It is considered unlikely that so many new jobs could be required (see para 3 above). The Yeovil Urban Extension does not seem necessary (see para 5 above). It is curious that there should be such a disparity between expected jobs per hectare in different locations; for example 66 jobs/ha in Yeovil Town and only 15/ha in Ilminster. The existing employment land commitments totalling 119.35 ha should suffice for the time being, with review every three to five years.

In landscape terms, the proposed direction of housing growth on the north facing slope of the Shudrick valley seems a very bad choice. It would make better sense for any housing growth to be based on land off Canal Way, in the area of the new medical centre and nearer to proposed employment, rather than spoil the exceptionally attractive entrance to the town on its east side. It seems that the Highways Authority does not consider that a new road from Shudrick Lane to Townsend, offered with the S

Policy HG9; Housing for Agricultural and related workers In general this policy is supported. It is considered that more consideration could be given to genuine attempts to establish small holdings than has often been the case in the past. This is becoming especially important because of the decision by Somerset County Council to sell its farms, which used to provide a valuable step for people starting a farming career. Policy HG10; Removal of Agricultural and other occupancy conditions This

Since it is considered that at least 3,000 can be deducted from the total housing provision, it follows that distribution of the new dwellings needs revision and the Yeovil urban extension would be unnecessary.

In general this policy is supported. It is however considered that farm diversification should be related to the management of a farm or the surrounding area. B & B accommodation for tourists, a farm shop selling local produce or adding value to to local produce (e.g. cheese or cider making) should be regarded as legitimate and worthwhile examples of farm diversification. Erection of a building for office use or non agricultural engineering work should be regarded as unacceptable.

This policy is welcomed. Concern must be expressed, regarding sustainable construction standards for new dwellings, over the wording "unless it is proven not to be feasible or viable". Either these standards are desirable or they are not and, assuming they are, there should be no exceptions except in the case of temporary low impact dwellings. It is also considered that arrays of photo voltaic panels should not be permitted on BMV agricultural land.

The policy of using previously developed land before releasing greenfield sites is supported.

This policy is supported.

Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land In the previous Local Plan there was a policy (EC1) to protect BMV land. This is missing from the LP and it is understood that SSDC considers the matter is covered by para 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Since population, nationally and worldwide, is growing, CPRE considers that, in the interests of food security, SSDC should give greater protection to agricultural land and have a presumption against development on BMV land. Lands

There is much with which CPRE is in agreement, starting with the principle of delivering sufficient jobs and homes whilst conserving natural and built environment, minimising need to travel and "addressing climate change" (para 1.16). Problems occur over definitions of what might be sufficient in existing and foreseen economic conditions.