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

Comment ID 88
Document Section Main Modifications Policy SS5: Delivering New Housing Growth Content View all on this section
Respondent Matthew Kendrick View all by this respondent
Response Date 09 Oct 2014
Comment

We write on behalf of our client Hopkins Developments Limited in connection with Main Modification 12 which relates to a change to policy SS5.

We have reviewed the proposed change and do not believe that in its current form it addresses our substantial concerns in relation to the effective embargo on housing development in Wincanton, which has been based on no objectively assessed evidence. We will not reiterate these representations because they have been clearly articulated previously.

In respect to the current modification to SS5 and related text we do have the further specific comments:

·         With regards to the suggested change to page 53 it is far from clear what effect this is intending. On a simple reading it seems to suggest that a potentially permissive approach to development adjacent to the development boundary of Wincanton will be considered (subject to sustainable levels of growth being achieved) in the interim period before the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, however this is far from clear. Accordingly we request further clarity in relation to this issue.

·         With regards to the proposed changes to Chapter 13 and the specific text of policy SS5 we object to the proposed timescales connected to the early review of housing and employment delivery in Wincanton because 5 years is an excessively long period of time and the delay in doing this may inhibit adequate growth in Wincanton making the plan inflexible to rapid change. We recommend that in order to be sound the review should commence within 1 year of the adoption of the Local Plan and conclude within 3 years.

·         With regards to page 54, Policy SS5 our comments regarding Chapter 13 are equally applicable.

We would be grateful if you could provide further clarity with regards to our first comment above and request that you take into account our suggested changes. In conclusion we do not consider that the plan is sound for the reasons we have set out in previous representations and in relation to the specific points made above.

Attachments