Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

14 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
West Coker Parish Council 10 Jan 2018

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 242
The Vision for 2034 (Section 3) Paragraph 3.5 is correct. The current vision to 2028 is outdated and paragraph 3.6 provides an acceptable solution. At question 3.2, the Strategic Objectives are still relevant for the LPR. Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (Section4) Question 4.1 provides 2 options While disagreeing with option 4.1(a) I agree with option 4.1(b). Options for the Distribution of Housing Growth (Section 5) Question 5.2 I support the options at 5.2 b,c and d but
West Coker Parish Council 10 Jan 2018

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 241
Under Location and Strategic Context paragraph 2.4 It appears that West Coker has been totally ignored. We are grouped together with other villages as a geographical area coming under the Yeovil Urban Area South Committee. This totally misses the point that West Coker and the other Hamstone Villages have specific needs and should be considered as a Primary Rural Community. In West Coker's case, the village should be considered as a "Hub" since it has unique facilities : a post office, Doctor's s
J H Perry 10 Jan 2018

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 246
As Chairman of the Dowlish Wake Parish Council and a lifelong inhabitant of the village I would like to make the following observations: 1. As a small rural village with poor road access and no public transport our village is not suitable for development other than infilling and on this basis it should not be included in the proposed new category of Villages. 2. As our village borders Ilminster we would be affected by the proposed inclusion of Shudrick Valley in the plan. We totally oppose thi
West Coker Parish Council 10 Jan 2018

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 244
8 Rural Centres At paragraph 8.1 West Coker should be added as a Rural Centre especially in view of the proposed areas of expansion. 13 Environmental Quality Question 13.1 I agree with the policy specifically with a view to preserving the Hamstone Village environment and the green and agricultural land. Paragraph 13.9 I would add that this has long been a priority of the SSDC and should continue to be such. paragraph 13.14 West Coker Parish Council is heavily involved with the protecting of
John Howard 07 Jan 2018

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 185
The haphazard expansion of the market towns seems to only be a boon for the owners of the land and the construction companies, not for the local residents. The proposal from Grass Roots Planning to build a Garden Town opposite Yeovilton seems to be a much more sensible idea and has my full support. It will allow the planners to have full scope in designing living spaces fit for the 21st century.
C Adams 06 Jan 2018

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 165
I, and many other residents are utterly opposed to any more large-scale housing developments tacked on to existing market towns. Surely some villages could take some new housing in proportion to their existing size? This could bring new life to many villages and help keep open schools. It is ludicrous to argue that this can't be done because 'developers only like to build on a large-scale and they can't make so much profit building on small plots in villages'. You are the planning authority and
D Lawson 02 Jan 2018

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 145
With reference to the SSDC local Plan I would like to support the suggested responsibility of smaller settlements to accommodate more housing growth, and by such enable the villages to accommodate viable local services and amenities. in particularly clause 5.27 and 5.28
SAJRF123 27 Dec 2017

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 144
Issues and Options Milborne Port Housing developments. From the information given MPort needs to supply 21 further houses. Some areas of land have been Helaa selected some have not, it would seem sensible to look at the Helaa selected first. Some provide easy access some are landlocked, again it would seem sensible to look at those that can provide access first. Some provide many more houses than required some provide more or less the required number [30] therefore again look at these first.
PalmerC 22 Dec 2017

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 143
Re: Langport Langport and Huish has already been subject to extensive development, often unsympathetic to the rural nature of the area and Huish's village setting. Amenities are suffering and the residents are exhausted by the continuous development. Any further plans for development should be limited and the impact on the local community given serious consideration. In terms of the plan, the direction of growth towards Wearne should be resisted and the planning authorities have only very re
Gerard 14 Dec 2017

Local Plan Review Issues and Options Regulation 18 Content

  • Comment ID: 82
Hi I wish to share an observation with regards to the Local Plan review. In the Langport area, the absence of additional commercial space is a real concern. If we are to create sustainable communities, it is imperative that space for employment is provided. Of the three biggest employers, one is retail, another education and the third in food processing. There is very little opportunity for the encouragement of small business growth, which is a real concern. The area identified for housing dev
Next pageLast page