PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN 2006-2028 - Aug 12

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

6 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Cllr M Fysh 10 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Introduction Evidence Base Evidence Base

  • Comment ID: 2296
  • Response Type: Object
Significant and relevant errors of fact and assumption within the evidence base, and problems with the methodology of assessment, have not been corrected or dealt with properly, despite them having been pointed out repeatedly during previous consultations and their importance emphasised. I would go so far as to say that this may show that South Somerset's process is disingenuous. One simple example is that the "preferred location" for a Yeovil Urban Extension is not in fact 2km from the town ce
Cllr M Fysh 10 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Introduction Evidence Base Evidence Base

  • Comment ID: 2297
  • Response Type: Object
Significant and relevant errors of fact and assumption within the evidence base, and problems with the methodology of assessment, have not been corrected or dealt with properly, despite them having been pointed out repeatedly during previous consultations and their importance emphasised. I would go so far as to say that this may show that South Somerset's process is disingenuous. One simple example is that the "preferred location" for a Yeovil Urban Extension is not in fact 2km from the town ce
Cllr M Fysh 10 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Introduction Evidence Base Evidence Base

  • Comment ID: 2298
  • Response Type: Object
Significant and relevant errors of fact and assumption within the evidence base, and problems with the methodology of assessment, have not been corrected or dealt with properly, despite them having been pointed out repeatedly during previous consultations and their importance emphasised. I would go so far as to say that this may show that South Somerset's process is disingenuous. One simple example is that the "preferred location" for a Yeovil Urban Extension is not in fact 2km from the town ce
Cllr M Fysh 10 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Introduction Evidence Base Evidence Base

  • Comment ID: 1927
  • Response Type: Object
Significant and relevant errors of fact and assumption within the evidence base, and problems with the methodology of assessment, have not been corrected or dealt with properly, despite them having been pointed out repeatedly during previous consultations and their importance emphasised. I would go so far as to say that this may show that South Somerset's process is disingenuous. One simple example is that the "preferred location" for a Yeovil Urban Extension is not in fact 2km from the town ce
JSnelling 10 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Introduction Evidence Base Evidence Base

  • Comment ID: 2454
  • Response Type: Object
Infringement of due process In formulating the SSDC's Core Strategy the SSDC failed to carry out due process in looking at all the options for development both in terms of scale and location of any required development. Particularly with regard to any development to the North. West and North East of Yeovil. The SSDC have failed to take into consideration that the Towns main infrastructure facilities all almost all located to the North of the Town. Roads, employment, retail, schools, bus route
Peter Cameron 18 Jul 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Introduction Evidence Base Evidence Base

  • Comment ID: 44
  • Response Type: Object
The projections are not sound. They are over inflated and not justified. I object to a plan that states that it needs 1565 homes but proposes an additional 1000 after the time period of a plan. The 2006-2028 plan should not be allowed to include years not within that date range. It can only encourage more developers buy up land in speculation of what might be.