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

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

39 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Wessex Farm Trust 10 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 91
The original purpose of the Buffer Zone was to provide clear separation between a large single urban extension to Yeovil, and the villages of East Coker and North Coker. The scale of the development now proposed to the south of Yeovil has been reduced from 2,500 to 800 dwellings, and the proposed built development is now sited in an area which the previous Inspector referred to on Page 459 of his June 2003 Report as follows: "I do not believe that development on this land would lead to actual
AnneH 10 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 81
I object to the removal of the buffer zone. It seems bizarre that the scenic and historic assets of the village of East Coker should not be protected by a buffer zone. If the initial plan to provide this cannot be retained may I suggest that the historic route known as Plackets Lane be the boundary of build expansion? This would serve a second and significant role as it would continue to allow the residents of the village and near area to access a direct route to Barwick and Stoford and the Y
Dr W J Fysh 10 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 76
Comment type-OBJECTION The proposed number of houses is the same as the existing East Coker Village. I believe the development if it happens in spite of all the local opposition should be smaller & the Buffer Zone remain or a legally sound Green Belt is established. The original idea was to restrict development to the area northeast of Placket Lane but already it has crept south of Placket Lane & there would be no barrier to the eventual coalition of the Town of Yeovil with the rural village of
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
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
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
P J Burrows 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 101
I object to the deletion of policy YV3 from the PSSSLP (2006-2028) on the following grounds. 1. The primary intention of the Buffer Zone was to limit the extent of the proposed developments towards the settlements of East Coker and North Coker which contain a wealth of heritage assets which would be severely detrimentally impacted by the proximity of such developments. The fact that the latest submission does not extend the development as near to these assets as was previously proposed does not
Mr and Mrs Lewis 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 98
We also object to POLICY YV3 (MM10) where the Council has abandoned the original proposal which defined the East and North Coker Buffer Zone. This was designed to protect the village and its heritage assets from being engulfed by future development and also to protect further loss of Grade 1 agricultural land. In fact if anything, the original buffer zone needs to extend eastwards to totally surround the Keyford site.
J M Lumley 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 90
My third objection is this:- The Council's plans for housing at KEYFORD have been successfully reduced from 5,000 to 800 homes and limited to the areas around "KEYFORD HOUSE" itself, but I still have concerns about the scale of development. The argument has not yet been made that this site can accommodate anything like 800 houses in a way that fits with the surrounding area. I still object to 800 houses being built at KEYFORD, on the grounds that the infrastructure and services to go with 800 ho
J M Lumley 09 Oct 2014

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

  • Comment ID: 89
The second Main Modification affecting EAST COKER is MM10. This deletes the original proposal for Policy YV3, which defined the East and North Coker Buffer Zone. This was designed to provide protection against future spreading of the proposed development area, affecting the many Heritage Assets of East coker and even more, the Grade I agricultural land. I object to the Council's intention to abandon this policy. The Buffer Zone needs to be extended eastwards, to fully surround the Keyford site,
Next pageLast page