PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN 2006-2028 - Aug 12

Comment ID 2059
Document Section Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Environmental Quality Design/General Development Design/General Development Policy EQ2 View all on this section
Respondent East Coker Preservation Trust View all by this respondent
Agent Richard Burgess Associates (R…
Response Date 09 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 Effective
Comment

The Trust has no objection to policy in principle. However it is submitted that:-

  • The preservation of the landscape character of the area has not been properly addressed in the proposals for the Major Urban Extension
  • The local distinctiveness and local character of the area has not been been properly addressed in the proposals for the Major Urban Extension
  • The ‘local distinctiveness and local context’, or character of the area, has not been clearly defined and therefore it will be difficult to make sure this is retained, in reference to English Heritage guidance (2011) ‘Understanding Place: Character and context in local planning’
  • The cultural significance of the East Coker area has not been adequately considered in the selection of the Major Urban Extension site in the Keyford/East Coker area

  • All internationally or nationally designated habitat sites or species have not been adequately considered.
What changes do you suggest to make the DPD legally compliant or sound? The amendment/deletion of the site specific policies in the Plan to comply with the generic policies such as Policy EQ2

The Proposal for an Urban Extension on the south side of Yeovil is considered to pose a fundamental threat to the landscape, heritage and setting of this part of the rural environs of Yeovil; it is also considered to be unnecessary; to be based on incorrect calculations and assumptions both with regard to housing need, population growth and densities.

Furthermore the process whereby SSDC arrived at this area as their preferred location for urban growth is considered to be flawed and based on inadequate/incomplete evidence with regard to environmental, transportation, landscape and heritage impact both in itself and relative to other options. As such it is considered that the plan is fundamentally unsound and essential that the East Coker Preservation Trust’s professional representatives be allowed to participate fully in the Examination of the policies to which objection is made, including by means of cross examination of the Councils witnesses.
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: It is considered that the plan is fundamentally unsound and essential that the East Coker Preservation Trust’s professional representatives be allowed to participate fully in the Examination of the policies to which objection is made.
Attachments

Actions