated before economic downturn. Object to Yeovil. No Yes


4329697 E & A Rose 10/08/2012 YV2/YV1Object to Yeovil SUE - loss of grade 1 land, environment, scale of development, traffic impact on infrastructure, flooding, impact on villages, damage to heritage.

No No

6713473 M Herrin 05/07/2012 YV2/YV3 Impact on Barwick, Stoford & East Coker. Buffer zone meaningless. No No

6715681 D Powell 05/07/2012 YV2/YV3 Support. No No




Ref



Minor Change


6719457 S A White 09/07/2012 SS4 / YV2 Scale of growth & flooding. No Yes


6773313 M Horsley 31/07/2012 YV2/Paras 4.41-4.42 Object to Yeovil SUE - conflict with Paras. 4.41-4.42 No No

6773313 M Horsley 02/08/2012 YV2/YV6

No justification for scale of Yeovil SUE, impact of Hendford Hill underestimated, infrastructure not properly assessed, no school capacity, hidden aspirations for incinerator, buffer zone does not protect North Coker (from North) reliance on electric vehicles, free delivery of shopping can't be delivered, need to focus on whole of Yeovil not SUE.

No Yes

Delete ii) in respect of free bulk shopping deliveries in YV6, although retain in text as an example of what could be achieved. Suggested wording in 5.69 b: ... reducing the need to use the car for bulk shopping journeys (e.g. the weekly grocery shop) for example by encouraging free deliveries by low emission/electric vans.This relies on a 3rd party to deliver, which may not be easy to achieve and is not a planning matter.

6775297


30/07/2012


Object to Yeovil SUE - would place Barwick and Stoford under increased risk of flooding, would have an unacceptable impact on the highway network - A37, Hendford Hill, Bunford Hollow, West Coker Road, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.

No No

6775841 M Broadhurst 31/07/2012 YV2/YV1 Object to Yeovil SUE No No

6776577 N Colbert 20/07/2012 YV2 / SS4Housing & population projections not based on up to date data. Object to Yeovil SUE loss of grade 1 agricultural land, impact on the historic environment,

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6823777 M & E Hallett 03/08/2012 YV2, YV3, YV6

Locate Yeovil SUE to north to be better located to major employers and main roads. Proposed housing density is at odds with Garden City principles, lack of detail on delivering sustainable travel.


6830177 D & J Fellows 06/08/2012 YV2, SS5

Object - additional issues are: have not purchased land for new roads that will be required; development will draw custom from village centres; lack of commitment to continued rural bus service; no plans for car parking to support the town's retail centre.

No No

6932385 D Snelling 07/08/2012 SS5, YV2

Object to Yeovil SUE- same reasons as previously given, and there should be a buffer zone to protect Barwick and Stoford. Scale of development is too high, need can be met by other Local Plans in the South West. Should be more development across the villages.

No No

6932801 R T Crouch 07/08/2012 YV2, SS5 Traffic impact, slowing economy means housing projections are too high. No Yes


6938145 F Richardson 08/08/2012 YV2/SS5 Support location of SUE, object to Primrose Lane, proposed growth close to employment, want more funds for hospital. No No

6946465 R O'Sullivan 10/08/2012 YV2/YV1 Object to Yeovil SUE - scale too big, based on wrong employment figures, flooding, traffic. No No

6992961 A P Stagg 13/08/2012 YV2/YV1

Object to Yeovil SUE; traffic impact, insufficient employment in the wrong place, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, loss of area of natural beauty, flooding, increased pollution, hospital facilities.

No No

7010881 R Richards 13/08/2012 YV2 & YV3

Objects. Impact on heritage (TS Eliot & Dampier), wildlife, Buffer Zone inadequate, Yeovil SUE too big, impact on infrastructure economic forecasts are out of date, risk of flooding, loss of grade 1 agricultural land, no plans to improve road infrastructure, evidence does not support housing numbers - population forecasts are out of date.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7129057 S D Roy 10/08/2012 YV2/YV1

Objects to Yeovil SUE: Loss of grade 1 land, need for food production, lack of road improvements, people won't walk or cycle, will create problems for businesses in the town centre due to creation of out of town facilities, numbers in RSS are overly optimistic and growth too high.

No No

7150561 S Larcombe 13/08/2012 YV2, YV3,

Supports Yeovil SUE. Single urban extension clearly the best option and avoids piecemeal development. North and East Coker should not be concerned as a very large Buffer Zone in place.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.50, YV3

Coalescence would not be an issue if a North East option where adopted. There are 3 Grade II* Listed Buildings that have already suffered redevelopment. Primrose lane accommodates a mixture of houses built since Second World War & Mudford village was doubled in size by Local Authority developments.

No No

1285057


10/08/2012 YV3 Support Policy No No

4102209 Yarlington 14/08/2012 YV3

Buffer preventing coalescence of settlements by acting to define Yeovil's southward growth. No justification in line with NPPF why this area is designated. Objectives ably dealt with by EQ2, 3, 4. Particular concern is inclusion of Tellis Cross, which presents potential for future development which is restricted by YV3.

No No


Support Yeovil SUE including buffer zone although including existing houses at East Coker and North Coker would cause unnecessary problems for house extensions.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 YV3 Last para repeats previous part of same sentence, Natura 2000 should be plural as more than one in District. No No


Welcome principle of a buffer zone but should change terminology to reflect the definition of a "strategic gap". The open space provision between North/East Coker/Naish is not sufficient. The Local Plan Inspector (2003) indicated development south of Plackett Lane would be inappropriate.

No No

4320289 B Mead-Sugg 13/08/2012 YV3 Buffer zone is just land not owned by the developer. No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 YV3 Should be an extension to the buffer to reduce damage to

North and East Coker. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4322593 S Owen 13/08/2012 YV3Several historic assets are not mentioned e.g. additional Conservation Area, grade I listed buildings. Damage to historic environment.

No No

4328929 N G Lindsay 14/08/2012 YV3 Buffer zone inadequate, East Coker effectively coalesced. No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 YV3

Even if SUE is required it should not be in the Parish of East Coker. If it is decided that this location is supported support buffer zone but it should be much bigger and extended right across to Pavyotts Mill and Key farm, right up to Garden Hill/ Wraxhill to protect Dampiers field and the East Coker Roman Villa, right through Nash and up to Ingelmount protecting Culliver's Grave and right up to edge of Tarratts Lane and setting of Coker Court and St Michaels Church.

No No

5505761 F Larner 13/08/2012 YV3 Buffer zone is misrepresented to make it look larger than it actually will be. No No

6390049 I & J A Pilbeam 18/07/2012 YV3

Object to property being included in the East Coke buffer zone, and should instead be included in the Yeovil SUE development area as land use is already residential, devaluation of property, noise and traffic pollution, reduced privacy, contamination of private water supply.

No No

6390081 W C & J Petherham 18/07/2012 YV3

Object to property being included in the East Coke buffer zone, and should instead be included in the Yeovil SUE development area as land use is already residential, devaluation of property, noise and traffic pollution, reduced privacy, contamination of private water supply.

No No

6673153 M Sowerbutts 13/03/2012 YV3

Contrived in haste, gives no protection to the Wraxhill area of East Coker. No protection for heritage assets and their settings.

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 YV3

The buffer zone has potential to change the character of the landscape and be ineffective in its ability to protect the designated heritage assets. All structural planting belts should be provided by developer on allocated land. More positive landscaping, including landscape management and heritage guidance, should be provided.

No No

7329185


YV3 Support the buffer zone to help preserve the historic character of East Coker. No No




Ref



Minor Change


7331105 E Bennett 14/08/2012 YV3

Particular fields should be removed from the buffer zone as they do not 'buffer' development from East Coker. Inclusion of this land will help bring development back from the southern edge. Development should be around Yeovil.

No Yes

The two fields proposed are considered generally acceptable for development as they are already adjacent to the urban area on two sides, their loss would not impact on the role and nature of the buffer zone, and there is evidence that they are now available for development. Amend Inset Map 15 to delete these two fields from the urban buffer (see plan attached to this Appendix).

7252353


13/0/2012 YV3

Principle of buffer supported but general extent will need to be considered properly in masterplan approach. Some existing properties in the Buffer which could cause unnecessary problems with any house extensions.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.57 How has it been decided that parking needs replacing (and funding)? No Yes

Add reference to the Somerset County Council Yeovil Car Parking Analysis (May 2011) in a new sentence after paragraph 5.57 stating: The Somerset County Council Car Parking (May 2011) has provided substantive evidence of the need to provide additional car parking provision in Yeovil in medium to long term.

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.57 - 5.59, YV4

Objects. Paras 5.57 - 5.59 highlight the flaws. All requirements are achievable around the Pen Mill transport interchange and its link northwards. Completion of Urban Village can be achieved in this locale by redeveloping Pen Mill Trading Estate and railway sidings. Can be achieved without the cost of relocating car parking from the Town Centre. Stars Lane area would be better used for the expansion of leisure facilities and expansion of car parking. Would link with existing cinema complex, Goldenstones, River Yeo and Golf Course.

No No


13/08/2012 YV4 Enhancement of Dodham Brook to restored naturalisation stream. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.59Query the categorisation of some non highway transport measures as ' necessary' - should be critical in Infrastructure Plan.

No No


14/08/2012 YV5

Advice from the Civil Aviation Authority and DfT Circular 01/2010 suggests that the Yeovil Airfield Flight Safety Zone is excessively large, incorrectly located and orientated to the wrong direction.

No No

4209537 R Boyden 13/08/2012 YV5

Objects. Options have not been explored thoroughly. Relocating AgustaWestland flight test activity to Yeovilton should be explored - would provide a brownfield opportunity within Yeovil.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 YV5 Conflict is being created by suggestion of developing surrounding land. Present land uses should be secured. No No

4315809


14/08/2012 YV5 Need to clarify what would be permitted in this zone e.g. would Park and Ride be a suitable use? No No

6775297


30/07/2012


Support AgustaWestland flight safety zone. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.63 Should include access to education in the list of things to be accessible. No Yes

Amend to include education in list for access by sustainable travel in 5.63 in second sentence after "jobs".

4103553


09/08/2012 5.65 - 5.66 not clear what seed projects are. "link" is not the right word, consider "case". No Yes

Change 'link' in 5.66 to 'case '. Also include 'Seed Projects' & Add to Glossary in Appendix 3 of Local Plan: Seed Projects: 8 seed projects make up proposals advocated in the UWE report on behalf of the DoH South West. The report is' Active and Low Carbon Travel a transport vision for Yeovil' May 2010.

4103553


09/08/2012 5.67 Should include reference to YTSR2 which is also considering Park and Ride. NB. to be published 2013. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 5.67 - 5.69

Objects. Measures facilitate growth in Yeovil in any locations. Benefit of River Yeo must reduce impact and favour north-east - increased recreational benefits. Improving the water course benefits much more than promoting the south and west option.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69 Sustainable is not equivalent to "non car". "modal shift" should be amended to "modal share". No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69(a) Suggest amended to read 400m not 10 minutes walk as people walk at different speeds. No Yes Add 400m in brackets after "a 10 minute walk" in

the last sentence for clarity.

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69( c)

Different charging regimes could have perverse effects - such as encouraging people to locate to less sustainable locations to drive further to access free parking - need to be very clear.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 5.69 (d) Will drop off facilities be provided? No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69 (e) Car clubs can also reduce car use even if not electric cars. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69 (f) How can it be ensured that measures are in place prior to occupation - is that realistic and acceptable to developers. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69 (g) Real time public transport info not so crucial when high frequency is achieved. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69 (h) Is the scale of the Yeovil SUE at 2500 dwellings sufficient to provide the critical mass for a Quality Bus partnership? No No

4103553


09/08/2012 5.69/YV6There doesn't seem to be sufficient to encourage sustainable transport for Yeovil other than just the SUE. Need to encourage throughout all towns including Yeovil.

No No

1285057


10/08/2012 YV6 Support Policy. No No


14/08/2012 YV6

The measures required for a 50% sustainable travel target at the Yeovil SUE is not deliverable as it relies on free supermarket deliveries, contrary to national supermarkets' pricing structure.

No Yes

Delete ii) in respect of free bulk shopping deliveries in YV6, although retain in text as an example of what could be achieved.Suggested additional wording in 5.69 b first sentence:...reducing the need to use the car for bulk shopping journeys (e.g. the weekly grocery shop), for example, by encouraging free deliveries by low emission/electric vans.This relies on a 3rd party to deliver, which may not be easy to achieve and is not a planning matter.

4103553


09/08/2012 YV6 Word "served" should read "severed". Bullets (i) and (vi) poorly worded and should be amended. No Yes Replace ''served'' with: severed in last para of

policy. Bullets i) and vi) are key to delivering sustainable transport.




Ref



Minor Change


4210177 C Barker 07/08/2012 YV6

Objects: Car ownership here to stay, electric vehicles not good for environment, public transport only feasible if in large urban area or long distance, traffic in Yeovil SUE underestimated, cost implications for north and south option not accurate, Highways Agency comments out of context.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 YV6 Objects. Cannot be achieved. Paras 5.69 to 5.71 contradict each other. No No

4330017

SW Transport Planning Network (Browne)

11/07/2012 YV6

Object Yeovil SUE modal shift - lack of good public transport means that sustainable travel target will not be achieved unless developers fund improvements. Traffic congestion will increase.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 YV6 Objects, delete as Yeovil SUE unnecessary but if it is necessary keep policy and make explicitly NOT subject to viability and explicit to protect country lanes from traffic.

No No


13/08/2012 YV6Agency would wish to see public transport provision being delivered at an early stage of development to embed sustainable travel behaviour.

No No

6960097 C Buzzard 13/08/2012 YV6 Families unlikely to cycle. Public transport connections to Barwick are poor, everyone needs a car especially families. No No

7222785


13/0/2012 YV6

Broadly support but note that within the transport Chapter there are other policies for sustainable travel. The UWE study advocates integrated approach to transport planning and additional study but Local Plan suggests taking some of these factors into Yeovil SUE now. Consider that further work is needed before policy approach to delivering sustainable travel for the Yeovil SUE can be justified. Aim to reduce reliance on car supported but cost of subsidizing buses needs careful consideration. Similarly 50% travel by sustainable means is relatively expensive (electric car pool, low emission bus routes, real time travel, footpaths/cycleways QBP). Such schemes aspirational and not supported by evidence. Cost of such travel measures could render development unviable

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 YV6

Whilst the principle for sustainable travel is welcomed, in practice modification of private travel habits is likely to be modest and the topography of Hendford Hill will prohibit this. Are SSDC prepared to contribute & manage a Quality Bus Partnership? Also little consideration to the bus routes within the development to maximise efficiency or who will pay for it. No provision for safe crossing point on the A37.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7329185


YV6

Support the principle of delivering at least 50% of travel from Yeovil SUE non-car means, but this is considered to be unrealistic and unlikely to be achieved until significant improvements are made to infrastructure and public transport in the local area. Therefore reduce to 15% during initial years which can be reviewed once improvements to infrastructure and public transport have been made.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 6.1

More convincing evidence required on the potential impact of growth on the historic cores to each settlement & significance to Conservation Areas and other designated assets.

No No

1403425

Bourne Leisure Ltd, Agent Mrs M Baddeley

20/07/2012 6.13 Chard Support paragraph 6.13 and a ‘range’ of attractions. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.24

No full assessment on the impact on dormice is made. Concern remains that the development at Chard will have implications for the hazel dormouse population which is a protected species. Maybe able to displace a small number but unlikely that translocation of large parts of the population unacceptable and likely to be objected to by Natural England. need full surveys of the site now to avoid what happened at Crewkerne

No No

1202913 Chard Town Council PMT1

Supports-Need northern relief road from A358 to Tatworth Road and phased delivery of highway infrastructure. CTFC relocating to north so long as financially viable. Monitoring of Holyrood school capacity. Develop water and sewage services on Eastern Development. Increase car parking with increased retail. Monitor provision of cemetery land, recreation, sports facilities and open spaces.

No No

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 PMT1 Support CEDA No No

4197377 A R Gray 05/07/2012 PMT1

Para 6.11cites need for an alternative route between A358 Furnham Rd and Tatworth Rd - contrary to Peter Brett Report, August 2010. To follow this approach would be unjustified and a waste of taxpayers money. Route of the Chard Distributor Road impacts on Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve.

No No

6 Market Towns - Vision and ProposalsPage 132 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

SS5 - Chard - historic failure to deliver KS/CHAR/1, Millfield link renders the scheme unviable without SSDC input, CIL evidence base is questioned, will lead to reduced levels of affordable housing in Chard, 2016 start seem optimistic, cannot be relied on to deliver continuous supply of housing land. Need additional sites to fill the gap. Para 6.21-6.23 Concerns regarding weight that can be attached to Chard Regeneration Framework. Has not had transparent scrutiny -all details should be set out in local plan. lack of consultation on formulating options. each site was not evaluated, SA, traffic impact would have no significant impact on delivery. PMT1 & Inset Map 3 - policy does not flow logically from Vision & Objectives - no separate appraisal of individual sites. Approach inconsistent with national policy. 61 dwellings will not undermine CEDA. Snowdon Farm site is sustainable. Great need for housing in Chard. All alternatives have not been considered in accordance with SEA Directive. Should not enshrine development beyond the Plan period - should be done at review.

No Yes

In order to clarify why growth is planned beyond the plan period amend paragraph 6.21 by inserting the following additional text at the end of the last sentence: The strategic growth for Chard will be delivered within and beyond the plan period as part of a cohesive plan to regenerate the town and achieve build out. The number of homes expected to come forward within the plan period reflects market deliverability.

4315809


14/08/2012 PMT1Limited deliverability of Chard strategic allocation would only achieve 1,000 dwellings, and the replacement provision is most sustainably accommodated at Yeovil.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 PMT1 Optimistic considering no development at Key Site took

place in old Local Plan No No

5411105


13/03/2012 PMT1

Should increase housing by 250. Support option 4 of the regeneration framework. Shortfall of delivery as eastern option will not come forward as expected. Shortfall must be addressed.

No No

6719073 J Duquemin 10/07/2012 PMT1Object to development at Oaklands Avenue, traffic noise, environment (nature reserve), impact on school and health facilities

No No

6775585 R Bland 31/07/2012 PMT1

Support Chard Direction for growth including greenpark in centre for football club; Object to alternative western site under, loss of agricultural land, loss of buffer for Crimchard & Cuttifords Door, wildlife - wintering birds, sustainable transport, outside projected growth figures, infrastructure, road access

No No

6822081Mt Hindrance Action Group (Quantrell)

02/08/2012 PMT1 Support Chard proposals No No




Ref



Minor Change


6826465 Tim Adams 07/08/2012 PMT1 Difficulties in deliverability of CEDA No No

6945121 D Courtney 09/08/2012 PMT1

Traffic impact at Oaklands Avenue, impact on Nature Reserve, lack of need for employment e.g. a prime site has been for sale on Chard Business Park for over 5 years and still not taken.

No No

6959809 D J Prior 09/08/2012 PMT1

Support Local Plan, not Mt Hindrance for reasons of encroachment on Cuttifords Door, agric land, lack of school places, no need for more industry, 450 homes too many in this area, badgers

No No

6960001 C Whiteway 13/08/2012 PMT1Support option 3 DoG for Chard, which pays attention to careful management of increased road traffic and delivery of schools

No No

6963457 J Beaven 09/08/2012 PMT1 Support DOG, object to anything near Cuttifords Door No No6963585 K Card 09/08/2012 PMT1 Support DOG, object to anything near Cuttifords Door No No6992993 N & G Tayler 13/08/2012 PMT1 Support option 3 No No

7011809 B Brooks 10/08/2012 PMT1 Object to DOG - covering agric land, impact on nature reserve, pollution, devaluation of property No No

7012065 D & C Whelan 10/08/2012 PMT1 Support DOG Chard do not want Mt Hindrance direction No No

7034913 M & S Hankin 13/08/2012 PMT1 Support Strategic Growth Area No No

7035041 I Whitehead 13/08/2012 PMT1 Support Strategic Growth Area No No

7042209 C & K Palmer 13/08/2012 PMT1 Object to proposed development at Crimchard, support

Local Plan proposals to east of Chard No No

7044449


13/08/2012 PMT1 Commitment of consortium to deliver eastern development No No

7079681 D & G MacDonald 10/08/2012 PMT1 Support CEDA No No

7123809 H Lofthouse 14/08/2012 PMT1 Object to proposed DoG for Chard, area very beautiful and would be better as a countrypark. No No

7123841 G & J Jordan 10/08/2012 PMT1

Object further building at Cuttifords Door/Crimchard : lack of police resources, surgery's can barely cope, lack of doctors, no A & E or maternity unit, extra traffic, pollution, noise, loss of farmland, object to more social housing due to negative social impact, lack of school places if build additional homes, traffic jams

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7252353


13/08/2012 PMT1

Broadly support Chard scheme but note that site failed to come forward and deliver and phasing needed to ensure viability. Acknowledge provision is phased beyond plan period and this is supported but needs to be more realistic and suggest more growth be delivered beyond the plan period, balance of growth should be delivered at Yeovil. Suggest Policy PMT2 be amended to 1,200 dwellings in the plan period to 2028

No Yes

As dwelling numbers are inconsistent with emerging Policy SS5 amend Policy PMT1 by deleting "3237" on the total strategic allocation and replacing with "2716" dwellings to reflect option 3 of the Chard Regeneration Scheme, which has been endorsed by the Council and is the total provision for the strategic allocation. Policy PMT2 needs to be amended in consequence by replacing "1861 dwellings" to be built in the plan period with "approximately 1220 dwellings" leaving " approximately 1496 dwellings" to be built post 2028 (and this figure to replace the post 2028 figure identified in PMT2) to match the 2716 dwelling overall allocation. The figures for employment provision in Policy PMT2 should have "approximately" attached to each. First sentence of Policy PMT2 should be amended to refer to "Chard Eastern Development Area" to clarify that the policy relates specifically to the allocated site. Reference in para 6.47 to delivering of dwellings in the Plan period and beyond to be amended to match the policy change.

4305953

Morrish Builders, Agent D Cramond

05/08/2012 PMT1 & PMT2

Local Plan is NPPF compliant. Policies PMT1 & PMT2 are positive, justified and will be effective. Morrish Builders as landowners and developers will play a part in delivery of development to accord with the proposals as part of the early phases. The Feasibility Report early phases are supported. Site at Oaklands Ave will set a bench mark for high quality design and more critically will provide a key part of strategic road infrastructure and will bring forward much needed finance. This sound Local Plan should move forward to adoption without undue delay. Planning work is now well in hand on the Morrish owned site.

No No


13/08/2012 PMT1/PMT2

Supports principle for growth of Chard. The Agency would need to better understand the potential nature of the impact on A303 before it could lend its full support. The plan should acknowledge the potential need for developer contributions towards mitigation at the A303/A3058 junction.

No No

7016577 I Dodd & C Mitchell 13/03/2012 PMT1/PMT

2Support Local Plan which has gone through full democratic process No No




Ref



Minor Change


7401761


13/08/2012PMT1 &

PMT2 (Inset Map 3)

Propose that land at Mount Hindrance, Chard - 27.3ha Cuttifords Door/Crimchard and 4.3ha to the north of Chard Business Park should be allocated for mixed development in accordance with para 47 of NPPF to accommodate 450 dwellings as part of the wider allocation for Chard to 2028. Wider text should support this allocation. Land at Mount Hindrance was promoted through the adopted Local Plan. Land should be allocated to meet the four tests of soundness. A "Mount Hindrance Vision Document" has been produced informed by 6 supporting technical reports. A confidential addendum on badgers has been produced but not included in the reps due to its sensitivity. Also included are suggested amendments to the SA. respondent has engaged with the community - public exhibition in Chard on 11th & 12th July 2012. Site is deliverable in the context of para 47 of NPPF. Site is deliverable and viable. Consider that it would not prejudice the local plans strategy.

No YesTo correct an annotation error amend notation on Inset Map 3 by deleting CV1 and CV2 and changing to PMT1 & PMT2

4197377 A R Gray 10/07/2012 6.28 Redevelopment of Boden Street, empty shops, emphasis on re-use No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.32-6.33 Bullet 2 hard to understand No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.35 Change "in comparison with car journeys" to "comparison to car journeys" No Yes Correct grammatical error, amend to read "in

comparison to car journeys" in para 6.35




Ref



Minor Change


4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 PMT2

Support principle of phased approach but believe unrealistic and overly optimistic on delivery dates. Believe numbers within plan period should be reduced by 500 to 1361 and surplus moved to Yeovil SUE

No Yes

As dwelling numbers are inconsistent with emerging Policy SS5 amend Policy PMT1 by deleting "3237" on the total strategic allocation and replacing with "2716" dwellings to reflect option 3 of the Chard Regeneration Scheme, which has been endorsed by the Council and is the total provision for the strategic allocation. Policy PMT2 needs to be amended in consequence by replacing "1861 dwellings" to be built in the plan period with "approximately 1220 dwellings" leaving "approximately 1496 dwellings" to be built post 2028 (and this figure to replace the post 2028 figure identified in PMT2) to match the 2716 dwelling overall allocation. The figures for employment provision in Policy PMT2 should have "approximately" attached to each. First sentence of Policy PMT2 should be amended to refer to "Chard Eastern Development Area" to clarify that the policy relates specifically to the allocated site. Reference in para 6.47 to delivering of dwellings in the Plan period and beyond to be amended to match the policy change.

5411105


13/03/2012 PMT2

Phasing of delivery should be amended to recognise that the capacity of the site is likely to be less than the 1861 dwellings identified in the policy. Additional allocations are required such as land at Crimchard

No No

7042273


13/08/2012 PMT2 Uncertain deliverability, other sites should be allowed to come forward to help meet the backlog of housing in Chard No No




Ref



Minor Change


7044449


13/08/2012 PMT2

PMT2 - policy lacks flexibility and should be amended to say "at least" 1,861 dwellings, "around" 13ha employment to 2028 and "around" 1,376 and "around" post 2028. Millfield link should be seen as a public benefit rather than a requirement - support the use of CPO to deliver. Consortium control the land between A358 and A30 - have agreed to equalise infrastructure costs - proposing more dwellings than planned in plan period - housing led approach to improve viability.

No Yes

As dwelling numbers are inconsistent with emerging Policy SS5 amend Policy PMT1 by deleting "3237" on the total strategic allocation and replacing with "2716" dwellings to reflect option 3 of the Chard Regeneration Scheme, which has been endorsed by the Council and is the total provision for the strategic allocation. Policy PMT2 needs to be amended in consequence by replacing "1861 dwellings" to be built in the plan period with "approximately 1220 dwellings" leaving "approximately 1496 dwellings" to be built post 2028 (and this figure to replace the post 2028 figure identified in PMT2) to match the 2716 dwelling overall allocation. The figures for employment provision in Policy PMT2 should have "approximately" attached to each. First sentence of Policy PMT2 should be amended to refer to "Chard Eastern Development Area" to clarify that the policy relates specifically to the allocated site. Reference in para 6.47 to delivering of dwellings in the Plan period and beyond to be amended to match the policy change.

7044449


13/08/2012 PMT2Phasing lacks flexibility and should be modified, omitting neighbourhood centres and sport/open space provision from policy

No No

7079681 D & G MacDonald 10/08/2012 PMT2 Support Chard phasing No No




Ref



Minor Change


7252353


13/0/2012 PMT2

Broadly support Chard scheme and note phasing proposed but given past problems with delivery of infrastructure and lack of comprehensive solutions consider no more than 1,200 dwellings within the plan period. Believe 100 homes per annum after 3 years to gain permission.

No Yes

As dwelling numbers are inconsistent with emerging Policy SS5 amend Policy PMT1 by deleting "3237" on the total strategic allocation and replacing with "2716" dwellings to reflect option 3 of the Chard Regeneration Scheme, which has been endorsed by the Council and is the total provision for the strategic allocation. Policy PMT2 needs to be amended in consequence by replacing "1861 dwellings" to be built in the plan period with "approximately 1220 dwellings" leaving "approximately1496 dwellings" to be built post 2028 (and this figure to replace the post 2028 figure identified in PMT2) to match the 2716 dwelling overall allocation. The figures for employment provision in Policy PMT2 should have "approximately" attached to each. First sentence of Policy PMT2 should be amended to refer to "Chard Eastern Development Area" to clarify that the policy relates specifically to the allocated site. Reference in para 6.47 to delivering of dwellings in the Plan period and beyond to be amended to match the policy change.

4103553


09/08/2012 6.54 wrong spelling of "fourth" no Yes Typing error: Amend to read "fourth" in para 6.54

7042273


13/08/2012 6.58 Due to the failure of the Key Site to come forward, plan should allow for some smaller sites to help meet the backlog No No

7066529


13/08/2012 6.58 Housing numbers for Crewkerne fail to deliver a positive future No No

7066529


13/08/2012 6.58 Potential of the site north of the A30 No No

7066529


13/08/2012 6.58Previous Inspector reported a preference for the land north of A30. Unrealistic to rely on the deliver of housing on just one site, which has failed to come forward

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7394401

Charles Bishop Ltd (Agent M Dobson Pegasus)

13/0/2012 4.92 and 6.58

Not supported that no further growth goes to Crewkerne in light of other comments on SS4 and SS5. Delays in bringing forward CLR from last plan and unwise to rely on sites within existing urban area. Suggest allocation of land at Longstrings keysite previously considered by last Local Plan Inspector and recommend one small area (land to east of Birch Way) as allocation for 30 dwellings

No No

7066529


13/08/2012 6.59Need to boost vitality and economic prosperity. Site north of A30 would provide good mixed use site in a sustainable manner.

No No

6876385 V Keitch 09/08/2012 6.66 - 6.74 Object Ilminster DOG - lack of consultation, brownfield Horlicks site available, Shudrick Valley inappropriate No No

6867617 D Gordon 09/08/2012 6.66 - 6.73

Objects. Consultation process re change from Option 2 (Canal way) to Option 1 (Shudrick Lane) Ilminster has been opaque - has not complied with the spirit of consultation. Landscape beauty of Shudrick Lane Option has been under estimated.

No Yes

In order to ensure that future development does not extend up Pretwood Hill amend Inset Map 7 - Ilminster by reducing the DOG deleting those parts that impact on Pretwood Hill. See attached plan.

6831649 G J Anderson 08/08/2012 6.66 - 6.73

Objects. Canal Way (Option 2 ) preferred to Shudrick Lane (Option1) as more sustainable. Inadequate consultation. Road not needed.

No No

6832993 A Hine 08/08/2012 6.66 - 6.73 Support the plan. No more discussion needed. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.68 and 6.87

Size of Ilminster compared to Wincanton makes it 5th largest not fourth No Yes Replace "fourth" in 1st line of para 6.68 with "fifth"

4103553


09/08/2012 6.74, 6.84 - 6.85

Ilminster road - initially understood that no link road would be needed - alternative suggested was for single access from Shudrick Lane. This is not desirable from a transport perspective since development could become bottled up so need two way access and SCC would support a link road between Shudrick lane and Townsend. Should be referred to as a link road

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.82Why has infrastructure plan not identified road as required and "critical". Somerset County Council now identify the need for a replacement 1st school required

No Yes

Refer to the need for a new development to contribute to a new replacement school at the end of para 6.82 as follows "There has been an identified need for a new replacement first school for Ilminster associated with the overall scale of growth identified for the town to which it is appropriate for further growth to contribute."




Ref



Minor Change


1285409

Kingstone and Allowenshay Parish Meeting (Baranowski

13/03/2012 PMT3 Object to proposed DoG for Ilminster due to access, traffic, landscape, flooding, detriment to farming interest, wildlife. No Yes


1539329 Cass Goodall 08/08/2012 PMT3 Support Shudrick lane option, greater balance to town and

less reliance on car. No No

4113921 H Quick 05/07/2012 PMT3 No need. No No

4170625 M G Rawstorne 13/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation, Canal Way option more sustainable, impact on town centre business, road not needed, environmental impact, loss of farm buildings, potential for development to spread towards Whitelackington. Road cannot offer alternative route to town centre as access will remain blocked by one-way system in Ditton St.

No No

4216769 A Warde 05/08/2012 PMT3Supports. SSDC have been fully transparent in their approach to plan preparation and the decision to change the Ilminster DOG.

No No

4216769 A Warde 10/08/2012 PMT3

Support Ilminster DOG - SSDC should stay with SE option as had consultation on this, need to support agriculture and Cold Harbour farm one opportunity and very fertile, need food production, "Stop Line" nature reserve and footpaths would be affected by SW Option

No No

4309985 R & C Drayton 14/08/2012 PMT3

No site visit, insufficient and inefficient consultation. Change of DoG late in the process. No specific notification to residents of Ilminster of a major change. Based on Ilminster Strategic Vision, which doesn't exist in approved form. Any road between Townsend to Shudrick Lane would become a relief road. Selection of the site not sound. Questions over SA. The employment policy for Ilminster to support its proposed housing numbers is unsound. Impact on landscape and environment, detract from Conservation Area & listed buildings, transport, wildlife, no requirement for relief road.

No No

4314753 G D Pearce 13/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Suggests Option 3 rather than Shudrick Lane or Canal Way. Promoting land at Winterhay Lane Farm provides an opportunity to develop sympathetically and is available - avoids using Grade 1 agricultural land.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 PMT3 Ilminster direction of growth should be relocated back to the South West as the SA indicated it was more appropriate. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 PMT3

Proposed direction of growth on the north facing slope of Shudrick Lane a bad choice. Canal Way nearer medical centre & employment. Spoils attractive entrance to the east side of town.

No No

4322241 D Pugh 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG Shudrick Valley - destroy unspoilt valley and wildlife habitat, better site with infrastructure in SW, no need for relief road, lack of consultation, valley steeply sloping, SW has level land, road system, surgery and would be less costly. Concerns about surface water run-off in SE area, Sustainability Appraisal inconsistent, land to SW owned by SCC who need revenue income. Should consider Horlicks site or allocated employment sites that haven't come forward.

No No

4330465 P Bradwell 13/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG being located to south east of town. No No

4331041 D Miller 06/08/2012 PMT3 Supports. Offers long term opportunities and traffic improvements. No No

4925345Ilton Parish Council, S Morley

30/07/2012 PMT3

Object - Consultation process was flawed and unsound because in 2010 the preferred option was Canal Way (backed by the Sustainability Appraisal), very few people objected to this, as they were content with the DOG. Between Draft Core Strategy and Proposed Submission Local Plan the DOG changed and there was not sufficient publication locally of this, preventing people from making their views heard at Full Council and other decision making meetings. The Town Council's view was very influential in the decision to change the DOG, but their view and document (Strategic Vision for Ilminster) is not representative of the town's views. The plan is also unsound in relation to the road cited in the DOG policy - there is no need for the road, the Town Council's aspiration was formed prior to Tesco development which has created a one-way system. There are safety concerns and increased congestion would result, Canal Way (original option) is better from a transport perspective (closer to A303 and A358 to Taunton etc). There are no bus stops near to Shudrick Lane, but Canal Way is well served by public transport. Flooding would effect the Shudrick Valley site and development would impact on wildlife and landscape amenity, which would not be issues to the same extent in Canal Way. Development in Shudrick Lane requires a road, this money could be better spent on other community facilities. Canal Way is a better, more sustainable site.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


5059617 S L Bowler 06/07/2012 PMT3 Too many existing houses, not enough employment, not the right proposed location No No

5438913 S Osborne (Cllr) 13/08/2012 PMT3

Objection to the proposed 'relief road', impact on traffic. Significant impact on character and amenity of Shudrick Valley. Should use brownfield land before greenfield

No No


13/08/2012 PMT3

Agency broadly supports the housing growth and proposed location away from the A303 junction. Like to see acknowledgement in the plan of proximity to A303 & for developers to engage at the early stages of pre app. Also concerned no mention of potential impact on level of employment growth on the SRN

No No

6293793 J Fagan 14/08/2012 PMT3 No consultation No No

6293793 J Fagan 14/08/2012 PMT3

Object Shudrick Lane, road too narrow, gradient, high grade agricultural lane, wildlife, flooding. Was designated a Special Landscape Area in Ilminster plan 1983. Not viable. More sense to split development on brown field sites currently designate for employment

No No

6634177 B Daley 04/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation. Canal Way preferred - more sustainable location. Impact on wildlife and landscape. Impact on character of the area. Traffic impact. Road not needed - Atkins report.

No Yes


6645441 S Dunn 26/07/2012 PMT3Brownfield sites should be developed first such as Horlicks site, and the original option should be pursued. Using Shudrick Valley is not ecologically sound.

No No

6645505 JA & JA Stacey 05/07/2012 PMT3

Object DOG -Traffic impact, Special Landscape Area, agric land, no need for Eastern Relief Road, impact on landscape including ancient Oak. Logical to extend from Canal Way or existing Horlicks site.

No Yes


6645537 S Powell 30/07/2012 PMT3

Object. Why Shudrick Lane chosen over Canal Way. Local Plan is 'unsound' Council did not fully consult. Canal Way better option because in an area where growth has already occurred and can take advantage of the arterial road network. Canal Way has Dr's surgery, pub and potential local employment nearby. 'Relief road' would exacerbate existing traffic problems. Shudrick Valley is an Area of Outstanding Special Landscape Value (noted in Town Plan 1983) and should be protected.

No Yes


6682753 John Budd 16/07/2012 PMT3 Support DOG. TC correct, well supported, sound and in line with NPPF. Too much already in SW of town No No

6714241 M G Woollen 05/07/2012 PMT3 Flooding, lack of employment and community infrastructure. Impact on wildlife. No No




Ref



Minor Change


6714657 M O Woollen 05/07/2012 PMT3 Flooding, lack of employment and community infrastructure. Impact on wildlife. No No

6714721 T & L Gower 05/07/2012 PMT3Greenfield development when brownfield sites are available. Flooding, lack of employment and community infrastructure. Impact on wildlife.

No No

6719137 C W Jones 10/07/2012 PMT3 Object to Ilminster Direction for Growth at Shudrick Valley, no requirement for relief road, special landscape area No Yes


6723617 S Bennett 16/07/2012 PMT3Object to Ilminster DOG at Shudrick Valley, no requirement for relief road, special landscape area, the Council has made a huge change with little consultation.

No Yes


6723937 H Graves 19/07/2012 PMT3Object to Ilminster DOG due to Shudrick Valley being an area of beauty and valued wildlife. Prefer original choice of Canal Way

No Yes


6724225 A Budd 16/07/2012 PMT3 Supports the Shudrick Lane direction for growth- proposed development can be justified. No No

6725345 M Thurstan 13/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation, SA is not sound - decision to change from Canal Way to Shudrick Lane not reconciled. New road not needed. Canal Way preferred as more sustainable. Negative impact on wildlife. Increased risk of flooding. Shudrick Valley area of Special Landscape Value.

No Yes


6725441 P Jolley 17/07/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster Direction for Growth at Shudrick Valley, valley steep & prone to flooding, no requirement for relief road, poor access, increased traffic, special landscape value, wildlife and insufficient consultation. Supports option 1.

No Yes


6725505 J & E Wildling 17/07/2012 PMT3

Support DOG for Ilminster should be to the South East of the town (Shudrick valley) - already been significant new building along Canal Way, Herne Hill and its surroundings should be protected.

No No

6726017 R Carr 18/07/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG: consultation process not sufficient or effective. No need for relief road. Town council not representative of local opinion. Development should be to south west because existing infrastructure already in place, and to protect the attractive setting of Shudrick Valley.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6726017 R Carr 24/07/2012 PMT3

Plan makes no reference to the local aspiration to keep the valley as it is. Poor and ineffective consultation, change in direction has been based on an incomplete and unpublished document prepared by Town Council which the public have had no opportunity to challenge.

No No

6726273D Phelps & C Fassbender

19/07/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG in Shudrick Valley - road not needed, Canal Way already has roads in place. Also Horlicks factory a real eyesore and has not seen flooding for 100 years. Shudrick Valley is beautiful and the wildlife would suffer

No No

6726273 Phelps & Fassbender 05/07/2012 PMT3 No need, impact on countryside & wildlife. No No

6728449 P Geering 07/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation. Cost, no need for houses, impact on wildlife, road, not consistent with NPPF, all alternatives have not been explored Canal Way more appropriate. Lost trust in local democracy.

No No

6732129 S G Livsey 19/07/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG - Shudrick Valley at the bottom of a very steep hill, flooding, used as amenity ground. insufficient primary school places, teenagers have to travel by bus to Crewkerne which is unsatisfactory, rare wildlife, site contributes to mental well being of the community. There are suitable flat sites to the west of the town. Development of Shudrick Lane would result in the loss of a new hen house, it is important to produce poultry and eggs. The road would be up a steep hill which would be dangerous.

No No

6732129 S G Livsey 03/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Impact on long eared bats, EIA needed. Development should take place to the west of the town as better access to A303 etc. Topography unsuitable, flood risk. Canal Way option should be taken forward.

No No

6732865 Poppy Tuck 23/07/2012 PMT3

Shudrick Valley appears in many walking guides, impact on wildlife, development to the West at Canal Way is preferred as it is closer to the new school and Doctors surgery and located in walking distance, suit bus routes to Taunton, the proposed road would cost £3.8 million, junction safety issues at Kingston to Ilminster, western option would benefit small shops,

No No

6732897 Christina Tuck 23/07/2012 PMT3

Insufficient consultation, favour development in the west, object to eastern development - impact on wildlife, walking, high cost, unnecessary road, distance to facilities and bus routes, impact on small local businesses, doctors surgery and school near Canal Way, road safety at Kingston Road as it can not handle heavy lorries or increase in car numbers.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6735297 M Pleeth 23/07/2012 PMT3

Insufficient consultation, South West should be preferred option as adjacent new surgery, playing fields, bus route, land owned by SCC. Development to West would protect smaller businesses, Shudrick Valley is Special Landscape Area in the Ilminster Town Plan. Adversely impact on wildlife, loss of high grade agricultural land, used for walking and amenity space, Atkins Report states the town does not need a relief road, various junctions in the town are unsuitable for further growth, narrow pavements, high development costs, flooding, availability of employment, road safety issues,

No Yes


6735297 M Pleeth 23/07/2012 PMT3

Insufficient consultation, South West should be the preferred option as adjacent new surgery, playing fields, bus route, land owned by SCC. Development in the West would protect smaller businesses, Shudrick Valley designated a Special Landscape Area in the Ilminster Town Plan. Adversely impact on wildlife, loss of high grade agricultural land, used for walking and amenity space, Atkins Report states the town does not need a relief road, various junctions in the town are unsuitable for further growth, narrow pavements, high development costs, flooding, availability of employment, road safety issues,

No Yes


6735297 M Pleeth 08/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick valley, lack of consultation, road safety, West option better, Special landscape area, flooding, wildlife, high grade agric land, loss of amenity space, need more employment to counter housing

No Yes


6735617 L Carr 24/07/2012 PMT3

Proposal would not address "unbalanced nature" of development in the town. Would not support new employment and leisure opportunities. Strategic vision has not been completed and has not addressed the large amount of public opposition to the new road. Unsound to use this unfinished document as evidence.

No No

6735617 L Carr 24/07/2012 PMT3

Direction of growth changed without any public consultation. Has been changed because of the aspirations of the Town Council to see a road link between Shudrick Lane and Townsend. Does not take account of the large amount of public opposition. Proposal will not deliver housing requirement and even if it did it would be high density which would be out of character with a rural Market Town.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6755233 E O'Grady 23/07/2012 PMT3

Object DOG -Increase in flooding, houses would be built on a slope, loss of wildlife, traffic at junction of Crewkerne road and old A303, South West option is preferred as there is already a relief road, new health centre is being built, community near playing fields,

No No

6756959 Mary Chisholm 27/07/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - AONB, no need for relief road, canal way preferable, town cannot accommodate more growth; jobs, schools, etc.

No No

6757793 D Perks 31/07/2012 PMT3 Object to road No No6758849 W Hall 31/07/2012 PMT3 Object to road No No

6758913 R Beardon 24/07/2012 PMT3Support the proposed growth to the south east of Ilminster provides more sustainable growth and improved vitality to the town centre

No No

6759265 Mr M Pleeth 24/07/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG at Shudrick Valley. Policy unsound - insufficient public consultation, no requirement for a relief road. Location to west better with access to services. Road access to Shudrick Lane unsuitable. Development to west would protect smaller businesses in the town centre. 1983 designated a Special Landscape Area, nothing has changed. Cost of road infrastructure would mean higher unit costs. Would cause flooding further downstream. Adverse effect to wildlife. Loss of high grade agricultural land. Should be retained as an amenity to the town. Need to recognise the balance between employment and housing.

No Yes


6760129 A Geering 06/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG. SW Option preferred - flat, good road connectivity. Plan not positively prepared, justified or effective. Shudrick valley is an asset to the whole town. No need for the additional housing - would cause an imbalance and infrastructure such as schooling and medical facilities already inadequate. Inadequate consultation, impact on wildlife and woodlands. Road would lead onto the Crewkerne Road which would increase danger - no need for the road Atkins report makes this clear, cost would be substantial. There are better alternatives in Ilminster - Canal Way, Horlicks site, Winterhay Lane. Decision based on flimsy evidence. Would benefit Tesco. Detrimental impact on beautiful valley. Town Council aspiration for pool and gym - can be delivered by private sector. Illogical, damaging and costly to develop Shudrick Valley.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6760513 P Izatt 25/07/2012 PMT3

Proposed Ilminster relief road would cause more problems than it solves. Two sets of traffic lights on Bay Hill/Townsend and East St/The Butts needs serious consideration. SW of Ilminster better placed for road access to Taunton Chard, Exeter and Yeovil and within walking distance to town's amenities and buses. proposal would also destroy a beautiful wooded landscape unnecessarily.

No Yes


6760545 P Croot 25/07/2012 PMT3

Town Council option not representative. Contrary to SA which identified Option 2. Difficult topography, new residents would not use new road. Visual impact would be high and character would be altered. Detrimental impact on wildlife and amenity. Development should be located to the south west (identified in SA), easier and cheaper to build and better related to existing facilities.

No Yes


6760641 J & J Croker 25/07/2012 PMT3Ilminster is a perfect mix of town and country - it has something special which the council is determined to destroy. Tesco has been a disaster. Short sighted planning.

No No

6760673 C D Chalmers 02/08/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG Ilminster, lack of consultation, no infrastructure, SA shows preferred option Canal Way, road capacity, inaccuracies in IDP, no need for through road.

No No

6762081 C Bauld 26/07/2012 PMT3 Object to change in DOG to Shudrick Valley in Ilminster No No

6763041 Richard Elliott 26/07/2012 PMT3 Object to change in DOG to Shudrick Valley in Ilminster No No

6763233 F Albin 26/07/2012 PMT3 and Map 7 Object to change in DOG to Shudrick Valley in Ilminster No No

6763457 E Albin 26/07/2012 PMT3 and Map 7 Object to change in DOG to Shudrick Valley in Ilminster No No

6767009 B Handley 27/07/2012 PMT3

Object to housing development at Shudrick Valley due to loss of good agricultural land. The Canal Way option should be pursued instead as this area already has the infrastructure required for further development.

No No

6768033 C George 29/07/2012 PMT3

Objects to DOG. Prefers South West (Option 2) as already a relief road with easy access to A303. With health Centre there it would be the natural choice. Proposed direction will increase congestion in Hedrick Lane/ Ditton Street. Would result in loss of a major open space, drains will not be able to cope, will displace a lot of wildlife habitat, was not aware of the proposal until recently, WS Atkins found no justification for a relief road, local service will not be able to cope with growth, development will have a detrimental impact on the town.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6769761 E M Bowen-Rampling 29/07/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG. Consultation not undertaken effectively. Bus in Tesco car park is not Town Centre. Canal Way is the more sensible option, has the infrastructure to deal with the development. Road links in place and close to Town Centre, Health and employment. At some stage the Town Council has misrepresented the towns people. If Shudrick Lane option goes ahead existing traffic problems at the top of Town Bay Hill /Townsend would be exacerbated. Congestion could be improved by a clamp down on illegal parking in East St. New road not needed.

No No

6770625 G M Walker 30/07/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG. Town Councils arguments are unsound - they want Shudrick Lane Option so that the developer can pay for an eastern relief road - the Atkins report says this road is not need now or in the future. Canal Way is closer to Tesco and Pretwood Hill is steep and not easy for walking or cycling, the medical centre is closer to Canal Way. There are no bus stops to the east of the town. How can the SA be finely balanced towards Option 1? The View from the proposal DOG is the most attractive from Ilminster. Option 2 is County Council owned so the money would go back into the public purse - not the case with Option 2. Recorded colony of bats at the end of Townsend which use Pretwood Hill as well as other wildlife. Why was the Consultation Bus located in Tesco car park? Why not in the Market Place? Can find no proof of support for the Town Council's proposal.

No Yes


6770625 G M Walker 30/07/2012 PMT3

Object - The document has not taken into account wildlife surveys which have been undertaken in Shudrick Lane (identifies Badgers, Slow Worms & various Bats). Development would have a considerable impact on the Shudrick Valley and hillside which is significant to Ilminster.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6771041 Beryl Burden 27/07/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG due to impact on valued landscape, south west option is closer to community services, facilities, and town centre shops; south west option is closer to employment land, has good pedestrian access to town centre, and served by buses along Canal Way- the proposed DOG does not have access to public transport. Access for construction traffic would be easier in south west as could use existing roads, much more difficult for proposed DOG. The DOG would add to flooding problems that already exist with Shudrick Brook culvert. The District Council owns land in SW option, the profit of this could be used to benefit community. There is an over provision of 1-2 bed flats in the town.

No Yes


6771233 T Daad 30/07/2012 PMT3 Object - Ilminster does not need a relief road. No No

6771265 Barry Burden 27/07/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG due to impact on valued landscape, south west option is closer to community services, facilities, and town centre shops; south west option is closer to employment land, has good pedestrian access to town centre, and served by buses along Canal Way- the proposed DOG does not have access to public transport. Access for construction traffic would be easier in south west as could use existing roads, much more difficult for proposed DOG. The DOG would add to flooding problems that already exist with Shudrick Brook culvert. The District Council owns land in SW option, the profit of this could be used to benefit community. There is an over provision of 1-2 bed flats in the town.

No Yes


6774401 K Ronaldson 30/07/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG. Canal Way has more advantages than Shudrick Lane - it already has a relief road, which leads to major routes outside of the town and is well related to the new Dr's surgery. The ground is flat and is outside the Town Centre so construction traffic would not conflict with day to day traffic. in 1983 Prestwood Hill was designated a Special Landscape Area - this would be lost as would trees, woodland and abundant wildlife. There is still other housing land available.

No Yes


6774657 Dr P Eminson 30/07/2012 PMT3

Insufficient consultation, traffic. Development to the west of Ilminster Town Centre is more appropriate. The Tesco traffic in Shudrick Lane is already very heavy and more housing will make it more hazardous.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6775297


30/07/2012


Object need to increase housing and employment land to ensure sustainability. Object to Shudrick Valley DOG, there is still land available at Canal Way.

No No

6775649 P Willis 30/07/2012 PMT3

Objects to proposal in Shudrick Valley. Insufficient consultation, no consideration of the visual impact on the town. Canal way DOG preferred as already developed. Need to have the necessary infrastructure schools etc. need joined up thinking between District and County Councils.

No Yes


6776705 Stuart Hart PMT3Object Ilminster DOG - Canal Way preferred option, Road not required - Atkins report, 1983 Shudrick Valley Special Landscape Value, footpath loss.

No Yes


6808577 I Kerley 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG No No6808737 J E Goodall 01/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG Ilminster No No

6809697 S Crawley 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG, not legally compliant, lack of consultation on changes, contrary to SCI, Town Council not representative, no need for road for planned number of houses, road infrastructure already in place in Canal Way and land flat. Shudrick valley unspoilt, impact on wildlife. Canal way better sited for access, facilities and employment land

No Yes


6812129 H de Bowen 01/08/2012 PMT3Object lack of consultation , impact on environment, distance from amenities, traffic, flooding, relief road not required, effect on business

No No

6812513 J H Powell 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object no consultation not legal or sound, no need for relief road, impact on wildlife should revert to Canal Way No No

6812577 E Powell 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object no consultation not sound, should revert to Canal Way with better infrastructure No No

6812673 A J & E B Canvin 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object to development of Shudrick Valley due to flooding

availability of brownfield site to west of town No No

6812737 R Powell 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object no consultation, not sound, should revert to Canal Way with better infrastructure, not economically viable No No

6812801 R Kelly 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object no consultation not legal or sound, no need for relief road, should revert to Canal Way No No

6812993 R & C Van Heeckerens 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Shudrick valley DOG, Canal Way better suited

and available No No




Ref



Minor Change


6813057 A J Walker 03/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Driven by Town Council's desire for an eastern relief road, undue weight has been given to the Town Council's comments, lack of assessment of how proposals will impact on the vitality and viability of Ilminster Town Centre. Inconsistencies in the SA. Canal Way Option preferred.

No No

6813057 A J Walker 02/08/2012 PMT3 Object to all development on Shudrick Lane and relief road, inaccurate SA, impact on town centre. No No

6813409 T Izatt 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object no consultation not sound, should revert to Canal Way with better infrastructure, loss of grade 1 land No No

6813441 L Kelly 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object no consultation not legal or sound, no need for relief road, should revert to Canal Way No No

6813505 E & J Mowlem 01/08/2012 PMT3 Object due to traffic, flooding, better infrastructure at Canal

Way No No

6813601 P Powell 01/08/2012 PMT3Change to option 2 it has better existing infrastructure, no relief road required, topography of Shudrick Valley unsuitable

No No

6813985 L Gower 02/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Shudrick Valley DOG, traffic safety concerns No No

6815137 R Moore 02/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Valley DOG; SLA designation, wildlife, flooding, no requirement for an eastern relief road; support Canal Way, road infrastructure, access to sports facilities, medical centre, opportunity for by-pass town centre

No Yes


6815169 N McKinnell 02/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Shudrick Valley DOG; Strategic Vision for Ilminster is in draft form, does not deliver a relief road, No No

6815201 A Riley 02/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Shudrick Valley DOG; Strategic Vision for Ilminster is in draft form, does not deliver a relief road, No No

6815361 E Bowler 02/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Valley DOG, sloping land, landscape, flooding, distance from health centre, recreation facilities & connecting roads, Canal Way better suited as near medical centre / park with connecting roads

No Yes


6817025 M E Talbot 04/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation. Canal Way preferred - more sustainable location. Impact on wildlife and landscape. Cost unnecessary money could be used in other areas of the community. Impact on small businesses due to people being closer to Tesco.

No Yes


6817729 S Neave 05/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Inadequate consultation. Canal Way option preferred. Road not needed. Landscape impact - SLA. No Yes


6821729 N Rampling 02/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG, should be Canal Way due to traffic; no need for road No No




Ref



Minor Change


6821825 C Stevens 02/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Shudrick Valley DOG; flood issues, wild life, infrastructure, road/transport Canal way better No No

6822049 T J Paul 02/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Shudrick Valley DOG should be Canal Way, impact on flora/fauna, risk of flooding, No No

6822817 O Haimes 03/08/2012 PMT3Objects. Agricultural land of amenity value, lack of consultation, Canal Way preferred, no need for new road, topography will be difficult to develop, impact on wildlife.

No No

6822849 M Haimes 03/08/2012 PMT3Objects. Lack of consultation, no need for new road, impact on the environment, flooding, site suitability (Canal Way preferred), lack of consultation.

No No

6822945 J Gidlow 03/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Approach from east of town is very attractive, access from A303 end not so. Impact on wildlife. No No

6823073 W Gidlow 03/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Approach from east of town is very attractive, access from A303 end not so. Impact on wildlife. No No

6823713 C J Dunford 03/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Highways, impact on Yeovil Hospital, impact on East Coker School, Town Centre has declined. No No

6823745 R A Ure 03/08/2012 PMT3Objects. Loss of countryside and trees, no jobs for new residents, impact on infrastructure, dispute if houses needed, new road not needed.

No No

6824481 Mr A Haimes 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Valley Option 1. No proper consultation, too many houses, original proposal better with good road links, buses, pavements, cycle lanes. Option 1 has no infrastructure, new road very costly, road not feasible, road would be relief road. Valley is mix of agric land and woodland so impact on wildlife, footpath, public access lost. Town council too influential

No No

6824481 Mr A Haimes 06/08/2012 PMT3

Object to location of DOG - should be at original option in Canal Way instead as it has existing infrastructure, good road links, bus route, and Shudrick Valley is highly valued agriculture and woodland. Has remained at 332 additional dwellings since 2009 despite new homes being built and granted planning permission.

No No

6825313 John Gidlow 03/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG as area was designated as a special landscape area, SW option is closer to main roads, ecology, road cost, impact on schools, employment allocations should be developed for housing, poor consultation.

No Yes


6825345 S Gidlow 03/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG as area was designated as a special landscape area, SW option is closer to main roads, ecology, road cost, impact on schools, employment allocations should be developed for housing, poor consultation.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6825505 P Thackeray 03/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Traffic impact, social problems - increased crime, impact on wildlife and landscape. No Yes


6825633 R Manley 03/08/2012 PMT3 Object - Shudrick Valley has poor road access, poor bus links, and is far from the new medical centre. No No

6825665 J Potts 03/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Impact on natural unspoilt valley. No No

6825697 V S Paul 06/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Road not needed, impact on landscape, Canal way the preferred option. No No

6826657 B Anderson 07/08/2012 PMT3 Object to option 1 No No

6827553 R J and GM Cooper 06/08/2012 PMT3

Object. Lack of consultation. Should revert to the Canal Way option which has infrastructure in place. Area of Special Landscape Value, impact on wildlife, flood plain. New road unnecessary. Townsend and Ditton St would not cope with additional traffic.

No Yes


6828193 M Fry-Foley 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation contravenes SCI another round needed. No justification for link road. Impact on Ditton St and Canal Way. Increased traffic, landscape impact, increased surface water. More houses will be needed to improve viability. Should revert to Canal Way Option publicly owned - would benefit tax payers

No Yes


6828257 J de Bowen 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Should reconsider Canal Way. Shudrick Valley has special landscape value. Canal Way more sustainable location. Shudrick Valley too far from Town Centre and will have a detrimental impact on business. Dangerous for more cars to use Bay Hill. No new road needed Shudrick Lane should be connected to Frog Lane. Canal Way publicly owned - would benefit tax payers. Proposal high density not suitable for a small market town.

No Yes


6828289 P Fry-Foley 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation contravenes SCI another round needed. No justification for link road. Impact on Ditton St and Canal Way. Increased traffic, landscape impact, increased surface water. More houses will be needed to improve viability. Should revert to Canal Way Option publicly owned - would benefit tax payers.

No Yes


6828321 P J Tebbs 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Canal Way was generally accepted. Previously stated that south east option could not sustain the required number of dwellings. Will unbalance the town. Increased traffic. Impact on wildlife, landscape and archaeology. High infrastructure costs - gas and water pipes cross the valley. Aspiration of Town Council - would be beneficial to Tesco. Road not needed. South west Option should be adopted.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6828385 P Radford & L Marshall 06/08/2012 PMT3

Object. Should reconsider Canal Way. Inadequate consultation. Town Council only in favour of Shudrick Lane as they want a relief road - not needed (Atkins report). Shudrick Valley has special landscape value. Impact on wildlife. Public right of way runs across. Increased traffic. Canal Way more sustainable location.

No Yes


6828449 J S G Waldie 06/08/2012 PMT3Objects. Reliance on "Vision of Ilminster" not acceptable as document was not consulted upon. Consultation inadequate. Should be a further consultation.

No No

6829889 G Webb 06/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Relief road not needed. Shudrick Valley has high amenity value. Inadequate consultation. No No

6829921 Ms A Haimes 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Consultation inadequate, no need for relief road, Canal Way preferred - better related to existing facilities and infrastructure. Loss of agricultural land, flooding, no jobs, schools over subscribed.

No No

6829953 S Harvey 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation, Canal Way option is preferred - more sustainable location, Shudrick Lane - impact on wildlife and biodiversity, flooding, road unnecessary.

No No

6829985 P Haimes 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation. Road not needed. Site at Canal way preferred - more sustainable, better related to existing facilities and infrastructure. Landscape and wildlife impact. Flooding, other brownfield sites available e.g. Powrmatic (should be deducted from the 332). Economic climate.

No No

6829985 P Haimes 14/08/2012 PMT3

Object to proposed DoG. Housing commitments not up to date. Should include Powermatic site as brownfield and should be supported first. The planned 332 houses too many and number should be addressed accordingly.

No No

6830049 J Miller 06/08/2012 PMT3 Supports. Will balance the town. More sustainable location. No No

6830337 D & J Gundry 06/08/2012 PMT3

Object. Inadequate consultation. Oppose road. Landscape impact. Canal Way a more sustainable option. Will destroy character.

No Yes


6830497 J Small 06/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Dreadful scheme. Traffic impact, brownfield sites should be used, impact on countryside. No Yes


6830529 C Hudson 08/08/2012 PMT3 Supports Ilminster DOG. No No




Ref



Minor Change


6830913 R Gallagher 05/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG, valley lovely recreation area and ample room on other side of town. No No

6831425 Revd A de Bowen 06/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. High density affordable homes not appropriate. Inadequate consultation. Canal Way preferred, more economical, logical, less harmful. Impact on landscape, loss of amenity space, traffic impact, flooding, impact on employment, road unnecessary.

No Yes


6831585 P D Brown 06/08/2012 PMT3

Object - steep slope, landscape impact, wildlife impact, no need for a road (cited in Atkins report), destroy the ancient copses & giant Oak trees which would impact on the town's Conservation Area. Canal Way is more sustainable, better road connections and less landscape impact. Consultation which took place was limited and renders plan unsound.

No Yes


6832001 C Porritt 06/08/2012 PMT3Supports. Cold Harbour is further from Town Centre and has recreational value, nature reserve. Traffic impact on Canal Way if that option chosen.

No No

6832225 W Porritt 06/08/2012 PMT3

Supports. Attended consultation on the bus and recalls some support for this option. Shocked that the position might revert to Canal Way as a result of a meeting attended almost exclusively by Shudrick Valley residents.

No No

6832449 D & W Westwood 06/08/2012 PMT3 Object. Canal Way more sustainable. Impact on the valley,

traffic impact and link road not required. No Yes


6832481 E Drayton 06/08/2012 PMT3Object. Canal Way preferred - more sustainable. Landscape and wildlife impact. Traffic impact. No space to widen pavement.

No Yes


6834529 P Davies 08/08/2012 PMT3 Supports Ilminster DOG. No No

6834561 M R Black (B Samways) 08/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Increased traffic, Canal Way more sustainable location, environmental impact, road not needed, inadequate consultation.

No No

6835937 B K Schnieders 09/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Development at Canal Way would be inappropriate as the land floods. Horlicks site should be used before Canal Way or Shudrick Lane - brownfield first before impacting on wildlife, farmland and leisure. Does Ilminster need all these new homes?

No No

6849793 C Clifford 09/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - no consultation, Town Council not discussed changes with towns people, no relief road required, risk of flooding, use Horlicks site, SW has easy access to facilities

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6850721 S Fuller 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Valley - SW would be natural continuation of existing development and more cost effective, closer to doctors and playing fields, easy access to major routes, less environmental impact. Narrow valley acts as amphitheatre for noise and increased risk of flooding. Shudrick Valley designated SLA, impact on wildlife, no need for relief road, additional traffic dangerous, lack of consultation

No Yes


6879393 W Mann 09/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - reversal of previous decision, fundamental change, evidence doesn’t support SE option, SA favours Canal Way not Shudrick Valley, relief road not needed nor acceptable nor desirable, cost of road. Peripheral landscape study shows sites equal, Shudrick site of insufficient size to accommodate all growth needed, high landscape value area, Canal Way better suited to take growth

No Yes


6880769 S Lake 09/08/2012 PMT3 Object Ilminster DOG - Canal Way better - site already prepared and nearer road links No No

6884545 Greg Mann 09/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - no consultation, Shudrick Valley choice is perverse as arguments not changed from previously considering it, relief road not needed, Canal Way preferable in original plan why not now?, would be better to get affordable housing than a relief road.

No No

6885121 P Carbin 09/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - no consultation, huge visual impact, lack of facilities such as secondary school, bus services and jobs, impact on town centre of growth not considered. No need for road - goes nowhere, potential for flooding

No Yes


6887233 L Wilson 09/08/2012 PMT3Object Ilminster DOG - Canal Way better with good road links/infrastructure, buses and cycle links. Shudrick Valley unspoilt, lots of wildlife, no need for new road, no congestion

No No

6900993 A Mann 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - traffic congestion not an issue so no need for road, reversal of previous policy without rationale, Canal way better with good road network and bus/pedestrian access, land is flat, facilities present - unlike Shudrick Valley.

No No

6901953 M Rayner PMT3 Herne Hill used for recreation, hopes no carpark on Herne Hill fields. No No

6903041 Stewart Wilson 07/08/2012 PMT3

Large increase in population of Ilminster. "feel" of market town at threat. Lack of jobs. Lack of affordable homes. High migration within country to area. Infrastructure will be too strained. Shudrick Valley and Canal Way wrong areas. Former Horlicks site preferable.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


6903201 A Ferry 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG - no proper consultation, why change DOG?, town council doesn’t represent people, SE option is unsound and SW much more appropriate. SE - steeply sloping, floods, poor access, road expensive and not needed, away from employment area, existing roads poor, impact on wildlife, valley of Special Landscape Value. SW option is continuation of existing growth, near facilities, in SCC ownership, not agricultural land, has good road links,

No Yes


6910177 R Neave 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - no need for relief road, SW option already has roads and is close to employment and facilities. Road through valley would be rat-run. Only benefit is close to Tesco. Valley Special Landscape Area

No Yes


6910401 S E Bampton 07/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG and prefer Canal Way option - less scenic. Lack of consultation, inadequate roads - Tesco traffic, Bowling Club and SSDC car park, Kingstone Cross to Townsend Rd road unsafe. Unacceptable impact on landscape and wildlife.

No Yes


6912417 S Hughes-Williams 07/08/2012 PMT3 Wildlife at Ilminster. No No

6912673 R Gray 07/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Ilminster DOG and prefer Canal Way option - same reasons as previously given. No No

6912993 T Shaw 07/08/2012 PMT3Support Ilminster DOG as need a relief road, many people enjoy using area south of Canal Way for recreation (footpaths etc), need to retain local authority farms.

No No

6913153 H Shaw 07/08/2012 PMT3Support Ilminster DOG as need a relief road, many people enjoy using area south of Canal Way for recreation (footpaths etc), need to retain local authority farms.

No No

6913761 W Best 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG - lack of consultation, ruin valley, climate change, being rushed through No Yes


6913761 W Best 07/08/2012 PMT3 Object to Shudrick Lane, insufficient consultation No No

6931937 G Price 07/08/2012 PMT3

Supports. Process of consultation has taken place. Canal Way site has recreational value and is a local Nature Reserve. Area all the new homes needed - what about the Horlicks site.

No No

6931969 C Williams 07/08/2012 PMT3Supports. Process of consultation has taken place. Need to provide families with start up opportunities. Canal Way site has recreational value and is a local Nature Reserve.

No No

6932737 H Kemp 07/08/2012 PMT3Traffic impact, should build on Canal Way or Station Rd to re-use derelict land and where there are better road and bus links..

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6933217 E Wilding 08/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG to south east, Herne Hill area important for wildlife and leisure No No

6933313 D Martin 08/08/2012 PMT3 Fully support the proposed direction of growth better than Canal Way which floods No No

6935585 T J Webb 08/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG should be Canal Way as roads good, minimal disruption, no impact on SLA. No No

6935873 P & G Dean 08/08/2012 PMT3Support DOG to South east although better to build on Horlicks factory. Need to keep greenfields for wildlife and farming.

No No

6935969 S Reid 08/08/2012 PMT3 Horlicks factory should be used. Protect farmland and wildlife No No

6936033 L Martin 08/08/2012 PMT3 Support Shudrick Valley No No

6945569 S Peasland 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object proposed DoG - ecologically, environment, road No Yes


6945793 S Durrance 10/08/2012 PMT3 Support proposed DoG - impact on road, environment, nature reserve, for option 2 No No

6947009 L Rees 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object proposed DoG - topography, wildlife, congestion, poor access No No

6947105 C Rees 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object proposed DoG - topography, flooding, relief road, traffic congestion, prefer Canal Way, No No

6947553 J Hards 10/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG to South east as farmland in sw fertile No No

6947585 R Jacques 10/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG - need to protect Herne Hill for locals and tourists, agric land needs protecting, what next windfarms? No No

6948001 D Higton 09/08/2012 PMT3 Support proposed DoG - impact on road, environment for option 2 No No

6948033 J E Hibbert 10/08/2012 PMT3/SS5 Object proposed DoG - relief road not necessary, the number of houses not needed, infrastructure No No

6959393 P M Sellers 09/08/2012 PMT3Object to DOG - Shudrick Valley AONB, wildlife, need for affordable housing, Canal Way better, traffic problems in town centre

No Yes


6959425 P Warman 10/08/2012 PMT3/SS5 Shudrick Lane not right location for growth, scale of growth too large for Ilminster No No

6959713 J A White PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - congestion and pollution. Relief road would be rat run. Atkins report-no need for road. SW option amenities already in place. Inadequate consultation. School capacity. Housing density too high. Lack of employment opportunities.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6959745 David Baker 10/08/2012 PMT3Support Ilminster DOG - extensive consultation. SW development would mean loss agricultural land, footpaths, beauty and wildlife.

No Yes


6959777 Mr R Jacques 10/08/2012 PMT3 Protect Herne Hill for everyone, already lots of houses in

last 15 years, think of the cows, farmers are needed. No No

6963713


13/08/2012 PMT3Justification for the direction of growth not upheld by SHLAA, also allocated employment sites at opposite end of town. SA identified growth to the South West

No No

6967681 T & J Scamell 13/08/2012 PMT3

Object to DoG . Canal Way offers a more light airy open space, has a bus route and existing infrastructure. Shudrick Lane is too steep, is difficult to access, is a valuable wildlife reserve. The town should not be focused around Tesco.

No No

6967809 T Overton 13/08/2012 PMT3

Object to DoG due to lack of public consultation rendering the plan unsound. Concerns over traffic management, impact on the character of Ilminster, the landscape and wildlife

No Yes


6992929 E J Taylor 13/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG for Ilminster should be to the South East of the town (Shudrick Valley) No No

6993025 Y B J Willis 13/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG -Infrastructure, cost, balanced development, no need for ring road No No

6993121 D R C Holmes 09/08/2012 PMT3 Need to consider junctions, impact of Tesco traffic, two

schools nearby No No

6994593 R & P Sage 09/08/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG, lack of consultation, will destroy area of beauty, impact on wildlife, 1983 designation, Canal Way better as builds on recent growth here, transport and traffic difficult sharp bends etc

No Yes


6997313 P McCourt 08/08/2012 PMT3Need for additional housing in Ilminster, no strong feeling either way but object to way choice been made - not properly consulted upon

No No

7019489 H Ricketts 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object Shudrick Valley - greenfield, lack of publicity No No

7029281 M Stokes 10/08/2012 PMT3Object to Shudrick Lane - no proper consultation, cost higher than Option 2, new road will be a thoroughfare, don't need new road, democratic process not been followed

No No

7029601 Mr A Huskisson 13/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Relief road unnecessary. No No




Ref



Minor Change


7029665 Mrs A Huskisson 13/08/2012 PMT3 Objects. Relief road unnecessary. Canal Way is preferred. No No

7029761 G Simper 13/08/2012 PMT3 Supports Shudrick Lane DOG. Canal Way is much used for recreational purposes. No No

7029985 L Jarvis 13/08/2012 PMT3 Supports. SSDC have followed the proper democratic process. No No

7030081 T Jarvis 13/08/2012 PMT3 Supports. Extensive consultation has been carried out. No No

7031873 R Lee 10/08/2012 PMT3Object to Shudrick Lane - Plans not made public, no need for relief road, Valley is Special Landscape Area, Ditton St too narrow for traffic, need further consultation

No Yes


7034785 R Slater 13/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Inadequate consultation, no site visits have been made to the option, topography unsuitable, Canal Way Option is preferred as is more sustainable, increased flood risk. Quotes from Joni Mitchell.

No No

7043201

Carraigdubh UK, Agent D Evans Alder King

13/08/2012 PMT3 Objection to DoG for Ilminster No No

7044225 P Painter 13/08/2012 PMT3

Request for land to be included for housing on site at Winterhay Lane, adjoining the western boundary of the Glacier Metal factory site, as this is acceptable land to develop. This would better meet Ilminster's housing needs and can be developed immediately. Would prefer Option 3 as the DOG.

No No

7070241 Durham family PMT3 Object Ilminster DOG - too many houses, road access,

consultation not fair. No No

7072801 M Rawstone 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG, not legally sound as DOG changed to SE, lack of consultation, better alternative to SW. More impact on ecology, conservation area and visual impact if go SE. Alternatively go north near Winterhay Lane.

No Yes


7079905 J Slaughter 13/08/2012 PMT3

Development in Ilminster DOG will spoil the character of the town, is in an archaeological site of national importance, road is unnecessary. Question the sustainability of the development in terms of local employment, health and education requirement.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7081953 N Pugh 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to DOG Shudrick Valley - destroy unspoilt valley and wildlife habitat, better site with infrastructure in SW, no need for relief road, lack of consultation, valley steeply sloping, SW has level land, road system, surgery and would be less costly. Concerns about surface water run-off in SE area, Sustainability Appraisal inconsistent, land to SW owned by SCC who need revenue income. Should consider Horlicks site or allocated employment sites that haven't come forward.

No Yes


7082081

Fortnum Place Management Company Ltd

10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Lane - lack of consultation, site unsuitable - topography, landscape amenity, flooding/surface water, roads, detrimental to farming interests, should go to Canal Way, Sustainability Appraisal not sound.

No Yes


7085537 M Woodcock 13/08/2012 PMT3

Ineffective consultation on the change in Ilminster's DOG from Canal Way to Shudrick Valley, and little evidence that Ilminster Town Council did consult with the people of Ilminster in recommending that a change should be made. Need more certainty on scale and extent of development rather than just a vague direction. Shudrick Valley has far greater landscape and amenity value, would marginalise high street as consolidate Tesco as the central retail focus, most employment land (existing and proposed) is to the west of the town, as is access to A303, which will increase the need to travel.

No Yes


7085793 N Waters 13/08/2012 PMT3

There has been insufficient consultation on the Ilminster DOG, and the original preferred option at Canal Way should be retained. Shudrick Valley is steep, floods, has poor access from Shudrick Lane at Ditton Street junction. Canal Way option is on level land, adjacent new surgery, close to playing fields, services, and employment land, it is not clear from the Sustainability Appraisal why the option has changed, Canal Way option is owned by the County Council so selling it for development would benefit the public purse.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7085857 C Waters 13/08/2012 PMT3

There has been insufficient consultation on the Ilminster DOG, and the original preferred option at Canal Way should be retained. Shudrick Valley is steep, floods, has poor access from Shudrick Lane at Ditton Street junction. Canal Way option is on level land, adjacent new surgery, close to playing fields, services, and employment land, it is not clear from the Sustainability Appraisal why the option has changed, Canal Way option is owned by the County Council so selling it for development would benefit the public purse.

No No

7087329

Save Shudrick Valley Group (Drayton)

10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Valley on grounds of lack of consultation, lack of need for road, adverse landscape impact, loss of hedgerows, contrary to Peripheral Landscape study, impact on Conservation Area adjoining

No Yes


7123425 J Spicer 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object DOG Shudrick Valley - natural beauty, need housing but west better. Need to protect countryside No No

7123681 H Robson 13/08/2012 PMT3Building in Shudrick Valley could cause flooding. Better transport access in Canal Way. North Street and Shudrick Lane would be difficult to cross.

No No

7212609 S Scott 13/08/2012 PMT3 Supports Shudrick Lane DOG. Canal Way is much used for recreational purposes and has a Nature Reserve. No No

7212673 F Fanthorpe 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Lane - lack of consultation, steeply sloping fields, flooding, access difficult, no need for relief road, should go to Canal Way, why has Council changed its mind?

No No

7212705 H Fanthorpe 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Shudrick Lane - lack of consultation, steeply sloping fields, flooding, access difficult, no need for relief road, should go to Canal Way, why has Council changed its mind?

No No

7212737 P Marshall 10/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG Ilminster has always been planned to grow SE No No

7212769 P Bulmer 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object DOG Shudrick Valley , where are the schools and surgeries for extra people. Will be town not village No No

7212833 N D Hatherell 13/08/2012 PMT3 Object. Area of Special Landscape Value. Canal Way Option preferred would allow better access. No Yes


7212897 Alan Dougherty 10/08/2012 PMT3

Support the Ilminster DOG as it will protect a successful, working farm and protect a local nature reserve. Adequate consultation was carried out.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7212929 Alison Dougherty 10/08/2012 PMT3

Support the Ilminster DOG as the proposed road will help to alleviate congestion, Cold harbour farm should remain as a council owned farm, and Herne Hill should be protected as a valuable local amenity. Consultation was subject to suitable democratic process.

No No

7212961 B Allen 10/08/2012 PMT3 Support DOG to SE as extensive consultation has been undertaken No No

7212993 D & J Hull 10/08/2012 PMT3

Support DOG as already agreed with local bodies. Land not farmed so suitable for development and beneficial to town. SW option opposed - farming land, destruction of nature reserve, loss of walks and footpaths. Horlicks site possibility

No No

7213153 B Nunn 10/08/2012 PMT3 Support proposed plans. SW development been very successful and SE can be too No No

7213185 E Clark 13/08/2012 PMT3

Objects. Canal Way preferred. Inadequate consultation, what was the role of Ilminster Town Council? More traffic on old A303 to Kingstone will have a negative impact. New road not needed - Atkins. Canal Way more sustainable better access to A303, A358 & M5 and facilities such as schools, shops etc. brownfield land should be developed first - Horlicks, Powrmatic. negative impact on landscape and wildlife.

No Yes


7213217 J L Sapstead 13/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG due to lack of consultation, dangerous access at Shudrick Lane/Ditton Street, special landscape value, ecology. Canal Way is better related to A303, flat land, near new medical centre, playing fields, recreation, and town centre.

No Yes


7213249 S Nicholas 13/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG due to lack of consultation, reliance on draft Ilminster plan that has not been published, traffic impact, special landscape value, ecology, lack of public transport in east of Ilminster, cost of road. Canal Way is better related to A303, flat land, near new medical centre, playing fields, recreation, and town centre.

No Yes


7213281 I Tebbs 13/08/2012 PMT3

Ilminster DOG will increase traffic as most people will want to access A303/M5; DOG should be near new medical centre; town centre can only be accessed via a very roundabout route; main employment area is to west; two arterial gas pipes and mains water in the DOG; site of archaeological interest; flooding; no need for relief road.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7213345 N Daley 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG, not a balance between housing and employment, destroy scenic part of town, road unnecessary, loss of farmland of environmental value, SW option has better transport links, closer to amenities, less flooding, belongs to SCC, no negative impact on agriculture and biodiversity of Shudrick Valley.

No Yes


7213441 S & C Thomas 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG Shudrick Valley loss of walks and impact on

wildlife, unnecessary development No No

7213729 W Hutchings 10/08/2012 PMT3 Object to DOG Shudrick Valley loss of food production, loss of valley and its history, impact on landscape and views No Yes


7213857 C Wheatley 13/08/2012 PMT3

Object to Ilminster DOG due to lack of consultation, reliance on draft Ilminster plan that has not been published, traffic impact, special landscape value, ecology, lack of public transport in east of Ilminster, cost of road. Canal Way is better related to A303, flat land, near new medical centre, playing fields, recreation, and town centre.

No Yes


7213889 K Westlake 10/08/2012 PMT3

Support proposed plans to grow SE. been extensive democratic consultation , need for additional farming and Coldharbour farm one opportunity, land very fertile at Cold harbour, development near "Stop Line Way" could be detrimental to natural history, popular walking routes

No No

7214017 B Baker 13/08/2012 PMT3 Oppose good fertile land being used for housing, flooding is an issue, need to protect footpaths, recreation and wild life. No No

7214049 J Payne 13/08/2012 PMT3Support the Ilminster DOG. Canal Way should not be developed as should protect Cold Harbour Farm, impact on local nature reserve, destroy footpaths.

No No

7214145 A McFadyen 13/08/2012 PMT3

Support the Ilminster DOG. Object to Canal Way as it is most attractive area of town, a nature reserve would be threatened, Coldharbour Farm would be lost, the south west is prone to flooding, development in south east would balance the town.

No No

7214177 P Drayton 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG, SW option obvious choice , close to facilities and good access. SE has access issues. Parking and traffic already horrendous in town centre. Lack of consultation

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7214209 C Drayton 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG - change of DOG not consulted upon, Town council's vision not sound or adopted, town not signed up to TC's views, relief road not necessary, steep sloping site, too far from new facilities, destroy valley, damage to Conservation Area, road strained at moment, walking and cycling impractical, south-west much better access to roads and services

No Yes


7214241 B & B Charnock 10/08/2012 PMT3

Object Ilminster DOG. - lack of consultation on change of DOG, Town Council not representative, Town Council's vision incomplete

No No

7214497 D Denney 20/07/2012 PMT3Not against housing in Ilminster. Like bungalows and big enough accommodation to be useful. Elderly not properly catered for.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.85 Monitoring

Why is road only required prior to completion - may be required at interim stage No No

4308193

Jockey Club Racecourses, Agent M Jasper

13/08/2012 6.89 / EP8

Approve recognition of racecourse as a tourist, leisure & recreational facility. General support for EP8. Proposed new policy to support racecourse and ensure continuing vitality and viability of this facility

No No

1390241Holton Heritage Trust (Elson)

13/08/2012 PMT4 Supports plans for Wincanton as agreed by Members. Fine example of democracy. No No

4313793 J & R Keep 08/08/2012 PMT4 Support growth of Wincanton to west and scale of growth No No

4315809


14/08/2012 PMT4

Support the direction of growth, but it should also include housing development given that both major allocations are already nearly complete, to provide additional affordable housing and to assist with providing essential infrastructure.

No No

7257313


14/08/2012 6.115 Do not believe there is a need for additional school capacity until 2016 No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.116 Where is the evidence for the new road being needed at Torbay Road? No Yes Change para 6.119 "required" to be replaced by

"expected to be provided"




Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 6.119 Where is the evidence for the new road being needed at Torbay Road? No Yes Change para 6.119 "required" to be replaced by

"expected to be provided"

7257313


14/08/2012 6.119Land should be allocated now to ensure comes forward in time to deliver employment and school. Any other way is contrary to national policy and creates uncertainty

No Yes

Insert new heading after para 4.103 and following text to read "Delivering through allocations: This plan presents strategic Directions of Growth for Yeovil and the Market Towns and a specific allocation for Chard. It also identifies carried forward saved plan allocations for housing from South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011. In order to provided certainty for developers, public and other stakeholders the council will undertake as a priority a site allocations DPD for the MTs and RCs where housing provision has yet to be met. A specific DPD for the Yeovil SUE will also be undertaken as a priority."

4324577Chas H Clothier (P Dance)

27/07/2012 LMT1 Support DOG, specifically SHLAA site E/ANSF/0900. No No

5403105 B Siddons 01/08/2012 LMT1/YV1 Support Local Plan and direction of growth for Castle Cary No No

6833025 A P Briston 13/08/2012 LMT1

DOG is not justified against other reasonable alternatives as it proposes future growth in a single corridor and will impact on the landscape, overload Station Road, and loss of good quality agricultural land.

No No

6833025 A P Briston 08/08/2012 LMT1 Object to DOG , brownfield first No No

6900321 D Holt 14/08/2012 LMT1

Object due to scale, extent, damage to landscape, loss of agricultural land. The drive for a single site for employment and residential unsound against a mix of sites. Cannot understand why Option 3 rejected, it would be better to distribute growth between the two

No No

7085409R Tizzard (Agent N Jones)

10/08/2012 LMT1

LMT1 DOG - should be revised to be primarily land east of Station Road for both employment and housing. Early phase should be Well Farm. Proposed road link not necessary and waste of resources

No Yes Change para 6.119 "required" to be replaced by "expected to be provided"

7085729 B Lane 14/08/2012 LMT1

Object due to scale, extent, damage to landscape, loss of agricultural land. The drive for a single site for employment and residential unsound against a mix of sites. Cannot understand why Option 3 rejected, it would be better to distribute growth between the two

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7257313


14/08/2012 LMT1 Support proposed site in DoG. But consider more growth should be delivered here. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 6.124 Word "route" is missing No Yes Amend to read "national cycle route " in last sentence of para 6.124

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 6.127Objects. Potential of improving the River Parrett and improving water transport with other towns should be developed - will help achieve aspirations.

No No


06/08/2012 LMT2

Object to development on small field adjacent the railway as this is a long held aspiration by the Parish Council for a green recreational area, particularly given the need highlighted in the IDP. Support housing opposite Old Kelways, a few bungalows along Church Field boundary with St Mary's Park, a mix of dwellings and light industrial uses near the abattoir. Development north of Old Kelways is not favoured because of visual impact, to maintain the separate identity of Wearne and the availability of more suitable sites. Land north of Somerton Road should be withdrawn or identified as a very late phase.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 LMT2 Objects. Fails to provide means of supporting development and expansion of individual identity. No No

4616897 P Benham 07/08/2012 LMT2Langport not Heart of Levels, more housing will not sustain town. DOG problematic and should take minimal agricultural land as farming paramount

No No

5813729


13/08/2012 LMT2 Support Langport/Huish as a Local Market Town No No

5813729


13/08/2012 LMT2 DoG has not been adequately or appropriately identified. No No

5933281 M Edwards 09/08/2012 LMT2 Concerns over dog walkers on the moors overplayed, residential development should be to the south east No No




Ref



Minor Change


6756353 G & A Tulloch 23/07/2012 LMT2 &

Map 8

Proposals Map has no key, boundary not defined, coalescence with Wearne, traffic, loss of wildlife, dangerous junctions at A372/ Field Road & Wearne Lane, flooding issues to the east, loss of rural footpath

No No

6761313 Paul Douglass 25/07/2012 LMT2 &

Map 8 Object to direction of growth towards Wearne No No

6815105 G Hicks 01/08/2012 LMT2 Object to direction of growth towards Wearne No No

7011873 R Crumb 10/08/2012 LMT2

Object to DOG especially west of Newtown Road - impact on Levels, increased traffic, prefer to north behind Kelways, need to keep green next to cricket pitch for sports development

No No

7011969 P Jenkin 10/08/2012 LMT2 No need for additional growth in Langport when houses empty, town centre first, need to protect footpaths No No


13/03/2012 LMT2 Generally support the directions for growth. No No

7028993Natural England (L Horner)

13/03/2012 LMT2

From a habitat regulation perspective it is considered to be stronger than absolutely necessary and questions how this policy could be monitored to trigger the release of land. Suggest rewording.

No Yes

Stronger policy wording than absolutely necessary for the Habitats Regulations, therefore replace 2nd para with "Development at Langport/Huish Episcopi will be subject to a project level Habitats Regulations Assessment of potential impacts on the Somerset Levels and Moors Special Protection Area/Ramsar".

7032769N Parfitt (Agent M Williams)

10/08/2012 LMT2

Object to DOG; SE not suitable to deliver employment development as Church Grade 1 Listed and in Conservation Area so visually sensitive location. Land at abattoir difficult to access, poor roads and junctions, flood risk. Land to east of Wearne Lane more suitable for growth for employment. Need clearer guidance as to precise locations of growth but proposed locations unsuitable for housing: poor roads, loss of recreational land, impact on LB (Kelways).

No No

7073057 Mr Griggs 10/08/2012 LMT2 Object to proposed housing at Wearne. Perrin construction site preferred - closer to town centre/facilities/services. No No

7129441 D Fone 10/08/2012 LMT2

Object Langport DOG in relation to SE near abattoir. Natural England suggests use land for employment not housing but will impact on wildlife and levels more than housing. Better to be mixed use in area.

No No

1202369Somerton Town Council

13/03/2012 6.143 Support reference to community plan but want "encouraging tourism" added to list of projects No No




Ref



Minor Change



13/03/2012 LMT3

Appreciate changes made at request of Town Council but consider overall housing still too high and lack of infrastructure prior to any further development. If proposal stays at 400 two main issues - lack of infrastructure for housing already with benefit of consent e.g. school, parking, roads/pavements, any additional development needs phasing and proposed location would mean town would have 2 centres, with proposed new development away from town centre services.

No No

4281697 Mattingley 08/08/2012 LMT3/EQ3 EQ3 support principles but want them upheld. Protection of historic environment in Somerton from insensitive growth No No

4288737 A Eisenhauer 08/08/2012 LMT3

Contrary to Localism Bill, Somerton residents ignored, statistical evidence based on false assumption of growth, should reconsider along with Langport

No No

4296161 N & I Ashman 30/07/2012 SS5 / LMT3

Objects to number of new homes proposed at Somerton. Concerns raised by the community have not been taken into account. Proposal will lead to severe traffic congestion, particularly in existing car parks and West Street. Schools are at capacity. Other parts of the town should be considered rather than all the growth to the west. Proposed growth will over whelm the town and it's character.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 LMT3 Care home should be allocated to the west of the town and added to the policy- plan attached. No No

4324129 T Gillett 30/07/2012 SS5 / LMT3

Object. Too many houses proposed at Somerton. Concentration of development on green fields to the west and consequent reduction of land for food production, impact on wildlife and loss of open space. Comments made at the meeting in the Edgar Hall were noted and dismissed. None of the issues raised by local people are reflected in the Local Plan.

No No

4324161 B A M Gillett 30/07/2012 SS5 / LMT3


No No




Ref



Minor Change


4324193 P M Gillet 30/07/2012 SS5 / LMT3


No No

4616897 P Benham 06/08/2012 LMT3 Object to Somerton DOG as does not reflect community wishes and loss of agricultural land. No No

6713313 A Robinson 05/07/2012 LMT3 Need to protect bridleway. No No

6935361 J Salter 08/08/2012 SS5/LMT3 Too much housing for Somerton, lack of infrastructure, DOG in area at risk of flooding, further investigation required. No No

7129537

A H Canvin, Agent S Travers, Boon Brown

10/08/2012 LMT3 Support most suitable direction of growth. No No

7130561


14/08/2012 LMT3

Object to Somerton being re-categorised as a Local Market Town. Acknowledge this is based upon local community's desire for a lower status than Market Town. However NPPF requires Local Plans to meet objectively addressed housing need of an area. Somerton's population and facilities comparable to Ilminster & Wincanton. Less likely reduced housing will input delivery of infrastructure. Needs a Site allocations DPD

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 7.3 Uniqueness of town should dictate the quality of future development No No

1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 7.3 Necessary for all aspects of planning be considered in an integrated way. No No


13/08/2012 7.5 The 89 dwellings and 2.04 hectares of land will not address jobs to housing imbalance No No

4103553


09/08/2012 7.6 Amend "network" to "route" No Yes amend "network" to "route" in para 7.6

1251393


10/08/2012 7.7Objects. Plan says 200 jobs in the Stoke-sub-Hamdon but ELR says no employment land there. Evidence of employment land not recognised in ELR.

No No


13/08/2012 7.7 Development in flood risk area must be avoided No No

6816993

B J Davolls, Lopen Parish Council Chairman

08/08/2012 7.7Objects. Plan says 200 jobs in the Stoke-sub-Hamdon but ELR says no employment land there. Evidence of employment land not recognised in ELR.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 7.8 "More needs to be made of being on the railway line" does this mean more demand or more services? Unclear No No

4153793 J Edmondson 10/08/2012 7.17

Two parts of Ilchester referred to are separate settlements not linked as described, Ilchester Mead to south has been ignored.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 7.21 Consultation with the Parish Council is not a local aspiration No No

4153793 J Edmondson 10/08/2012 7.21

Where is the consultation with PC recorded? - it was not part of the formal consultation process, clerks comments were not submitted in time and are not correctly reflected- inconsistent approach - paragraph should be deleted or reflect true views of PC

No No

7 Rural Centres - Vision and ProposalsPage 172 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


4153793 J Edmondson 05/08/2012 7.21

Objects. True that Parish Council stated that traffic and parking are issues - but they failed to say that there are no practical solutions to solve them. PC have never expressed concern over viability of local businesses this has only been done by the local ward member.

No Yes Delete sentence after "parking"

6947169 M Edwards 10/08/2012Ilchester

Settlement Status

Support principle of residential growth No No

4153793 J Edmondson 05/08/2012 7.22 -7.31

Objects. Plan not justified as not based on proportionate evidence. Baker report does not recognise that Ilchester is 2 separate settlements - demographic evidence skewed by RNAS Yeovilton - young families of Naval personnel will move away. Statement at para 7.25. The MOD have identified.....need houses" should not be included as it is subliminal support for development. MOD plans should have no bearing on LP - they are looking at neighbouring parishes to site accommodation. Ilchester should be relegated to Rural settlement status.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 7.22 to 7.31Objects. Paras fail to identify how the Local Plan can deliver improvement to its Rural Centre or expand a Development Area to increase commercial prospects.

No No

6841697 H Panter 10/08/2012 7.22-7.23

Object to comment re Ilchester - Baker report inaccurate, RNAS Yeovilton is settlement itself, traffic and parking problems and cannot be improved, employment allocation makes no sense

No No

1559137 N Hebditch 13/08/2012 SS5/7.38 Put forward proposed sites for growth in Martock No No

6835681R Cobden, Agent Mr D Evans

06/08/2012 7.38

5.7 ha site submitted that should be allocated in a Direction of Growth on western edge of Martock, otherwise there may be delay caused by landowner uncertainty, protracted development management process, competing sites vying to get permission.

No No

6835681 R Cobden (Alder King) 07/08/2012

SS1/7.38/4.13/Proposal

s map

Range and type of housing proposed in Martock shouldn't be restricted. Object to lack of DOG for Rural Centres - Martock. Support for additional housing

No No




Ref



Minor Change


5411105


13/03/2012 7.44 -7.56Object to the failure of the allocate sites. Inconsistencies as some sites are allocated others aren't. Site in South Petherton should be allocated.

No Yes

Insert new heading after para 4.103 and following text to read "Delivering through allocations: This plan presents strategic Directions of Growth for Yeovil and the Market Towns and a specific allocation for Chard. It also identifies carried forward saved plan allocations for housing from the South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011. In order to provide certainty for developers, public and other stakeholders the council will undertake as a priority a site allocations DPD for the Market Towns and Rural Centres where housing provision has yet to be met. A specific DPD for the Yeovil SUE will also be undertaken as a priority."


13/08/2012 7.46 Evidence from the figures show high levels of out commuting No No


13/08/2012 7.47 Promote mixed use residential and rural employment at a site in Milborne Port No No

4308001


13/03/2012 7.48 & 7.55 Requirement for a cycle link between Milborne Port and Sherborne. This has not been included in the plan No Yes

Amend 7.48 to include "there is an aspiration in the Milborne Port Parish Plan to see a safe bicycle route to Sherborne".


13/08/2012 7.57There are delineated groundwater source protection zones in the vicinity. Depending on location and nature of development these may constrain development proposals

No No

7043297


13/08/2012 7.57 Site considerations for South Petherton No No




Ref



Minor Change


5411105


13/03/2012 7.57-768Object to the failure of the allocate sites. Inconsistencies as some sites are allocated others aren't. Site in South Petherton should be allocated.

No Yes



13/08/2012 7.60- 7.62

Supports para 7.60 - will help realise aspirations in South Petherton Parish Plan, additional footfall in TC and more affordable housing. Para 7.61 - South Petherton should continue as a Rural Centre. 7.62 - supports 94 dwellings to 2028 (less than 6 per year). Highway considerations can be dealt with on a site by site basis. Highway evidence submitted to demonstrate that 30 dwellings can be delivered on land at Hayes End which is suitable, available and viable (copy of reps made to Draft plan included).

No No

1251393


10/08/2012 7.61 - 7.62

Objects. 7.61 - statement does not accord with evidence base which shows no need for employment land and "modest housing growth". Growth too high given constraints. 7.62 - Scale of growth not commensurate with Martock, settlement hierarchy not maintained.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 7.61 - 7.65

Objects. 7.61 - statement does not accord with evidence base which shows no need for employment land and "modest housing growth". Growth too high given constraints. 7.62 - Scale of growth not commensurate with Martock, settlement hierarchy not maintained. 7.64 FOI requests have established that "efforts were made to find a site" was not the case - no need established (Lopen). Lopen Head site is divorced from South Petherton in open countryside - allocated despite objection from GOSW, SCC and Planning Policy Team. Document is contradictory re link with South Petherton. Lopen Head has a disproportionate amount of employment land compared with other much larger settlements - not supported by need and is not sustainable. Local Plan offers no protection against further inappropriate development in this location.

No Yes

Replace paragraphs 4.70-4.77 with new text derived principally from the Housing Provision Review Report presented to the Project Management Board (meetings 19 & 20) updating the housing requirement in the light of representations made and the content contained in Business Requirement Employment Survey information and ONS population projections.Policies SS4 & SS5 are amended in consequence. See annex 1. Matters discussed in PMB meetings 21-23 also inform final wording of text and policy.

7029153Vaux Family, Agent D Crofts

13/03/2012 7.62 Should have site allocations No Yes


7033761


10/08/2012 7.63-7.65

Strongly support 2 ha of additional employment land within South Petherton, and the continued historical association of the Lopen Head Nursery site as part of the employment provision for South Petherton and other smaller villages within its hinterland. Support expansion of existing Lopen Head employment site onto the derelict former Lopen Head nursery premises.

No No


13/08/2012 7.63-7.65

Strongly support 2 ha of additional employment land within South Petherton, and the continued historical association of the Lopen Head Nursery site as part of the employment provision for South Petherton and other smaller villages within its hinterland. Support expansion of existing Lopen Head employment site onto the derelict former Lopen Head nursery premises.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


6825409 P A Little 03/08/2012

1.9-1.11, SS4, SS3, 8.61, 10.8, 7.64 & 7.65

Objects. Consultation process leading to Submission Plan inadequate. Validity of population projections. Approach to employment distribution especially in South Petherton. Road infrastructure. Broadband.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 7.71 Comments made in the Parish plan are not local aspirations No No

1251393


10/08/2012 7.73 - 7.74

Objects. 7.73 - level of growth does not maintain hierarchical status. No obstacle to growth in Stoke-sub-Hamdon. 7.74 - Employment allocation of 2.0 ha is arbitrary and cannot be justified.

No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 7.73 - 7.74

Objects. 7.73 - level of growth does not maintain hierarchical status. No obstacle to growth in Stoke-sub-Hamdon. 7.74 - Employment allocation of 2.0 ha is arbitrary and cannot be justified.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1403425


20/07/2012 Economic Prosperity

Comment on behalf of Bourne Leisure Ltd – operator of Cricket St Thomas Hotel. Anticipate increased demand for ‘at home’ holidays with greater range and higher quality. Therefore support expansion of existing operations and site facilities while respecting environmental constraints. Reference should be made to tourism related attributes in the Spatial Portrait.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 03/08/2012 8.3 Objects. Developing on the highest grade agricultural land is not helping the farming community. No No

7257313


14/08/2012 8.3 Support gist of Chapter 8 and revitalising Market Towns, particularly Castle Cary. No No

6773313 M Horsley 03/08/2012 8.4 Objects. The many empty industrial units need to be brought back into use before building new employment land. No No

1251393


09/08/2012 8.5 Objects. Settlement strategy not being adhered to. No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 8.5 Objects. Settlement strategy not being adhered to. No No

1251393


09/08/2012 EP1/8.17 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

4315809


14/08/2012 EP1Proposal to extend the Lufton 2000 Business Park south of Thorne Lane on a 1.9 ha site (plan included) - this is strategically significant.

No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 EP1 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish

Councils. No No

8 Economic ProsperityPage 178 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 EP2

Objects. Offices defined in NPPF as "main" town centre uses, policy does not include the word "main". Unclear if Town in this context means strategic and or Market Town or other. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 EP2 Conflicts with the 1 job per household in SUE. No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 EP2

Objects. Offices defined in NPPF as "main" town centre uses, policy does not include the word "main". Unclear if Town in this context means strategic and or Market Town or other. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils.

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 EP3

Objects. Policy too loose to offer protection. Wording should include the permanent loss of employment land would not harm settlements as land could be lost and replaced. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils.

No No


Objects. Policy too loose to offer protection wording should include the permanent loss of employment land would not harm settlements as land could be lost and replaced. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils.

No No

6963713


13/08/2012 EP3

Should include a consideration of the quality of employment sites in terms of size, shape & location. Sites no longer viable/suitable should not be unnecessarily restricted. It should also recognise in some cases reduction in size of floor space could improve quality of existing site.

No No


Objects. Refers to comments on paras 7.64 and 7.65 (which relate to Lopen Head Nursery site). Approach not being upheld. Employment land is not meeting the needs of Rural Centres. Should avoid employment development in the open countryside.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 EP4

Objects. 8.37 - relocation should not be ruled out - likely to increase sustainability. Clear evidence of reliance on local workforce should be demonstrated to prevent fostering growth in travel to near by settlements. 8.38 - Existing business of an inappropriate scale should not be allowed to expand. Impact on the countryside should include accurate and justifiable measure of need. 8.39 - text regarding operating for at least 3 years should include "at the proposed expansion site". 3 years too short to protect against speculative growth - should be 5 years. 8.40 - PDL or allocated land should be used first before new land. Reuse of existing buildings should be emphasised. Policy too open - could lead to speculative development and not consistent with NPPF, appropriate scale not defined, should be measured against the vulnerability of immediate community should the business liaise or relocate. Size of single premises need limit and remain as single planning unit. Protect best agricultural land. Should include TC/PC as delivery bodies

No No


13/08/2012 EP4 Conversion and re-use of buildings in the countryside should consider flood risk and not involve uses more vulnerable than the existing.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 EP4 Final bullet of Policy EP4 "detrimental impact" what does that mean? No No




Ref



Minor Change



Objects. 8.37 - relocation should not be ruled out - likely to increase sustainability. Clear evidence of reliance on local workforce should be demonstrated to prevent fostering growth in travel to near by settlements. 8.38 - Existing business of an inappropriate scale should not be allowed to expand. Impact on the countryside should include accurate and justifiable measure of need. 8.39 - text regarding operating for at least 3 years should includes "at the proposed expansion site". 3 years too short to protect against speculative growth - should be 5 years. 8.40 - PDL or allocated land should be used first before new land. Reuse of existing buildings should be emphasised. Policy too open - could lead to speculative development and not consistent with NPPF, appropriate scale not defined, should be measured against the vulnerability of immediate community should the business liaise or relocate. (contd below). Size of single premises need limit and remain as single planning unit. protect best agric land. Should include TC/PC as delivery bodies.

No No

6830753

Defence Infrastructure Organisation (R Sanderson)

09/08/2012EP4/ Other -new policy defence

Should recognise the 3 major MOD sites in plan area which may need to expand or have surplus land. Could amend EP4 to include reference to MOD.

No No

6929825


14/08/2012 EP4

Too widely drafted and will not effectively protect the countryside. Not in line with NPPF. Against policies designed to protect countryside (employment), not all B1, B2 and B8 appropriate in rural settlements.

No No

5438913 S Osborne (Cllr) 13/08/2012 EP4/EP5/

EP8 Support. No No

6773313 M Horsley 03/08/2012 8.44Objects. Yeovil SUE not in compliance and in conflict with NPPF. Importance of food security. Once destroyed it is gone forever.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 03/08/2012 8.46 & EP5

Objects. How can SSDC dictate that farms cannot spoil the countryside with unfettered development but propose the SUE. The SUE is the type of development that Policy EP5 aims to prevent.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 EP5

Support however consider diversification should be related to farm management. Erection of offices or non agricultural engineering works not acceptable.

No No

5403105 B Siddons 01/08/2012 EP5 Supports rural diversification. No No




Ref



Minor Change



Councils. No No

6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 EP5 Food production should be local. No No

1251393


09/08/2012 EP5, 8.51 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 EP6 Support. No No


Councils. No No

1251393





Councils. No No

1251393



6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 8.61 Need to correct "were possible" to "where possible" in last sentence. Worthy sentiments. No Yes Typing error, correct to "where possible" instead of

"were possible" in last sentence

1403425


20/07/2012 Tourism (Para 8.68)

Support paragraphs 8.68 & 8.69, specifically their maintenance and enhancement. No No

1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 EP8 Support. No No




Ref



Minor Change


1403425


20/07/2012 EP8

Object to paragraph 8.67 and Policy EP8 which states that tourism assets and facilities should be accessible through sustainable transport modes, but this is not always possible in rural locations.

No No

1559009 Bruton Trust 10/08/2012 EP8 Tourism could be enhanced. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 EP8

Objects. Explanatory paras create confusion of intent. "…enhanced tourist facilities ..where: They are of a scale appropriate…to be located". For any business to be successful it must expand and increase turnover.

No No



Councils. No No

1251393




10/08/2012 8.74 First sentence inconsistent with NPPF wording. No No


10/08/2012 EP9 Support Yeovil as Principal town centre. No No


10/08/2012 EP10 Clarify that figures used are net. No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 EP10 Not properly evidenced or SEA appraised. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 EP11 Clarify parking " will serve centre as a whole". No Yes

Replace last paragraph of Policy EP11 with the following text: "Parking will be considered in the context of wider Town Centre parking", this ensures that parking does not become an unenforceable planning obligation as current wording implies parking requirements beyond those specific to each individual application should be taken into account.

6775297


30/07/2012


Object to development of out of town shopping areas. No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 EP11, 8.90

Objects. Para 8.90 - how is "small scale.." measured? There are many any instances in District where this has been allowed and it equates to medium sized business when measured by the European scale. Should refer to size and scale of immediate local community.

No No


10/08/2012 8.91/EP11 Para not consistent with NPPF para 24. Policy not consistent with paras 23, 24 and 27 NPPF. No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 EP11, 8.90

Objects. Para 8.90 - how is "small scale.." measured? There are many any instances in District where this has been allowed and it equates to medium sized business when measured by the European scale. Should refer to size and scale of immediate local community.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 8.92 Additional provision what does that mean and who is going to provide it? No No


10/08/2012 8.102 Paragraph duplicates policy EP12. No No


10/08/2012 EP12 Final part of policy inconsistent with NPPF para 26-27. No No

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 EP14

If establishing a Neighbourhood Centre in the Urban Extension is intended, why is this not mentioned in Policy YV2. It would work better for planning purposes for all intended provision was in a single policy.

No No

1285057


10/08/2012 EP14 Support Policy. No No

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 EP14

General thrust of Policy accepted but believe neighbourhood centre shouldn't be confined to serving just the new development if there are few facilities in local area. Helps to integrate old and new.

No Yes

Add the following text at the end of the last sentence of para 8.111 "The opportunities for serving the wider community in the Yeovil area with new infrastructure and facilities should be fully explored in the Master plan."




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 EP 14/8.113

Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 EP

14/8.113Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

6773313 M Horsley 04/08/20128.114 to 8.116 & EP15

Objects. Yeovil SUE conflicts. No assessment of impact on local amenities of East Coker, Barwick and Stoford. No No

6773313 M Horsley 04/08/2012 8.117Objects. SSDC have not followed para 8.117 and therefore Localism Act. SSDC have not contacted East Coker Parish to nominate assets of community value.

No No

1285057


10/08/2012 EP15 Support Policy. No No

1208417The Theatres Trust (Freeman)

07/08/2012EP15,

Glossary, 8.73 & 8.74

Support EP15. Glossary should include a description for infrastructure, cultural or community facilities - suggested definitions supplied. Town Centre Uses should be re-titled Retail in Town Centres as the other uses mentioned in 8.73 & 8.74 are not mentioned at all. Propose an additional policy under Town Centre Uses to acknowledge the contribution other uses make to the viability of town centres.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


4616897 P Benham 08/08/2012 9.1Objects. Too much jargon - what is a sustainable house? Empty words. Should be about refurbishing empty properties.

No No

6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 9.4 Supports the viability of this development. No No

6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 9.5 Supports the viability of this development particularly in respect of its proximity to employment opportunities. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 9.6

Lyde Road is the most sustainable location for locating Yeovil's growth. Urban Village and SUE can be accommodated by linking Pen Mill, River Yeo as sustainable transport links. River Yeo provides a focus for commercial and leisure pursuits.

No No

6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 9.6 Supports the viability of this development, particularly in respect of access to transport facilities & employment. No No

7329185


10/08/2012 HG1 Land to east of Holywell to the south west of Yeovil should be identified as a strategically significant housing site. No No

7394401


13/08/2012 HG1

Note saved Local Plan policy. Believe overall number of houses is optimistic at Crewkerne and that delivery should be reduced by 200 houses and phased beyond plan period. Also believe saved site status should be applied to Brimsmore (KS/YEWI/2 as although has outline has relatively little reserved matters.

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 HG 2/9.15 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

1540481 Transition Langport 13/08/2012 HG2 Re-use existing housing stock. No No

4315809


14/08/2012 HG2 Note previously developed land target and have some concerns that 40% is over optimistic. No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 HG2 Where is the evidence or SEA appraisal? No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 HG 2/9.15 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish

Councils. No No


13/08/2012 HG2 Suggested level of 40% development on PDL falls below national targets. No No

9 HousingPage 186 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


7257313


14/08/2012 HG2

Question whether 40% of development can be accommodated on brownfield land. BMI Castle Cary site lapsed during major property boom therefore suggesting unviable. Support sentiment of policy but more costly and challenging to develop on PDL. Setting a minimum target is contrary to national policy should be a "maximum target".

No No

7329185


10/08/2012 HG2Policy supported but the promotion of PDL should not prevent sustainable and viable Greenfield sites coming forward.

No No

7401761


13/08/2012 HG2

Development has for the most part been piecemeal and small scale this will have skewed the 40% figure therefore it would be sensible to review this figure on what is likely to come forward in a planned manner rather than on a past trends basis.

No No

1285057


10/08/2012 HG3 Support Policy. No No

1402209


13/08/2012 HG3Affordable housing requirement, we do not agree with the low level. Officer time would be better spent negotiating higher levels on larger schemes.

No No

1402209


13/08/2012 HG3

Evidence indicates that only a 20% affordable housing target is currently viable, so other options should be explored such as a target that starts at a lower rate and builds to 35% over the plan period. The 2009 viability report should be updated and there are not sufficient case studies within it to be considered robust.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 HG3 Object to first bullet point regarding the requirement for affordable housing without the need for public subsidy. No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 HG3 Strongly support though does little to provide affordable

housing for local people in rural areas. No No




Ref



Minor Change


5411105


13/08/2012 HG3Object to affordable housing target. The evidence is out of date. 25% is a more appropriate figure for greenfield development.

No No

7130561


14/08/2012 HG3

Concerned the affordable housing target of 35% based on SHMA, which is very out of date and based on different economic conditions, raises viability issues. SHMA suggests max 30% across the district, therefore not clear how and on what basis 35% target is justified. Policy should provide for a periodic review.

No No

7257313


14/08/2012 HG3

Minimum affordable housing targets not in accordance with NPPF and a maximum target subject to viability is correct approach. Support sentiment and pleased policy acknowledges viability.

No No

7329185


10/08/2012 HG3

Affordable housing policy should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time (para 50, NPPF). Therefore, the indicators should include an annual review of affordable housing thresholds, involving discussions with developers and landowners.

No No

7394401


13/08/2012 HG3

Acknowledge affordable housing is an important component of government policy but need to cross refer to viability. Open book viability not discussed in any detail Figure 9 implies need for only small properties.

No Yes

In order to suggest a less prescriptive approach delete Figure 9. Amend para 9.37 by deleting the following: "the findings are set out below" and "It is noteworthy that 18% of that demand comes from pensioner households:"

7401761


13/08/2012 HG3

35% target should be subject of negotiation based on viability - only 23% has been delivered in recent times. Important that Local Plan has a realistic level. In the context of revisions to demographic data, any resultant adjustments to housing provision level of affordable housing should be reviewed accordingly.

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 HG3 & HG4/9.33


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 HG3 &

HG4/9.33Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No




Ref



Minor Change


1285057



1402209


13/08/2012 HG4

Do not agree with approach to set affordable housing threshold as low as possible as this would not be a good use of the Council's limited resources. E.g. to deliver one notional affordable dwelling in Yeovil would require 20 schemes of one unit - officer time would be better spent negotiating higher levels of affordable housing on larger schemes.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 HG4Seeking commuted sums on small sites will adversely affect site viability - clarification is required on how such commuted sums would be calculated.

No No

1285057



6775297


30/07/2012


Object that plan does not break down the need to owner property, private rent, social housing, Lifetime homes or retirement housing. There is a need for extra care housing and this has not been taken into account.

No Yes


7257313


14/08/2012 HG5 Support gist of policy. No No

7329185


10/08/2012 HG5

Strongly support this policy. Monitoring indicators should include a bi-annual review of the local housing market, including dialogue with developers/landowners and local residents to identify trends and area that require review.

No No

7394401


13/08/2012 HG5

Generally supported as consistent with NPPF para 50, however would not support a detailed prescriptive approach as that is not dependent solely on demographic factors. Reliance on SHMA not totally sound, nor is reliance solely on demographic factors. Should not be the role of the planning system to artificially constrain choice.

No Yes





Ref



Minor Change


7401761


13/08/2012 HG5

SHMA does not focus in sufficient detail on individual areas. Policy should also refer to the evidence of applicants in support of a proposal which will help in determining the mixture of housing to achieve balanced and sustainable communities. Suggest policy amended "...based on the market knowledge and local evidence which an applicant might provide and from the...." "... or successor documents where it is up-to-date and relevant. The mix...."

No Yes


1251393


09/08/2012 HG5/9.39 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 HG5/9.39 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish

Councils. No No

1285057



1402209


13/08/2012 HG6Broadly supportive, however the description should refer to all types of older person care and accommodation. Also link allocation of specific sites for this type of development.

No No

1402209


13/08/2012 HG6

Broadly support this policy but the reference to care homes or similar specialist accommodation is too narrow and will not encourage a full range of housing options for older people. Specific sites should be allocated for this type of development.

No No.

4315809


14/08/2012 HG6 Support policy. No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012 HG6 para 9.43


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 HG6 para

9.43Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

6773313 M Horsley 04/08/2012 9.45 Objects. SSDC has not given high enough priority to using empty properties. No No


13/08/2012 HG7 The wording of this policy must be stronger to avoid development in flood risk areas No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 HG7 Support No No

1251393


09/08/2012 HG7 para 9.52




5438913 S Osborne (Cllr) 13/08/2012 HG8 Ensures an appropriate mix of housing No No

1251393


09/08/2012 HG8 para 9.56




4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 HG9 General policy support. More consideration for genuine

attempts to establish small holdings. No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393


09/08/2012HG9 &

HG10 para 9.61



HG9 & HG10 para

9.61


4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 HG10 Support. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 Chapter 10 (whole)

Should be more emphasis on undertaking site audits, travel plan monitoring and SCCs iOnTRAVEL system. No No

4616897 P Benham 10/08/2012 10.1-10.7

Modal shift will fail without improving bus and train services and economic viability is the limiting factor for operators. Bus routes poor and thus limiting car use is fanciful. Should consider reopening train stations at either Langport or Somerton.

No No


13/08/2012 10.1 Transport study unsound, multiple errors and unduly focused on a flawed Yeovil expansion strategy. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.2 Not all alternative fuels are low emission and more encouragement of all public transport. No Yes. Delete comma between low emission and

alternative fuels.

4103553


09/08/2012 10.4

How is this to be monitored? Can you reduce overall numbers or the proportion? Need indicator related to this aim. Need to reword para to ensure SSDC can promote sustainable travel outside of eco developments. Not clear if penultimate sentence refers to individuals or all travel - would have implications for interpretation of aim, last sentence not consistent with eco town supplement to PPS1.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.5 Consider rewording to clarify. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.8No recognition of encouraging electric car use in non residential development. Should be including all non residential uses not just employment.

No No

4308001


13/08/2012 10.8

Concern the green travel vouchers for 10 mile radius would only be given 'within Somerset' may disadvantage employees who live in Dorset. Same should apply to train vouchers.

No No

10 Transport and AccessibilityPage 193 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


6867617 D Gordon 09/08/2012 10.8

Objects. Document difficult to understand. What is a DPD? Makes no mention of encouraging car free estates or zones -both of which have been successfully trialled in UK and Europe. Also no mention of potential for express - bus services where you leave your car at the beginning of the process - work well in Ilminster, South Petherton & Martock for trips to Yeovil and Taunton. No mention of making drastic changes to meet commitments on climate change.

No Yes

Add explanation of DPD to Glossary - "Development Plan Documents set out policies and proposals and have development plan status and therefore have full weight in the determination of planning applications. They will be subject to community involvement and Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment throughout their preparation and will have independent assessment at an examination by an Inspector. The main types of DPD, which local planning authorities should prepare, include the Local Plan, Allocations DPD, Area Action Plans and Proposals Map".

4103553


09/08/2012 10.8aShould cross refer to SCCs Manual for Travel Plans. Suggest also use web based info to give smarter travel advice.

No Yes

Insert sentence after bullet points 'Somerset County Council offer useful guidance on Smarter Travel Information Packs' Insert footnote to http://www.movingsomersetforward.co.uk/new-developments/planning-guidance

4103553


09/08/2012 10.8b

Pleased with strong support for electric vehicles, but provision of charging infrastructure adjacent to each space is a significant requirement and goes beyond SCC standards.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.8c Could vouchers be used for wider purposes such as bike purchase or part exchange for longer journeys by bus? No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.8e/TA2 Rail could be an appropriate option for some developments. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.8f Need to expand this to ensure travel plan coordinators are in place prior to first occupation. No No

1285057


10/08/2012 TA1 Support Policy. No No

1540481 Transition Langport 13/08/2012 TA1 Need pro-active plan to encourage car pooling, frequency of

public transport & cycling. No No




Ref



Minor Change



14/08/2012 TA1

The infrastructure required to reduce carbon emissions through the use of electric vehicles relies on a global shift away from fossil fuels, which is not deliverable as it will require a significant increase in the percentage of electrical vehicles on the road.

No No

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 TA1

Thrust of policy accepted but part unviable and not sensible -cannot provide transport concurrent with first occupancy for all transport modes. Does designed in work space include dining room table or does it mean specific room? Needs clarity, suggest Part V amended to ensure viable and Part VI removed.

No Yes

Amend subtext in10.8 d Home working to include statement that "this does not always mean a dedicated room and the work area could be within a lounge or bedroom". No change re Part V.

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 TA1 Objects. Policy fails to properly address solutions to low carbon travel. No No

4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

TA1 - not justified ii) suggests a double garage with 2 parking spaces would need 4 charging points - too onerous. iii) needs further clarification monetary value of green travel voucher not stated. v) is overly onerous and inflexible would mean bus would be running empty much of the time at the beginning of the process. vii) should be amended to reflect para 204 of NPPF.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 TA1

Considered unduly onerous and contrary to the NPPF and CIL regulations. Provision of charging points for each parking space is excessive and not reasonable, so delete criterion 2. Question whether matters such as broadband provision and home working space are land use planning matters.

No Yes

Amend subtext in10.8 d Home working to include statement that "this does not always mean a dedicated room and the work area could be within a lounge or bedroom". No change in respect of charging points.

6773313 M Horsley 04/08/2012 TA1 Objects. With the exception of point iii) it should be applied to all residential buildings in the district not just new ones. No No

6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 TA1 Provision for electric cars needs to be made beyond these developments if their use is to be viable. No No

7130561


14/08/2012 TA1

Concern that policy requires all new residential and employment development to have electric charging points. This is onerous & not supported by NPPF. Modern technological advances may supersede electric cars, making the provision unnecessary. No viability analysis to justify this. Policy premature and lacks flexibility.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7257313


14/08/2012 TA1 Support principle but need to consider viability more, particularly charging points. No No

7401761


13/08/2012 TA1

Requirements of policy are overly onerous - would be explored through a planning application. Of particular note is the requirement to provide an external charging point for each dwelling and parking space - impact would be costly and added to purchase price which would affect viability and delivery. Para 173 of NPPF states that sites and scale of development identified in the Plan should not be threatening to viability. Further justification of the policy required and its effects on development.

No No

4308001


13/08/2012 TA1 - TA6 Support the generic district wide modal shift policies, except green travel vouchers. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 TA1 /monitoring

Policy and monitoring need to be amended to reflect other suggested changes in paras 10.8, also need to amend criteria ii) as having charging points adjacent to each residential parking space seems onerous SCC standard is 1:50.

No No

7252353


13/08/2012 TA1 and criteria

Broadly supported but too prescriptive. Comments also relate to YV6 principles. Can do other things looking at individual bullets ;- (i) travel info pack cost could be reduced by using website, (ii) power at all parking spaces neither practical and too costly,(iii) no objection (iv) no objection (v) bus services not been costly and not always feasible at outset. (vi) this is a provider problem and shouldn't be made a requirement of developers. Far too prescriptive and ignore individual preferences.

No No

7284289


10/08/2012 TA1/TA3

No objection per se but consider by selecting a site to the south of Yeovil , TA1 is compromised as improved transport connections will be difficult. Also YV2 undermines TA3 as YUE will restrict the scope for improving existing public transport services. YUE will restrict cycling & walking due to topography.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.9Is it practical to ask for sustainable travel measures to be in place with first occupancy? Cross refer to SCC document on Manual for Travel Plans.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


1285057



4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 TA2 Objects. Policy fails to contribute achievement of its intent. No No

7257313


14/08/2012 TA2 Support gist of policy. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.12

Quality Bus Partnerships are effective but some of the measures would help where QBP are not viable. Absence of SCC money should prevent QBP or transport interchanges occurring where required to support development. Some info should be provided for all services.

No No

1285057



4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

TA3 - Policy not justified ii) no evidence of cost presented ii) & iii) should be amended to reflect para 204 of NPPF. SA of Snowdon Farm site submitted & an independent housing Requirement Assessment - need 22,800 dwellings to provide 9,200 jobs.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 TA3 Why aren't criteria (i) (v) and (vii) being applied elsewhere and not just Yeovil and Chard. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 TA3Objects. Policy fails to identify full spectrum of means to achieve sustainable travel. Only perambulation and wheeled vehicles are considered.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 TA3

Seeking contributions to a Yeovil transport interchange should not be an obligation but a CIL funded matter, as there is much uncertainty as to whether such facilities are achievable and deliverable.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/0/2012 TA3 Will kill growth, not deliverable or sustainable. No No


13/08/2012 TA3 Agency supports sustainable travel, would like to work with the Council's to understand 50% modal shift aspiration. No No

7222785


13/08/2012 TA3

Principle supported, but what is provided will need to be based on viability at SUE and essential this done through masterplan. More pragmatic approach needed to policy. Clearly justified approach to three policies TA1, YV6 and TA3 needed.

No No

7401761


13/08/2012 TA3

Policy is unreasonable and unjustified. Vague as measures drawn from the Future Transport Plan (SCC). ii) Unreasonable that development in Chard which does not have a robust current town-wide transport strategy, to have a policy imposed that has not been fully implemented as part of this strategy. Further justification of the policy required and its effects on development.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 TA3 and Monitoring

Policy and monitoring need to be amended to reflect other suggested changes in paras 10.12-14. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.14 Should refer to Manual for Travel Plans. No Yes

SCC's Manual for Travel Plans is an extremely useful guide on setting up and on-on-going management of Travel Plans. Amend 10.16 (not 10.14) to add a sentence 'Reference should also be made to SCC's 'Manual for Travel Plans' that offers practical advice on the measures included the implementation and on-going management of Travel Plans'.

4103553


09/08/2012 10.17 SCC disagree with the 3 exceptions as no evidence on this has been produced. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.19 Support joint working. No No

1285057






Ref



Minor Change


4315809


14/08/2012 TA4

Travel Plan thresholds are in excess of national guidance in the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment. For example, the GTA states a Travel Plan is required for residential developments over 80 dwellings, in the SSDC policy it is 50 dwellings; the GTA states B1 offices over 2,500 sq m require a Travel Plan, whilst SSDC policy is 1,500 sq m. Therefore, this policy should be deleted.

No No

7257313



4103553


09/08/2012 TA4 (Table)(i) suggest delete "with good levels of accessibility" as should be encouraged everywhere, should include travel vouchers here too.

No No

7222785


13/08/2012 TA4 (Table)

Principle of travel plans supported but Table is overly prescriptive. NPPF para 36 supports travel plans and policy follows SCC guidance. Given it is so close to SCC's requirement is there a requirement for this policy. It is noted 3 differences but SSDCs are too onerous and no justification for Tables 1 and 2 to be included in policy. Text should be in guidance so there is scope for flexibility and interpretation.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.21 monitoring Suggest include reference to SCC document here. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.22-10.27 Where required, Travel Plan conflicts with policy TA4. para 10.25 - mitigation shouldn't be limited to infrastructure. No No

1285057



4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 TA5 Support Policy. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 TA5 Criteria (v) should include Transport Statements. No No




Ref



Minor Change


5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 TA5 Presumption against strategic road network not evidenced or justified. No No


13/08/2012 TA5

Agency broadly supports Policy, however it considers it should include specific reference to the need to assess potential impact of development on the SRN & where appropriate mitigate such impacts.

No No

6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 TA5Point iii - important that this is followed - if proposed alternative site in Primrose Lane carried forward it would not be.

No No

7252353


13/08/2012 TA5 Support. Evidence from Parson's Brinkerhoff indicated by Highways Authority is sound. No No

7257313



7329185


10/08/2012 TA5 Accept policy wording. No No

7401761


13/08/2012 TA5 Policy is reasonable - no express concerns. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.28 monitoring

Could add to monitoring that 100% of transport assessments are validated by the highway authority. No No




Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 10.34/TA6

Proposed parking should not be at a level which undermines travel plans. Whilst noted that SCC standards are to be applied on parking why exceed them on electric charging points?

No Yes

16 amp charging points as set out in policy TA1 ii) are not expensive. The NPPF (para 35 page 10) indicates that we should incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other low-emission vehicles. Similarly in para 39 page 11 it also indicates the need for local planning authorities to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles. Amend para 10.31 to add a sentence at the end with the following text: 'To further encourage the use of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles Policy TA1 ii) includes the provision of charging points over and above that set out in the County Council's Parking standards and Policy TA1 ii) will prevail in this instance'

1285057



7222785


13/08/2012 TA6 Support as based on SCC parking standards. No No

7257313



7329185


10/08/2012 TA6Strongly support 1st sentence, but adopting a county-wide strategy could result in standards which are not applicable in certain situations.

No No

4103553


09/08/2012 10.35 monitoring Define "mitigating circumstances". No No




Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 Chapter 11 (whole)

Travel can play a big part in healthy and productive lifestyles, more should be made of the links. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 11.2 All modes of transport? Or should this be "appropriate modes". No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 11.3 Para is another justification for incorporating route of the River Yeo and using it's benefits in developing Yeovil. No No


13/08/2012 11.4 Recreational facilities may be acceptable in flood risk areas just as SuDS may be appropriate for informal recreation. No No

1205057 D Keen 20/07/2012 HW1 What is the needs assessment referred to, is it the IDP. It should make reference to the standards it speaks of. No No

1205057 D Keen 23/07/2012 HW1 What is adequate provision of community hall space? The document does not refer to any standards. No No

4267457Woodland Trust (J Milward)

02/08/2012 HW1 Support open space, but object because woodland should be targeted in line with NPPF, have access standard. No No

4302753 J Watts 13/08/2012 HW1Disappointed no reference to provision of allotments in the SA. You have an opportunity to include provision under sustainability, amenity, economy and leisure.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 HW1

The Open Space Strategy (2011-15) has not been subject to consultation either through its preparation or the Local Plan process, and therefore the policy is not justified or effective.

No No

7222785


13/08/2012 HW1 Support, providing viability taken into consideration. Text clearly sets out when S106 and CIL will be used. No No

7257313


14/08/2012 HW1 Support gist of policy. No No

11 Health and Well BeingPage 202 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


7401761


13/08/2012 HW1

Definition of "Open Space" is too narrow and fails to reflect contribution given to the provision of recreational open space within a proposal. Unreasonable and onerous for off-site provision to be a pre-requisite where an applicant does not own or control such land.

No No

1251393


09/08/2012 HW1 para 11.17


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 HW1 para



13/03/2012 HW2 Object to Sports Zone - will deny funding for sports facilities in Somerton. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 HW2 You can't be close to sustainable transport modes, but you can be in a suitable location to encourage their use. No No

4122433 B Hartley 03/08/2012 HW2

Objects. Should be located in deprived areas of Yeovil such as Westfield, Milford and Yeovil East so that access is easier. North/North East and North West of Yeovil provides the best accessibility for those who live outside Yeovil. Brimsmore area best if Mudford Rec ruled out.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 HW2

Objects. Phrasing of policy contradicts ethos of claimed intent. Benefits of locating facilities in central location encouraging carbon free transport are lost if site located away from nucleus of central links.

No No

7257313



7284289


10/08/2012 HW2

Object to Sport Zone being located in the Yeovil SUE as a further intrusion within the landscape. Policy should be amended to have consideration for landscape and heritage assets.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7257313



1251393


09/08/2012 HW3 para 11.30


6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 HW3 para





Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 12.1

Aspects related to protection of water quality not sufficiently developed. Environmental Quality only considers air quality, none of the Environmental Policies consider water quality. Improvement to water quality is essential objective of the Water Framework Directive. Accordingly we recommend a new policy to protect the water environment.

No Yes Add "water quality" after "noise" in 1st line of policy EQ7


13/08/2012 12.1Reference in Environmental Section should be made to the Somerset's Waste Plan and how this impacts development in South Somerset

No No

1537089Blackdown Hills AONB, L Turner

13/08/2012 12.1 Object to the plan due to a lack of policy relating to AONBs and landscape/landscape character contrary to NPPF. No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 12.5 Benefits of rivers for transport, commuting and leisure must be included. No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 12.16

Major flooding in Coker/Barwick areas not properly considered. Sandy soils washed into rivers that are not properly maintained by river authorities. Increased development will mean more flooding.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 12.16 - 12.20

Objects to claims that Yeovil SUE and Urban Village are located in areas where flood risk can be mitigated. Accepts statements in 12.16 to 12.20 neutralise claims in Chapter 5. Para 2.16 provides all the more reason to incorporate good husbandry of rivers and use their sustainable properties as a means of reducing carbon. Para 2.17 confirms that River Yeo boundary is an ideal location for Yeovil SUE and Urban Village.

No No

6773313 M Horsley 04/08/2012 12.16-12.20Objects. Yeovil SUE does not fully consider flooding - building planned on the flood zone. Increase risk to East Coker, Barwick and Stoford.

No No


13/08/2012 EQ1Policy includes 2 points: no development in flood zones 2 & 3 and reducing flood risk by managing surface water. This should be a separate flood risk policy.

No No


13/08/2012 EQ1 We welcome the ref to SFRA for sequential testing purposes. No No


13/08/2012 EQ1 Sustainable building should make ref to Site Waste Management Plan Regulations. No No


13/08/2012 EQ1Some watercourses are classed as ‘over abstracted or over licensed. It is important new development does not put stress on water supplies or impact on water quality.

No No

12 Environmental QualityPage 205 of 244



Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 EQ1 Object to wording, does not afford appropriate protection to the AONB. Does not provide adequate policy guidance. No No

1540481 Transition Langport 13/08/2012 EQ1 Renewable energy production and district heating schemes. No No

4103425 Charles Bishop Ltd 14/08/2012 EQ1

Object to policy going beyond Code for Sustainable Homes as not in accordance with NPPF and to BREEAM as also in excess of Government policy.

No No

4310881


13/08/2012

SD1, Strategic


SS1, 4.86, SS4, SS5, SS6, 6.21-

6.23, PMT1, EQ1, TA1,

TA3

EQ1 - overly onerous on top of requirements of Building Regs. Not justified especially in respect of viability & CIL. No No

4313985 A Lee 13/08/2012 EQ1No control in relation to density of development, appropriateness of sites and how to assess the tipping point which changes the nature of the rural environment.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 EQ1Seek acknowledgement that the requirements for Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM should not be at the expense of viability.

No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 EQ1

Policy welcomed however concerns over sustainable construction standards; "unless it is proven not to be feasible or viable". Either the standards are desirable or not, no exceptions.

No No

6863617 V Cooper 09/08/2012 EQ1 Should include limiting development on greenfield sites to reduce flood risk. No No


13/08/2012 EQ1Advise additional wording "including incorporating small scale opportunities to contribute to urban-scale green-infrastructure provision".

No No

7130561


14/08/2012 EQ1

Provision of locally prescribed Code for Sustainable Homes standards inconsistent wit NPPF. No District wide viability analysis confirming this local requirement will not impact on housing delivery. Possibility of change in building regs, which would make policy inconsistent with their requirements. NPPF emphasises importance of assessing viability at plan making stage not rely on viability to be assessed as part of individual applications.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7252353


13/08/2012 EQ1

Object to second bullet re CSH as understand this is unlikely to apply in the future. Decision on allowable solutions have yet to be made so should delete reference to CSH.

No No

7257313


14/08/2012 EQ1 Support gist of policy. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 12.33 Landscape strategy doesn't deliver requirements for biodiversity (NPPF Policy 117). No No


13/08/2012 EQ2It does not offer a strategy or guidance in relation to landscape. Not clear if final 3 bullets are general or just relate to innovative designs. Lacks clarity.

No Yes Format only - remove bullet points as noted to correct a grammatical error

4103553


09/08/2012 EQ2 Need survey of impact on species populations in the wider countryside to fulfil requirements under Habitats regulations. No No

4320641 CPRE (H Best) 14/08/2012 EQ2

Policy on best and most versatile land is missing, important to protect food security. Also should be a policy to conserve and enhance landscape.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 EQ2 Not sufficient protection of many matters, unfair singling out of landscape, although welcomed of itself. No No


13/08/2012 EQ2Should recognise the impact of development on bats, include additional wording "to maintain habitat features in existing buildings".

No No

7222785


13/08/2012 EQ2

Principle supported as generally consistent with NPPF. Noted Council intend to produce up to date design guide. Reference should be made to two recent reports: “A Review of Local Standards for the Delivery of New Homes” produced by the Local Housing Delivery Group supported by the LGA, HBF and NHBC; and “Viability Testing Local Plans” also produced by the Local Housing Delivery Group.

No No




Ref



Minor Change


7257313



7284289


10/08/2012 EQ2

No objection in principle but the preservation of the landscape character, local distinctiveness, local character and cultural significance has not been properly addressed for the YUE. All internationally or nationally designated habitat sites or species have not been adequately considered.

No No

7329185


10/08/2012 EQ2Agree with the principle of this policy, but the rationale is not adhered to in the Plan, particularly the density of the Yeovil SUE which is too high.

No Yes Delete 4th sentence of para 5.33 as density is a master planning matter.

1251393


09/08/2012 EQ2/12.35 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish Councils. No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 EQ2/12.35 Objects. Delivery bodies should include Town and Parish

Councils. No No

1403425


20/07/2012Historic

Environment

Supports paragraph 12.37, object to wording of paragraph 12.39 suggest additional wording should be included to provide clarification on benefits of enhancing heritage assets – viability reasons. Wording should reflect chapter on tourism. Policy EQ3 should better reflect supporting text 12.39 and amend Policy EP8 – text supplied.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 12.39 Policies YV2 and YV4 contradict the claim in this paragraph. No No

1393729 English Heritage 14/08/2012 EQ3

Plan fails to positively address South Somerset's heritage assets at risk. No indication of intention to continue to carry out at risk surveys in future, perhaps a role for the Heritage Strategy. Reference to registered battlefields not included. Needs greater evidence of assets within SSDC and how they will be managed.

No YesPoints accepted and annex provides expansion of policy and text of EQ3 as agreed with English Heritage. See annex 6.




Ref



Minor Change


4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 EQ3

Not in line with NPPF requirements for historic environment, not considered impact on Coker or Stoford Conservation areas properly, scale of SUE overwhelming on villages and conservation areas.

No No

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 EQ3Not sufficient. Adopt all measure included in English Heritage's guidelines. Object to simplistic equation of energy efficiently.

No No

7257313



7284289


10/08/2012 EQ3

Strongly support this policy but consider the proposals for the Yeovil SUE to the south fundamentally conflicts with this policy. SSDC has failed to consider properly the impact on heritage assets. In order to comply with NPPF, will have to substantially revise the Plan and supporting documents.

No No

1251393




Councils. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 12.46 Documents referred to may well be replaced/updated when new data becomes available. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 EQ4 Policy needs amending to ensure not conflicting with EQ2. No Yes Amend the final paragraph of policy EQ4 from "protected" to 'protected and priority species'.




Ref



Minor Change


7257313



7284289


10/08/2012 EQ4No objection to policy per se, however does not consider sites & habitats affected by the Yeovil SUE have been adequately considered.

No No

7401761


13/08/2012 EQ4

Object to general principals of the Policy. Policy should be reworded to respond to characteristics of the rural area. Whilst biodiversity is important it is vital to enable development proposals to respond to the individual characteristics of an area through mitigation and new habitats.

No No

4218241 B Jacobs 09/08/2012 EQ5 Policy promotes River Yeo as a valuable asset to the Yeovil Vision. No No


02/08/2012 EQ5 Support Green Infrastructure, but need more on trees and better policy wording. No No

6773313 M Horsley 05/08/2012 EQ5

Objects. Yeovil SUE - have not adequately assessed the impact on Green Infrastructure - particularly the loss of footpaths - impact on health and well being of the residents of East Coker.

No No

7257313



7284289


10/08/2012 EQ5

No objection to policy per se, however considers the Yeovil SUE is in conflict with this policy, which seeks to preserve and enhance the area's green infrastructure. Yeovil SUE will not enhance character and local distinctiveness or contribute to local identity and sense of place. Eliot

No No

7401761

Mactaggart & Mickel (Agent J Edwards Colliers

13/08/2012 EQ5Policy should be changed to respond to other suggested changes. Policy should be amended to accord with the allocation of land at Mount Hindrance, Chard.

No No




Ref



Minor Change



02/08/2012 EQ6 Support strong wording for ancient woodland but consider wording revisions. No No

7257313



4103553


09/08/2012 12.66-12.67

Insufficient consideration given to noise pollution. Removal of PPG24 by NPPF removed clear planning guidance so need clear guidance locally. No reference made to Noise Policy Statement for England 2010 (NPSE) which usefully attempts to define noise impact.

No Yes Add footnote at end of para 12.67 to refer to Noise Policy Statement.

5434753 M Fysh 13/08/2012 EQ7 Yeovil Air quality would suffer even more if Yeovil SUE and plan happens due to prevailing SW winds No No

7257313



1251393




Councils. No No

4103553


09/08/2012 EQ8 Need to mention traffic impact in criteria of policy. No No




Ref



Minor Change


1251393



6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 EQ8 para





Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012 Chapter 13

The EA would welcome inclusion of a more robust measure -refusal of permission for developments where an Environment Agency objection on water quality grounds cannot be overcome.

No No

13 Implementation and MonitoringPage 213 of 244



Ref



Minor Change



13/08/2012SA

Objective 12

Perhaps mention of improvement to ground and water quality where brownfield sites are to be developed. However pleased PSLP refers to NPPF.

No No


14/08/2012 Sustainability Appraisal

The location of the Yeovil SUE is not the most appropriate given reasonable alternatives as a site at Brympton/Bunford performs better using the key sustainability criteria.

No No



SA selection process was flawed as it transferred attributes across large search areas making unsustainable locations appear sustainable.

No No



Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land is not given sufficient weight in the SA. No No



The Yeovil SUE will not be easily accessible by walking and cycling from elsewhere as it is located on top of a hill along a busy main road.

No No



Not clear how the disconnected site of the Yeovil SUE performs in sustainability terms. No No



Not clear how water contamination from the Yeovil SUE will be mitigated. No No



Locating the Yeovil SUE at a site with a single primary route connection will exacerbate air quality problems in Yeovil's AQMA.

No No



The Yeovil SUE will require additional bus routes which could lead to cutting other marginal routes and services. No No



The substantial on-site provision of jobs and services in the Yeovil SUE will not help the existing town. No No



There is a lack of evidence of cross-border working given the close relationship with Sherborne, the presence of Babylon Hill retail centre and the potential for sustainable transport links, including by train.

No No

4122433 B Hartley 10/08/2012 Sustainability Appraisal

Proper consideration was not given to the negative impact on social cohesion of East Coker of the Yeovil SUE. No No


The long term effects of the Yeovil SUE have not been adequately considered. No No


The weak economic scenario should have taken precedence in planning the future housing requirement. No No

Sustainability AppraisalPage 214 of 244



Ref



Minor Change



The appraisal carried out on alternative district wide spatial growth options lacks evidence and independent judgement e.g. falling rural primary school capacity which could have a negative impact on rural sustainability, ageing population in rural communities. Should be more than 2,400 dwellings in Rural Settlements to address this.

No No


Policy HG1 highlights the positive effects of implementing the key sites such as proximity to major employment areas, avoiding Grade 1 agricultural land, access to services and facilities, but these aspects are not set out in the appraisal of the northern options.

No No


SA identifies a requirement for 659 affordable homes annually which is clearly not achievable, demonstrating poor SA preparation.

No No

7401761



Respondents have appraised Chard growth Options 3 and 4 but included their site at Mount Hindrance to deliver a total of 3166 dwellings (Option 3) and 3755 dwgs (Option4). They have also appraised Policies PMT1 and PMT2 to include the land at Mount Hindrance.

No No

Sustainability AppraisalPage 215 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


4305697 F Hodder 08/08/2012 All Plan sound and legally compliant No No

4218241 B Jacobs 10/08/2012 Foreword

Not easy to understand by general public. Whole plan based on out of date evidence, serious contradictions, lack of consideration of geography and natural attributes, bias towards growth in one direction for SUE ignoring constraints, lack of public participation in process, web links not working

No No

4268385 G Frecknall 10/08/2012 Foreword Chard should not develop to north, lack of infrastructure or links to A30 No No

6832353 M Nichols 08/08/2012 Foreword Objects. Proposed density at Yeovil SUE too high. No Yes delete 4th sentence of para 5.33 as density is a master planning matter.

4308929

M W Slade & Son (Agent - Genesis Town Planning Ltd)

12/07/2012 Inset Map 9 - Martock

Support the inclusion of Bower Hinton as part of the development Area but consider that an additional area of land should be included within it on the western edge, south of Gaston's Lane.

No No

4315809


14/08/2012 Inset Map 15-15A

Flood zones are incorrectly drawn on the Yeovil Proposals Maps. No No

4316161 G Seaton 09/08/2012 Map 15 East Coker church and pub not shown on map No No

4616897 P Benham 08/08/2012 MapsObject. Zoning of maps unreadable as key shows less concentrated scale. Colours too similar. Could be annotated e.g 'FR' for Flood Risk.

No No

6775297


30/07/2012


Object to new employment sites being located away from existing areas of employment. No No

7401761


13/08/2012 Inset map 3

Inset map should be amended to correct CV1 & CV1 notation to PMT1 & PMT2. propose that policies PMT1 & PMT2 are amended to reflect this allocation and that the schools are delivered in the Eastern Development Area and supporting text amended to say that land at Mount Hindrance will come forward as part of a first phase (text supplied).

No YesTo correct an annotation error amend notation on Inset Map 3 by deleting CV1 and CV2 and changing to PMT1 & PMT2

Foreword/Inset Maps/OtherPage 216 of 244



Ref



Minor Change


4103553


09/08/2012 otherSCC Waste Core Strategy contains a policy on safeguarding sites for waste management which is scheduled for adoption in 2012

No No

6701281 P Cameron 06/08/2012 OtherObject - Online form is designed to discourage people from commenting, as it implies legal knowledge and understanding.

No No

6816993 Lopen Parish Council 08/08/2012 Appendix 2 ME/LOPE/1 cannot be saved as is not compliant with NPPF

and various policies in the LP. No No


ELR Stage 3 states that there is little commercial demand for land in South Petherton - need would amount to 1.39 ha to 2028. No need for the additional employment land evidence base supports this. Over supply of employment land could lead to losses to housing development. No employment allocations have been identified as can lead to applications being approved in unsuitable locations as has happen at Lopen.

No No

Foreword/Inset Maps/OtherPage 217 of 244

Glossary

ABI Annual Business Inquiry

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AMR Annual Monitoring Report

B1, B2, B8 Use Classes for land and buildings (Business, General industrial, Storage or distribution)

BANES Bath and North East Somerset

BMV Best and most versatile (agricultural land)

BRES Business Register and Employment Survey

CEDA Chard Eastern Development Area

CIL Community Infrastructure Levy

CPO Compulsory Purchase Order

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DM Development Management

DOG Direction of Growth

DPD Development Plan Document

DPH Dwellings per hectare

ELR Employment Land Review

FOI Freedom of Information

FTP Future Transport Plan

GOSW Government Office for the South West

GVA Gross Value Added, a measure in economics of the value of goods and services produced

IP Infrastructure Plan

LDF Local Development Framework

LP Local Plan

NOMIS Official Labour Market Statistics website

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

NPSE Noise Policy Statement for England

ONS Office for National Statistics

PC Parish Council

Page 218 of 244

PDL Previously Developed Land

PMB Project Management Board

PPG Planning Policy Guidance (now defunct)

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy (due to be withdrawn)

SA Sustainability Appraisal

SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SCC Somerset County Council

SCS Sustainable Community Strategy

SD Sustainable Development

SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

SNPP Subnational Population Projections

SS South Somerset

SSDC South Somerset District Council

SUE Sustainable Urban Extension

TC Town Council

TTWA Travel to Work Area

UWE University of Western England

YTSR2 Yeovil Transport Strategy Review 2

YUE Yeovil Urban Extension

Page 219 of 244

Annex 1 District Housing Provision – amended text (replacing paras 4.70 – 4.80 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan) and Policies SS4 and SS5 Housing 4.70 The Regional Spatial Strategy (Proposed Modifications) proposed 19,700 dwelling completions from 2006 – 2026 with a breakdown of 11,400 for Yeovil of which 6,400 were to be within the urban frame and 5,000 as an adjacent urban extension(s). Some 8,300 dwellings remained as the provision for the rest of the District. The revised timescale to 2028 inflates all these figures by 2 additional years with the overall requirement being 21,670 dwellings. 4.71 The Regional Spatial Strategy (Proposed Modifications) figure is discounted from consideration however because it is based on evidence that is now too dated and not in accord with the up to date information provided within this Plan and obtained from the supporting evidence base. Furthermore the Government statement that; “the proposed revocation of the Regional Strategies may be regarded as a material consideration by decision makers when determining planning applications and appeals” points to the limited validity a Local Plan would have if based on the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West. 4.72 The determinants of the broad range of the District’s scale of growth are economic job projections requiring concomitant housing provision, household projections and population projections. These set the range of future growth from within which a provision figure must derive. 4.73 The economic growth projections are considered the most important and these are presented below in table 2 which is derived from the methodology set out in the Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil document updated to a 2011 base date incorporating the publication of the latest Business Register Employment Survey information. The methodology has been developed further from that in the original report in 2 ways. Firstly by accommodating evidence of a fluctuating self employment figure for the District over the Plan period by means of averaging the percentage of self employed in relation to the total District employees in employment over the plan period to date and applying this average percentage. Secondly by accounting for the national trend for “double jobbing” ie employees having 2 jobs or more. A 5% discount has been applied to the overall employment growth figures for 2011 – 2028 to ensure that the Council, through the economic projection methodology, is not seeking to provide 2 houses for a worker that has two jobs. The self employed percentage of 15.4% and the 5% figure for double counting are derived from evidence from the ONS relating to South Somerset over the Plan period to date. 4.74. The methodology applied to deriving housing growth from employment growth projections has entailed putting forward two prospective employment growth scenarios based on positive private sector led growth in the future or slow faltering recovery as below.

Page 220 of 244

Table 2 Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil

Scenario 1 Positive

Private Sector Led Growth

Scenario 2 Slow (faltering) Recovery

a) Economically active 2006 (ONS Annual Population survey)

77,700 77,700

b) Population 2006 (ONS mid year estimates)

156,700 156,700

c) Households 2006 (ONS mid year estimates)

68,000 68,000

d) Net gain of jobs 2006 – 2028

13,400 9,100

e) Net gain of jobs discounted for double jobbing

12,750 8,650

f) Net increase in unemployment 2006 - 2028

400 200

g) Economically active 2028 (g = a+e+f)

90,850 86,550

h) Total population 2028 (h = g x 2.02)

183,500 174,850

i) Private households population 2028 (i = h - 2%)

179,850 171,350

j) Total number of households 2028 (j = i ÷ 2.1 persons per household)

85,650 81,600

k) Number of additional homes 2028 (k = j – c)

17,650 13,600

l) Population change 2006 - 2028 (l= h-b)

26,800 18,150

Notes: Italics denotes 2006 baseline data - start of the plan period. Figures rounded to nearest 50 Communal living in the 2011 Census stands at 2% rather than the 2.2% used in the original Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil report hence row i =h – 2% 4.75 The two scenarios for growth positive private sector led growth and slower (faltering) growth yield a net job growth for the District for the period 2006 – 2028 of 13,400 jobs and 9,100 jobs respectively. These discount to 12,750 and 8,650 when account is taken of double jobbing (to nearest 50). When these job figures after discounting are placed into the Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil methodology (Table 2 above) they yield a housing provision requirement of 17,650 dwellings and 13,600 dwellings respectively. 4.76 The Household and Population projections used to present the full range of projection information are the latest available at the time of writing the document and are the 2008 based household projections produced in 2010 and the more recent 2011 sub national population projections derived from the 2011 Census. These indicate a potential population of 172,400 for 2021 from 162,100 (the derived mid point 2011 figure). This equates to an average increase of 1030 per annum, thereby assuming an almost identical continued level

Page 221 of 244

of growth to that of the last 10 years. Extending that forward to 2028, gives a potential projected population of 178,810. This is higher than the 2010 Population Projections (173,800). 4.77 The household projection and revised population projections are used in the reworked demographic growth projection methodology based on that in the Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil report. The resultant outcome is set out in table 3 below. 4.78 The census has shown that the number of people living in communal establishments is 3,300 representing 2% of the population. This is slightly lower than the 2001 Census figure of 2.2% used in the Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil report and subsequent work on these matters. The reworked demographic growth projection in table 3 has used the Census 2011 proportion of 2% as more appropriate. 4.79 The household projection remains at 17,000 dwellings whilst the dwelling requirement based on recent population projections is 15,450 to the nearest 50 as shown below.

Table 3: Demographic Growth Projections

Benchmark figure 2008 based on CLG household projection (+1200pa)

Actual population change (06 - 11) + average rate of population change (01 - 11) (1033)

a Total population 2006 156,700 156,700

b Total household 2006 68,000 68,000

c

Population change (mid 06 - 2011 census: 161,300 - 156,700 4,600

d

17yrs x growth

Projected population change (11 - mid 28) 17,500

e c + d Projected population increase 06 - 28 22,100

f a + e Total population 178,800

g

Total projected private household’s population (98%) 175,200

h

Number of total households (based on 2.1 per household) 85,000 83,450

i h - b

No. of additional households/dwellings required 17,000 15,450

Figures to nearest 50

Page 222 of 244

4.80 Three significant trends are indicated by the 2011 Census data released so far that require consideration. The first of these relates to occupancy rates. The 2011 Census identifies 69,500 households within South Somerset giving an increase of 5,731 from the 2001 Census. This gives a 2011 census occupancy rate of 2.27 (excluding 2% population in communal establishments). This is higher than that anticipated. 4.81 The second trend relates to the changing demographic of the population. There is an increase in the 40+ age range, compared to a similar drop in the 15 to 39 year olds in South Somerset over that previously projected. The 2011 Population projections based upon the results of the Census demonstrate this trend over time. 4.82 The third relates to economic activity rates which are shown to differ slightly from those identified in 2006 and that are assumed to continue broadly unchanged buy the methodology applied. 4.83 It is unclear the extent to which these trends are linear or self adjusting and the Government are yet to factor these statistics into household projections. There are arguments that the trends reflect issues and problems such as dwelling overcrowding and labour force issues that need to be addressed in policy terms. It is considered appropriate to proceed with established occupancy and economic activity rates. Future monitoring will indicate the need and immediacy of any review of job and housing projections. 4.84 The projection work shown above presents 4 specific figures that set the range of housing provision from within which the overall District Provision figure should be determined from consideration of relevant matters The figures for housing requirement derived from the projections used are:- District Population projection 15,450 dwellings District Economic projections Slow faltering growth 13,600 dwellings Positive private sector led growth 17,650 dwellings District Household projection 17,000 dwellings 4.88 Key determinants of the Housing Provision sought are considered to be

• The primacy of economic projections • Need to accommodate additional housing provision for service personnel at Yeovilton • Need to ensure that non economically active incomers are accommodated but not to

the detriment of housing provision for the future workforce • Need to consider economic projections in the context of latest household and

population projections • Consideration of the Council’s overall policies and aims for the District • Consideration of land availability • Consideration of market deliverability • Consideration of sustainability factors through the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal

4.89 In relation to these determinants and in particular the primacy of economic projections in order to ensure that the housing market is not a drag on the economic prospects of the District it is suggested that the prime figures from which to present the actual District Housing provision are the two economic projections. It is then felt appropriate to determine the mid point of job provision from the two figures available from the economic projections and consequently this housing requirement between the two alternative economic scenarios is the prime provision figure. Such a figure provides the opportunity to address the ongoing

Page 223 of 244

nature of the current recession and to take on board the implications of the sustainability appraisal work and the likely market delivery of dwellings (see below). This alternative and preferred option is therefore for 15,650 (to nearest 50) dwellings based on the mid point of the two economic projections. 4.90 Any option chosen should have the current 300 dwellings requirement for off base housing for service personnel indicated during the Plan period from RNAS Yeovilton added as they do not feature in the projections for population, households or jobs. Thus the preferred option is now 15,950 dwellings. 4.91 The preferred provision figure of 15,950 dwellings sits within the range of provision from all Projections. the government’s specific household provision is relatively aged now and must be considered with slightly less weight as a result and the importance of the economy and confidence in the validity of the economic projections point to the preferred option rather than the higher housing provision derived solely from the Government’s household projections . 4.92 The lower provision suggested by the population based housing requirement projection suggests that the higher preferred provision of 15,950 dwellings provides for some additional housing over and above population growth pressures to ease any potential worker/retiree competition for housing. 4.93 The Council’s wider aims are bulletted below and are thought to be best met by the preferred provision figure given the constraints on adopting the higher economic based figure. The identified housing provision:-

• reflects more closely the Council’s economic aspirations to encourage economic growth;

• maximises economic growth potential and avoids potential growth inhibition due to lack of workforce;

• minimises in commuting; • maximises opportunities for affordable housing provision and CIL returns (given that

the local building capacity appears in place following discussions with Developers and the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment identifies sufficient land);

• minimises upward pressure on house prices other things being equal; and • avoids administrative issues and cost associated with early review of the Local Plan

in the event of more rapid economic growth out of the recession than currently anticipated.

4.94 Market delivery of the provision is an important consideration in determining the final figure for housing provision. If one applies the best five individual year’s dwelling completion rate over the last 20 years an average house build of 843 dwellings p.a. is shown and this indicates a potential when applied for each year from 2016 onwards (and added to what is built to 2012 and anticipated in the next few years) of 16,654 dwellings. This and other evidence indicates that the housing provision figure is deliverable. 4.95 The Council’s Sustainability Assessment associated with this Plan indicates that the figure chosen is better in sustainability terms than the upper and lower end of the range between 13,600 and 17,650 dwellings presented above. 4.96 The Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil report indicates two additional final factors relevant in the determination of housing provision namely affordable

Page 224 of 244

housing and empty homes. A housing figure required to deliver the affordable housing levels identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment would be completely unfeasible and unachievable, so whilst a consideration it is not a determinant in establishing housing requirement for the District. The evidence of low empty homes proportions to total housing stock in South Somerset set out in the original Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil report remains valid and indicates that no allowance should be made for decreasing the proportion of empty homes relative to the number of new homes required. 4.96 The Yeovilton service requirement is expected to be met within the existing settlement provision. Policy SS4: District Wide Housing Provision Provision will be made for sufficient development to meet an overall District Requirement of at least 15,950 dwellings in the Plan period April 2006 – March 2028 inclusive. Policy SS5: Delivering New Housing Growth Housing requirement will make provision for at least 15,950 dwellings in the plan period 2006 – 2028 of which 7,441 dwellings will be located within or adjacent to Yeovil, including a sustainable urban extension of 1,565 dwellings within the plan period, and a further 935 dwellings beyond the plan period. The provision will include development and redevelopment within development areas, greenfield development identified within this plan or to come forward through conversions of existing buildings, residential mobile homes and buildings elsewhere in accordance with the policy on development in rural settlements The distribution of development across the settlement hierarchy will; be in line with the numbers below

Settlement

Former Proposed Submissio

n Local Plan

housing requirem

ent

Local Plan 2006 -

2028 Total Housing

Requirement

Existing Housing

Commitments 2006-2012 (as at April

2012)

Additional Housing Provision required

(Total Housing Less

Existing Commitments

) (as at April 2012)

Additional Housing Provision

required (Total Housing Less

Existing Commitments)

(as at April 2011)

Strategic Town

Yeovil 7,815 7,441 3,951* 3,490 4,111

Market Towns

Chard 1,861 1,852 1750** 102 1,340

Crewkerne 1,028 961 916 45 127

Ilminster 531 496 181 315 332

Wincanton 703 703 698 5 11

Somerton 400 374 286 88 165

Page 225 of 244

Castle Cary/Ansford

400 374 156 218 273

Langport/Huish Episcopi

400 374 289 85 105

Rural Centres

Bruton 217 203 103 100 104

Ilchester 151 141 1 140 151

Martock 246 230 106 124 145

Milborne Port 299 279 202 77 89

South Petherton 245 229 151 78 94

Stoke Sub Hamdon

55 51 7 44 49

Rural Settlements

2,400 2,242 1,331 911 1,133

Total 16,751 15,950 10,128 5,822 8,229

* A further 935 dwellings are proposed at Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension post 2028 **1750 Commitments at Chard reflects built and committed sites and that part of the strategic allocation proposed for Chard that is expected to be built out in the plan period. This latter is shown a committed as it is currently part of the saved proposal from South Somerset Local Plan 1991 - 2011. The additional provision is windfall development prior to April 2017 not currently consented (April 2012). The strategic allocation provides for 2,716 dwellings of which 1220 are anticipated in the Plan period with the rest , 1496 expected post 2028.

Page 226 of 244

Annex 2 – Revised Wording of Policy SS3 and Supporting Text (paras 4.52-4.69) Scale of Growth for the District and the Main Settlements Employment 4.52 There is an undeniable link between jobs and homes, economic changes are a key driver affecting housing demand, and in order to support economic expansion and investment in an area, new homes are required to support a growing workforce. 4.53 Two scenarios for growth have been undertaken to inform the Local Plan. The first looks at the potential number of new jobs that would be associated with positive private sector led growth, and the second, slower, faltering growth. These are set out in the Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil report part of the Plan’s evidence base. These projections have been updated to 2028 to comply to the Plan period by use of the same methodology with slight additions that are set out in the Housing section that follows this section. The net growth in jobs ranges between 13,400 jobs derived from scenario 1 (positive growth) and 9,100 jobs from scenario 2 (slower, faltering growth). These scenarios, whilst taking into account recent employment data, were informed by evidence gathered locally at the start of the recession, and whilst locally there is evidence of jobs growth, given the nature of the on-going recession, which was not anticipated, it is considered that a ‘third’ scenario should be taken forward into the Local Plan, one which is the mid-point between the two economic projections. This figure (11,250 jobs) allows the Council to follow it aspirations for economic growth whilst injecting a degree of realism into the scenarios in light of the recession. 4.54 The District’s past economic success has been used to inform the distribution of these jobs and subsequently homes across the District. The presumption is that the past economic performance of the District’s settlements and rural areas is repeated into the future. The Council's Settlement Hierarchy, therefore reflects the District economic profile. The settlement strategy within this Local Plan presents a mechanism whereby the Council seeks to maintain and improve the economic function of Yeovil, the Market Towns and Rural Centres. The growth of businesses in rural areas should be focused on the most sustainable and accessible locations and therefore the development of employment land will be strictly controlled in the open countryside away from existing Rural Settlements or outside areas allocated for development. 4.55 The Local Plan's approach to balancing the distribution of jobs and homes seeks to ensure more sustainable and self-contained communities that are better placed to offer a range of opportunities to all of their residents. This approach will support the retention of strong, vibrant and healthy communities.

Jobs and Employment Land Provision 4.56 Despite the recession and recent job losses, the District is in a strong position to recover and grow beyond the peak employment levels of 2008 and recent evidence demonstrates that this is happening and jobs are being created1. Local growth projections undertaken by Baker Associates as part of their report on 'Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil' illustrate the robust nature of the District's employment structure, which is based on a resilient high technology manufacturing sector and prolonged growth in

1 Business Register Employment Survey data from NOMIS, published in September 2012 illustrates that in 2011 the number of employees in the district has risen by 1,600 since 2010 and the total employed (including self-employed) has risen by 3,600 since 2010.

Page 227 of 244

business services. They also demonstrate that indigenous companies are confident that they can grow over the longer-term. 4.57 The more positive scenario presented in the 'Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil' report is promoted in the first instance by the Council because it is more optimistic, more reflecting South Somerset's approach to economic development and more appropriate to enable the potential the economy has for growth. The length and depth of the recession however and continuing uncertainty have led the Council to consider the third scenario, that is growth in jobs at the mid point between the two scenarios of positive private sector led growth and slow faltering growth. The implication of this is that a total net employment growth provision of 11,250 jobs should be provided for South Somerset and provide the context for determining job growth for individual settlements. 4.58 Yeovil is the prime employment location in the District and its positive and strong economy has consistently supported almost half of the District's jobs (over the period 2003-2010, it has averaged 49% of the District's jobs). Based on these historic trends and the Council's aspirations for growth in Yeovil, it is anticipated that 49% of new jobs that will be generated over the plan period (approximately 5,513) will be based in Yeovil. 4.59 The Market Towns (both Primary Market Towns and Local Market Towns) and Rural Centres will also perform a strong employment function, which is based on an individual settlement's past performance (based on an analysis of jobs growth and its distribution from the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) and Business Register Employment Survey (BRES) data between 2003-2010) and is commensurate with its role in the settlement hierarchy. Job creation in Rural Settlements is supported in the context of Policy SS2, and the growth and expansion of businesses and enterprises in rural areas should be focused on the most sustainable, accessible locations, re-using existing buildings where possible. Approximately 31.5% of new jobs ( 3,542jobs) will be spread across the Market Towns and 9% ( 1,013 jobs) across the Rural Centres and 10.5% (1,181 jobs) across the Rural Settlements. 4.60 Of the 11,250 new jobs anticipated in the District by 2028, Baker Associates identified in their analysis of growth sectors in the Housing Requirement for South Somerset and Yeovil report that approximately 61% ( 6,864) will be in 'traditional' sectors, i.e. those that fall within planning 'B' Use Classes (B1-offices/ light industry, B2-manufacturing and B8-warehousing and distribution), which is reflective of the District's strong and resilient manufacturing base and potential to diversify into high tech, creative industries and IT related business services. 4.61 To support the growth of these new 'traditional' jobs, there is a requirement for 159.35 hectares of employment land (for Planning Land Use Classes B1, B2 and B8). This requirement stems from a combination of quantitative and qualitative need and Table 1: Employment Land Justifications illustrates the case for each settlement. 4.62 As there is an existing supply of employment land in many of the settlements either from Saved Local Plan allocations, outstanding commitments (sites that either have planning permission or are currently under construction) or vacant land (land that has obtained planning permission for an employment use but the planning permission has lapsed/expired, yet the land is still suitable and available for an employment use), the amount of land to be identified through the Local Plan in reality it is much smaller in net terms 40.0 hectares of new employment land. 4.63 Clearly land will be required for the ‘non’ traditional jobs that will come about over the plan period (approximately 4,385 of the 11,250 jobs), but the diverse nature of non B Use Class activities makes it difficult to generate a figure for the amount of land required to accommodate them. The Local Plan recognises that there is a need for land for activities

Page 228 of 244

such as main town centre uses, health, social services, education and other commercial uses, but no land is formally identified for these sectors of the economy, because the focus for such uses should be in and around the District's Town Centres, and it is felt that through the application of the sequential approach to development and other policies contained in the Local Plan and at a national level, the Development Management process can adequately deliver the required land. 4.64 The Local Plan does not make specific employment land allocations at Yeovil as a strategic location for growth is being promoted within which provision for employment land is sought and will be delivered through a future masterplan. Additional provision for the wider town is also sought but not allocated. A strategic allocation is proposed at Chard but not in the other Market Towns and Rural Centres because the scale of additional land in each settlement is not of a significant level to be strategic in terms of the District wide Local Plan. The approach taken allows flexibility amongst both developers and the local community to bring forward sites at the moment, and it is intended that an allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) will be produced to guide development in conjunction with the community. 4.65 The figures cited in Policy SS3 are not prescriptive or inflexible, but in general terms, provision of these levels of employment land will ensure that the economic potential of the District's economy and of the individual settlements within it can be enabled and potentially achieved. The gross land requirements are identified in the policy, as is an overall District floorspace figure (in net terms) required to deliver the identified job gowth. 4.66 The preferred approach does not restrict the type (Use Class) of employment land in any of the settlements identified. There may be sound Development Management or highways reasons that will limit the use of land on certain sites and this will be established at pre-application stage. 4.67 The following saved South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011 employment allocations are contained within Policy SS3 and therefore form part of this plan's employment provision:

• Proposal KS/BRYM/1: Land at Lufton • Proposal ME/WECO/1: Land off Bunford Lane • Proposal ME/WINC/3: Land between Lawrence Hill and A303 • Proposal ME/CACA/3(I): Torbay Road • Proposal ME/MART/2: West of Ringwell Hill • Proposal ME/LOPE/1: Lopen Head Nursery • Proposal ME/YEOV/4: Land south of Yeovil Airfield, Yeovil • Proposal ME/CHAR/6: Land North of Millfield • Proposal ME/CREW/4: Land North of Fire Station, Blacknell Lane

4.68 These are also set out in Appendix 2 which also shows the South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011 employment allocations that are no longer to be saved.

Page 229 of 244

Table 1: Employment Land Justifications Local Plan

jobs growth (B Use jobs in brackets)

Employment land required for B Use jobs growth (ha)1

Existing employment land commitments (ha)

Quantitative and Qualitative justification for employment land Local Plan additional employment land requirement (ha)

Yeovil Town 3,948 (2,408)

13.03 39.84 Existing commitments more than provide for the quantitative requirement for land, however, given the significance of Yeovil and the fact that there are only two strategic sites (one of which is for a specific use, a high quality business park - 11.5 hectares, the other under construction) and the remaining sites are small scale commitments and vacant land it is suggested that an additional 5 hectares of land be provided in Yeovil. The 5 hectare figure derives from the previous Local Plan’s Inspector’s report, in which he recommended at least an additional 10 hectares of general employment land be provided in Yeovil. These 10 hectares were never allocated. In the context of the current economic climate, an additional 5 hectares of land is considered appropriate, to provide for a range and choice of sites. This will be monitored and reviewed, as National Guidance is clear that Local Planning Authorities should facilitate economic growth in sustainable locations.

5.0

Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension

1,565 (955) 5.16 0 In the Sustainable Urban Extension the aspiration is to develop enough employment land to provide a job for each economically active resident, roughly one per dwelling. This land is location specific, so it all needs to be provided. 8.0 hectares are required in total with 5.0 hectares in the Plan period.

5.0

Chard 1,083 (661) 3.57 17.14 Employment land allocation carried forward from saved Local Plan proposals. No additional need. 6 hectares of Chard provision will be built beyond the Plan period

0 Crewkerne 577 (352) 1.90 10.10 0 Ilminster 419 (256) 1.38 23.05 0 Wincanton 599 (366) 1.98 3.61 There is no quantitative argument for employment land, but from a

qualitative perspective there is local concern that there is a lack of a balance between jobs and homes in Wincanton. The settlement has received a significant number of housing commitments, but unlike the other Primary Market Towns, it has no strategic employment allocation,

5.0

Page 230 of 244

Table 1: Employment Land Justifications Local

Plan jobs growth (B Use jobs in brackets)



Quantitative and Qualitative justification for employment land

Local Plan additional employment land requirement (ha)

Wincanton continued… yet its proximity to the A303 and the south east makes it well placed in terms of transport connectivity. Whilst Wincanton has a supply of 2.13 hectares, it is suggested that an additional 5 hectares be provided as a minimum. This will make Wincanton more attractive to potential developers, providing the opportunity to have a range and choice of sites and help to support a more balanced, self-contained settlement.

Somerton 307 (187) 1.01 1.91 There is no quantitative need for additional land, but to provide choice and aid self-containment, additional land is required. A minimum viable site size has been identified in consultation with Economic Development Officers, which will give scope for development to kick start employment growth - in the Local Market Towns the site size is considered to be 3 hectares.

3.0

Castle Cary/Ansford

273 (167) 0.90 10.19 Although there is no quantitative argument for an additional supply of land and it is over inflated by development of the pet food factory. To provide choice and alternatives to Torbay Road, additional land is identified as required. A minimum viable site size has been identified in consultation with Economic Development Officers, which will give scope for development to kick start employment growth – in the Local Market Towns the site size is considered to be 3 hectares. Discussions with the Parish Council concluded that there is a need for 3 hectares of employment land to aid self-containment.

3.0

Langport/Huish Episcopi

284 (174) 0.94 0.44 There is no quantitative need for additional land, but to provide choice and aid self-containment, additional land is required. A minimum viable site size has been identified in consultation with Economic Development Officers, which will give scope for development to kick start employment growth - in the Local Market Towns the site size is considered to be 3 hectares.

3.0

Page 231 of 244

Table 1: Employment Land Justifications Local

Plan jobs growth (B Use jobs in brackets)



Quantitative and Qualitative justification for employment land Local Plan additional employment land requirement (ha)

Bruton

1,013 (618)

3.34

0.56 It is difficult to accurately assess the amount of jobs growth that will occur individually in each Rural Centre, and therefore it is difficult to quantitatively assess the need for land in each settlement. From a qualitative perspective, to enable and support jobs growth and improve levels of self-containment, additional employment land should be supported in these settlements. A minimum viable site size has been identified in consultation with Economic Development Officers, which will give scope for development to kick start employment growth - in the Rural Centres the site size is considered to be 2 hectares.

2.0 Ilchester 0.02 2.0 Martock/Bower Hinton

2.79 2.0

Milborne Port 0.04 2.0 South Petherton 1.80 2.0 Stoke sub Hamdon

0.0 2.0

Rural Settlements

1,181 (720)

3.90 7.86 The additional employment land requirement will provide for the job growth (B Uses) identified for the Rural Settlements and given that the Rural Settlements are spread over a wide geographical area, the figure allows for some choice. Most development will be very small scale and most likely associated , within the terms of PolicySS2, with other development proposals and in consequence are likely to require additional provision beyond the existing commitments

4.0

Total 11,249 (6864)

37.12 119.35 40.0 net

159.35 gross

------------------------- 1 This figure is derived by taking the figure for B Use jobs, applying a percentage for B1,B2 & B8 uses (based on past completions rates) and applying English Partnerships Employment Density Ratios to establish land requirements. An allowance for strategic infrastructure etc. is given – see LDF PMB paper for full methodology.

Page 232 of 244

Policy SS3: Delivering New Employment Land The Local Plan will assist the delivery of 11,250 jobs as a minimum and approximately 293,300 sq metres floorspace net. 159.35 ha of traditional employment land (Use Class B1, B2 and B8) will be provided for the following settlements for the period April 2006 to March 2028:

* Yeovil, Crewkerne and Ilminster have strategic employment sites which are saved from the previous South Somerset Local Plan and Chard's strategic allocation based around Chard Regeneration Plan also includes employment provision. These sites combined equate to a total of 46.35 hectares, and this figure has been included in the overall floorspace figure cited in Policy SS3 above.

** This figure relates to Lopen Head Nursery. *** Yeovil and Chard will deliver additional employment land beyond the plan period. Chard will deliver 6 hectares and Yeovil will deliver 3 hectares beyond 2028, in association with their strategic residential growth.

Additional Employment

Land Provision Required (total

employment land less existing

commitments)

(As at April 2011)

Strategic Town

Yeovil Town* 44.84 39.84 5.00 (2,943) 3,948 (1,942) 2,408Yeovil Urban Extension (7.0) 5.0 0.00 (7.0) 5.0 *** 1,565 (1,033) 955

Chard* 17.14 17.14 0.0*** (886) 1,083 (585) 661Crewkerne* 10.10 10.10 0.00 (472) 577 (312) 352Ilminster* 23.05 23.05 0.00 (343) 419 (226) 256Wincanton 8.61 3.61 5.00 (490) 599 (323) 366Somerton 4.91 1.91 3.00 (251) 307 (166) 187Ansford/Castle Cary 13.19 10.19 3.00 (223) 273 (147) 167

Langport/Huish Episcopi 3.44 0.44 3.00 (233) 284 (154) 174

Bruton 2.56 0.56 2.00Ilchester 2.02 0.02 2.00Martock/Bower Hinton 4.79 2.79 2.00

Milborne Port 2.04 0.04 2.00

South Petherton 3.80 1.80** 2.00

Stoke sub Hamdon 2.00 0.00 2.00

Rural Settlements (12.36) 11.86 7.86 (4.5) 4.0 (966) 1,181 (638) 720

Total (161.85) 159.35 119.35 (42.5) 40.0 (9,200) 11,249 (6,072) 6,864

(546) 618

Other

Settlement

Local Plan 2006-2028 Total

Employment Land Requirement

Existing Employment

Land Commitments

Total Jobs to be encouraged 2006-2028 (numbers in last column

indicate jobs in traditional ‘B’ Uses as defined by the Use Classes

Order)

Market Towns

Rural Centres

(828) 1,013

numbers in brackets are those in the Proposed Submission Local Plan, June 2012

Page 233 of 244

Delivery 4.69 The following delivery bodies will be key in implementing Policy SS3:

• South Somerset District Council; • Town and Parish Councils; • Developers and Landowners.

Monitoring Indicators Target

Completed employment land in the District (B1, B2 and B8 uses).

159.35 hectares of employment land will be made available in the District between 2006 and 2028.

Number of new jobs in the District. 11,250 new jobs between 2006 and 2028.

Page 234 of 244

Annex 3: Housing Trajectory and Implementation Strategy Proposed Submission Local Plan replacement Table 5: South Somerset Housing Trajectory 2006 – 2028

Settlement/Year 2006-2012

(completions) 2012-2013

(commitments) 2013 - 2014

(commitments) 2014-2015




2022-2027

2027-2028

Achievable Local Plan

Target Derivations and Assumptions

Yeovil 1371 298 352 452 315 236 2471 1633 313 7441

Commitments, Key Sites delivery, urban extension + 128 dwellings pa windfall*. See table 5A Yeovil delivery

Chard 383 61 31 41 17 58 541 600 120 1852

Projection based on Lister Report for delivery for Chard, commencment 17/18 reflecting no inclusion of sites without planning consent (April 2012). Windfalls subsumed within market delivery rate.

Crewkerne 262 47 40 34 43 54 215 216 50 961

Reflects commitments of 129 + windfall + CLR commencement at a delivery rate of 40 dwellings per annum - fits previous delivery rate

Ilminster 144 8 10 34 20 20 110 125 25 496

First 5 years delivery of 92 includes current commitments and windfall. Assume new consents and steady build rate

Wincanton 297 113 71 75 69 36 42 0 0 703

Given the significant front loading of housing delivery in the early years of the Plan, a period of assimilation with lower development levels is considered a likely market response. There has been a history of lower than expected market delivery in the town.

Somerton 24 20 42 36 35 49 108 50 10 374

First 5 year delivery of 182 dwellings include existing commitments and the Northfield development, which has been approved pending the signing of a legal S106 agreement. It is anticipated development will commence within the next 5 years. A period of assimilation with lower development level is considered a likely market response in later years.

Castle Cary/Ansford 42 52 30 118 110 22 374

There are a number of brownfield sites available within Castle Cary and sufficient SHLAA sites available to deliver proposed level of growth. Potential for development in excess of the required provision is expected to be controlled by policy and market abilities

Langport/Huish Episcopi 163 38 35 6 6 6 83 30 7 374

First 5 year delivery of 73 commitments + lower rate of windfall, the remainder over the plan period. Policy imperative to address implications of appropriate assessment. A period of assimilation with lower development levels is considered a likely market response in later years.

Page 235 of 244








2022-2027

2027-2028



Bruton 92 3 3 9 4 4 40 40 8 203

It is considered that the rest of the proposed growth will build out at a steady build rate, to allow for the assimilation of a larger housing estate which was recenttly completed and forms part of the 92 completions

Ilchester 0 1 65 63 12 141

There are sufficient SHLAA sites to accommodate the proposed housing. This may come forward as individual sites or as a larger development, which may come forward in a shortened time frame.

Martock/Bower Hinton 60 42 1 3 5 55 54 10 230

Provision through a combination of windfall development based on past averages and potential development through adequate SHLAA provision

Milborne Port 141 39 1 11 45 35 7 279


South Petherton 114 27 7 8 6 7 30 25 5 229


Stoke Sub Hamdon 5 1 1 20 20 4 51

There is one SHLAA site which can provide for half of the proposed level of growth. There is one predominant land owner around the village and it is considered likely that the rest of the proposed development will come forward in conjunction with local support during the plan period

Rest of District 810 252 161 65 20 50 400 403 81 2242

Development projected to come forward at a slightly lower level than previous windfall rates reflecting policy. Due to the number of settlements and scale of growth, delivery is expected to be fairly even over the plan period.

Total 3908 1002 783 765 535 536 4343 3404 674 15950

*Identified windfall rate for Yeovil and all other settlements reflect evidence of past delivery and new windfall sites are assumed to contribute to delivery once past windfall approvals have been built out. Evidence from Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process indicates sites will continue to come forward throughout the plan period.

Page 236 of 244

Table 5A: Yeovil Delivery








2022-2027

2027-2028



Completions 1371 1371

Commitments 213 212 182 607

Lufton 60 105 105 447 717 Reflecting national developer build rates

Brimsmore 35 105 105 105 480 830 Reflecting national developer build rates

Lyde Road 85 105 105 105 26 426 Reflecting national developer build rates Potential Key Site intensificatiomn 171 68 239

Yeovil Urban Extension 665 750 150 1565

Commencing 2017/2018 with 100 the first year, 115 the second and 150 thereafter

Urban Village 68 175 35 278

Windfall 640 640 128 1408 128 per annum, commencing 2017/2018 once commitments have been built out

Total 1371 298 352 452 315 236 2471 1633 313 7441

High mid term completion rates 2017 – 2022 can be expected reflecting initiation of the key sites and the Urban Extension combined with market uplift following the end of the recession.

Implementation Strategy The delivery of the Housing Trajectory will be by:-

1. Private sector developers meeting market demand (dwellings already built and committed an on-going development activity) 2. Registered Social Housing levels meeting affordable housing need through

- Their own resources - Support from Government grants and Local Authority grant (with the former being promoted by Local Housing Authority) - Section 106 agreement in association with market housing regulated by the Local Planning Authority’s ability to deliver land at nil value (and

effectively a supply subsidy) 3. Pre application discussion with developers 4. Determination of planning applications 5. Delivery and maintenance of a 5 year land supply of housing through

- Establishing through the Local Plan an appropriate and realistic housing requirement

Page 237 of 244

- Positive engagement with developers - Updating of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment on a regular basis

6. Site Allocation Development Plan Documents (generally for Market Towns and Rural Centres and for Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension) identified as a priority undertaking for the Local Planning Authority

7. Adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule that ensures development remains generally viable 8. Identification of Infrastructure Requirements through a regularly updated Infrastructure Plan and the application of available funds to resolve

them where they are in excess of normal market funding.

Page 238 of 244

Annex 4 Balancing Homes and Jobs Delete Figure 5 in Proposed Submission South Somerset Local Plan 2006 – 2028 and replace with new Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Balancing Jobs and Homes

47

32

7

14

49

31.5

9

10.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Yeovil

Market Towns

Rural Centres

Rural Settlements

Percentage of New Jobs

Percentage of New Houses

Page 239 of 244

Annex 5 Contingency and Risk Assessment

INSERT THE FOLLOWING AFTER PARAGRAPH 13.5 OF THE PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN:

“Contingency and risk management

1.1 The Council recognises there are risks that the assumptions used in producing the Local Plan may not be fulfilled. Therefore, it is important to identify the key risks and set out how these could be overcome in order to deliver the plan.

1.2 A key assumption that has underpinned the Local Plan development strategy is the rate of economic growth. If the economy does not grow as forecast, this may inhibit the delivery of jobs and prosperity and with it the delivery of housing and employment land, and not enable the scale of development proposed in the District to be achieved. If the delivery of jobs and employment land is lower than proposed in the plan, there are several measures that the Council can take. The Council can seek grant support, in partnership with key partners, from the Government where the opportunity arises in order to help deliver jobs and sites. The Council can help bring sites forward through investment in land and infrastructure in order to create economic development opportunities where the market is failing to deliver (e.g. through District Council capital programmes or by investing Community Infrastructure Levy funds). The measures outlined above to stimulate the local economy would also help the market for housing.

1.3 Where the annual assessment of housing land supply identifies that there is not a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites in the District, the Council will take action to address this. This will include holding discussions with developers and landowners to identify the barriers to delivery,1 and where possible providing assistance in resolving any key issues. The Council propose to undertake regular review of the SHLAA in any event, but a lack of housing supply would trigger an immediate review. If the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, it may be necessary to release additional greenfield sites at the higher end of the settlement hierarchy where there is most potential to access jobs, facilities and key services (i.e. Yeovil, the Market Towns, and Rural Centres). This means a 5 year supply should be re-established.

1.4 There are several sites/locations for development that are significant to the delivery of the plan, particularly Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension, Chard Strategic Growth Area, and the Directions of Growth at Market Towns. If these proposals are not being delivered, or delivered at a slower rate, discussions with developers and landowners will be held to highlight problems, which the Council will assist in resolving, for example through funding bids, investing in sites and trying to build consensus where there are various landowners. In the case of Chard the Council has undertaken viability and feasibility studies to establish its deliverability and has reserved potential use of CPO powers should success prove an on-going problem.

1 If these ‘barriers’ relate to planning obligations, these can be reviewed using the District Council’s Planning Obligations Protocol where, upon demonstration that obligations are adversely impacting viability, obligations may be reasonably paired back to make the site viable.

Page 240 of 244

1.5 By having contingency positions to secure the delivery of the plan in response to potential risks, it should be possible to achieve the strategy for development across the District.

1.6 A more specific risk that has been identified is the potential for too much housing growth in the Rural Settlements in applying Policy SS2. If monitoring indicates that the scale of housing at Rural Settlements is too high, and that the cumulative effect of this development is promoting more rural development in less sustainable locations at the expense of more sustainable settlement development, then a review of this policy and its application will be undertaken.

1.7 It is also important to regularly review settlements to ensure that their roles and functions remain consistent with the hierarchy set out in Policy SS1. If monitoring were to show significant changes in a settlements’ provision of jobs, facilities, services or accessibility, the Council can attempt to rectify this by focussing resources at areas most ‘in need’ where possible, for example through assisting the economy as set out above.

1.8 Other specific examples of where contingency measures may be necessary are Policies HG3 and HG4, where changing economic circumstances will be taken into account by updating the viability assessment every 3 years and the flexible wording of policy provides the ability to modify policy implementation; and Policy EQ1 which identifies sustainable construction standards that relate to Government proposals to amend the Building Regulations. If the Government were to change policy the Council may be obliged to apply the latest regulations despite the policy until such time as the Plan is reviewed.

1.9 In addition, the Council will regularly review the Local Development Scheme in order to ensure the Local Development Documentss that are proposed continue to reflect the priority to deliver sustainable development in the District.

Page 241 of 244

Annex 6 Additional wording of Policy EQ 3 and rewording of supporting para 12.40 presenting details of the Historic Heritage Strategy proposed (resulting from English Heritage Consultation and agreed with them) Rewording of para 12.40 : “The Council will develop a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment that will be identified in the Council’s Local Development Scheme and will include: • Guidance and advice for owners and developers in relation to the conservation of the historic environment, nationally and locally designated assets including archaeological sites. • The council’s approach to identifying and managing heritage assets at risk through neglect, decay or other threats, and to their conservation and return to sustainable use where appropriate. • A programme for the review of existing Conservation Area boundaries, the preparation of Conservation Area Assessments and Management Plans and making new designations. • Encouragement for the development of local skills, crafts and the production of local materials relevant to the historic environment. • Measures to identify locally significant historic assets including buildings, parks and gardens and archaeological features and the preparation of a district-wide list of such assets. • Detailed advice for developers preparing proposals that may have an impact upon any aspect of the historic environment about conservation, good design and positive enhancement of the assets and their settings. • Opportunities to improve historic townscapes, landscapes and the public realm • Support for communities to identify locally significant historic buildings and in their preparation of neighbourhood plans”. Add the following para to Policy EQ3 (at the beginning): “Heritage assets will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and important contribution to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place. Their potential to contribute towards the economy, tourism, education and local identity will be exploited”. Add reference to the single battlefield in the District (para 12.38) by insertion after “14 historic parks” of “, a battlefield site of national importance”. Amend indicator under Policy EQ3 to “avoidance of development that will impact on heritage areas on the national list.” Add reference to “the production of a Heritage Strategy” to the monitoring indicators.

Page 242 of 244

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�� !�

�� !�� "�� #�� $��%� �$&'(((')*+'�,��-('-�

��"��!

��!#�$�

��%#�$�

��"�$�

��"��%

��"��!

�

��

�

�

�

�

&

' !#��

�

(

$)

��*�+�� !�

��

&

�

�

�

�

�

��,�� ,,��-��

M

M

Map 1 - Dire

Map 2 - Pro

ection of Gr

posed ame

Proposed

owth as sho

nded Direct

d amendme

own in Prop

tion of Grow

ent to Ilmins

posed Subm

wth

ter Directio

mission Loc

n of Growth

al Plan

Direc

h

ction of Grow

wth

Page 244 of 244