PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN 2006-2028 - Aug 12

Comment ID 449
Document Section Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Market Towns - Vision and Proposals Primary Market Towns - Ilminster Spatial Portrait Ilminster - Spatial Portrait View all on this section
Respondent Jane Potts View all by this respondent
Response Date 07 Aug 2012
Do you consider the DPD is Legally Compliant?
Do you consider the DPD is Sound? No
If you have responded that the DPD is unsound, Do you consider the DPD is unsound because it is:
  • Not Justified
Comment
I write to expess my concerns about what is proposed for this beautiful South Somerset valley which is an area of natural unspoilt countryside.
The policy is unsound because I believe there has been insufficent and inefficient consultation with the public in Ilminster about the change from option 2 Canal Way to Option 1 Shudrick Valley for housing development and the proposed relief road - it was only seemingly discussed with the town council. The proposed Shudrick Valley site is a steeply sloped valley and and as a local resident who uses Townsend road at least twice daily I can attest to the degree of flooding that affects the area from the sloping run off which underpins the unsuitability for development whereas the South West Option 2 at Canal Way is on level land that already has been developed and presents no flooding issue. Option 2 at Canal way has enhanced suitability due to it's proximity to local healthcare facilities, the town of Ilminster itself, play areas, local amenities and oublic transport none of which exist at Option 1 Shudrick Valley. Also if the employment land at the Horlicks site is progressed, Option 2 Canal way better serves local people and local jobs given it has existing excellent road links in place such as A303 & A358, M5 etc.

The enviromental impact of developing Option 1 Shudrick Valley would be to displace many creatures who have already had upheaval when Tesco's was created, I have personally seen roe deer, badgers, foxes, woodpeckers, jays, buzzards (who nest there) and countless other creatures. The topography of Shudrick Valley is unreplaceable as a visual amenity for all - the various footpaths that have been well used by many local people attest to it's enviromental value, and as an area whihc has been afforded special landscape value in the past it is hard to understand how that can be disregarded when you walk amongst the mature trees (many of them oaks).

The land at Option 2 Canal Way belongs I believe to the County Council and its sale for the proposed development would be in the public interest in terms of releasing much needed public revenue whereas Option 1 Shudrick Valley would require the purchase of agriculture land which is farmed and has seen recent investment in the dairy and poultry units that exist there.

The other point that deeply concerns me is the traffic/transport impact of developing Option 1 Shudrick valley -the local roads in that area are small unclassified roads and the Townsend Road is already quite hazardous, adding extra volume through the proposed relief road and from the site development itself would be carnage - I walk down Townsend Road (which has no pavement) and sadly verges which are no longer maintained makes it a challenge now, it would become unavigable on foot or bicycle if the Option 1 development and relief road goes ahead.

In summary, I obejct to the development of option 1 Shudrick Valley because;

1. The site suitability

2.Transport issues

3.Enviromental 7 landscape impact

4. Flooding issues from the sloping site

5.Impact on the agriculture that exits there

6. The inadequacy of the consultation over the change of development from Option 2 Canal way to Option 1 Shudrick Valley

 

 

 

 

What changes do you suggest to make the DPD legally compliant or sound? Please revert back to the planned development previously identifed as the more sound alternative which was Option 2 canal way, it is evident this is a natural continuation of existing development, which has more to offer due to its proximity to existing local amenties, the physical site at option 2 is more suitable for transport links, it has no flooding implications, it would not destroy to the same degree the natural habitat of so many creatures so it's enviromental impact is the lesser of the two options and Option 2 Canal Way is clearly the more sound alternative and the only one which previously was identified by the District Council as being capable of sustained development - nothing has changed since that view was formed so I cannot support Option 1 Shudrick Valley and the proposed relief road being catapulted forward as the preferred option.
If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination? Yes
If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary: To ensure my objections and proposed alternatives are heard and understood fully
Attachments