PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN 2006-2028 - Aug 12

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

49 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Matt Horsley 05 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Introduction National Context National Context

  • Comment ID: 353
I object to paragraph 1.30 on the grounds that SSDC has demonstrated that they are not commited to communities producing Neighbourhood Plans. SSDC has refused East Coker Parish from starting their own Neighbourhood Plan until after the Local Plan is accepted. Also, SSDC have failed to take into account the adopted East Coker Parish Plan 2005 (which can be found on SSDCs website http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/322276/east_coker_parish_plan.pdf) in the development of the Local Plan.
Matt Horsley 05 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Environmental Quality Green Infrastructure Policy EQ5: Green Infrastructure

  • Comment ID: 354
I object to the Yeovil Urban Extension on the grounds that SSDC have not fully assessed that impact on the green infrastructure, particularly the loss of footpaths within the proposed development area. The proposed development will destroy approx. 2.5 miles of footpaths. This loss of footpaths will have a negative effect on the health and wellbeing of the residents of East Coker Parish, and will also have a negative effect on the number of visitors to the area, who come to walk and enjoy the cou
Matt Horsley 04 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Environmental Quality Addressing Climate Change in South Somerset Flood Risk Flood Risk

  • Comment ID: 350
I object to the Yeovil Urban Extension on the grounds that it does not fully consider the risks of flooding, especially due to it proposed location adjacent to an identified flood zone. I object to the location of the Urban Extension; though not proposed to build directly on the flood zone, the development will build up to the edge of the modelled zone. The development will increase surface run off and the risk of flooding will increase. There will be an associated level of error in the flood p
Matt Horsley 04 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Economic Prosperity Protection and Provision of Local Shops, Community Facilities and Services Policy EP15: Protection and Provision of Local Shops, Community Facilities and Services

  • Comment ID: 346
I object to the Yeovil Urban Extension on the grounds that it is in conflict with paragraphs 8.114 to 8.116 and thus policy EP15. SSDC have made no assessment of the impact of the Urban Extension on the local amenities of East Coker, Barwick and Stoford.
Matt Horsley 04 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Economic Prosperity Protection and Provision of Local Shops, Community Facilities and Services Policy EP15: Protection and Provision of Local Shops, Community Facilities and Services

  • Comment ID: 347
I object to the Local Plan on the grounds that SSDC have not followed paragraph 8.117 and consequently the Localism Act. SSDC have not consulted East Coker Parish to nominate assets of community value.
Matt Horsley 04 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Housing Empty Properties Empty Properties

  • Comment ID: 348
I object to the Local Plan on the grounds that it is not putting a high enough priority on using empty properties first before building new ones.
Matt Horsley 04 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Transport and Accessibility A Generic District wide Modal Shift Policy Low Carbon Travel Policy TA1: Low Carbon Travel

  • Comment ID: 349
I object to policy TA1 on the grounds that (with exception of point iii) it should be applied to all residential buildings in the district, not just new ones.
Matt Horsley 03 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Economic Prosperity Delivering Employment Land in the Countryside Expansion of Existing Businesses in the Countryside Policy EP4: Expansion of Existing Businesses in the Countryside

  • Comment ID: 342
I object that paragraph 8.40 is not being applied throughout the Local Plan. SSDC are not taking into account the many empty industrial units across the town, and are not prioritising these for filling before building new employment land.
Matt Horsley 03 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Economic Prosperity Delivering Employment Land in the Countryside Farm Diversification Policy EP5: Farm Diversification

  • Comment ID: 343
I object to the Local Plan and Urban Extension on the basis that they do not follow paragraph 8.44 and are in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework. This paragraph highlights the importance of food security and local produce, but the Urban Extension will be built almost exclusively on Grade 1 agricultural land, the most productive land possible. Once destroyed, the land can never be recovered.
Matt Horsley 03 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Economic Prosperity Delivering Employment Land in the Countryside Farm Diversification Policy EP5: Farm Diversification

  • Comment ID: 344
I do not understand how SSDC can dictate that farms cannot spoil the countryside by "unfettered development of an inappropriate and unwarranted nature", but then propose the Yeovil Urban Extension which will do just that. I object to the Yeovil Urban Extension on the grounds that it is the type of development that paragraph 8.46 and policy EP5 aims to protect against. Though these are referring to agricultural buildings, the principle is the same. It cannot be a rule for one, and a different for
Next pageLast page