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

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

36 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
P J Burrows 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 100
I object to this modification to policy YV2 in the PSSSLP (2006-2028) on the following grounds. 1. The amendment from " 'B' use class employment land" to "land for economic development" gives a much wider and less well-controlled scope for inappropriate development without adequate consideration at this planning stage to all the key factors relevant to the process. 2. This is further compounded by the fact that any consideration of mitigation to limit the visual Impact has been conspicuously o
M Wells 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 86
I object because the policy for the South Urban Extension of Keyford has not received the same consideration of the Inspector's concerns for landscape mitigation for the North East Urban Extension.  The area involved in the Keyford site is more sensitive and includes South Somerset rolling hills and is close to an area of natural beauty in Dorset.  This area needs protecting from the blight of urban sprawl, which when existing and undeveloped brown field sites are available for development, seem
LionelBird 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 56
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
Mr and Mrs Lewis 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 97
Looking at the proposed modifications to the Local Plan made after the recommendations of the Inspector, we object to POLICY YV2 (MM9) as there is not enough information about measures concerning the reduction of the visual intrusion of the proposed South Urban Extension (Keyford) when approaching Yeovil from Dorset along the A37. How can full consultation be given if this information is not included?
East Coker Preservation 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 34
Response Type: OBJECT   The following summarises the East Coker Preservation Trust's (ECPT) objection to the proposed Main Modification 9 to the Proposed Local Plan.   Policy YV2 - Main modification 9   ECPT objects to the inconsistent approach being proposed for the two SUEs. The case for the mitigation of landscape impact is equally valid for the proposed South SUE as for the North East SUE. The proposed development at Keyford will cause severe visual impact when viewed from the south,
MMarshall 08 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 105
South Urban Extension Keyford Please notemy objection to the proposed local plan. One should not build on Grade I Agricultural Land. One should not ruin forever the visual approach to Yeovil via the South - South West by covering the land with streets, houses, pavements and lights. One should value East Coker as a toursit attraction and not reduce it to a suburb. Do not abandon the existing MM9 policy.
JSnelling 08 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 27
The structural landscaping to the north is to be supported the same landscaping must be applied to the area in East Coker if the proposed development on the Keyford site is to proceed. Landscaping to protect the views to and from the Keyford is essential.  There are a number of important grade 1 & 2 listed buildings in the East Coker area and if the NPPF is to upheld then these require visual protecting from developments. The landscape value of the Keyford site has not had proper evaluation as
S Owen 08 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 93
I OBJECT to your inconsistent approach to the north east area compared to the south area, specifically with regard to:- Structural landscaping to ensure that mitigation addresses the: * Skyline dominance of built form, particularly as viewed from properties to the north and east; * Potential for visual intrusion arising from development as viewed from the west and north-west of the A359. You need to make similar specific references to landscape mitigation for the Keyford development to ensure
AMarshall 08 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 20
I wish to object to the whole of this development as it will ruin East Coker as a beautiful village with the additional trtaffic and light pollution.
S Owen 08 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 29
We OBJECT to the fact that the Policy has taken into consideration the Inspector's concerns for landscape mitigation for the North East Urban Extension, but not then applied this policy to the South Urban Extension of Keyford. The landscape is at least equally if not more sensitive and includes the beautiful rolling hills of South Somerset and the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) of Dorset. These deserve to be protected from the eyesore of urban sprawl which seems to be totally u