Supporting Evidence

The Trusts evidence in respect of the proposed employment land allocation is set out under its objections to Policy SS3 but should also be considered relative to this policy. The Trusts objections with regard to housing need issues are set out in its objections to Policy SS4 and SS5 and should also be considered under this Policy.

The Trust would also submit (focussing site selection elements, transportation and Conservation and Heritage implications of the Policy) that the following major issues are of fundamental concern:-

1. Site Selection Objections

1.1 It is pointed out that the proposed Major Urban Extension site is almost exclusively Grade 1 agricultural land, whereas other sites considered in the process of determining the preferred growth strategy for Yeovil were of lower grades.

1.2 The Trust would also submit that the criteria by which the Keyford/East Coker site was selected was fundamentally flawed. Landscape consideration appear to have been based on the ‘Peripheral Landscape Study’ which states

"Urban Yeovil is well contained for much of its edge; hence no land is graded as low sensitivity. Conversely, much of this landscape is well maintained, and expresses the distinctive characteristics noted by both the national and local studies. Where urban presence is not pervasive, the larger part of this sub-zone is thus graded high sensitivity. There are then two peripheral area that do not make this grade: First are those fields to the sides of ‘Inglemount’ off the West Coker Road, where boundaries have been removed, or hedges degraded by poor management, and suburban style homes intrude into the field pattern, yet lay outside the urban edge. These negative elements thus determine a ‘moderate’ grading. The second and larger area is a block of land to the south of the ‘Lower Wraxhill’ residential area, to both sides of the East Coker road, and by the Dorchester Road as far south as Keyford, and east toward Barwick. This area is also graded moderate for similar reasons; extensive hedgerow removal; lack of tree presence; sporadic groups of non-traditional houses; and detracting urban elements such as prominence of the housing edge; and the lighting associated with the residential edge, rugby club ground, and the A37 road corridor, whose

5 influence pervades beyond its immediate location due to the loss of landscape fabric." (SSDC PLS para 4.9)

1.3 However in ‘The Landscape of South Somerset: 1993 page 42’ the East Coker site is described by SSDC itself as follows:- "this site lies outside the main setting of the town, and is not perceived as being within an urban context. In its wider rural setting, where the land has a higher visual profile; abuts the open countryside; and is in close proximity to adjacent village edges..." (SSDC PLS para 8.6)

1.4 It is submitted that the landscape characterisation and assessment of the East Coker site is fundamentally flawed. The pervading characteristics of the area are those of deep, leafy lanes, agriculture and traditional architecture which is primarily of local stone. Whilst there are a few modern houses, they represent minor punctuations rather than a prime element determining the local character.

1.5 The larger fields in the East Coker area are the result of modern farming methods. This change is not irreversible, unlike the construction of 2,500 houses and other proposed development. Farms within the Dorset AONB nearby have similar field patterns, and these lie within what is considered to be a valuable and protected landscape. The land is very fertile and so the re- establishment of hedges and trees on boundaries could be easily undertaken.

1.6 The A37 is set low in the landscape and does not have a significant visual influence over the area.

1.7 It is also submitted that the options selection process appears to be flawed (SSLP Paras 5.29 and 30). The initial selection was on the basis of the Peripheral Study. However SSDC then ignored agricultural and landscape constraints. In the Trusts submission some of the sites omitted on landscape grounds under the initial sieving process should then have been reconsidered.

1.8 The site selection process appears to have been adjusted to come up with a development site to the south of Yeovil and near East Coker. It would indeed appear that SSDC’s examination of constraints initially failed to provide a clear answer to the question ‘which is the best option for a new urban extension (SSLP 5.29). As a result it appears they omitted agricultural land and landscape as factors. This resulted in SSDC selecting the currently proposed area despite the increasing trend nationally, and in every other local authority,

6 to give landscape and nature conservation the status of important material considerations in determining appropriate development. (Reference SSLP p70)

1.9 It is also submitted that there is considerable doubt as to whether the same measures were adopted for other potential sites around Yeovil or other settlements. In particular, the issue is whether the visibility of the East Coker site is actually less severe than that of sites which were rejected (as was stated). It can be seen in many views to the south from the A37 for over 9 kilometres, as far as a lay-by near Hazel Farm, Evershot. This location and, it is suspected, many more within the Dorset AONB will be compromised by the development. There is of course no AONB to the north of Yeovil and as such urban extensions in that direction would be unconstrained by such a consideration.

1.10 The Trust would submit that other potential sites, identified as available and viable within the Plan period through SSDC’s SHLAA process, with the capacity to more than meet the housing requirement, and having the ability to score highly against all sustainability criteria, have been excluded from consideration without justification. Further, the great majority of these sites are better located for access to existing infrastructure, are on lower grade land with less landscape and heritage sensitivity. They also benefit from being located close to existing and allocated employment areas and better inherent sustainable transport potential.

1.11 Finally it is submitted that such sites as that proposed near Wyndham Park by the Abbey Manor Group Ltd. would be easier to develop, be less resource hungry in infrastructure terms; provide more planning advantage in terms of meeting deficiencies in existing community provision and take less valuable agricultural land.

1.11 Indeed a more objective view of the site constraints surrounding Yeovil is portrayed in the attached Plan (David Scragg Associates Plan 421.1).Using SSDCs own criteria this clearly produces a clear picture that areas to the north of Yeovil are considerably less constrained than those to the south.

Plan 421.1 (Appendix 1) illustrates this analysis.

1.12 Similarly at a more detailed scale David Scragg Associates drawing 421.2 (Appendix2) illustrates the environmental and heritage issues in the Keyford/East Coker area (as well as the rich network of lanes and footpaths in the area). Again the conclusion can only be that the proposed Urban Extension has had insufficient regard to the Heritage Assets in the area

7

2. Land Take and Density Issues

2.1 It is noted that the Landscape Study states

"At the Nash/Keyford site, an area of 105 ha is identified with housing potential. It is already noted that this area has some potential for high densities, both within the core of a housing allocation, and in places where abutting the urban edge. Yet this site lies outside the main setting of the town, and is not perceived as being within an urban context. In its wider rural setting, where the land has a higher visual profile; abuts the open countryside; and is in close proximity to adjacent village edges (with their acknowledged sensitivities) there is a strong case for a reduction in the housing densities, to thus enable a comfortable correspondence with the wider landscape.(our highlighting) Given site context and extent, a landscape-led urban layout would be unlikely to support housing mass exceeding 40 dph..." (SSDC PLS para 8).

2.2 However the area of land shown in the Local Plan amounts to 136.9ha which reduces to 82.2ha if 40% is given over to green space as stated. (SSDC LP para 5.41). This further reduces by about 23ha if the land envisaged for employment, schools and a local centre is deducted. The remaining developable land would yield 2368 dwellings at 40/ha.

2.3 It is also submitted that the proposed Major Urban Extension as shown on the Local Plan map is somewhat deceptive because it includes a remote area at Perry's Hill and implies that all land which has no other policy designation is available for the development. This achieves an area which totals 148.5ha, and is similar to that reported to the relevant SSDC committee in April 2012. However, if land already occupied by dwellings is excluded (11.6ha) then the total land available for the extension drops to 136.9ha.

2.4 The Local Plan then gives a new set of figures for land take as follows:

Total area: 136.9ha

Employment: 11.0ha (increased from 23.4.12)

Education: 6.8ha (one secondary school- assumed to require 6.4ha (assumed land take from Building Bulletin 98) and two primary schools instead of one - 2x0.2ha (assumed land take from Building Bulletin 99)

Local centre: 1.1ha

8 Housing+roads: 55.5ha (2500 at 45/ha is significantly higher than Garden City standards which are 30/ha and would require 83.3ha)

Green space: 62.5ha (45%) or 34.7ha (25% at 30 houses/ha)

2.5 It is worth noting that the satellite area to the west and isolated from the main site somewhat undermines the idea of a single discrete, sustainable community.

3. Density & Urban Form Issues

3.1 It is submitted that • there is insufficient land suitable for development to the south east of Yeovil to achieve a garden city suburb. The area proposed in the Local Plan has required a compromise on landscape and agricultural land quality to achieve sufficient land and has had to assume a high density development of 45 dwellings per hectare (by comparison Cranbrook outside Exeter uses a figure of 25dpha for planning purposes (Source EDDC Local Plan)

• The urban extension is said to be going to be developed to ‘garden city ’ principles. The land allocated is sufficient to accommodate a housing density of 45dw per hectare ‘to make economic use of the land’ (para 5.33). Poundbury Phase 2 which has a high proportion of flats and town houses is being built at a density of 48 dw/ha with minimal private garden space and is not what would generally be considered a garden city. It is likely that more land would be required than can be found at the southern extension to create a garden city suburb. On the site proposed, the urban extension, if it is to accommodate the no of dwellings required by the policy, would have to be a high density development with a high proportion of flats.

• In addition the potential for large, monolithic buildings in the employment and sports facilities would introduce further alien features to the local landscape. These are already present in the centre and north of the town. It is especially of concern that terms like " subject to viability " are used because this already admits that there is likely to be little control over the built form when a developer pleads affordability.( SSDC LP p76)

• The Peripheral Landscape Study did in fact advise that employment uses are restricted to lower land. This is not reflected in the map presented to

9 the committee on 23 April 2012 and does not recognise that the site can be seen from the A37 and that larger buildings such as factories and schools will be visible for many kilometres to the south. (SSDC Committee report 23.4.12: Draft Indicative Masterplan)

4. Alternative sites considered 4.1 In consideration of alternative sites SSDC concluded in respect of land to the north east of Yeovil, "This option has some landscape benefit, but is not the favoured option. A combined allocation has the capacity to provide up to 4500 houses, but this number falls short of the 6500-7000 housing projection, and thus still requires the development of further sites..."

4.2 This alternative site has greater capacity to provide houses than the East Coker site and is similarly graded in terms of landscape value by SSDC. Other sites have been discounted despite being of similar capacity and having fewer landscape constraints. For example, Land to the east of Yeovil (Option iii), "This combined area does have a series of significant constraints: Whilst not landscape constraints..." (SSDC PLS para 8.1)

4.3 Land to the north of Yeovil (Option iv) was discounted because

"the complete detachment of this primarily rural area from the town does not enable built expression to read as an urban extension, but as a satellite settlement." This was, of course, the original vision for real Garden Cities. The option was rejected on landscape grounds because, "provision of commensurate landscape mitigation sufficient to enable employment form to be suitably accommodated in a rural setting is unlikely to be feasible in economic terms." This is surely the case for the East Coker site also. (SSDC PLS para 8.15)

4.4 Land to the north of Lufton was rejected on landscape grounds because

"the detachment of this predominantly rural area from the prime setting of the town does not enable built expression to read as a cohesive urban extension. Land on the south and east fringes also has a significant degree of prominence as viewed from valued public vantage points to the west and north, and the area includes sensitive land that reflects the value of both the Thorne Coffin Conservation Area, and the wider setting of Montacute House and its Historic Park. As the wider setting is clearly rural, with adjacent land graded as having a

10 low landscape capacity for development, and mindful that there is land elsewhere with sufficient landscape capacity to provide a contiguous urban extension to Yeovil, this option is not advocated by this study." (SSDC PLS para 8.16)

4.5 Precisely the same reasons could be given for rejecting the East Coker site. Development of the site would impact views from many key vantage points to the south, including affecting the settings of Grades 1 and 2* listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the A37 and Dorset AONB. At present only a small area of Wraxall can be seen from these locations and, as such, has a low visual impact because of the size of buildings and scale of the visible part of the settlement. Most of Yeovil is masked by topography from this direction, and so "contiguity" is mainly only observed in plan form, rather than experienced by observers in the landscape.

4.6 The submission Local Plan removed landscape and agricultural constraints from the site selection process. (SSDC LP para 5.30). There appears to be no evidence that sites rejected on landscape grounds earlier in the process were reinstated for consideration after this decision was taken.

5. Transportation issues

5.1 The Trust would submit the following points, having had regard to the advice of its consultants and having reviewed to the work previously undertaken by consultants acting for South Somerset District Council and the advice of the Highways Agency and Somerset County Council as highways authority.

5.2 Previous work commissioned by SSDC included an independent study into the potential impact of an Urban Extension consisting of 3,719 dwellings and 23 hectares of employment for six location options listed below: • Option 1 - Lufton West • Option 2 - Combe Street Land • Option 3 - East Yeovil & Over Compton • Option 4 - East Coker, Keyford & Barwick • Option 5 - Brympton and Coker • Option 6 - East Coker and Keyford 5.3 Subsequent assessment was undertaken for an urban extension of 2,500 dwellings and 13.5 hectares of employment for the following additional options:

11 • Option 7 - Lufton West • Option 8 - Lufton West • Option 9 - East Coker, Keyford & Barwick • Option 10 - Lufton West.

5.4 Options 7, 8 & 10 involve the Urban Extension being located to the north-west of Yeovil at Lufton West, in the same position as Option 1. Coupled with the reduced land use proposals, all three options have different highway access assumptions.

5.5 Option 9 is a new reduced scale southern Yeovil option which is an amalgam of Option 4 – East Coker, Keyford & Barwick and Option 6 – East Coker and Keyford.

5.6 For ease of reference, the site location options are provided below.

12

5.7 All options considered three levels of sustainable transport success:

• A) 'conventional (non-eco) traffic' – 70% of all trips originating from the Urban Extension are by private car • B) 'partial eco success' – 60% of all trips originating from the Urban Extension are by private car • C) 'eco success' - 50% of all trips originating from the Urban Extension are by private car

5.8 It was concluded by Parsons Brinckerhoff that transportation could not be used in isolation from other planning matters to determine the most appropriate location for the eco urban extension.

5.9 A key aspect of the Eco-urban extension is the desire for a modal share target of 50% of all trips originating from the development by non-car modes. This target will then increase over time to 60%.

5.10 As an ambitious target, success will require a combination of a well located development site and an effective travel plan. In addition, a modal split of this standard will require significant sustainable transport infrastructure improvements to be in place prior to development to prevent travel patterns becoming entrenched. This is highly unlikely as developers

13 would have to provide such infrastructure up front before development revenue is generated.

5.11 It is apparent from an initial review of the report (produced by Parsons Brinckerhoff for SSDC) that the infrastructure costs are incorrect and incomplete. Development to the south of Yeovil has been misleadingly shown to be a cheaper option than others, most notably Option 7. This is due to an inconsistent approach to the costings exercise whereby Option 7 makes provision for a 7.3m wide distributor road, whilst no such works are considered for a southern option. 5.11 Previous correspondence has highlighted the errors in this report which included. A summary of the keys points include:

• Calculations errors; • Omission of some required works; • Justification for alternative access proposals; and • Double counting issues where existing infrastructure works are scheduled to take place with a budget in place.

5.12 It is concluded that this report should not have been relied upon when assessing merits for the preferred sustainable urban extension site location until the issues discussed above were rectified.

5.13 Further work was done by Parsons Brinckerhoff in response to concerns about the initial report. However, it is evident that there are many flaws and inconsistencies that prevent appropriate conclusions being made about the most suitable UE option. 5.14 It is stated within the report (para 1.1.16) that: “the indicative access arrangements have been chosen to ensure that all Urban Extension generated traffic can get onto the road network without a problem, ensuring that the full traffic impacts of each option is captured by the traffic model. Further refinement of the access proposals will be required as the proposals progress through the planning process.”

5.15 It is apparent that the costings produced to date are based on loosely surmised access arrangements which are subject to change and may not be deliverable due to engineering difficulties. Revision of these access locations will dramatically alter the infrastructure costs.

14 For example there were certain assumptions about the access for the Lufton West site. In fact however there is justification for providing an access roundabout for the Lufton West site at a more easterly location on the A3088 than currently accounted for. This will result in significant cost savings.

5.16 It is strongly recommended that off-site highway works are also considered in a revised comprehensive comparative cost exercise. This would be far more representative and appropriate as it will take into account capacity issues and the cost of mitigation works, such as those that will be required at Hendford Hill and its roundabout junction with the A3088 Lysander Road. It is worth stressing that the Hendford Hill arm of this junction is shown to have the greatest capacity issues of all the junctions under test, thus highlighting the existing strain on the highway network to the south of Yeovil.

5.16 It is therefore considered inappropriate to use the current forecasted work costs to determine the most appropriate site for a sustainable urban extension; a robust and viable comparative measure is essential to ensure that the true costs of each option is realised.

6 The sustainability credentials of the Proposed Urban Extension relative to discounted options

6.1 The Parsons Brinckerhoff report provides a qualitative assessment of the potential for sustainable travel from each of the UE options (Table 3-2). Lufton West is not, as stated, 6km from the town centre. The centroid is in fact approximately 4.2km from the town centre. DfT LTN 01-04 states: “There are limits to the distances generally considered acceptable for utility walking and cycling. The mean average length for walking journeys is approximately 1 km (0.6 miles) and for cycling, it is 4km (2.4 miles), although journeys of up to three times these distances are not uncommon for regular commuters.” 6.2 Furthermore, cycle charity SUSTRANS (ref: how to promote walking and cycling at work) state that: “The definition of ‘within walking or cycling distance’ is not a fixed one. The recommended minimum amount of weekly physical activity for an adult is 5 units of 30 minutes. It could be said therefore that a comfortable walking or cycling distance is one that takes up to 30 minutes for an individual. A very rough guide would be up to 2 miles

15 for walking and up to 5 miles for cycling, but this will vary greatly depending on individual ability and preference.” 6.4 There are also multiple traffic-free cycle routes in West Yeovil which could be linked to an UE in this area thus providing an attractive route to nearby facilities and amenities. The favourable topography of Yeovil along the East-West corridor (to be discussed later) would further promote this method of sustainable travel.

6.5 It is therefore concluded that the Lufton West is within acceptable cycle distance from key facilities and amenities within Yeovil and therefore has far greater scope for achieving sustainable transport success than has previously been considered.

6.6 Another incorrect observation, which has persisted throughout the Parsons Brinckerhoff assessments, is that the southern Yeovil options are considered to have “relatively flat terrain” which is will help encourage walking and cycling. In fact, quite the opposite is true, particularly along Hendford Hill which is a key route of any southern UE proposal and has a very steep gradient that is non-inducive to cycling. Reference is made to Somerset County Council’s Yeovil Transport Strategy Review which concludes the following (para 4.105 - 4.107 and Figure 4-1): “The steepest hill is clearly on the south west side of the town (Hendford Hill) where the land rises approximately 40m at a gradient of approximately 10%. The plan shows that the areas within 10m of the town centre are along an east-west corridor with key roads including Preston Road, A3088 Lysander Road and the A30 Sherborne Road (and along Lyde Road) largely following, rather than crossing, contours. It is also important to consider other corridors away from the town centre where there may be large numbers of car trips. These were identified in the Baseline Review of Transport Conditions where it was shown that one of the largest movements is between the north east area of Yeovil and the Houndstone area. This corridor follows the 80m contour and should also be considered as potentially attractive for cycling. There is likely to be little demand for cycling along any north-south corridor as there are significant changes in gradient on all routes. Therefore, any improvements to the cycle network should be concentrated on the east-west corridors identified above.”

16 7. Issues with the selected Urban Extension site

7.1 The qualitative assessment for achieving increased sustainable transport use contained in the Parsons Brinckerhoff report (Table 3-2), by its very nature, is far too subjective as it serves to provide an “implied best achievable traffic scenario” that is contradictory to other evidence within the report. For example, paragraph 3.1.5 identifies cycling and public transport improvements as having the greatest scope for reducing dependence on private car travel (3% and 2.6% respectively).

7.2 However, options to the south of Yeovil are clearly not supportive of these sustainable modes of travel due to the aforementioned prohibitive topography, which will act as a barrier to the adoption of cycling, and the constraints of Hendford Hill which prevents scope for bus improvements, such as dedicated lanes. Any improved bus service will suffer significant delays resulting from the identified capacity issues at the Hendford Hill/A3088 Lysander Road roundabout (for example, there is a typical RFC of 106% on Hendford Hill during the AM peak for all options), which will cause a significant obstacle to achieving eco success to the south of Yeovil.

7.3 It is therefore concluded that a Major Urban Extension to the south of Yeovil is likely to achieve a conventional (non-sustainable) traffic scenario, which is not appropriate for the aspirations of the development, and would be contrary to Policy SS6, YV2, YV6, TA1, TA3 and TA5 of the Submission Local Plan.

8. Comparative highway network performance

17 8.1 When discussing the impact of the various UE options on the Yeovil road network, the Parsons Brinckerhoff report concludes that “there is little difference in terms of traffic impact between the sites and that background traffic growth is the major contributor to deterioration of highway network performance” (para: 0.3.1).

8.2 The Trust’s consultants do however advise that • a different perspective could distinguish a significant difference in the results provided in Figure 4-1. This highlights further subjective conclusions and would benefit from the consideration of ‘value of time’ and the cost of this lost time to the economy. • It is also noted from Figure 4-1 that the reference case has the best overall performance of all the Urban Extension options, indicating that the theory of collective gains resulting from the concentration of development in an UE will not materialise. • To the contrary, it would seem that the focus of development in a particular area will have a detrimental impact to the rest of Yeovil, in transport terms, in comparison to a more dispersed development strategy. • It is also noted that Table 4-2 contains some miscellaneous results which call into question the validity of the data. The most apparent relates to Option 9 for the inter-peak period (inbound). With no eco-success, route F has a journey time of -9 seconds over the reference case; with partial eco-success, this improves significantly to -57 yet falls to -6 for full eco-success. • There are further anomalous results which call into question the validity of the analysis. It is also noted that there are significant falls in traffic between the surveyed 2007 flows and the 2026 scenario on Queensway, Dorchester Road and Hendford Hill which remain anomalous and unexplained. • In the conclusion, an indices table (Table 8-2) is shown, which represents the combination of journey time and junction capacity (incorporating morning, inter and evening peak hours). Despite each of the previous indicators for the various Urban Extension options having been considered to vary insignificantly, it is concluded here that “Option 2 is seen to perform markedly worse than the other sites and as such can probably be discounted from further consideration” (para: 8.1.3). This appears to be an inappropriate deduction, as it is entirely feasible that when a full multi-modal assessment is undertaken Option 2 could prove to be the most efficient. For example, there is an existing traffic-free cycle route that would connect the site with the facilities and

18 amenities of Yeovil town centre which would inevitably act as a huge incentive to travel via this mode of transport, especially due to the favourable topography previously highlighted.

9. The need for further assessment 9.1 The Trusts transportation consultants concur with paragraph 8.3.3 of that report which states that “SSDC may wish to undertake further work to help them move towards identifying a preferred location for the Urban Extension. This could involve considering how to implement sustainable travel measures from each site and the costs of infrastructure associated with providing access into the site and connectivity to the main centres of activity in Yeovil.” 9.2 They also consider that it is apparent that the studies to date place too much emphasis on barriers to private car travel rather than opportunities for sustainable travel. It is also evident that there are no obvious candidates based purely on private motor vehicle highway network performance, nor sustainable travel opportunities. It is considered essential that a comprehensive analysis of walking, cycling and public transport opportunities is undertaken, for each of the development options.

10. Broader Planning & Transportation Considerations

10.1 It has already been indicated above that SSDC have had insufficient regard to the physical constraints preventing the provision of adequate green transport links to the proposed Major Urban Extension. Hendford Hill is a key route for any southbound extension since it provides the main route to the Town Centre and other important facilities eg the Hospital, college etc. Available width is limited which will prevent mitigation of negative traffic impacts. Width restraints will also prevent installation of dedicated bus and cycle lanes, both of which were highlighted by their own advisors as being crucial components to achieving sustainable transport success. Hendford Hill is also very steep and its gradient limits use by many walkers and cyclists.

10.2 Again the comparison with Poundbury in Dorchester is relevant .There the main radial route into the town centre and passing the County Hospital is on much easier gradients. Nevertheless car dependency remains high.

19 10.3 European experience with ‘green’ transport frequently quotes Freiburg in Germany. There Melia reports that

‘Of the households in Vauban without a car (just under half), most gave the car up on moving there. No attempt has been made to balance jobs with housing in Vauban itself, but around three quarters of the working population cycles to work.8 Much of Freiburg is relatively flat, but it is surrounded by the mountains of the Black Forest, whose lower slopes merge with some of the suburbs’ (Source S. Melia UWE ‘Ecotowns and Permeability: are the new Urbanists leading us down a cul-de-sac?’)

Melia basically advocates car free neighbourhoods, a comprehensive network of cycleways and good public transport as essential requirements if car useage is to be reduced.

10.4 In the Trusts submission the policies and proposals for the Yeovil Major Urban Extension fail to meet these requirements in that they lack any clear proposals for walkway and cycleway routes linking the main employment areas and the town centre with the urban extension. Priority public transport routes and mechanisms for their provision are also lacking. Indeed the location chosen makes such provision inherently difficult and almost bound to fail. As a result the proposals will simply produce high density surburban housing with heavy traffic generation.

10.5 In addition transport routes directly from East Coker and through the proposed Major Urban Extension, which are residential streets, will experience capacity issues. Sustainable transport improvement options along these links are difficult and will result in increased accident risk.

10.6 The report acknowledges that more detailed costing of the transport improvements to each option is required to form an accurate conclusion as to the preferred urban extension site. The viability of each site has not been assessed, despite the suggestion that the deliverability of sustainable transport improvements is the key to their success.

10.7 Again a comparison with Poundbury is relevant. There some 20 years after the first inhabitants moved in a sustainable electric bus service has indeed been introduced. However this has required Bus Grant towards the Capital cost and subsidy from The Duchy of Cornwall, Dorset County Council (who operate the busses) and West Dorset District Council (Source: Dorset for You website 6th July 2012)

20 10.8 It is also submitted that it is not appropriate to rely on facilities, such as electric buses, arriving after the plan period. Once people have lived there for some time the use of private transport will have become established and changes in travel behaviour much more difficult to achieve. The experience at Poundbury is relevant here where Oxford Brookes University found that car useage rates were higher than in rural West Dorset). This issue is of course especially problematic in Yeovil which already has a high private transport user rate.

11. The views of the Highways Agency 11.1 SSDC seem to have been significantly influenced by the view attributed to the Highways Agency that the further away from the trunk road network any major urban extension was the better. 11.2 The Highways Agency (HA) acknowledged in their February 2012 letter that whilst initial favour was towards a southern Yeovil urban extension due the perceived lesser impact on the strategic road network, further work was requested to clarify this. This additional work consisted of:

• Analysis of the Tintinhull junction with the A303; and • Select link analysis for all urban extension options to understand the level of additional trip making on the A303 to validate the evidence provided to date that development to the north of Yeovil will not have a greater impact on the A303 than a southern Yeovil urban extension.

11.3 The HA subsequently confirmed (letter to SCC dated 4th April 2012) that their requests had been adequately addressed and that having reviewed this, the southern Yeovil urban extension options were more favourable:

“In summing up, our view is that options to the south and east of Yeovil are located in more sustainable location and therefore on highway capacity grounds (SRN) these should be promoted ahead of other urban extension locations”.

11.4 Firstly, it should be noted that the former request within the February 2012 letter does not appear to have been completed. No analysis of the Tintinhull junction with the A303 has been undertaken (see Figure 5-2 of Parsons Brinckerhoff Non – Technical Forecasting Addendum Report 2 – Final).

11.5 Secondly, the result of the Parsons Brinckerhoff analysis clearly demonstrates that the additional analysis undertaken shows no difference

21 between the development options. For example, the A3088/A303 Cartgate Roundabout analysis (P.42 of Parsons Brinckerhoff Non – Technical Forecasting Addendum Report 2 – Final) concluded that:

“for all arms of the junction and both time periods assessed, the option scenario results are generally consistent with those generated for the reference case”.

11.6 Furthermore, the ‘link flow results’ within the Parsons Brinckerhoff report showed consistent PCUs on the A303 (eastbound and westbound) for all development options.

11.7 With the above in mind, and indeed in the face of the evidence presented as to the lack of sustainability of the southern Urban Extension option it is incomprehensible that the HA favours development to the south of Yeovil and, as such, this view is strongly contested.

12. Current Government Policy re sustainable communities

12.1 As can be seen from the quotations from a number of the initial reports /assessments of the proposed Urban Extension this was initially conceived when (the previous) government policy favoured ‘Ecotowns’. This concept did not survive the change in Government and the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) which now advocates the concept of ‘sustainable development’

12.2 As part of the Core Planning Principles in that document (Para16) it states LPAs should:- ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; ‘

12.3 The NPPF also states at Para52 ‘The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities’.

12.4 This is of course the reason that SSDC have changed the terminology from ‘ecotown’ to ‘sustainable urban extension’.

22 It is submitted however that a change of name does not alter in any way the poor sustainability credentials of the proposed site.

13. A wider perspective on Yeovil’s sustainable development options

13.1 It is suggested that a wider view than has currently been in evidence needs to be taken i.e. the question should be asked as to which location would best link with and minimise no of journeys/journey time/length and have the best prospects and inherent potential to expand non private car journeys e.g. foot, cycle /public transport? For example which locations could relatively easily be connected by attractive, direct and gently graded cycleways to the main employment zones and the town centre?

• More fundamentally the option selection process does not seem to have answered satisfactorily the question ‘which location would best serve Yeovil’s ambitions to attract inward investment and jobs and reduce dependency on private car travel’?

13.2 An examination of other cities/major town strategies indicates that they have not allowed the alleged views of the Highways Agency to unduly constrain their thinking e.g. Exeter has encouraged major inward investment between the city centre and the M5 and adjacent to A 30 (East of the city) –the Exeter & East Devon Growth Point- and successfully attracted major incoming employers as a result e.g. the Met Office; EDF. They have also promoted jointly with EDDC the Cranbrook New Town, which is well located relative to both the M5, the A30 and the airport thereby taking advantage of both market demands for well located sites and previous public investment in infrastructure.

14. Land Use and Infrastructure Issues

14.1 It is submitted that the following factors should also have been given more weight by SSDC:- • Existing secondary school provision is located to the north of the town; it is submitted that it would be a more efficient use of existing educational resources, particularly during the early phases of any major urban extension (if required at all) when housing is likely to be completed on the site before a new secondary school could be justified, to locate new housing sites on that side of Yeovil. • It is noted that a broad Class ‘B’ range of uses is referred to in the policy; It is submitted this should be restricted to Classes B1 and B8 to ensure

23 good neighbour employment uses. (This is the approach adopted at Poundbury; HRH The Prince of Wales’ Major Urban Extension at Dorchester) • It is of concern to ECPT that the employment allocation will simply change/degenerate into retail warehouses (normally ‘viability’ arguments are used to justify this). This would both undermine the transportation assessment, the concept of a sustainable development and have unfortunate and unjustifiable landscape impacts on what is currently the most visually satisfactory approach to Yeovil. It is submitted that if contrary to the Trust’s basic position that the Major Urban Extension is unacceptable and the employment land unnecessary and undesirable on landscape impact grounds, it is permitted to proceed in whole or in part an appropriate clause should be inserted in an s106 Agreement preventing retail uses within the employment zones. • It is also the Trusts view that the fact that a very large proportion of the proposed dwellings are planned for outside the plan period indicate that the need for the Major Urban Extension is increasingly marginal. • The Trust is also concerned that the policy lacks clarity as to who is expected to meet the capital cost of the primary and secondary schools. Is the developer expected to donate the land or pay the total cost? Is Somerset CC prepared to meet the construction costs? It is submitted that given the likely spare capacity in rural schools (and populations projections for South Somerset’s villages indicate that this will be an increasing problem) it would be better/more cost effective to devise a housebuilding strategy to use that capacity rather than commit (non existent/scarce) public resources to this.

15. Heritage Issues

15.1 Compliance with National Policy re Heritage Assets The National Planning Policy Framework states that “Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment…In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. (NPPF para 126)

15.2 An important part of the enjoyment of a heritage asset is the setting in which it is located. The urban extension will significantly damage the setting of a number of designated heritage assets.

24 The English Heritage document ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets 2011’ states that “An important aspect of setting is the opportunity it affords people to appreciate the significance of a heritage asset, now or in the future”. The significance of a heritage asset can only be determined by evaluation and assessment of the resource.

15.3 There has been relatively few investigations carried out on sites such to assess them and put them in context of their surroundings and hinterlands. Any development within the proposed area would have the potential to irrevocably damage the setting of the Roman assets identified in the ‘Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil Periphery’ descriptions.

15.4 Policy SD1 indicates that development needs to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions. However, the ability for the council to judge this is limited because the evidence base used to assist the decision making is not compatible with the National Planning Policy Framework and the English Heritage guidance, particularly The Setting of Heritage Assets. However the ‘Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil Periphery’ report was based on outdated heritage policies. Current planning policy places a greater emphasis on setting and significance of heritage assets than has been afforded in the evidence base. Any consideration on land use in relation to heritage assets needs to be related to the NPPF, to enable the council to make an adequate judgement. Based on the current ‘Historic Environment Character Assessment of Yeovil Periphery', this is not possible.

15.5 The National Planning Policy Framework also states that

“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. “(NPPF Para 132)

15.6 The proposed development area includes a Scheduled Ancient Monument north of Cumnock’s Lane (List entry ID 1003029) described as a Roman Villa, as well as the route of a Roman Road to the east of the area. A

25 further Roman Villa, Chessels Roman Villa (List entry ID 1006186), is located 1.25km to the west of the western boundary of the proposed development area. Neither of these sites have been scientifically investigated in modern times. Moreover, this area has the densest population of Late Roman villas in the country (Dr James Gerard pers. comm).

15.7 A geophysical survey undertaken on the site of the Roman villa at Lufton (List entry ID 1006159) to the north of Yeovil recorded a high density of sub- surface anomalies which have been interpreted as representing archaeological features associated with human settlement activity. The results of the survey therefore indicate a rich and diverse archaeological landscape. Roman sites were often situated on pre-existing prehistoric sites, and there is therefore potential for a several phases of human activity and occupation. Given the location of the known Roman Villa north of Dunnock’s Lane (List entry ID 1003029) there is potential for a similar density of archaeological features to exist in this area. There is potential, therefore, that a complex and multi-phase archaeological landscape is located within the proposed development area.

15.8 The National Planning Policy Framework further states that “Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. (NPPF Para 139)

15.9 The proposed policy SD1 states that development should be restricted or refused where adverse impacts could demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The current evidence base, primarily the Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil Periphery, has not considered the adverse impacts adequately, in relation to:

• specific listed buildings, only identifying them as “numerous”.

• the setting of heritage assets with reference to English Heritage guidance, The Setting of Heritage Assets

• the impacts of construction corridors on the relationships and inter-visibility between prime historic assets using a comprehensive or consistent methodology

26 15.10 As such adverse impacts have not been adequately considered in the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’.

15.11 The Study also states states in 2.1.1, under method: “Importantly, achieving sensitive new developments in terms of the historic environment depends on a commitment to minimising damage to features/areas of historic/archaeological distinctiveness or significance and maximising their positive contribution to the development process.”

15.12 Does this assessment fully define and understand the “features/areas of historic/archaeological distinctiveness” and address how to maximise their positive contribution? It is submitted this has not been done. There are no specific considerations for each of the above or below ground sites, only generic considerations that do not relate to the individual character or qualities of each asset.

15.13 NPPF Paras 126 and 131 both emphasise “the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the historic environments local distinctiveness.” The local distinctiveness of the proposed development area has not been appropriately defined, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and English Heritage Setting of Heritage Assets. The evidence base is weak when defining local distinctiveness- rural landscape with clusters of farmsteadings and agricultural holdings with historical nucleated settlements.

15.14 Nothing has been mentioned regarding the sandy lanes, or holloways, which are distinctive to the south of Yeovil, due to the geology of the area (Figures 5 & 6). These omissions in local distinctiveness and weaknesses in the considerations of the assets reported in the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ mean that an informed decision based upon this report cannot be made. The parameters for the term ‘local distinctiveness’ have not been set and the term lacks definition relative to English Heritage guidance (2011) ‘Understanding Place: Character and context in local planning'. It would therefore be difficult to ensure its retention. A mass urban development cannot possibly make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness of an area.

16. The Historic environment and Setting of Heritage Assets

16.1 The Peripheral Landscape Study undertaken by SSDC in 2008 stated:- "The study to date has already noted a number of features of landscape and historic value - such as the registered historic park and gardens in local

27 proximity - and their high value has already been weighted in the previous sections of this report. However, in this section areas of wildlife value (and their margins) plus sites with specific cultural association or high recreational amenity value are also highlighted, as are the topographical constraints of floodplain and slope, as factors that may limit potential, and thus capacity, for development. These elements are indicated on figure 4 – values and constraints." (SSDC PLS para 6.1)

16.2 The map does not however illustrate the location of important listed buildings and parks, other than registered ones, and omits important known archaeological and distinctive features such as Roman roads and holloways. For this reason the assessment is incomplete.

16.3 It also quoted the Natural England Landscape Character study as saying:-

" Mansion houses are particularly thick on the ground south and west of Yeovil but there are many smaller houses in local stone well-sited in small parks... The rural charm of the area has been widely celebrated … the strongest literary association is with East Coker, home of T S Eliot's ancestors. He is buried in the village church, which was the motif of the second of his Four Quartets." (SSDC PLS para 3.2 and http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/nca/yeovil_scarplands.aspx) Neither document however refers to William Dampier who is, arguably, a more important historic figure than Eliot.

16.4 It also states

"Montacute House and its associated park and garden is similarly considered a highly sensitive receptor, and the extent of its historic park can be rated high sensitivity, due to its national public profile and intrinsic cultural interest." SSDC PLS para 3.2

16.5 It is again notable that other Grade 1 listed buildings such as Coker Court and Naish Priory are not afforded the same status. What is even more of concern is that the Peripheral Landscape Study admits that "no assessment has been made of its 'setting'" or that of any other important historic asset for that matter. (SSDC PLS para 5.14) It later recants that position by saying, "The settings of the registered historic parks and gardens are already noted, and factored into the assessment as far as it is possible to evaluate at this level. Additionally, there are a number of Conservation Areas associated with the surrounding villages and this will raise the sensitivity of these areas and their immediate margins. Nash Priory is a notable listed building and its immediate margins are thus similarly considered to be of higher value." (SSDC PLS para 6.2)

28 However, the report offers no evidence of how the settings were assessed or the extent of them.

16.6 The later Chris Blandford Associates report in 2010 assesses that much of the East Coker site is highly sensitive with respect to Historic Assets. This is despite the fact that it draws crude small circles of influence around important listed buildings and, in particular, underestimates the zone of visual influence, and thereby the historical landscape sensitivity, of Coker Court and St Michael's church in East Coker. (SSDC Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil Periphery:2010 Figs. 2.12 and 2.12c)

16.7 The Blandford report does not recognise the Roman road or holloway lanes amongst the historic landscape features worthy of inclusion. Neither does it consider the interrelationship between sites and features so that potential high risk archaeological areas could be identified. This is despite the fact that the key stated objectives included, "Identify areas of high archaeological significance and potential high risk areas;" and "Consider the relationships and intervisibility between the prime historic assets;" (SSDC Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil Periphery:2010 Para 1.2.2)

16.8 It further states

"The site lies within an area of moderate historic landscape sensitivity with areas of moderate to high landscape sensitivity in relation to the setting of designated historic assets (Chris Blandford Associates, 2010), which could influence the character of development within areas of the site boundary (mainly the west, the south east and the north east due to the proximity of the Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monument described above)." Site Options re- appraisal for Yeovil Sport Zone Final Report: Dec.2010, Para 6.2.48 This report considered a smaller area than the proposed 'Sustainable Urban Extension'. It also fails to recognise that the Blandford Associates report advises that all sides of the area which are undeveloped comprise land of "low capacity overall to accommodate development. There are indications from known archaeology within this area that there is potential for significant unknown archaeological deposits." (SSDC Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil Periphery:2010 Para 4.2.13) 16.9 Centrally located within the proposed area for development is a Roman Villa, which forms part of the historic environment in this area. The National Planning Policy Framework states the following in regard to conserving and enhancing the historic environment;

29 "12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other interests. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account:

- the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

- the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

- the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and;

- opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of the place." (NPPF Para 126)

Also stated in the National Planning Policy Framework is the following which further reiterates the importance of taking into account the historic environment, "In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more that is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation." (NPPF Para 128)

And "Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of the proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal." NPPF para 129

30 16.10 The deep lanes (Pavyotts and Church) are both characteristic of the area and rare. These will be either destroyed or severely compromised by any adjacent development.

16.11 In a report to SSDC they have however been advised:-

"Only a very small proportion of recognised and recorded heritage assets (less than 5%) have any form of statutory protection and many more remain undiscovered and unrecorded." (Site Options re-appraisal for Yeovil Sport Zone Final Report: Dec.2010, Para 6.2.48 )

16.12 The Sport Zone report stated that "Key historic landscape character features were included in the appraisal, notably Scheduled Monuments, Historic Parks and Gardens, Listed Buildings, and Conservation Areas." (Site Options re- appraisal for Yeovil Sport Zone Final Report: Dec.2010, Para 6.2.50)

16.13 The methodology for site assessment was as follows: "The collated data for the designated and undesignated heritage assets was examined on a site-by-site basis. The first step entailed the identification of any heritage assets within each site boundary. The second step entailed the identification of whether designated sites were present within 1 kilometre of each site. The third step entailed an examination of historic mapping to ascertain whether development had taken place on each site in order to determine the likelihood of potentially unrecorded sites being present at each site." (Site Options re-appraisal for Yeovil Sport Zone Final Report: Dec.2010, Para 6.2.51)

"A qualitative evaluation was undertaken to indicate the potential for each short listed site to be developed with respect to the historic environment. Where recorded or designated heritage assets are located within a site, this would represent a material consideration in a planning application, and the preference would be to avoid the site as a feasible location due to this constraint." Site Options re-appraisal for Yeovil Sport Zone Final Report: Dec.2010, Para 6.2.52

"Where such a site was located along or immediately outside the boundary or where there is uncertainty, the evaluation reflected the proximity of the asset to the site and where it is clear that no designated heritage assets were present in or adjacent to the site boundary, such an occurrence would be evaluated as having a stronger potential for development." (Site Options re-appraisal for Yeovil Sport Zone Final Report: Dec.2010, Para 6.2.53)

31

16.14 The Importance of holloways

The importance of the local, narrow holloway lanes was recognised by SSDC by their description of the Yeovil Sands dipslopes and escarpments Landscape Character Area when they said, "there are some very impressive, atmospheric holloways between East Coker and East Chinnock. “ ...... Now the light falls Across the open field, leaving the deep lane Shuttered with branches, dark in the afternoon, ...... TS Eliot, “East Coker” (Quoted in The Landscape of South Somerset: 1993 page 39)

16.15 The threat to holloways was recognised by SSDC in 1993 when it reported that, "The future of hollow-ways is of growing importance given their significance to the landscape and wildlife. Their sympathetic management must be promoted." The Landscape of South Somerset: 1993 page 42

16.16 SSDC did not follow up its own advice in the formulation of the proposals. The holloways of Dunnock's Lane and Church Lane will be significantly affected by the proposed development. Dunnock's Lane is shown as a main distributor road in the Draft Indicative Masterplan Urban Extension presented to SSDC, and which informs the Local Plan. (SSDC Agenda for meeting 23.4.12)

16.17 It is interesting to note that the Royal Haskoning Environmental Constraints drawing which appears at appendix b of the Sports Zone Report shows the area around Church Lane, Barwick, as being of High Archaeological potential. However, it does not include Pavyotts Lane, Dunnock's Lane or any of the other land crossing the site which could link the known Roman villas with Naish Priory and the Roman road.

17. Steps required of SSDC to comply with NPPF Policy on Heritage 17.1 It is submitted that

• To comply with NPPF, the evidence base should take into account the setting of all designated heritage assets, within and around the proposed development area. This should also include identifying the significance of each, using the four values of historical;

32 evidential; aesthetic and communal as enshrined in the ICOMOS charters, PPS 5 guidance and NPPF. • The scheduled monument significance, in relation to NPPF, has not been defined, with the level of detail appropriate to the assets level of importance. In a policy of ‘Informed conservation’ supported by EH, the significance of an asset should be defined to enable its conservation in the form of a heritage statement or similar. • The character, setting and local distinctiveness of the area should be adequately assessed and identified so that it can be safeguarded. It is recommended that an Historic Environment Character Appraisal be provided and be NPPF compatible • SSDC also need to assess Group Value of the heritage assets since this may be eroded if development corridors were created between the nationally important sites. • Insufficient consideration has been given to the non-designated heritage assets, such as the potential for below-ground archaeology. One of the reasons that there are less archaeological finds spots in the proposed development area is that the area has previously been undeveloped. Given the known sites/features of archaeological significance in the area, it is anticipated that potential for further archaeological remains would be high. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The potential for pre-historic and roman would be high (this may require evidence in the form of non-invasive archaeological investigation i.e. desk- based assessment, geophysical survey or lidar) • The significance of non designated heritage assets has not been clearly determined; there is no local list of heritage assets, contrary to advice by English Heritage (2012) Good practice guide for local heritage listing. • Community identity and sense of place has yet to be investigated and defined within the parameters of English Heritage guidance (2011) Knowing your place. Heritage and community-led planning in the countryside.

33 18. Review of Evidence Base on Heritage Issues 18.1 The significance, character and setting referred to in Policy EQ3, has not been adequately assessed in this case. The evidence used as a basis for these decisions is flawed. Para 132 of the NPPF gives great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets. But this framework has not even been considered in the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’.

18.2 At present there is no conservation area appraisal available for viewing on the SCC website of East, North or West Coker. This would help in defining the local distinctiveness that Policy EQ3 wishes to retain. These appraisals are essential for decision making, without which a decision cannot be adequately informed.

18.2 Significance

The significance of all the heritage assets have not been adequately considered, The assets have been grouped generically, without full description without full consideration of individual specific characteristics or specific settings and with no consideration of line of sight. Therefore it is not possible to define the limits of each asset’s setting. If one cannot understand what makes a particular asset important, then the setting cannot be assessed nor the effect of a development “There has been increasing recognition in recent years that our experience of a historic area depends on much more than the quality of individual buildings - it is the historic layout of property boundaries and thoroughfares, a particular 'mix' of uses, characteristic materials, appropriate scaling and detailing of contemporary buildings, the quality of advertisements, shop fronts, street furniture and hard and soft surfaces, vistas along streets and between buildings and the extent to which traffic intrudes and limits pedestrian use of spaces between buildings.” (Conservation Areas http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/planning-and-building- control/conservation/historic-heritage-conservation/conservation-areas/) [Accessed 4th August 2012].

18.3 The ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ does not adequately represent the scheduled monuments and are not given the same importance (i.e. named) as the Registered Parks and Gardens. Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings are not adequately represented individually and are simply described as numerous. There is no consideration given to Grade II assets and their setting within the Areas should they be developed, such as the rural farmsteadings of area 3. The rural character of these will be particularly sensitive to change.

34

18.4 The proposed development area includes a Scheduled Ancient Monument north of Dunnock’s Lane (List entry ID 1003029) described as a Roman Villa, as well as the route of a Roman Road to the east of the area. A further Roman Villa, Chessels Roman Villa (List entry ID 1006186), is located 1.25km to the west of the western boundary of the proposed development area. Neither of these sites have been scientifically investigated in modern times. Moreover, this area has the densest population of Late Roman villas in the country (Dr James Gerrard pers. comm). A geophysical survey undertaken on the site of the Roman villa at Lufton (List entry ID 1006159) to the north of Yeovil recorded a high density of sub-surface anomalies which have been interpreted as representing archaeological features associated with human settlement activity. The results of the survey therefore indicate a rich and diverse archaeological landscape. Roman sites were often situated on pre-existing prehistoric sites, and there is therefore potential for a several phases of human activity and occupation. Given the location of the known Roman Villa north of Dunnock’s Lane (List entry ID 1003029) there is potential for a similar density of archaeological features to exist in this area. There is potential, therefore, that a complex and multi-phase archaeological landscape is located within the proposed development area.

18.5 The National Planning Policy Framework also states that “Non- designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. (NPPF Para 139)

18.6 Table 2.2 in the South Somerset District Council ‘Historic Environment Assessment of Yeovil Periphery’ by Chris Blandford Associates July 2010, states that “PPS 5 notes that the highest significance is afforded to Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings and Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens. It also notes that not all elements of a Conservation Area will contribute to its significance, but that some Grade II Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas will be particularly important or sensitive to change, while others may be more capable of accommodating it.”

Para 4.1.3 same report states “Heritage assets provide a key contribution to sense of place within Yeovil’s periphery.” The heritage assets point to a rural landscape, their sense of place is bound with farming and crop production, may suggest that this is how Yeovil grew wealthy during the Elizabethan era, that it

35 was able to sustain and provide sufficient wealth for the landowners to be heavily involved in politics and political movements.

18.7 Ultimately they have examined the assets in a physical capacity, making no reference to their communal, aesthetic, evidential and historic values which are integral to understanding significance. The landscape characteristics have not been fully understood of, at least, area 3. Area 3 can be defined as rural in nature, arable land with historic field boundaries. Within this are Key Farm House Grade II* (Figures 1 and 2) and a Grade II agricultural barn, farmhouses and associated rural outbuildings. This builds up a picture of an historically rural area with historic farmsteads and field patterns. The setting of the listed buildings within Area 3 would be irrevocably changed from the rural setting in which they are currently situated to an urban setting, damaging the landscape character and the setting of each heritage asset, as defined in the glossary of the NPPF document, of these designated heritage assets. The evidence base within the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ is therefore considered to be incomplete . Any decision made from evidence drawn from this will be ill-informed. This demonstrates that there should be a careful reconsideration, based on an up to date and comprehensive heritage assessment.

18.8 Character It is submitted that the historic character of the landscape has been simplified; greater weight has been afforded to some designated assets, such as Historic Parks and Gardens, whilst those of equal national importance, such as scheduled Monuments and Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings have been less comprehensively considered. The fact that the Scheduled Monument in the centre of the proposed development area, the Roman Villa, north of Dunnock’s Lane, is on English Heritage’s ‘Heritage at Risk’ register, has not been highlighted and there has been insufficient consideration of its protection and the protection of its setting.

18.10 Given the location of the known Roman Villa (List entry ID 1003029), the Roman Road to the east, Chessels Roman Villa (List entry ID 1006186) located 1.25km to the west, and based on evidence of dense archaeological activity around the site of Lufton (List entry ID 1006159) to the north of Yeovil there is potential for a high density of archaeological features to exist in this area. There is potential, therefore, that a complex and multi-phase archaeological landscape is located within the proposed development area.

18.11 South Somerset District Council (SSDC) and the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ have identified the character of Area 3 as one of historical rural landscape, involving 17th and 18th century enclosed fields, and

36 18th to 20th century enclosed fields (Appendix A, p32). Tithe maps from the early 1800s provide evidence of this rural landscape, with reference to farming and land management in the Doomsday book. Setting does not rely on the visual aspect alone. The landscape as a whole provides the setting for the built heritage regardless of whether the asset is clearly visible. The context in which these heritage assets lie, is one of rural, agricultural farmland. The built heritage assets within this area are of rural, agricultural design. Therefore these assets are set within a rural landscape.

18.12 This setting within a rural landscape therefore helps define their significance and informs the understanding of the asset. The ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ does not fully achieve the key objectives set out in section 1.2.2, particularly in terms of reviewing and defining the settings of other designated sites within the study area. Great weight has been placed on Registered Parks and Gardens, with less consideration given to scheduled monuments and Grade I, Grade II and II* listed heritage assets,, their assessment, their setting and their protection. (The Setting of Heritage Assets, EH 2011. 2.2).

18.13 English Heritage defines character as “a sum of all its attributes” which would include the relationships of people, visual aspects and features, amongst others. The character of the proposed development area is therefore one of rural, farming history, a hotbed of politics and political characters, historically important landscape with ties to internationally recognised figures such as Dampier, along with his influence on natural science and literary figures such as Darwin and Jonathon Swift, and TS Elliot with his world renowned poem ‘East Coker’.

18.14 Within the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ descriptions there is no evidence that the compiler has understood the historic landscape or the many facets that it contains. Landscapes can have many qualities, including aesthetic stimulation for the poet and the artist and political history.

18.15 The historic environment is defined in Annex 2. ‘Glossary’ of the NPPF as: “ All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including [but not only] all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.” Annex 2 of the NPPF, Glossary also states: Archaeological Interest: There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence

37 about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.

18.16 However, the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ does not consider the evolution of the area adequately, nor its culture and people. It does not consider that expert investigation has not been conducted on this site and if the development goes ahead, will never be able to be conducted.

18.17 It is not possible to make a positive contribution to the character of the area, if the character has been poorly understood. It is not possible to protect heritage assets if they are not understood. It is not possible to understand unknown assets if they have not been considered. It will never be possible to understand the history / heritage of this area if the settings, sight, cultural significance and unknown assets are irrevocably destroyed by any proposed development.

18.18 Setting

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) glossary defines the setting of a heritage asset as: “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and it surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”

18.19 English Heritage (EH), in their guidance, The Setting of Heritage Assets, go on to explain that “The significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence and historic fabric but also from its setting- the surroundings in which it is experienced” (EH, 2011. P1)

18.20 The heritage assets that lie within and in close proximity of the proposed development area are primarily of rural character. Grade II* listed Key Farm House (Figure 1 and 2), identified in the listing as 17th century with later additions and associated grade II outbuilding, again 17th century with later 18th century additions are part of a much larger rural landscape that covered the whole of the south of Yeovil. Likely part of the Coker Court tenanted farms, the buildings are bounded on three sides by fields and on the fourth, to the east, the A37, the Dorchester Road. The route of this road follows that of a Roman road and would have been one of the key reasons to site the farm house in this location. The A37, is a main traffic route, however, this should not detract from the significance of the assets and their importance within a rural setting.

38

18.21 The ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ stipulates that any potential new development should respect the contextual relationship between the parks, but less consideration has been attributed to the contextual relationship between the Roman assets of the villas and the road. Separating these assets and creating construction corridors between them results in a loss of their group value and undermining the understanding of their setting.

18.22 It is unlikely that the Roman landscape is contained within the arbitrary divisions that have been created for the purpose of this landscape exercise. These boundaries and land divisions have no relevance to the historic environment, which may lead to confusion of their understanding. It is probable that the area to the west of the Roman road, towards the villa sites will have a high to very high potential for sub-surface archaeology. A full desk-based assessment of the area centred on the proposed development area would consider all aspects of the historic environment and the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ does not document all the heritage assets within the study area.

18.23 The setting of Barwick Park has been identified by the ‘Historic Environment Assessment ’ descriptions as extending to the Needle Obelisk (Listed Entry Number 1057219) in the south corner of the proposed development area, which places some of the development area within the setting of a registered park and garden.

18.24 There are also issues with lack of transparency and consistency relating to the determination of the sensitivities within the evidence base of the ‘Historic Environment Assessment’ descriptions. For example Area 5 is deemed to have high sensitivity as result of ancient enclosed fields and surrounding pre- and post-1840 settlement (p43). There seems, however, to be no evidence of prehistoric or Roman materials, scheduled monuments or parks and gardens. The area of the Roman Villa at Dunnock's Lane which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and has been added to English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk Register has not been afforded such consideration.

18.25 The ‘Historic Environment Assessment ’also appears to have looked at the designated heritage assets and those defined on the SSCC SMR but not acknowledged the importance of, or identified, the undesignated heritage landscape assets such as the Holloways or sandy lanes which are characteristic of this area of the countryside. The re-examined sites for the sports zone discusses the Dunnock’s/ Pavyotts lane being an ancient throughway from the

39 Roman road to the Roman villa but no mention of this is made in the ‘Assessment ’.

18.28 This may suggest that the site visits and assessments were limited and restricted to examining key views rather than the historical landscape as a whole. The ‘ Assessment ’ also defines scheduled ancient monuments as moderate value, however they should be defined as of high value. The South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011 4.3 states “The Local Plan will seek to safeguard and enhance the quality of the historic environment through the following objectives. 2. To preserve sites of archaeological value and to increase public awareness of their importance and interest by proper management and interpretation”

18.29 The ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ does not fulfil its key objectives as set out in their brief, (Para1.2.2) which states that the assessment will, amongst other things: o Review and define the settings of both designated and locally important Historic Parks and Gardens, and other designated sites within the Study Area; 18.30 However, the settings of designated heritages assets of equal value to Historic Parks and Gardens have not had equal attention given to them in the document. Grade I and II* listed buildings have been given an arbitrary 250m radius to define their setting, contrary to EH guidance as mentioned previously.

18.31 It is also contrary to their own definition of setting, in 2.1.12: “As set out within PPS5, ‘setting’ can be defined as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surrounding evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’”.

18.32 The setting of other designated assets has been considered, but the group value of the assets and the contextual relationship to each other, other than historic parks and gardens, has been missed, as has the potential impact of development on them and any necessary consideration of the group value in the protection of the assets. With respect to the requirement to o Consider the relationships and indivisibility between the prime historic assets; This has been done in relation to historic parks and gardens but ‘prime historic assets’ should also include the scheduled monuments, the grade I and II* listed buildings. This assessment is incomplete suggesting the evidence base is unreliable and therefore not Sound in terms of properly informing decision making in planning.

40

18.33 The other requirements of the Brief were o Assess the impact of development upon the historic environment; o Map areas of capacity of the historic environment to accommodate change, weighted to indicate (at least) a low, moderate and high capacity to accommodate change; o Identify strategic sites circa. 220ha that are capable of containing 5,000 dwellings without unduly impacting on identified historic assets and their setting. 18.34 The ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ also states, in 2.1.1, under method: “Importantly, achieving sensitive new developments in terms of the historic environment depends on a commitment to minimising damage to features/areas of historic/archaeological distinctiveness or significance and maximising their positive contribution to the development process.” This definition has been perpetuated in the National Planning Policy Framework. However, this is contrary to the use of 250m radius setting perimeters around grade I and II* listed buildings within the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’

18.35 Para 2.1.13 of the same document states “Based on English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, there are three recognised components of identifying setting: the visibility (or visual envelope) of the historic asset/intervisibility with adjacent historic assets, combined with an understanding of the context and function of the surrounding landscape. In addition, less tangible elements also contribute to setting, such as function, sensory perceptions or artistic, literary and scenic associations of places or adjacent landscapes. Historic Parks and Gardens, monuments or buildings were not constructed in isolation, but were often deliberately positioned with reference to the surrounding topography, resources, landscapes, other monuments or buildings.”

18.36 However, artistic, literary or scenic associations of places and landscapes have not been included in the ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ . T.S. Elliot’s world famous poem ‘East Coker’ has considerable historic association with the landscape and he is buried in the Church of St Michael. There is also a strong association with the area and Dampier. (a brief history of the local area is attached as Appendix 4)

18.35 The ‘Historic Environment Assessment Of Yeovil Periphery’ sets out to

41 “ …assess the settings of the above historic assets, based upon the following key tasks: • Review the documentary sources related to the asset or site in order to determine potential historic, cultural and literary associations;…” Area 4 references the Grade II*, Church of St Michael, but makes no mention of the literary associations with the building.

18.36 The study also rates the potential for unknown archaeology as high but only gives a numerical value of 2 in table 4.1, while a moderate sensitivity of historic assets and their setting (area 19 for example) is given a 5. NPPF p126 and 131 both emphasise the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the historic environments local distinctiveness.

18.37 The local distinctiveness of the proposed development area has not been appropriately defined, in accordance to NPPF and English Heritage Setting of Heritage Assets. The term ‘local distinctiveness’ lacks definition and while it includes a rural landscape with clusters of farmsteads and agricultural holdings with historical nucleated settlements there is a lack of consideration given to the sandy lanes, or holloways, which are distinctive to the south of Yeovil, due to the geology of the area (Figures 5 & 6).

42 Appendix1 Yeovil Periphery Development Constraints

47 Appendix 2 Keyford/East Coker Area: Development constraints

48 Appendix 3 East Coker Area: Example Views 1-6 View 1.

49 View 2.

50

View 3

51 View 4

52

View 5

53 View 6

54 Appendix 4 Brief history of Parish of East Coker (unpublished)

A people without history Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern Of timeless moments... History is now and England.

T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

The starting point for many visitors to East Coker is the Helyar Arms, which is named after Archdeacon Helyar, Elizabeth I’s chaplain who bought the manor of East Coker from Henry VIII in the mid 16th century. Helyar was a contemporary of Water Raleigh, who bought Sherborne Castle, only some miles from Coker, from Elizabeth I some years later. Helyar and his descendants at the manor house Coker Court were also contemporaries and near neighbours of Sir Ralph Horsey of Clifton Maybank, who was involved in Raleigh’s projects in the West Indies. The Helyar family established a plantation in Jamaica, to which a young William Dampier was sent from East Coker by Squre Helyar the Archdeacon’s grandson, as an “accountant- reporter”, in 1675. The Helyar family knew first hand the Elizabethan adventuring and early colonisation projects.The Helyar family held the estate until the 19th century and built the alms houses on the path up to St Michael’s Church between 1640 and 1660. Grade 1 listed Coker Court seen to the right of St Michael’s Church was the capital house of the East Coker manor built by the de Courtenay family, the Earls of Devon, in the mid 15th century. The manorial house in East Coker had previously been at Nash, according to Hutton. The de Courtenay family were the feudal holders of the East and West Coker manors from the 13th to the 16th centuries, which were the first of the properties in their South West power base approached from London. The de Courtenay family were close royal blood relations, military supporters and courtiers, in particular of Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VIII. Several were Admiral of the West Seas, and responsible for the defence of England’s coasts between London and the Bristol Channel. Their royal blood, from the houses of Plantagenet, Lancaster and latterly York, made their status and power threatening to a series of monarchs during the royal dynastic upheavals of this time. In St Michael’s church the chapel on the south side was the site of the chantry for the souls of the de Courtenay family that was endowed by them at Nash in 1342. The wooden altar from the chantry chapel at Naish, from the early 16th century, has been placed in the chantry chapel in St Michael’s below original 14th century stained glass showing the de Courtenay arms. Naish itself, being the chantry house for the de Courtenay family was expanded in the 1390s, when owned by a younger de Courtenay son, William, who was Archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Richard II. William’s mother, Lady Margaret de Bohun, was very influential and a granddaughter of Edward I, and her family was one of the leading patrons of illuminated manuscripts in the 14th and 15th centuries. She is buried with her husband Hugh, earl of Devon, in pride of place in Exeter Cathedral, having spent her dowager years in Coker. Having been one of the most powerful families in England in the 14th and early 15th centuries, especially under Edward III when the young heir to the Earl of Devon, Hugh, was a founder member of Edward’s Order of the Garter and a favourite of Queen Phillippa, succeeding generations of de Courtenay heirs were either killed in battle, or feared and faced attainder and beheading or rehabilitation and insecurity, during the Wars of the Roses and their aftermath. One of the last was uncle to Henry VIII, and crowned him, only to be regarded as a threat a few years later and executed. The last of the main de Courtenay line, having spent his youth in the Tower of London, was restored to his title, but died childless without his lands, in

55 exile in Italy in 1556, having been favoured first for marriage to Queen Mary then for Princess Elizabeth, but was exiled after supporting the rebellion in favour of Lady Jane Grey. The Coker manors had been Saxon royal properties, held by Gytha, King Harald’s mother, before the Norman invasion. This status derived from their worth as highly flexible and fertile agricultural properties and position at the cross roads of the main North South and East West land routes in South West England. The farm at Cokerford, or “Keyford”, alongside the Dorchester road, was held by Harding, King Harald’s father Eodnoth’s “Staller”, the manager of his household cavalry. The Harding family was the one of the only aristocratic Anglo- Saxon families to retain lands and status under the Normans, and Robert FitzHarding endowed the Abbey of St Augustine at Bristol, which became Bristol Cathedral, soon after the Norman invasion. His son Nicholas FitzHarding endowed that Abbey with the farm at Keyford in the 12th Century. In early Roman times, two villas were established at East and West Coker, directly on the route between the Roman Road from Dorchester and the military camp at Ham Hill, one of the first Roman invasion routes and defensive lines. Their agricultural units were the origin of the two manors of East and West Coker. The villas are positioned unusually close together, and form one of very few remaining close double villa complexes in Britain. Directly between them on a permanent spring of water is Naish Priory, and the area of this ancient Roman route is highly prospective for further archaeological discovery. William the Conqueror assumed the Coker manors in his name after his Norman invasion. They passed to the de Courtenay family in the late 13th century by marriage to a female heir of the de Mandeville family. The Norman de Mandevilles had held the manors from the crown since William Rufus’ time, and St Michael’s Church was established under their auspices. A de Mandeville crusader is buried in one of the weathered tombs in the churchyard of St. Michael’s. T.S. Eliot visited East Coker in the 1930s, in search of his ancestor Andrew Eliot who emigrated from there to Massachusetts in 1660. A Henry Elyott was a tenant of the Helyars’ East Coker estate in the 16th century. Eliot learnt about the history of the place from his friend Sir Mathew Nathan, who was particularly interested in the de Courtenay heritage of his house, West Coker Manor. West Coker Manor had been the home from 1377 of the powerful Dowager Countess of Devon, Margaret de Bohun de Courtenay. The house she knew burnt down after her death, in the early 15th century, and the main part of the house that stands today replaced hers in around 1440, and was then extended by the Portman family in the 17th century. Eliot twice visited East Coker and stayed with his friend Sir Matthew Nathan, a charismatic man who had thrown himself into full time research of the history and archaeology of the Cokers, after a distinguished international career of colonial government service (he was Governor of the Gold Coast, Natal, Hong Kong and Queensland, as well as Under Secretary in Ireland during the Easter Uprising) and chairmanship of many government committees. Matthew Nathan died nine days after Easter 1939, and Eliot produced his poem East Coker over the course of the next year, in large part as an Easter poem. Eliot had written to Sir Matthew expressing his disappointment at not being able to find the specific house in which his East Coker ancestor had lived. Sir Matthew’s extensive and detailed historical work, the Annals of West Coker, to which this piece is greatly indebted, was published posthumously in 1957. Eliot identified with another English forbear, who lived in the time of Henry VIII. Sir Thomas Elyot, a scholar, writer and diplomat, was commissioned by Henry VIII among other things to make one of the first Latin to English dictionaries, enabling some of the reading and translation that went into the English Enlightenment. Not only did he share T.S. Eliot’s Christian name, words were his stock and trade, and Eliot quotes and versifies his ancestor’s book, The Governour, in his poem East Coker, when describing the “daunsinge” and “matrimonie” of the village forbears. Thus he poetically incorporates this familial inspiration from the past within the tradition and blood line of which Eliot felt part and wrote.

56 T.S. Eliot chose to have his ashes interred in St Michael’s Church in East Coker. He remains a towering figure in world literature, voted Britain’s favourite poet and memorialised in Poet’s Corner in Westminster Abbey. Sir Andrew Motion recently said at the memorial service to Ted Hughes in Westminster Abbey that a place in Poets' Corner offers "recognition that the nation feels admiring of this person and is likely to go on feeling admiring of them for all time." Many of the poems in the book that made Ted Hughes famous, The Hawk In The Rain, take direct inspiration from T.S. Eliot’s East Coker. The Dean of Westminster said at Ted Hughes’ memorial in Poet’sCorner: “Now the name of Ted Hughes is to be found here too, his ledger stone at the foot of TS Eliot's, his hero and champion. Thus we honour the memory of one of the greatest English poets.” In his poem East Coker, Eliot uses specific imagery from Shakespeare’s plays about the Wars of the Roses, which were a large part of the backdrop of the history in East Coker, in which Matthew Nathan was a particular expert. The imagery is drawn especially from Richard III, Richard II and Henry VI Part I, as well as the Sonnet 146, to evoke the pattern and fabric of history, and the human condition and its meaning. In it the “Houses” that “rise and fall, are extended, removed, restored” are a multi-layered metaphor originating in Shakespeare, which Eliot extends to comprise allusion to human bodies, familial blood lines (including his own), and poems with words as the stones, generating and being recycled through time. Eliot succeeds in making this a modernist metaphysical poetic conceit, in the tradition of Shakespeare, Donne and Marvell, a poetic achievement with which he had been preoccupied for many years. The metaphor stood in part for what was worth fighting for in English culture and history, at the difficult time faced by Britain at the start of the Second World War. Indeed as Jim McCue has pointed out, Eliot referred to this poem, and the last three of his Four Quartets, as war poems, and they were therefore part of his personal war effort. This was particularly significant because he was an American writing East Coker before America had been drawn into the war, at the time of some of Churchill’s most rousing speeches about sacrifice and what was at stake. His audience was a Britain that was conscious of the hardship that it had endured prior to American involvement in the First World War, and an America that needed to know why it should become involved. The poem East Coker also shows respect, even excitement, that Eliot’s intended last resting place would be near the memorial in St. Michael’s Church to William Dampier, the writer, explorer and navigator, and the seafaring history of the village. The Poet Laureate John Masefield had published an edition of Dampier’s works describing his voyages, in 1906, which went some way to reviving interest in and popularity for Dampier. Masefield was well known to Eliot, as no doubt was his poem, Sea Fever (1902), one of the most famous and popular English poems, and his 1909 edition of William Defoe. Eliot uses the “gull” and “whale” from Masefield’s Sea Fever reverie but replaces them with “porpoise” and “petrel” for East Coker, two words which Dampier brought into the English language. He thus extends and deepens Masefield’s theme of the sea and sea voyaging being an influence and inspiration to the English people and humanity. The memorial plaque to William Dampier, erected in 1908 only a few short years after Masefield’s rehabilitation of him, is found on the south wall of St Michael’s Church. No doubt the plaque would have piqued Eliot’s interest when he visited the church. In the words of Dampier’s recent editor, Gerald Norris, Dampier’s “reputation has risen steadily over three centuries, with a growing recognition of the magnitude of his accomplishments. His three books have retained their immediacy and fascination. But they rank as more than superlative travel literature: they also have scientific importance. “His object, he said was ‘to see all countries and observe the works of Nature’. He was insatiably curious about every facet of the physical world, and dozens of his descriptions – of avocado pears, breadfruit, cochineal, flamingos, typhoons, yams – passed straight into dictionaries and encyclopaedias. A high proportion of these proved so accurate that scientists continue to quote them in scholarly journals. The insects, fishes and plants named after him testify to the regard in which he is held.

57 “He is acknowledged as a pioneer of scientific exploration, commemorated in the Dampier Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, Dampier Strait in Papua New Guinea and the port of Dampier in Western Australia. In hydrography his influence has been enormous. A Discourse of Winds, in Voyages and Descriptions, was praised by Cook and Nelson and is now viewed as a classic exposition of the system of winds, tides and currents in the Southern Hemisphere. A hundred years elapsed before it needed modifications. ‘As a continual investigator of hydrography and of the variation of the compass, of winds and the many minutiae of navigation, he is fundamental to all future discovery,’ wrote J.C. Beaglehole. In 1948 the Royal Navy commissioned the 1,600 ton survey vessel HMS Dampier to mark his contribution to hydrography. “In literature his writings influenced Defoe and Swift. Defoe relied heavily on Dampier not just for Robinson Crusoe, but in A General History of the Pirates and A New Voyage Round the World, by a Course Never Sailed Before. Swift, in the introduction to Gulliver’s Travels, has Lemuel Gulliver refer to ‘my cousin Dampier’. Coleridge called him a ‘man of exquisite mind’ and drew on him for The Ancient Mariner.” Dampier circumnavigated the world three times and was the first Englishman to set foot in Australia. He was also the first to visit and describe the Galapagos Islands. As Diana and Michael Preston say in their biography: “Another example of Dampier’s lasting influence is that when Charles Darwin complied his reading list of well over 150 books and authors for his work on species, he included only Aristotle and four others published before 1700: Plinius, John Ray for his monumental work on plants, John Evelyn for Sylvan (which Darwin later dismissed as ‘stupid’), and Dampier. Interestingly he did not include Cook or Joseph Banks from the eighteenth century. The vast majority of works were contemporary. “Charles Darwin certainly valued Dampier. He believed the secret of his own success was ‘patient observance.’ This very quality was Dampier’s greatest legacy to so many areas in which he worked, especially natural history. Dampier identified the importance of location to the development of animals such as turtles, birds and boobies, and plants and trees such as the lime and nutmeg. He was the first to recognize different degrees of relationship between living things, as his use of the words sub-species and species indicate. In so doing, he was the first to foreshadow modern, systematic, worldwide biogeographic studies. He was also a leader in the understanding of migration. His detailed, accurate recording of what he saw and the comparisons he drew between the observations in different places, both familiar and exotic, provided descriptive data for others to develop.”William Dampier was born at Hymerford House, previously known in Dampier’s time as Grove Farm or Manor Farm House, in 1651. This was the main managerial farm house on the Helyar’s East Coker estate, and close to the various mills that worked on the Coker Water between East and West Coker, producing flax and hemp products, including “Coker canvas” and rope that were used in south coast shipping and the navy from the time of the de Courtenays right through to Nelson and Melville. These mill areas, and Grade 1 listed Hymerford House, can be seen as one walks towards the northern part of the village. Dampier’s father died in 1658, leaving his boy William £100 worth of farm land, and guardians were appointed, including his grandmother’s brother John Giles, who is shown as holding land as a tenant of the Helyar’s East Coker estate in Wraxhill in the estate survey of 1614. Another Giles relative held land in Burton. At this time also the Helyar’s East Coker estate included Nash and Nash Farm, comprising most of the northern part of the parish, and Pavyotts Manor,Mill and farm,in the east and north east with more than 6o acres. Both these key estate farms were let to important absentee holders, Sir Robert Phelips and William Portman respectively, who were both leading national political figures in the 17th century, the one before and the other after the execution of Charles I. Robert Phelips was son of Edward Phelips who built Montacute House, and was the leading member of parliament who brought grievances against King Charles in the 1620s.

58 Dampier wrote of his experience and inspiration for observation as a boy on the farms and lands of East Coker and their tenants, within a description of what he found in Sumatra in his Journal of 1689: “The mold [topsoil] of this continent is different according to the natural position of it. The mountains are rocky, especially those towards the west coast, yet most that I have seen seems to have a superficial covering of earth, naturally producing shrubs, small trees, or pretty good grass. The small hills are most of them clothed with woods, the trees whereof seem by their growth to spring from a fruitful soil: the champion [level and open] land, such as I have seen, is some black, some grey, some reddish, and all of a deep mold. “But to be very particular about these things, especially in all my travels, is no more than I can pretend to: though it may be I took as much notice of the difference of the soil as I met with it, as most travellers have done, having been bred in my youth in Somersetshire, at a place called East Coker near Yeovil or Evil: in which parish there is as great a variety of soil, as I have ordinarily met with anywhere, viz. black, red, yellow, sandy, stony, clay, morass or swampy, & c. “I had the more reason to take notice of this, because this village in great measure is let out in small leases for lives of 20, 30, 40, or 50 pound per an. under Col. Helyar, the Lord of the Manor: and most if not all of these tenants had their own land scattering in small pieces, up and down several sorts of land in the parish: so that every one had some piece of every sort of land; his black ground, his sandy, clay, & c., some of 20, 30 or 40 shillings an acre , for some uses, and others not worth 10 groats an acre. My mother being possessed of one of these leases, and having of all these sorts of land, I became acquainted with them all, and knew what each sort would produce, (viz.) wheat, barley, maslin, rice, beans, peas, oats, vetches, flax, or hemp: in all which I had a more than usual knowledge for one so young; taking a particular delight in observing it.” Squire Helyar took particular interest in this clever orphan who helped with his estate, and paid for his education at Kings School Bruton after he showed academic promise at local grammar schools in Yeovil and, some say, Crewkerne, and helped him find places in his first sea voyages. We know from a late 17th century catalogue of the books in Helyar’s library at Coker Court, which is in the Somerset Heritage Centre, that his library was extensive and contained many Latin authors as well as treatise in English of law and philosophy. There was also a copy of a Liber de Herbis which may have been one by Manfredus de Monte Imperiali from the 14th century, an illustrated Latin catalogue of plants from the Italian renaissance, or a similar renaissance Dioscurides. It is quite possible that Dampier at some point had access to it which inspired his format of descriptive writing with illustrations. An extensive catalogue of plants is also found in Helyar’s library, with specimen numbers listed, so it is evident at the very least that Helyar was deeply interested in plants and books. In the North Western part of the parish of East Coker, within the Nash estates of the manor under Helyar, which Dampier would have known and visited, are three fields whose names are curious. They are Culliver’s Grave, Doggen Sheet and Guiana, and can be found on the way through the sandy lanes towards the West Coker Roman villa, across the road from that villa towards Nash. Guiana was the colonial enterprise of Sir Walter Raleigh, of Sherborne Lodge and Castle, in the 1590s,assisted by Sir Ralph Horsey of Clifton Maybank. Culliver’s Grave could perhaps refer to a wandering spirit of one John Culliver who was lost at sea in a vessel named “Course” in 1658. Further fields between here and West Coker Manor, in the parish of West Coker, were known as South Sea and Great South Sea. On the route between Hymerford House and Culliver’s Grave are North Coker House and Burton, the latter having been part of the Helyar estate and farmed by Dampier’s relative. North Coker House was built in the 18th century by the Bullock family, who farmed much of the northern part of the parish, including Naish Priory, which they restored, at the beginning of the 20th century. Edward Troyte-Bullock was Lieutenant Colonel of the Dorset Yeomanry in the First World War, commanding the Dorset Yeomanry during its early months in Gallipoli, for which action he was awarded the CMG. Having personally led his battalion

59 during the Dorset Yeomanry's forlorn hope attack on Scimitar Hill, and being the only officer of his battalion to survive unscathed, his account of the action which forms part of the regimental history is a unique part of the British history of Gallipoli. He was also High Sheriff of Dorset in the 1930s, the same period in which Sir Matthew Nathan was High Sheriff of Somerset. Walking east from the “maritime” fields at Culliver’s Grave, the ancient sandy lanes that were Roman ways lead through the Nash farm that had been part of Helyar’s East Coker estate, known to Dampier, towards the Wrax Hill area that was farmed by Dampier’s relative and which also formed part of the Helyar estate, and first come to Naish Priory. Naish Priory, previously known as Nash Manor, is Grade 1 listed. Its buildings as seen have their origin in the chantry of the de Courtenay family which was endowed by Huw de Courtenay, Earl of Devon, in 1342, with the grange house and farm at “L’Aisshe”. The western end of the building with its diagonal buttresses is from that time. The eastern end with its gatehouse and first floor chapel with gothic perpendicular architecture and great east window showing corbelled heads of Henry IV and his second wife Joanna of Navarre, previously Queen of France, was built between 1390 and 1402. This late 14th century expansion of the chantry foundation, into a “College of Secular Canons” was supervised by Archbishop William de Courtenay, who had the farm at Nash, and the Burrell’s Mill estate, from his bother Sir Peter de Courtenay, in 1390, and was probably executed by William Wynford, who was at the time working on St John’s Church in Yeovil. A cloister between the two ends of Naish was converted to make the consistent two and three storey structure seen today, in early Victorian times, in the gothic style. Views from the upper floors of old ends of Naish Priory extend up to Inglemount and Garden Hill at Wraxhill to the north west and north east, and through Redlands farm to the Dorset Hills to the south east and south. Prior to 1750 at Naish there was a great hall and set of apartments which had formed another two courtyards to the south, towards the series of natural spring ponds known in ancient times as Peter’s Hole, in what is now the garden of Naish Priory. These structures are said to have crumbled in the 17th or 18th century, and elements of them were used in the building of West Coker Hall and the extension of West Coker Manor. Moving further east we head along the route from Nash towards Yeovil through the fields that were part of the Helyar estate that Dampier and his relatives would have known and farmed. Before heading up Garden Hill to where the right of way intersects with Plackets Lane, the deep sandy Roman cart track that forms the edge of the Wraxhill part of East Coker, we can look back and see one of the key approaches to Naish that walkers from Yeovil can experience. After heading south east on Plackets Lane and turning left to skirt through and along the edge of the 1960s Wraxhill development in East Coker, the entrance to Tarratts Lane is apparent a couple of hundred yards on the right, before the hospice. Tarratts Lane forms part of the Monarch’sWay, which is the route taken by Charles II and his supporters while trying to find safe passage to France after the execution of his father. Monarch’s Way runs down past Pavyott’s Mill and along the bottom of the Coker valley through Coker Moor and then up the hill behind Coker Court, and is a national walking route which is a key way that visitors on foot experience East Coker. On the right from Tarratts Lane there are fine views across the valley to St Michael’s Church and Coker Court, and the fields to left and right are part of the Pavyotts farm that was part of the Helyar estate in the environs of his guardian’s farm at Wraxhill that Dampier would have known. Pavyotts itself is viewed for the first time from the bottom of Tarratts Lane as it meets the Roman route from the Dorchester road, as is Key Farm on the left, with its royal Saxon roots, which is also listed Grade 2*. Pavyotts Manor House, Mill and Farm were in the hands of William Portman as tenant of the Helyar estate in 1614. The young William Portman was eventually to inherit the Portman baronetcy and estate. In the later 17th century he was a key national political figure and was instrumental in supporting James II against the Monmouth Rebellion, even capturing

60 Monmouth in Dorset and personally delivering him to the Tower, and thereafter supporting and accompanying William of Orange in 1688 as he landed in the West country and travelled up towards London to the Glorious Revolution. Portman was also a very early member of the Royal Society, from which Dampier later received acclaim and sponsorship. The current house at Pavyotts dates from the 17th century, and is listed Grade 2*. Pavyotts had been an important property, for at least some hundreds of years, but possibly also back to Roman times. It was held by the de Montacute family, Barons of Montacute, in the late 13th century, and was the birth place of Sir William de Montacute the first Earl of Salisbury, who like Huw de Courtenay was a close friend and key supporter of Edward III. The fields to the north and east of Pavyott’s were known as Ash Walk which suggests there may have been groves of ash trees on the site in bronze age and Roman times, which were particularly sacred and suggest there may be important further Roman and bronze age archaeological interest in the area. North of Pavyotts is the site of the East Coker Roman villa, whose deer hunting motif mosaic floor holds pride of place in the Somerset County Museum in Taunton. The site of this villa and its setting above Patch Lake, which has variously been a body of water and at one stage a water cress farm, with views through Redlands farm to the east and up to the Coker ridge to the North and north East where there were Roman look out and signalling points that connected with Ham Hill and beyond to the north, is part of an extremely important and unusual complex of Roman remains running from the Dorchester Road to Ham Hill. It has not been dug since the 18th century and what has been dug is only a small, fenced off area, accessible from Dunnocks Lane. Proceeding from the East Coker villa down to Pavyotts, a closer view of the house and garden can be had from the right of way that runs along the bottom of the valley by turning left, or east, along it for a short distance at the bottom, alongside the garden, to the bottom of Pavyotts Lane. In the other direction the Monarch’s Way leads back towards the Helyar Arms and church hamlet of East Coker. To the left there are fields under which an abandoned burgage village from the 12th and 13th centuries is buried. The path leads through the marshy area that Dampier described, and which no doubt was a rich source of flora and fauna that instilled natural wonder in the growing boy. Coming in along the marsh and through the fields towards the church hamlet of East Coker, in the field beside the small laying out chapel on the road between the hamlets, there is an ancient elm of great size which managed to escape the ravages of Dutch Elm Disease. A superb specimen of the Narrow-leafed (or Smooth-leafed) Elm Ulmus minor subsp. minor , measured in 2008, it was > 30 m in height, with a d.b.h. of 85 cm. Almost certainly planted as one of many ornamentals by the Helyar dynasty, the tree is a TROBI UK Champion, and has been adjudged the finest freestanding specimen in Europe.

Marcus Fysh 2012

61