Category: CoreStrategy

[wpfilebase tag=file path=’Traffic Survey and Highway Document (Ltr).pdf’ /]

KEYFORD – Urban Extension Option

Bullet Points for consideration as displayed at pre-consultation

• This is grade 1 agricultural land. An increasing population will need more quality land to produce food, not less.

• Existing infrastructure e.g. hospital, college, schools facilities are already stretched.

• Is walking/cycling a reasonable way to get to town shops, work, etc.

• The escarpment to the south is steeper than the one to the north.

• Roads would be more crowded, no new ones are being planned and travel times would increase.

• No traffic surveys have been done to the north or south.

• Reaching the A303 would take longer because of increased traffic.

• Employment – Westlands, Yeovilton Town Centre etc., is mostly to the centre and north of Yeovil.

• Housing numbers given are questionable, as is the distribution within the district; Yeovil has 49% of the total. Therefore, an ‘Urban Extension’ may not be necessary at all.

• Development here would destroy an area of “intrinsic darkness” being able to have dark starry night sky.
• Dorset’s area of Outstanding Natural Beauty overlooks the area.

• Alternative land is available.

“Town and Country Planning Association and the Rural Coalition (Rural Challenge) documents express concerns over inappropriate urban extensions and a policy of urban bias. They support proportional development in rural settlements to meet the needs of the communities, enhance sustainability and protect the countryside”.

Their views can be found on their websites.

• Yeovil would be too big for its environment and would impact on sensitive rural areas.

• Strong potential for severe impact on highways, public transport and town infrastructure, increasing congestion and pollution. Geography of town means cycling and walking would not be preferred option for travel.

• Focus infrastructure funding to regenerate areas of social deprivation in Yeovil. Previous developments in Yeovil show new estates have failed to have much impact in regenerating deprived areas as funding used for new estates.

• Re-consider a stand alone settlement Eco Town instead of an urban extension – SSDC should use 3,700 homes designated for urban extension as part of overall housing numbers to create a viable stand alone settlement. Core Strategy Paragraph 4.4.5

• SSDC Core Strategy treats Yeovil and the rest of the district as two separate entities – 16,600 homes should be considered as a whole not as 8,200 (Yeovil) and 8,400 (Remainder of District).

• For its size and location Yeovil is taking too high a percentage of development – reduce to 35% and increase key sites density to Eco Standard (50+ dwelling per hectare) would minimise greenfield destruction. Increase development in rural centres and settlements in a balanced sustainable way to achieve 30% of total using exceptions and windfall projections as allowed in exceptional circumstances in Planning Policy Statement 3. It’s exceptional as the alternative is to severely impact Yeovil rural edge and its communities.

• Urban extension does not conform to other parts of the Core Strategy regarding needs based development in rural settlements. It also doesn’t take adequate account of Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy Guidance regarding sustainable rural communities. Particularly for East Coker it doesn’t take account of SCC/Exmoor Joint Structure Plan or East Coker Parish Plan.
• Respected bodies have doubts (Rural Challenge and TCPA) on some Urban Extensions due to impact on edge of towns, urban sprawl, inner centre areas disenfranchised, does not support improved sustainability in rural settlement, failing to attract and keep young families in the villages.

2001 – 42,000 (approx 18,000 dwellings)?

2007 – mid estimate 47,000 @ 2.36 persons per household (approx 19,900 dwellings)

SSDC Population growth requirement

By 2026 add 8,200 dwellings

total dwellings 19,900 + 8,200 = 28,115 @ 2.08 persons per household = 58,479

SSDC wishes a 39% population growth for Yeovil

District Population excluding Yeovil

2001 – 110,000?

2001 – District dwellings excluding Yeovil 47,000

by 2026 add 8,400 dwellings

total dwellings 55,400 @ 2.08 persons per household = 115,232

SSDC wishes a 4.7% population growth for the district excluding Yeovil

LGA Media Release: 16 August 2010

Britain’s rural villages are at risk of dying unless radical action is taken to secure their future, it is being warned.

A newly formed Rural Coalition, made up of councils and leading organisations which represent rural interests, is calling on the Government to deliver on its Big Society vision by radically empowering local people to shape the rural places in which they live.  They are warning that without this action, rural services face meltdown as spending is cut, housing will outprice all but the wealthiest, and rural wages will continue to lag as much as 20% behind urban averages.

Today the Rural Coalition publishes The Rural Challenge, a report outlining detailed proposals to give local people, entrepreneurs, community groups and councils the ability to bring about positive change that will ensure a thriving future for the countryside. The report is being billed as a blueprint for delivering the Big Society in the small places which are at huge risk unless action is taken now.

The Rural Challenge report sets out detailed propositions for taking on five key challenges facing the countryside – meeting rural housing need, building thriving economies, delivering good rural services, creating flourishing market towns and empowering local communities. The Rural Coalition, chaired by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, believes this can be achieved by letting communities seize the initiative.

Key recommendations of the report include:

The coalition is made up of groups including the Local Government Association, Country Land & Business Association, Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Town & Country Planning Association.

Chairman Matthew Taylor, who authored the Taylor Review of affordable housing and rural economies in 2008, said:

“On its current course, with no change in policy and no commitment to action, much of the countryside is becoming part dormitory, part theme park and part retirement home.

“For 50 years or more, policy has undervalued the countryside and failed to meet the needs of rural communities. The result is starkly apparent: rural communities have become increasingly less sustainable and less self-sufficient. Today we publish a blueprint for the Big Society in small places – if the Government is serious about localism, it should rise to the challenge.”

The LGA’s Rural Commission Chairman, Cllr Andrew Bowles, said:

“The proportion of affordable homes in rural areas is little more than half that in urban communities. If young families and low-income households are not able to access housing in villages, services like schools, buses and Post Offices become even less viable.  Councils have long been calling for greater autonomy and freedom to manage the finances of their own housing. This will free them up to meet the unique needs and aspirations of the areas and people they are elected to represent.”

Author: LGA Media Office
Contact: LGA Media Team – Telephone: 020 7664 3333

There is a view that the appraisal could be unsound. Below are some of the reasons:

The Appraisal has factual inaccuracies, flawed arguments, assumptions and where evidence exists it appears to have been selectively extracted. This affects the matrix scoring and outcome.

For example – Several comments refer to the benefits of a development linking Yeovil to Yeovil Junction Station and Barwick for public transport, rail travel and social inclusion reasons; these have attracted a positive matrix score in the appraisal. There is little firm evidence to support meaningful development in this area and therefore casts doubt on the ability to deliver the desired outcomes and the benefits expected.

• Objective 1 Access to essential services – East Coker/Keyford has no proximity to most facilities quoted, unlike northern option which does.
• Objective 2 Reducing Poverty and Social Exclusion – three areas of deprivation are further from East Coker/Keyford than from the northern option and not in proximity to any area of deprivation.
• Objective 4 Improve Health and Wellbeing – Hospital location is factually incorrect as it is not south of the town centre as quoted. Country Park and rural rights of way across south already provide a facility and therefore it is not a new opportunity. Southern development reduces opportunity some rights of way will become urban not rural. Focus should be improvement to the north nearest to urban population.
• Objective 5 Education – Argument is weak and only covers provision of 0.5 of a secondary school. Fails to recognise primary, tertiary, adult education and skills all in proximity to the north. A north urban extension would benefit from, and provide benefit to, the north of Yeovil. To the south it could have detrimental impact of rural primary schools.
• Objective 7 Support Economy – A major employment area for Yeovil is RNAS Yeovilton (3,000 + jobs) not reflected in the appraisal, strong potential and benefit from north development also potential for cycle route to Yeovilton (SSDC feasibility assessment).
• Objective 8 Reduce Traffic Effect – From the south walking and cycling for work and shopping is constrained by hills, major highways, country park and proximity. Safer through well lit northern suburbs with traffic calming in place. Public transport links of significant benefit to the north with more improvement due for key sites. Accessibility to Yeovil and A303 from north is significantly better than the Keyford /Barwick option which would be extremely difficult to mitigate.
• Objective 9 Landscape and Townscape – Factual incorrect. Peripheral Landscape assessment failed to take account of land quality as a landscape resource with appropriate sensitivity. Undue weight placed in support of Northern wide view against Southern wide and short view.
• Objective 10 Conserve and enhance historic environment – Scoring does not reflect HEA summary that north option has best and highest capacity to build with least historic environmental impact. Keyford/Barwick constrained with only low/moderate capacity to build.
• Objective 11 Reduce climate change effects – Failed to identify benefit of community energy centre in reducing perceived negative impacts to a northern option.
• Objective 13 Risk of Flooding – Fails to recognise that the northern option benefits from low risk of flooding which requires less mitigation. Unlike the south and east that requires significant mitigation.
• Objective 14 Conserve and enhance bio and geo diversity – Scores the north option as significant negative impact even though no assessment was carried out. A completely inappropriate score.

SSDC reduced number of houses from 19,700 to 16,600 but retained previous government’s requirement for an Urban Extension but reduced to 3,700 houses.

SSDC Core Strategy is to locate 93% (15,400) of all housing development and most future employment development in the main settlements but only 7% (1200) of housing for the remaining 100+ rural settlements.

SSDC proposes that South Petherton will have no further development beyond that planned (145 homes) until 2026 and Stoke Sub Hamdon to have a total of just 55 homes up until 2026.

SSDC proposes Yeovil and Chard will take the brunt of development with Yeovil (and East Coker/ Barwick taking 8,200 homes (49.4%) with East Coker/Barwick area having 3,700 (22.2%).

SSDC has a policy of focussing development in Yeovil and creating an Urban Extension. The Town and Country Planning Association and the Rural Coalition express concerns over inappropriate urban extensions that impact on the countryside and rural communities adjacent to urban areas, as well as increasing the distance to the countryside for inhabitants of the town. They support proportional development in rural settlements to meet the needs of the communities attract young families and enhance sustainability. SSDC DOES NOT HAVE A VIABLE STRATEGY to provide sustainable communities in the majority of villages.

By increasing housing density in the planned key sites to 50+ per hectare (Eco Standard) and allowing managed sustainable growth (windfall) throughout the rural settlements there would be no requirement for an urban extension.

[wpfilebase tag=file path=’Acknowledgement Ltr to SSDC-Andy Foyne (19 May 2010).pdf’ /]

[wpfilebase tag=file path=’SSDCResponsestoECPCResponsetoFebSustainabilityAppraisal.pdf’ /]