The Local Plan Inspector requested South Somerset District Council to make appropriate modifications to Policy SS5 of the Local Plan to: "improve clarity regarding housing delivery in Crewkerne". This has not been achieved through the modifications proposed. The modifications do not focus on securing delivery of the existing Key Site allocation, which will be the main source of growth for the town. The Key Site delivery is overlooked with the focus of the policy modifications encouraging develop

I wish to OBJECT to 2 specific Main Modifications in Policy YV2 MM9 & MM10 . N Modification (MM9) on Landscape Mitigation measures for the NE Urban Extension to reduce the visual impact of the development. Is the Planning Inspector's recommendation to screen the NE option sound? The ESSENCE of the Main Modification seems to be that the Planning Inspector has directed that they must provide LANDSCAPE MITIGATION MEASURES to the NE site to protect things to the NW of that site, but he has NOT re

The concerns expressed in our previous representations that Growth Levels in Wincanton are too low, were clearly accepted by the Inspector iven the request within The Preliminary Findings for 'an early review of housing provision at Wincanton'. With reference to the proposed modification at Page 53, Policy SS5, we support the 'permissive approach' to consideration of 'directions of growth' at the Market Towns. However, given that Wincanton does not have a residential based 'Direction of Growth'

We would highlight that our comments to the previous consultation earlier in 2014 represent our relevant position, which we consider these policies to be sound. Our comments we as follows: Growth for Yeovil The principles of Climate Change Policy EQ1 should prevent inappropriate development being located in the Flood Risk areas through the application of National Planning Policy Frameworks Sequential Test. For the directions of growth through the strategic allocations there will need to be fu

The original purpose of the Buffer Zone was to provide clear separation between a large single urban extension to Yeovil, and the villages of East Coker and North Coker. The scale of the development now proposed to the south of Yeovil has been reduced from 2,500 to 800 dwellings, and the proposed built development is now sited in an area which the previous Inspector referred to on Page 459 of his June 2003 Report as follows: "I do not believe that development on this land would lead to actual

I object to this policy because it fails to comply with the NPPF, particularly paragraph 50 which promotes self-build now designated Custom Build housing. SSDC planning officers advise they have no means of acknowledging or accommodating Government directives to promote the provision of land for Custom Build constructions. No policy exists within the Main Modifications that complies with NPPF directives, NPPG interpretation, the Localism Act 2011 or any ministerial and central Government promo

I object to the removal of the buffer zone. It seems bizarre that the scenic and historic assets of the village of East Coker should not be protected by a buffer zone. If the initial plan to provide this cannot be retained may I suggest that the historic route known as Plackets Lane be the boundary of build expansion? This would serve a second and significant role as it would continue to allow the residents of the village and near area to access a direct route to Barwick and Stoford and the Y

Comment type-OBJECTION The proposed number of houses is the same as the existing East Coker Village. I believe the development if it happens in spite of all the local opposition should be smaller & the Buffer Zone remain or a legally sound Green Belt is established. The original idea was to restrict development to the area northeast of Placket Lane but already it has crept south of Placket Lane & there would be no barrier to the eventual coalition of the Town of Yeovil with the rural village of

Excessive encroachment into the fragile strip of open countryside between Yeovil on the one hand and Over Compton, Trent and Up Mudford on the other, to which must be added the adverse visual impact on these villages of the 'pig ugly' - quote, last Housing Minster, N Boles - sprawl along Lyde Road - NPPF 126 & 129. The project also totally conflicts with the Mudford Neighbourhood Plan which has almost complete community support, thus contravening Government Policy on Localism. The area designa

I object to the wording of the main modifications, which refer to Wincanton, as proposed, as they do not give sufficient clarity as requested by the inspector. SS5 Delivery of new housing growth. It has been agreed that Wincanton has had an over supply of housing in relation to its sustainability as a Market Town. Should there be a change, and provision for housing be needed, this will be addressed through a specific local plan amendment. There will also be a full review of employment and housi