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

Comment ID 103
Document Section Main Modifications Policy YV2: North East Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension (no name) View all on this section
Respondent BronwynJ Fysh View all by this respondent
Response Date 10 Oct 2014
Comment

I wish to OBJECT to 2 specific Main Modifications in Policy YV2 MM9 & MM10 .

N Modification (MM9) on Landscape Mitigation measures for the NE Urban Extension to reduce the visual impact of the development.

Is the Planning Inspector’s recommendation to screen the NE option sound?

The ESSENCE of the Main Modification seems to be that the Planning Inspector has directed that they must provide LANDSCAPE MITIGATION MEASURES to the NE site to protect things to the NW of that site, but he has NOT recommended the same for the SOUTH Keyford Site. The South has NO SUCH PROTECTION recommended by the Planning Inspector.

The first point is EQUALITY OF TREATMENT of N and S options, and the fact is that the SOUTH is FAR MORE SENSITIVE to damage than the North East.

This failure of the Planning Inspector to RECOGNiSE and PROTECT the highly sensitive nature of the assets which will be DAMAGED, IN OUR VIEW, SUBSTANTIALLY.

The Planning Inspector has not done what he SAID was important.

There is NO STRUCTURAL MITIGATION for the SOUTH , but that is not so for the NORTH EAST.

It is therefore UNJUSTIFIED and UNSOUND if it does not go any further. The Planning Inspector should have given direction for GIANT SCALE MITIGATION PLANTING in the SOUTH as well. .

IF you are going to do that you MUST recommend the COMPLETE NEED FOR STRUCTURAL, PLAN -LEVEL, MITIGATION.

The situation is the SAME, or WORSE, in the SOUTH and UNSOUND IF YOU DON’T DO MASSIVE SCREENING. The Main Modifications seem to have GOT IT WRONG and do not taken proper account of Grade 1 Heritage assets in E and N Coker, with elevated views of the proposed development. It is UNSOUND , demonstrating a failure to provide equality of treatment of the NE & South (Keyford) options, and not respecting the provisions of the NPPF re. PROTECTING and ENHANCING the HERITAGE ENVIRONMENT.:

It’s a complete failure. There should have been respect for the provisions of the NPPF re PROTECTING and ENHANCING THE HERITAGE ENVIEONMENT.

The ESSENCE of the Main Modification seems to be that the PI has directed that they must provide LANDSCAPE MITIGATION MEASURES to the NE site to protect things to the NW of that site, but he has NOT recommended the same for the SOUTH Keyford Site. The South has NO SUCH PROTECTION recommended by the Planning Inspector.

That is the failure of the Planning Inspector to recognise and PROTECT the highly sensitive nature of the assets which will be DAMAGED, IN OUR VIEW SUBSTANTIALLY.

The Planning Inspector has not done what he SAID was important.

There is NO STRUCTURAL MITIGATION for the SOUTH but that is not so for the NE. It is therefore UNJUSTIFIED and UNSOUND if it does not go any further. The PI should have given direction for GIANT SCALE MITIGATION PLANTING in the SOUTH as well. .

IF you are going to do that you MUST recognise the COMPLETE need for structural, Plan level, mitigation in BOTH NE and S (Keyford) development options.

Attachments