4.36 This has the potential to clash with the intentions of localism. Each community would need to be in agreement with any proposal otherwise any control in the host community would be lost. Who judges the evidence to support such an approach? This statement should be removed as it has the potential to undermine local control in areas which are, by their nature, not strategic.

4.36 This has the potential to clash with the intentions of localism. Each community would need to be in agreement with any proposal otherwise any control in the host community would be lost. Who judges the evidence to support such an approach? This statement should be removed as it has the potential to undermine local control in areas which are, by their nature, not strategic.

I object to the following statement from the Local Plan: 4.35 Given that Policy SS2 is starting from the premise of no development unless certain conditions are met, the evidence for development being of a strong sustainable nature is particularly important to provide. Furthermore the local community are best placed to determine local need and what will make their settlement more sustainable and there will be an expectation that development proposals have either come from the local community, o

Objection. "4.32 Policy SS2 seeks to ensure the development needs of Rural Settlements can be met, whilst restricting the scale of such growth to be consistent with the spatial strategy of focussing most development at Yeovil, the Market Towns, and the Rural Centres." Except for East Coker which as a Rural Settlement will not have a life of its own but will be coerced into becoming a suburb of Yeovil. I point out that in your own words: "Given that Policy SS2 is starting from the premise of no d