South Somerset District Council

CHARLES BISHOP JB 006

SOUTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL

LOCAL PLAN 2006-2028

INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION

RESPONDENT/REPRESENTOR JOHN BISHOP CHARLES BISHOP LIMITED LANGLEY HOUSE 24 HENDFORD YEOVIL SOMERSET BA20 1TG

RESPONDENT REFERENCE (ID No:) 4103425

HEARING SESSION ISSUE 6 – YEOVIL SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXTENSION TUESDAY 14 MAY – 10.00am JB/6427 – 9 April 2013 6.1 Is the vision for growth and change in this area appropriate and justified, including in relation to national guidance and local needs, and in terms of economic, social and environmental impact? Have matters of highway safety, biodiversity, flood risk, noise, light pollution and topography/landscape been properly addressed?

6.1.1 Charles Bishop Limited (CBL) considers that the vision for growth and change in the area of the Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) is appropriate and justified, including in relation to both national guidance and local needs

6.2 Have the implications of this level of growth for local infrastructure, services and facilities been assessed and appropriately taken into account? Is it clear what infrastructure will be provided and to what timetable?

6.2.1 Further details on the provision of infrastructure and services will be provided in a Statement of Common Ground with the District Council (to be submitted prior to the Examination)

6.2.2 On the subject of the secondary school, CBL has had informal discussions with the Somerset County Council Education Authority who question the need firstly for a secondary school at all, and secondly the need for such a school on a site of the size of the SUE. We understand that the inclusion of the secondary school forms part of a District Council strategy, but, on the basis of the SCC comments, the majority of the pupils attending such a school would not come from the SUE, but from areas within the existing built-up area of Yeovil to the north.

6.2.3 This being the case, we consider that the land to the east of the Keyford roundabout, which does not relate well to the remainder of the SUE, would be a good location for the secondary school, should the decision ultimately be to provide one. The majority of the pupils attending the school would have easy access to the facility southwards along the A37 to the Keyford roundabout, without the need to generate further unnecessary traffic movements within the SUE itself.

6.2.4 Furthermore this proposed location, to the east of the A37, has sufficient room for the extensive playing fields associated with the secondary school, and these green areas would provide a notional ‘buffer zone’ for the nearby village of Barwick to the east.

6.2.5 While CBL may have more detailed comments in due course, the company essentially supports the Council’s objective of developing the SUE along garden city principles and to high levels of sustainability, subject to viability as stated in Policy YV2.

6.3 Why is neighbourhood centre (as referred to in paragraph 8.111) not in policy YV2 as a requirement? 6.3.1 CBL cannot say why the neighbourhood centre is not included in Policy YV2, but would have no objection to the requirement being added to the Policy.

6.3.2 While CBL accepts that neighbourhood centres should not affect the viability of town centres, there is often an opportunity for these centres to not only serve the strategic site on which they are located, but also to sustainably serve the existing community adjacent to the strategic site, where there is often a shortfall of facilities. The Policy and sub-text appear to permit this, and the general wording is supported.

6.4 What will be the status of the buffer zone? Would it be sufficient to meet the stated objective of ‘protecting’ East and North Coker? Will heritage assets be afforded appropriate protection?

6.4.1 While it will be for the Council to propose the precise status of the Buffer Zone, CBL considers that it will be sufficient to meet the stated objective of ‘protecting’ East Coker and North Coker in ensuring that there is no further western extension of the SUE towards the villages.

6.4.2 The Buffer Zone will provide a permanent, clear, extensive, physical break between the southern edge of Yeovil and the northern edges of the villages. Although it is accepted that there will be views of the SUE from East and North Coker, the town of Yeovil already appears over the ridgeline in views to the north-east from these villages. The essential comfort which the 800m wide Buffer Zone will provide is a complete prevention of physical coalescence between the town and the villages.

6.4.3 In terms of mitigating the visual effect of the SUE on the villages, CBL has previously suggested that western areas of perimeter planting could be carried out early in the plan period, ahead of any development proceeding in these western sections. This would allow new planting to become established and to gain some height before building took place in the western areas of the SUE.

6.4.4 Heritage assets will be afforded appropriate protection. The SUE consortium has commissioned extensive archaeological work in relation to heritage assets, and archaeology is anticipated to form a section within the Statement of Common Ground agreed with the Council.

6.5 How can the Council be confident that the sustainable travel options would be secured, and secured in a timely fashion so that the needs of the first residents would be met?

6.5.1 The Council’s decision to locate the SUE in the Keyford area is, in itself, an inherently sustainable choice.

6.5.2 The question of sustainability was discussed at length at the previous South Somerset Local Plan Public Inquiry, and the Inspector made reference to the sustainability credentials of the smaller Keyford site in his 2003 Report in a dedicated ‘Sustainability’ section. In paragraph 7.12.19 he records his view that Keyford in sustainability terms is substantially better that the Lufton site, and scores well in comparison with the Thorne Lane and Lyde Road sites. All three of these latter sites were allocated and now have their planning permission in place.

6.5.3 It is CBL’s view that the best first step towards securing sustainable travel options, is to place the strategic site in a convenient location, in order that journeys to essential destinations for work, shopping, education, recreation, etc. are short. This is the case with the proposed SUE, which is placed within Yeovil so as to reduce inbound commuting, and placed conveniently within the town to reduce journey lengths and times. The location of the site is ideal for providing efficient bus services to the town centre, and as part of an overall, possibly circular route strategy for the whole town.

6.5.4 CBL has no objection to the provision of many of the stated requirements in the Policy, such as well designed footpath and cycleway links.

6.5.5 However, CBL believes that some of the items under Policy YV6 have not been properly thought through. In particular, Policy (iii) which proposes a traffic free immediate environment, with residential parking separated from the residential areas is based on an idea which has more recently been discredited, in favour of a return to parking on plot. The traditional concept of parking on plot has a number of benefits, e.g. vehicle security, larger plot size leading to less dwelling shading which would have eco benefits for the dwellings themselves, etc. Parking on plot provides a driveway area where children can play while the family breadwinner is away at work. If the attempt to discourage the use of the car was successful, the redundant driveway would still be of benefit in spatial terms to the dwelling. What use would a remote parking space be to a house-owner with no car?

6.5.6 While CBL agrees with much of Policy YV6 certain aspects of it should remain aspirational.