The proposed housing density for the urban extension is considered to be too ambitious and not consistent with Garden City principles, hence the Plan as written for this reason as well as the others contained herein, is not deliverable

The proposed housing density for the urban extension is considered to be too ambitious and not consistent with Garden City principles, hence the Plan as written for this reason as well as the others contained herein, is not deliverable

The proposed housing density for the urban extension is considered to be too ambitious and not consistent with Garden City principles, hence the Plan as written for this reason as well as the others contained herein, is not deliverable

Charles Bishop Limited is a landowner within the proposed Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension, and supports the principle of Policy YV2. There are a number of comments and observations which we would like to set out in relation to Policy YV2 and the proposed scheme. Garden City Concept We support the garden city concept, and suggest that the concept would be more easily achievable in design terms if a proportion of the 40% greenspace proposal were included in private gardens. A cursory look at

The proposed housing density for the urban extension is considered to be too ambitious and not consistent with Garden City principles, hence the Plan as written for this reason as well as the others contained herein, is not deliverable

Paragraph 5.44 Support. However, we see no evidence that this standard has been adopted through the identification af the site allocation for the urban expansion.

5.41 to 5.45 I object on the grounds that the Council are presenting claims of sutainability whilst selectively omitting requirements of Central Government aspirations because such cannot be achieved to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Para. 5.41-5.45: Garden City Suburb: It is unclear which of these paragraphs applies to the urban extension, which to Summerhouse Village, which to other sustainable development and which to some combination of two or three of them. Para. 5.44: "standards ... should also be pursued where possible" This is vague - how will what is possible be judged? Para. 5.44: Bullet point 3: "access to one employment opportunity per household" Suggest "access to at least one employment opportunity..." Bulle

Para. 5.41 "however" Begins new sentence. "However" should begin with a capital letter and be preceeded by a full stop. Bullet point 3 "high usage levels of traffic": Suggest delete "usage" Bullet point 3 "retention of this standard": Suggest "adoption of this standard" Bullet point 4 "controlled": Suggest "constrained"

I object to paragraph 5.45 on the grounds that SSDC have attempt to hide the aspiration for an incinerator within the urban extension behind green buzzwords, such as "biomass generated" and "combined heat and power scheme". An incinerator would have a huge impact on the environment, and SSDC have failed to assess this in the Local Plan.