DOCSLIB.ORG

Appraisal Summary Table Jul-19 Name Organisation Highways

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: Jul-19 Contact: Name of scheme: A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling Name Description of scheme: The scheme would provide a dual carriageway on the A303 between Sparkford and Podimore in Somerset, connecting the existing dual carriageway sections Organisation Highways England from Sparkford to Ilchester. The scheme follows the existing corridor of the A303 very closely. It is generally considered to be an online solution although is often Role Promoter/Official deliberately aligned just to the side of the existing carriageway to allow re-use of the existing route for local access, avoid property or facilitate construction. At its maximum off-set, the route is typically 100 metres either north or south of the existing A303. Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & transport Journey time benefits by converting old single carriageway section to modern dual carriageway Value of journey time changes(£) providers with associated junction improvements. Net journey time changes is the net of positive and 114.2m negatives in a given time band. Monetary (NPV) includes both journey times and vehicle Net journey time changes (£) N/A 115.4m N/A operating cost impacts. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min 26.1m 81.3m 6.7m Reliability impact on Business Reliability benefits by converting old single carriageway section to modern dual carriageway with N/A N/A 9m users associated junction improvements. Economy Regeneration N/A N/A N/A N/A Wider Impacts Wider economic benefits by converting old single carriageway section to modern dual N/A N/A 35.3m carriageway with associated junction improvements. Noise Results indicate an overall dis-benefit due to a greater number of households experiencing Households experiencing increased daytime noise in forecast daytime traffic noise increases than decreases, within the calculation area. Mitigation measures year: 128. have been implemented along the alignment and within close proximity to protect nearby Households experiencing reduced daytime noise in forecast residential properties from noise impacts due to the scheme. year: 63. Households experiencing increased night time noise in N/A -0.1m N/A forecast year: 42. Households experiencing reduced night time noise in forecast year: 67. Air Quality Overall there would be a net worsening in local air quality within the study area. The scheme Local Air quality effects at properties (Improvements / No Value of change in would not result in a new exceedance of the NO2 or PM10 annual mean air quality objectives. effect / Deterioration) PM There are no Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) links which overlap with the scheme's Affected NO2 2023 (1721 / 2964 / 2990) concentrations: Road Network (ARN) in scheme opening year. There are no Air Quality Management Areas PM10 2023 (284 / 5702 / 1689) NPV: -0.07m (AQMAs) within the scheme ARN in the opening year. The regional assessment predicts an increase in emissions of NOx and PM10 primarily as a result of an increase in the number of Overall Assessment Score (negative score reflect benefit) Value of change in vehicles travelling on the A303. Overall, the total change in NPV is negative indicating a net NO2: (2023): 52.21 NOx emissions: worsening in air quality when considering both local and regional effects. PM10: (2023): 19.30 N/A NPV: -0.29m N/A Change in Regional Emissions Total value of NOx (2023): 12.6 t/year change in air PM10 (2023): 1.2 t/year quality NPV: - 0.36m Greenhouse gases The scheme is estimated to cause an increase of 625,195tCO2e in non-traded emissions and Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) 625,195t increase by 5,972tCO2e in traded emissions over 60 years. The increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) has been caused by an increase in the vehicles using the new road, and therefore more vehicle kilometres are travelled between the opening year of 2023 and the forecast year of 2038 N/A -27.9m Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) 5,972t as well as an increase between the Do-Minimum (DM) and Do-Something (DS). Landscape The proposed scheme is set within the Yeovil Scarplands National Character Area (NCA), characterised by its remote rural nature, steep Scarplands, broad ridges, and the pattern characterised by historic Roman and Neolithic settlements, medieval open field patterns, manor houses with surrounding parklands. The proposed route would be either online or very close to the existing A303 route corridor, minimising impacts upon landscape character and nearby visual receptors. The expansion to dual carriageway would however be at odds with the local landscape pattern and scale. There would be a direct impact upon the designated Hazlegrove House Registered Park and Garden (RPG) and the scheme would also be in proximity to Conservation Areas at West Camel and Queen Camel, however they would not be directly affected by the N/A Slight Adverse N/A scheme. This scheme would be visible from local visual receptors including residential properties and Public Rights of Way, however views would be limited in some areas where the route would pass in cutting, aiding its visual integration, and limiting views of associated traffic in some areas. Proposed mitigation would include the construction of bunds to create false cuttings and replacement planting. Whilst this mitigation would aid the scheme's integration, the route would not quite fit the landform and scale of the landscape. The overall effect on landscape would be Slight Adverse with mitigation in place. Townscape The scheme runs through a rural environment and therefore just landscape has been assessed for this scheme. The built environment is limited to small-scale settlements which are not directly N/A N/A N/A Environmental impacts by the scheme and therefore it is considered there would be limited value in undertaking a townscape assessment. Historic Environment The proposed scheme would require large areas of medium value unknown archaeological buried remains to be excavated during construction, resulting in potential damage. Agricultural earthwork remains within the proposed scheme boundary would be fully removed by the scheme, however these are considered of low value. Archaeological remains would be evaluated and, where necessary, recorded and excavated. The scheme would pass through the southern section of Hazlegrove House Registered Park and Garden (RPG), which would result in the removal of elements of the historic parkland. The junction is condensed towards the woodland Moderate and arable fields in the south western corner of the park to reduce the land take and impact on N/A N/A Adverse the historic parkland. Archaeological monitoring of the remains of the driveways would be undertaken. Replacement planting to would aid the screening of the scheme from heritage assets, as well as screening the existing services at Camel Hill from the house. The scheme would result in a Moderate Adverse effect with mitigation and therefore an overall worsening of the historic environment. Biodiversity The scheme is located adjacent to Camel Hill Transmitter Site Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Gason Lane Field LWS and within Hazlegrove Park LWS. Small scale direct loss of broad- leaved woodland, parkland, calcareous grassland and hedgerows is anticipated as a result of the scheme. These are listed as Priority Habitats. Wildlife using these habitats such as bats, breeding birds, barn owls, reptiles, great crested newts and badger are likely to be subject to increased disturbance and loss of habitat. The loss of any habitat of conservation value would be N/A Slight Adverse N/A replaced like-for-like as a minimum requirement. New planting would be connected to existing habitat within the landscape to compensate for the loss of wildlife corridors and reduce the fragmentation impact of the scheme. The overall effect on biodiversity would be Slight Adverse with mitigation in place. Water Environment The principle receptors include the River Cam - Lower and the River Yeo downstream of Overcompton to the south and the River Cary - Source to confluence with King's Sedgemoor Drain (KSD) to the north-west, both of which are Water Framework Directive (WFD) waterbodies. In addition, Dyke Brook runs to the north and Park Brook to the north west. The scheme would be unlikely to affect waterbodies during the construction phase as works would include standard mitigation measures. The scheme would also be unlikely to affect waterbodies once operational as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and pollution control measures have been incorporated in the drainage design. These measures would prevent adverse effects from pollutants / contaminants / excess sediments from routine runoff (or from accidental spillage N/A Neutral N/A incidents) during operation reaching the downstream waterbodies. Some parts of drainage ditches and ponds would be lost as they would be infilled to accommodate the new carriageway. New drainage ditches and ponds would be created to compensate for any losses. The scheme would be located within Flood Zone 1 and would not affect / or be affected by areas within Flood Zones 3 and 2. The overall impact on the water environment would be Neutral with mitigation in place. Commuting and Other users Journey time benefits by converting old single carriageway section to modern dual carriageway Value of journey time changes(£) 74.9m with associated junction improvements. Net journey time changes is the net of positives and Net journey time changes (£) N/A 31.7m Moderate beneficial negatives in a given time band. Monetary (NPV) includes both journey times and vehicle 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min operating cost impacts. 6.9m 63.3m 4.8m Reliability impact on Reliability benefits by converting old single carriageway section to modern dual carriageway with N/A N/A Commuting and Other users associated junction improvements.
Recommended publications
  • Somerset's Common Works Programme 2015/16

    Somerset's Common Works Programme 2015/16

    Somerset's Common Works Programme 2015/16 - Q3 Progress The Common Works Programme shows the flood risk and water management works Somerset's Flood Risk Management Authorities are doing, funded from their own budgets. The last section, labelled joint, is for projects that are joint funded, including those that SRA funds are contributing to Flood Risk For removed For removed Project Management Timescale for schemes - schemes - Ref Project Name District Parish Description Flood Risk Source Progress Comments/Issues Stage Authority Implementation Reason for Further (Funder) removal Action 1. Improvement Schemes - Environment Agency Joint Programme of Work attracting either Government Grant in Aid or Local Levy (WRFCC) funding (see map for EA schemes) www.somersetriversauthority.org.uk/about-us/board-and-partners/board-meetings-and-papers/?entryid108=97703 Carry out repairs to defence wall and reinstate flood bank to Initial site visit has taken place. EA 1 Brue Glastonbury to Cripps Mendip Wedmore Design EA Main River 2015-16 defence level G = on course for delivery in 15/16 Works are ongoing Picked up on IDB Enhanced EA 1 Brue Glastonbury to Cripps Mendip Wedmore Desilt and pull banks on River Brue EA Main River 2015-16 R = no longer proposed for delivery in 15/16 by maintenance EA programme None Lewis Drove Tilting Weir - Gate major mechanical maintenance, This work is being carried out by EA 2 North Drain Mendip Burtle EA Main River 2015-16 repair motor and gearbox G = on course for delivery in 15/16 MEICA Funding for EA 3 Burnham - Highbridge
  • Minutes of Parish Council (PC) Meeting Held As a Consultative Virtual Meeting Via Zoom Software on Wednesday 28Th October 2020 at 7.00Pm

    Minutes of Parish Council (PC) Meeting Held As a Consultative Virtual Meeting Via Zoom Software on Wednesday 28Th October 2020 at 7.00Pm

    North Cadbury & Yarlington Parish Council Clerk: Mrs Rebecca Carter, Portman House, North Barrow, Somerset, BA22 7LZ Tel: 01963 240226 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.northcadbury.org.uk “Draft” Minutes of Parish Council (PC) Meeting held as a consultative virtual meeting via Zoom software on Wednesday 28th October 2020 at 7.00pm Councillors Present (remotely): Malcolm Hunt (Chairman) Alan Bartlett (Vice Chairman) Sue Gilbert Karen Harris Roger House Andy Keys-Toyer Bryan Mead Archie Montgomery Alan Rickers John Rundle Katherine Vaughan In Attendance (remotely): C.Cllr M Lewis, D.Cllr H Hobhouse, D.Cllr Kevin Messenger, the Clerk, Mr A Tregay, Boon Brown and nineteen members of the public. Public Session There were no comments from the public. Clare Field, Ridgeway Lane, North Cadbury – Presentation of Initial Plans for Development Presentation by Mr A Tregay, Boon Brown to PC of initial conceptual plans on scheme at Ridgeway Lane prior to formal consultation with PC, neighbours/residents. The Chairman informed residents that the presentation by Mr Tregay would not constitute a formal consultation. Mr Tregay had given his assurance to the Chairman that the PC and neighbours/residents would have the opportunity to comment and ask questions during the formal consultation process at pre- application and post-application stages, which would be held at a later date, which was also confirmed by Mr Tregay. Mr Tregay stated that this was the start of a constructive dialogue with the PC in order to give an indication of the proposed development during the early stages and to hopefully receive feedback. The aim was to keep the PC and neighbours informed as much as possible.
  • North Cadbury Neighbourhood Plan Heritage Assessment on Behalf of North Cadbury and Yarlington Parish Council August 2020

    North Cadbury Neighbourhood Plan Heritage Assessment on Behalf of North Cadbury and Yarlington Parish Council August 2020

    North Cadbury Neighbourhood Plan Heritage Assessment on behalf of North Cadbury and Yarlington Parish Council August 2020 kim sankey │ architect angel architecture │ design │ interiors Angel Architecture Ltd Registered in England at Unit 4, Herringston Barn, Herringston, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 9PU _____________________________________________________________________ North Cadbury Neighbourhood Plan Heritage Assessment August 2020 NORTH CADBURY Key Features The special interest of North Cadbury lies in its origins as a rural estate village (formerly Cadbury Estate) of mixed farmland demarked by ancient enclosed hedgerows with some C17 and C18 modification. On the edges are C19 historic orchards, bounded by mature hedgerows, and several farmsteads. The orchards are a particularly strong landscape feature in terms of social history and culture as they represented an intensively productive use of land, providing cider for the labouring classes while also allowing the grazing of sheep and poultry. There are many listed buildings but most prominent are the Church and Cadbury Court at the historic core around which development is concentrated. The southern edge of the Conservation Area is characterised by the parkland setting of the Court. Under the ownership of Sir Archibald & Lady Langman the estate introduced scientific methods of farming in the 1930’s. The Langman’s prosperity, as a result of this innovation, is evident in the provision of the new village hall opposite Glebe House on Woolston Road. Although most of the other farms have been converted to residential use, Manor Farm remains the manufacturing base for renowned Montgomery Cheddar and Ogleshield cheeses. The River Cam, which rises in Yarlington, runs along the western edge of North Cadbury and through Brookhampton.
  • Scoping Report and Project Plan

    Scoping Report and Project Plan

    North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan Initial Scoping Report and Project Plan SCOPING REPORT – INITIAL FILE NOTE Prepared on behalf of North Cadbury and Yarlington Parish Council SEPTEMBER 2019 1. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared by Jo Witherden BSc(Hons) DipTP DipUD MRTPI of Dorset Planning Consultant Ltd, for North Cadbury and Yarlington Parish Council. The Parish Council is the qualifying body authorised to act in preparing a neighbourhood development plan in relation to the North Cadbury and Yarlington Neighbourhood Plan area. The purpose of this report is to identify at an early stage what issues that relate to development are likely to be most important to the community, and are something that the Neighbourhood Plan can potentially influence. This will then guide the early stages of evidence gathering and consultation, and initial project plan, to ensure that the time and resources spent on preparing the Neighbourhood Plan are focused on achieving the desired outcomes. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANS A Neighbourhood Plan, when made, becomes part of the development plan for the area, alongside the Local Plan. Together they set out the policies that are used to decide what types of building work or other development will generally be allowed, and what should be refused. They can also say what buildings or places should be protected, and why. Having a Neighbourhood Plan won’t change the area overnight. Its key influence is on decisions made by on planning applications. Landowners (or developers) will still need to make planning applications to the District Council, who will consult on these before making a decision to permit or refuse the proposed development.
  • So O T H Wgrs-T FISHERY SURVEY of the RIVER YEO CATCHMENT

    So O T H Wgrs-T FISHERY SURVEY of the RIVER YEO CATCHMENT

    So o TH W G r S - T FISHERY SURVEY OF THE RIVER YEO CATCHMENT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This survey of the catchment was undertaken between April 1993 and September 1993. The rivers surveyed were the Yeo, Wriggle, Sutton Bingham Streamsv Cam and Gallica. 1.2 The primary aim was to collect fisheries data on the Yeo catchment as part of a 'rolling1 survey programme for all catchments in the North Wessex Area of the National Rivers Authority. 1.3 It is the first time the catchment has been surveyed in its entirety, the last survey in the catchment being on the upper Yeo betveen Mudford and Sherborne in 1986. 2. TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY 2.1 The River Yeo, a major tributary of the River Parrett, has its source at Seven Sisters Veil, near Charlton Horethome. From here it falls 100m to its confluence vith the Parrett at Langport. Belov Ilchester much of the Yeo is artificially embanked, vith levels rising to 3m above adjacent fields. The catchment totals 398km2. 2.2 The River Cam rises near Jack Whites Gibbet, and has a catchment of 45 sq Km. The ground levels in the area vary betveen 17m and 183m OND at Yeovilton and Bratton Hill respectively. 2.3 The Wriggle rises at Batcombe Hill and flovs approximately north to the confluence vith the River Yeo at Bradford Abbas. It has a catchment of 54.2 km2. 2.4 The Gallica rises near Melbury Sampford and flovs in a northerly direction to its confluence vith the Sutton Bingham Stream approximately 5km away.
  • North and Mid Somerset CFMP

    North and Mid Somerset CFMP

    ` Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan Consultation Draft (v5) (March 2008) We are the Environment Agency. It’s our job to look after your environment and make it a better place – for you, and for future generations. Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink and the ground you walk on. Working with business, Government and society as a whole, we are making your environment cleaner and healthier. The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a better place. Published by: Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive, Aztec West Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409 © Environment Agency March 2008 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Environment Agency Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan – Consultation Draft (Mar 2008) Document issue history ISSUE BOX Issue date Version Status Revisions Originated Checked Approved Issued to by by by 15 Nov 07 1 Draft JM/JK/JT JM KT/RR 13 Dec 07 2 Draft v2 Response to JM/JK/JT JM/KT KT/RR Regional QRP 4 Feb 08 3 Draft v3 Action Plan JM/JK/JT JM KT/RR & Other Revisions 12 Feb 08 4 Draft v4 Minor JM JM KT/RR Revisions 20 Mar 08 5 Draft v5 Minor JM/JK/JT JM/KT Public consultation Revisions Consultation Contact details The Parrett CFMP will be reviewed within the next 5 to 6 years. Any comments collated during this period will be considered at the time of review. Any comments should be addressed to: Ken Tatem Regional strategic and Development Planning Environment Agency Rivers House East Quay Bridgwater Somerset TA6 4YS or send an email to: [email protected] Environment Agency Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan – Consultation Draft (Mar 2008) Foreword Parrett DRAFT Catchment Flood Management Plan I am pleased to introduce the draft Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP).
  • Peripheral Landscape Study – Ilchester

    Peripheral Landscape Study – Ilchester

    Peripheral landscape study – Ilchester Conservation and Design Unit South Somerset District Council February 2010 Peripheral landscape study - Ilchester Page No: Contents – 1. Background to study 3 2. The settlement 4 3. Landscape character 5 4. Landscape sensitivity 9 5. Visual sensitivity 12 6. Values and Constraints 16 7. Landscape capacity 17 8. Proposals 19 9. Appendices 21 (1) - capacity matrix (2) - historic landscape character (3) - photos (1-14) 10. Plans - 1) site context and study area - 2) landscape character sensitivity - 3) visual sensitivity - 4) values and constraints - 5) landscape capacity Page 2 of 22 Peripheral landscape study - Ilchester 1) Background to the study: 1.1. The forthcoming South Somerset Local Development Framework (LDF) will be required to allocate new development sites for both housing and employment for the period 2006-2026, with the focus of major growth placed upon Yeovil, thereafter the district’s major towns and rural centres. As part of the process of finding suitable sites for development, a landscape study to assess the capacity of the settlement fringe to accommodate new development in a landscape-sympathetic manner, is commissioned. This will complement other evidence-based work that will contribute to the LDF process. 1.2 PPS 7 commends the approach to the identification of countryside character developed by the Countryside Agency (now Natural England) and suggests that it can assist in accommodating necessary change due to development without sacrifice of local character and distinctiveness.
  • Yeovil Scarplands Sweep in an Arc from the Mendip Hills Around the Southern Edge of Somerset Levels and Moors to the Edge of the Blackdowns

    Yeovil Scarplands Sweep in an Arc from the Mendip Hills Around the Southern Edge of Somerset Levels and Moors to the Edge of the Blackdowns

    Character Area Yeovil 140 Scarplands Key Characteristics Much of the higher ground has sparse hedge and tree cover with an open, ridgetop, almost downland, character. In ● A very varied landscape of hills, wide valley bottoms, some areas, the high ground is open grassland falling away ridgetops and combes united by scarps of Jurassic steeply down intricately folded slopes. There are limestone. spectacular views across the lowland landscape framed by sheltered golden-stoned villages like Batcombe. In other ● Mainly a remote rural area with villages and high church towers. areas of high ground, there is more arable and the ridges are broader. The steep slopes below these open ridge tops ● Wide variety of local building materials including are in pasture use and are cut by narrow, deep valleys predominantly Ham Hill Stone. ('goyles') often with abundant bracken and scrub. Within ● Small manor houses and large mansions with the valleys there is a strong character of enclosure landscape parks. and remoteness. ● Varied land use: arable on the better low-lying land, woodland on the steep ridges and deep combes. Landscape Character The Yeovil Scarplands sweep in an arc from the Mendip Hills around the southern edge of Somerset Levels and Moors to the edge of the Blackdowns. Rivers like the Brue, Parrett and Yeo drain from the higher ground of the Scarplands cutting an intricate pattern of irregular hills and valleys which open out to the moorland basins. To the east there is a gradual transition to Blackmore Vale and the Vale JULIAN COMRIE/COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY JULIAN COMRIE/COUNTRYSIDE of Wardour and the area is separated from Marshwood Vale The Yeovil Scarplands comprise several scarps and vales formed by the ridge above the Axe Valley.
  • Martock Environment Manual

    Martock Environment Manual

    Martock Environment Manual Version 1.0 January 2020 1 Martock Parish Environment Manual Version 1.0 January 2020 Cartgate Nature Area Cover. Pyramidal Orchid, Contents Page Cartgate Nature Area 1 Introduction 3 2 Policy Environment 4 3 The Martock Landscape 6 4 Biodiversity in Martock Parish 9 5 Trees TBD 6 Watercourses, ponds and drainage TBD 7 Historically significant sites and structures TBD 8 Landscapes and views 24 9 Guiding principles for developers TBD All maps in this document are produced using Parish Online and subject to OS Crown Copyright (100054346) 2 1 Introduction The purpose of this Manual This Manual is designed to serve two purposes. Firstly it is a Parish environ- mental record and secondly it is a manual to guide sound and sensitive plan- ning within the Parish. 1 A Parish Environmental Record The Manual outlines the main areas of biodiversity within the Parish using Phase 1 Habitat descriptors 1 of cultivated land, wetland, woodland grassland and borders. These are mapped and individual habitats are described. Data are recorded in a geographical information database which will eventually be available online2. This is inevitably an ongoing activity. The more significant habitats only are included in this version, particularly those close to the built area. Future work will not only identify habitats in more detail but it is the intention also to include those, such a historic hedges, that have suffered, and are suffereing, erosion. 1. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Secondly, the Manual will outline historically significant sites and structures, UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitats, see http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706.
  • PDF (This Accepted Version May Not Correspond Exactly to the Published

    PDF (This Accepted Version May Not Correspond Exactly to the Published

    5 A sheep’s eye view Land division, livestock and people in later prehistoric Somerset, UK Clare Randall Fields and field systems in later prehistoric British archaeology have generally been discussed in relation to territory or land tenure. They are also frequently assumed to relate purely to arable agriculture. Alongside this, we also tend not to situate livestock animals within landscapes. Increasingly, morphological features of fields can be identified as having use in animal handling. Consequently field system morphology, and changes to layouts over time, enable their re-examination in relation to pastoral and arable husbandry (and the interplay between them), and consideration as to why differing approaches may have been adopted within the same landscape at different times. This provides models which, focussing on pastoral husbandry, are potentially applicable to a range of places and periods. The second and first millennium BC bounded landscapes surrounding the hillfort at Cadbury, Castle, Somerset, UK, reveal an intimate relationship between the occupiers of the hillfort, sites in its environs, livestock, and the landscape. A series of different forms of land division and organisation from the earlier Bronze Age onwards can be compared with both faunal and plant macro-fossil data from within that landscape. Different forms of layout appear to reflect different types of strategy and approach in later prehistoric farming. During the second and first millennium BC changes can be observed between different forms of highly extensive pastoral farming and closely integrated and intensive systems. The explanation would seem to be more social than practical in origin, but discerning this is reliant on large scale field survey, and integration of multiple strands of information.
  • South Somerset District Council Local Plan Review

    South Somerset District Council Local Plan Review

    South Somerset District Council Local Plan Review The Potential for Rural Settlements to be Designated ‘Villages’ November 2018 Contents Page 1 Introduction 1 2 Context 1 3 Methodology 3 4 Settlement Appraisal 13 5 Conclusions 23 Appendix 1 - Complete list of Rural Settlements in the District subject to this Appraisal 24 Appendix 2 - Settlement Maps; Constraints and Community Service Locations 25 Appendix 3 – Location Map of Settlements 58 1. Introduction 1.1 This paper considers the suitability of the District’s many Rural Settlements for growth. The current Local Plan does not allocate housing and employment to specific villages, seeking to direct most development to Yeovil, the Market Towns and Rural Centres. However, new housing has been delivered in the Rural Settlements far in excess of what the Local Plan anticipated; and similarly, new commercial buildings have, in the main, been provided away from the established employment locations and sites allocated for that purpose. Rather than continue with this somewhat arbitrary situation, the Review of the Local Plan offers the opportunity to look again at the various smaller settlements around the District to ascertain which might offer the best and most sustainable locations for limited growth and possible designation as ‘Villages’. 1.2 The Review of the Local Plan has also resulted in the potential removal of the role of ‘Rural Centre’ from Stoke sub Hamdon. This is because the settlement has many constraints and the number of commercial outlets in the centre is relatively restricted. It could instead be designated a ‘Village’ in recognition of its size and numbers of other facilities relative to the remaining Rural Settlements.
  • Ham Hill Country Park Management Plan 2013 – 2017

    Ham Hill Country Park Management Plan 2013 – 2017

    Ham Hill Country Park Management Plan 2013 – 2017 ‘A diverse and accessible countryside site where management will enable the long term enjoyment of its significant and inspiring archaeological and ecological assets.’ Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8 Site description ............................................................................................................................ 9 Location: .................................................................................................................................. 9 Map Coverage .......................................................................................................................... 9 Size .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Compartments.......................................................................................................................... 9 Statutory Designations ............................................................................................................ 10 Ownership.............................................................................................................................. 10 Access ...................................................................................................................................