Sustainability Apprasial – Yeovil Growth Options

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.