Proposed Submission South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028): Main Modifications - August 2014

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

102 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Cllr C Winder 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy SS3: Delivering New Employment Land Content

  • Comment ID: 73
I object to the wording of the main modifications, which refer to Wincanton, as proposed, as they do not give sufficient clarity as requested by the inspector. SS3 Delivery of employment land. It was agreed with the inspector, that the initial area of employment would be the two areas of land on each side of the Lawrence Hill road, from the Long Close site to the Anchor Hill roundabout. The land specified was between Lawrence Hill and the A303, and between Lawrence Hill and the stream to the no
Barbara Bird 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy YV2: North East Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension (no name)

  • Comment ID: 72
Excessive encroachment into the fragile strip of open countryside between Yeovil on the one hand and Over Compton, Trent and Up Mudford on the other, to which must be added the adverse visual impact on these villages of the 'pig ugly' - quote, last Housing Minster, N Boles - sprawl along Lyde Road - NPPF 126 & 129. The project also totally conflicts with the Mudford Neighbourhood Plan which has almost complete community support, thus contravening Government Policy on Localism. The area designa
BHartley 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy YV2: North East Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension (no name)

  • Comment ID: 67
The comments made at the hearing regarding views of the North East Yeovil SUE were related to short distance views from properties in the area of Trent and Over Compton (Dorset). The Planning Inspector sought changes to the Local Plan to detail mitigation measures in the form of landscaping. Both the North Eastern (Upper Mudford) and Southern (Keyford) landscapes are highly valued and sensitive to skyline development as detailed in the PLS addendum. Developments that could be obtrusive due to t
Martyn Sowerbutts 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy YV3: East Coker and North Coker Buffer Zone Content

  • Comment ID: 66
Response Type: OBJECT   I maintain my objection to the proposed development of 800 dwellings at the South Yeovil Urban Extension within the parish of East Coker, entirely on Grade 1 agricultural land.   Notwithstanding my fundamental objection above, I object to the proposed MM 10 deleting Policy YV3 and thereby the Buffer Zone which is defined to protect East Coker and North Coker from the impact of an urban extension on Grade 1 agricultural land, and on the numerous Heritage Assets and the
Martyn Sowerbutts 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy YV2: North East Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension (no name)

  • Comment ID: 65
Response Type: OBJECT   I maintain my objection to the proposed development of 800 dwellings at the South Yeovil Urban Extension within the parish of East Coker, entirely on Grade 1 agricultural land.   Notwithstanding my fundamental objection above, I object to the proposed MM 9 because it takes no account of the need for structural landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed South Yeovil Urban Extension on the surrounding area.   Proposed development along the north east ed
R Pratt 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy SS3: Delivering New Employment Land Content

  • Comment ID: 62
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the Main Modification MM11 on the grounds that it is not compliant with national policy (NPPF) and that it fails to add sufficient clarity as requested by the Local Plan Inspector's preliminary findings [Ref A].  Consequently, this aspect remains unsound and contrary to NPPF Para 15 which states plans should have "clear policies that will guide how the presumption of [of sustainable development] should be applied locally". MM11 seeks to introduce a modification to give gre
davidneal60@btinternet.com 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy YV3: East Coker and North Coker Buffer Zone Content

  • Comment ID: 57
The implimentation of Policy YV3 i.e removal of the Buffer Zone, has serious implications for the Villages and settlements on the Southern periphary of Yeovil urban area. Present and future developments will impact heavily on these villages, particularly  East and North Coker. We also note that the latest SHLAA map identifies substantial future sites to the East, South and West of the Keyford SUE.  Buffer Zones are therefore essential to protect both the individuality of these Villages and fro
R Pratt 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy SS5: Delivering New Housing Growth Content

  • Comment ID: 41
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the Main Modification MM12 on the grounds that it is not compliant with national policy (NPPF) and that it fails to add sufficient clarity as requested by the Local Plan Inspector's preliminary findings [Ref A] and highlighted in my consultation response to the original Main Modification [Ref B], and representations at the local Plan Examination and Resumed Hearings [Refs C, D & E] .  This aspect remains unsound and contrary to NPPF Para 15 which states plans should have "c
Marcus Fysh 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Policy YV3: East Coker and North Coker Buffer Zone Content

  • Comment ID: 40
Response Type: OBJECT   The following summarises my objection to the proposed Main Modification 10 to the Proposed Local Plan.   Policy YV3 - Main Modification 10   The Buffer Zone should not be deleted. To do so is unsound because the objectives of the NPPF are not given sufficient weight by the proposed deletion in the absence of anything else. YV3 should rather be amended to establish a new Green Belt, extending through the Coker vale to the surrounding skylines and or the border with
S Lewis-Cowlin 10 Oct 2014

Main Modifications Introduction and Background (no name)

  • Comment ID: 39
I object to the Main Modifications and the Local Plan in that it continually fails to recognise the need to retain primary agricultural land.  Grade A land. Whilst planning policy in general is supposed to 'save' land of this value the SSLocal Plan happily writes its destruction into our future and that of our children.   Greater attention needs to be paid to the future of our soil and our potential to feed an ever growing population.  Neither the Council nor the Inspector is taking in to accou
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page