WEST SOMERSET CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS PAPER
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
(Strategy option responses only)
August 2010
Summary of Strategy related responses to the West Somerset Core Strategy
Regulation 25 Strategy Options Consultation – August 2010
The nature of the entries in the schedule varies with the nature of the material in the responses. The brevity or otherwise of a summary in no
way reflects the importance attached to the comment made.
Apart from responses from bodies such as GOSW and Somerset County Council which have particular relevance for the overall strategy issues,
this summary includes responses relating to the strategy option issue alone.
Because of the large number of responses in relation to a single issue at Brushford, the essence of each objector’s position is shown in the main
table (at reference numbers 50 to 101 below). The number of representors making each point in support of their views is set out at Appendix 1.
No. Name
Issue
ref.
Summaries of points made in response
Central government
41
Government
Office for the
South West
(all comments)
41/1
Good progress has been made on the Core Strategy, the document is well written in a manner clearly understandable by
laymen. It is clearly underpinned by a detailed understanding of the area. Notwithstanding this there are a number of
observations which may prove helpful in developing the Core Strategy further:
o
Substantially more use should be made of maps and diagrams to make the plan more accessible and reduce the
need for descriptive text
o
In view of the flood risk issues compliance with PPS25 will be particularly important, especially in applying the
sequential test in considering development allocations for vulnerable areas
Introduction:
o
The introduction could reference the statutory basis for preparing a Core Strategy, and also explain the changing
context following the change of government and the proposed Localism Bill during the next 18 months. It remains
important to continue progressing the Core Strategy in the meantime in order to provide certainty for the community
and investors.
It would also be useful to outline the different stages in preparing the Core Strategy and the different methods and
opportunities for stakeholders to get involved in the process.
Section 2 – Spatial Portrait:
o
Makes a good start in setting out the district’s characteristics in a succinct and focused way with a useful overview
map. Section could be developed to make it more place specific: eg: what is the nature / availability of housing,
facilities, services, transport infrastructure, the demographic profile of the population and the sectors of the
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
economy which have grown / decreased in different places within the district as far as is relevant to provide the
background for the remainder of the CS.
o
Where flooding is a specific issue there could be separate maps showing the flood zone information
o
Also further clarity could be provided on the district’s relationship with the wider housing market area, and the roles
and functions of the main towns and rurual settlements and how they operate together.
Section 3 – Key Issues
o
In going forward try and develop a more local spatially differentiated picture of key issues. Use maps to succinctly
illustrate how the challenges on an issue vary across the district – eg: accessability.
o
Regarding the RSS, the Core Strategy should now anticipate its abolition. Consider how this will influence the
management of the CS process. Could no longer rely on policies B and C for instance, but the balancing of homes,
jobs and access to services is consistent with the fundamental principles of sustainable development which should
inform the national policy framework.
o
Consideration may be given to the adequacy of broadband coverage in the area, to what extent could IT solutions
overcome accessability problems?
o
Coverage is also needed of the potential for renewable energy in West Somerset, how will the Core Strategy
respond to this?
Section 4 – Different Strategy Visions
o
It is positive that the strategies and programmes of other stakeholders are highlighted eg – SCSs. It would be
helpful if this could be developed to focus on their spatial elements / implications for the CS. It would be more
succinct to provide short summaries of what they mean for the CS and critically reviewing what the CS can
realistically deliver over the plan period.
o
It may be helpful to illustrate in a table how the vision / objectives / outcomes / policies of the CS may be closely
aligned to the other strategies / programmes. This could be part of the CS, or might be a separate paper referred
to in the text.
Section 5 – Vision, Objectives and Spatial Strategy
o
The CS vision seems too general and insufficiently spatial in that it doesn’t distinguish between different parts of the
District. Ideally it should concentrate on addressing the key questions of what will happen and where? To make
and shape places, it needs to make greater spatial references to how places or broad locations within the District
are likely to develop in key respects (eg: employment, housing, transport), over the plan period. Eg: it is surprising
to have Minehead, Watchet, Williton, Brushford and Dulverton listed alongside each other without distinction of their
different roles and functions.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
It may be more appropriate to set out a paragraph on how each of the main towns might develop, and also one for
the rest of the District. To make the vision manageable, you may consider how to treat smaller towns / larger
villages. Can a group of key rural service centres be identified with a joint vision being set out for them?
o
In going forward you should make sure that what is proposed is sufficiently specific, realistic and responds to the
identified issues and challenges.
o
To demonstrate that the plan is realistically deliverable priorities must be indicated, who delivers what and by when
(should be known for the priorities, or at least a reasonable prospect of it being realistic)
o
The use of national standards is recommended where possible:
eg: reference to lifetime homes standards for addressing the needs of an ageing population
CABE design standards, and
Code for Sustainable Homes in connection with zero / low carbon development
o
Further develop the Strategic Objectives which are currently too general and insufficiently place specific. It would
be helpful to clarify what will happen (with regard to housing, employment and transport) when and if possible by
whom. This will act as guidance to stakeholders in terms of necessary actions in order to ensure that the vision is
achieved and the issues addressed.
o
Developing the CS’s monitoring and implementation framework should help to ensure SMART objectives (para
4.4.7 of PPS12 refers)
o
A table of the indicators, targets and key, time related milestones for each of the strategic objectives may be
helpful. Contingency triggers could also be considered to ensure the CS is sufficiently flexible to react to potentially
changing circumstances. The adopted Poole CS includes good examples of a SMART approach directly related to
strategic objectives as part of the implementation framework.
Section 6 – Potential Policy Options
1
Ministry of
Defence
1/1
o
Positive to note close alignment with the potential CS outcomes in earlier sections. It would benefit from greater
differentiation for different parts of the District.
o
You may wish to consider the appropriateness of eg: a policy for each of the main towns, possibly one for the group
of key rural service centres and one for the remainder of the District? These could set out the policy aspects which
are specific to these settlements. Where these are the same across the district, theme / outcome based policies
could be used to supplement the place-based policies.
Aerial safeguarding areas
The MOD has no further comment in advance of specific sites being identified for development.
(summary of all
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
comments)
13
Highways
Agency
13/1
Impact upon the Strategic Road Network:
o
(summary of all
comments)
13/2
13/3
Paragraph 2.7 – Hinkley Point Power Station –
o
The Agency strongly supports bespoke reference to the potential New Nuclear project due to its significant potential
impact upon the SRN for a considerable period of time during the construction and operational phases of
development. Rail and sea transport should be used wherever practical for component transport to the site.
o
The Agency has been in pre-application discussions with EDF and other stakeholders for some time
Paragraph 3.2 Settlement Hierarchy and Distribution of Development –
o
13/4
13/7
The Agency strongly supports a strategy which seeks to increase the proportion of non-car travel within the District.
Particularly important in relation to the Hinkley Point proposals which could generate much traffic on the M5.
Paragraph 3.5 Climate change –
o
13/6
The Agency acknowledges and supports the issues identified by the Council in relation to development distribution.
It is aware of the high degree of outcommuting within West Somerset and encourages a strategy which seeks to
reduce t his through improved self-containment. Numbers of commuting journeys, and also their distance should
be reduced. Employment land should therefore be allocated in close proximity to residential development.
Paragraph 3.3 Transport –
o
13/5
The Agency’s main interest is the continued function and capacity of the strategic road network (SRN), particularly
the M5 which runs near to the administrative boundary. It is concerned at the potential impact of any development
proposals within West Somerset on the corridor.
The need to reduce the need to travel, distance travelled and the promotion of sustainable forms of transport
should be recognised in this paragraph as these can have significant impact upon Co2 emissions.
Paragraph 3.8 Critical issues –
o
The Agency considers that a reduction in the proportion of non-private car travel should be a critical issue for West
Somerset.
o
The impact of Hinkley Point should also be a critical issue in terms of housing and transport infrastructure
Paragraph 5.2.1 Spatial Vision –
o
The Agency is disappointed that there is no element in the spatial vision seeking a transition to more sustainable
forms of transport. This should be rectified in order to be consistent with the aims of achieving sustainable
development.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
13/8
Paragraph 3.8 Strategic Objetives –
o
13/9
Strategy Option 1 –
o
13/10
The Agency’s preference would be for strategies 1 or 2, with development focused on the larger settlements. The
Agency is satisfied that the Council has considered the influence of sustainable transport provision when assessing
the sustainability of options.
Paragraph 6.1 Settlement Policy
o
13/14
The Agency would have concerns about a dispersed pattern of development in smaller settlements. Whilst limited
growth may help to maintain rural services, the majority of those who live in these villages are likely to use private
cars to access their place of work and services.
Paragraph 5.7 How sustainable are these approaches?
o
13/13
The Agency acknowledges the significant workforce required for the Hinkley Point project and would therefore not
object in principle to controlled housing growth at Stogursey. This would need to be supported by high quality
public transport links to Hinkley Point and appropriate community facilities in the village to encourage self
containment.
Strategy Option 3 –
o
13/12
The Agency would support a strategy seeking to concentrate development in areas with good public transport links
and employment opportunities encouraging self containment and the use of non-private car modes of transport.
The Agency would not raise objection in principle to Option 1.
Strategy Option 2 –
o
13/11
The Agency is concerned that there are no transport related strategic objectives identified and would seek that this
should be rectified. Sustainable transport policies are key objectives for the government (the previous
administration) and this should be reflected at local level. It is acknowledged that the SOs do cover the issue to
some extent, but they don’t go far enough, a bespoke reference is sought.
The Agency strongly supports an approach that seeks to identify development locations in association with the
infrastructure required to support the development.
Paragraph 6.2 Transport –
Issues and objectives:
o
On the whole the Agency supports the objectives that the Council identifies to address transport issues within the
District
o
Concern is expressed about the objective to improve access to the national highway network, the Agency would not
wish to see additional traffic encouraged to use the SRN unless a robust evidence base identified sufficient existing
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
capacity to accommodate it. If this is not demonstrable, then it should be indicated that additional development will
need to finance any improvements or mitigation measures required to maintain the safe and efficient operation of
the SRN. If the council is not seeking additional use of the SRN, and is instead seeking to reduce journey times to
access the network, then this should be made clear.
Options
o
13/15
Paragraph 6.3 Housing
o
13/16
16
Environment
Agency
16/1
(summary of all
comments)
16/2
The Agency considers that the Council should include the objective to reduce the number / distance travelled for
car borne journeys within the District. Policy option (h) is strongly supported.
Paragraph 6.5 Economy –
o
The Agency would strongly support the objective to find imaginative, sustainable transport solutions, particularly in
relation to Taunton and Bridgwater. However, the Council does not provide any potential options to achieve this
objective. These could inlcude the location of employment land adjacent to the West Somerset Railway.
o
The policy framework should ensure that significant employment proposals will be supported by an appropriate
level of transport assessment in accordance with the GTA and Circular 02/2007 demonstrating the impact on the
SRN and a travel plan.
Key Infrastructure:
o
The document doesn’t mention delivery of key infrastructure as required by PPS12
o
How will this be delivered? CIL/S106/Tarriff?
Shoreline Management Plan:
o
16/3
The Agency supports provision of housing at high densities in locations well served by a range of local facilities and
public transport. The delivery of strategy options one or two would satisfy this objective. The Agency would seek
text to outline this objective when preferred options are developed.
Paragraph 6.4 Climate Change
o
13/17
The Agency would in principle support all of the policy options listed by the Council to achieve their strategic
transport objectives
Reference should be made to the SMP for Hartland Point to Anchor Head. Non statutory but very important
management tool
Waste:
o
More detail should be given on waste impact of new development, new development should be designed to ensure
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
the incorporation of storage of waste and recyclables into the plans
16/4
Development and Flood Risk:
Critical issues –
o
The identification of this as a critical issue is supported
Strategy Options –
o
The strategy options must be tested against the outputs of the Level 1 SFRA (if not already done) to determine
whether the flood risk evidence tends to support any one of the options over the others
If there is no clear answer from the level 1 assessment, the options should be tested against the outputs of the
emerging Level 2 SFRA work to see whether there are any flood risk, policy or technical constraints to any of the
spatial options. It is essential that the preferred option can be delivered and that the required flood risk mitigation is
quantified. It must also be technically, economically and socially acceptable.
o
The preferred spatial option must be supported by the level 2 SFRA flood risk evidence not the other way round.
o
The Agency is pleased to see flood risk mentioned in the following sections of the paper: 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 5.1, 5.2.1,
and 5.2.2.
Key Issues -
16/5
o
Section 6.4 – The proposed policies to reduce flood risk in new development should also seek to reduce FR to
existing development which is at risk.
o
The Agency is also very pleased to see a policy on SUDS proposed
Biodiversity:
Critical issues –
o
Section 3.8 the words “and biodiversity” should be added – “landscape” and “biodiversity” are different issues
Strategy Options –
o
16/6
In the assessment of strategy options the issue of flood risk is very important. Every effort should be made to plan
for new housing out of the flood plain. Modifying watercourses to reduce flood risk and faciltiate new development
is likely to derogate the status of affected watercourses. The need to prevent fragmentation of habitats and
maintain green corridors are issues worthy of greater attention.
Water Efficiency / Resources:
o
Options relating to greater water efficiency and moving towards a zero carbon economy are welcomed.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
16/7
o
Section 6.3 – we recommend that the above aspects are included under a policy within the housing section 6.3
consistent with moving towards building to Sustainable Homes codes 5 and 6.
o
Section 6.4 – we recommend that the policy should be expanded to include mention of moving towards excellent
for BREEAM for commercial buildings under this section
Environment Management:
Strategic Options 1 and 2 –
o
Discussion will be needed with Wessex Water as to how much capacity Minehead and Watchet Sewage Treatment
Works hold and what available volume there is for further housing development within those areas.
Strategic Option 3 –
o
16/8
WSDC will have to ensure that the smaller settlements concerned have adequate provision to deal with the
increased volumes of sewage created by any additional housing developments. The impacts from smaller sewage
treatment facilities in West Somerset are regularly brought to the Agency’s attention.
Groundwater and Contaminated Land:
Strategy Options –
o
19
Natural England
The document does not mention the potential for redevelopment of land affected by contamination. This issue may
have been dealt with through the SHLAA process. Presumably option 3 has a greater impact on greenfield sites
than option1?
West Somerset Council is commended on the inclusion of Natural England’s previous recommendations and supports the
following options in particular:
(summary of all
comments)
19/1
6.4 Climate Change Policy Options –
o
19/2
(j) engage in positive management of the coastal zone in relation to the emerging shoreline Management Plan’s
proposals
6.6 Biodiversity Policy Options –
o
(a) A policy to protect and enhance natural networks through developer contributions and the Nature map,
o
(b) Policies to encourage multifunctional Green Infrastructure and the creation of / improvement of access to
the countryside
o
(c) A policy to facilitate the implementation of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan objectives as part of
landscaping schemes and habitat improvement schemes
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
19/3
6.7 Heritage –
o
11
The Coal
Authority
(b) Policies to manage the coaastal zone in conjunction with the emerging Shoreline Management Plan
19/4
Natural England emphasises the importance of undertaking Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat Regulations Assessment of
the Strategy Options being considered before finalising the content of the Core Strategy.
11
Has no specific comments at this stage.
Local government and infrastructure bodies
12
Strategic
Leaders’ Board
- South West
Councils
12/1
Indicated that there would only be a further letter if they consider that there are significant issues relating to the
implemntation of the Regional Strategy.
32/1
Strategy option 1 is supported:
(summary of all
comments)
32
Somerset
County Council
(Strategic
Planning Group)
(summary of all
comments)
32/2
o
Maintains the critical mass of Minehead for services, homes and employment, strengthening self containment. The
long term value of Watchet / Williton as comparatively more significant places of service and homes / employment /
self containment than at present should be recognised in the CS.
o
The option is most sustainable in transport terms, most likely to lead to self containment opportunities.
o
Minehead has many services required for most daily activities
o
More choice is available at Taunton, Bridgwater, Barnstaple, Exeter, Bristol and beyond
o
The positive effect of the internet on access to services not needed on a regular basis, without the need to travel
should be taken into account.
o
Watchet and Williton are already semi-self-contained, more development especially employment, could reduce outcommuting to Minehead, Taunton and Bridgwater.
Strategy option 2 is rejected:
o
It is considered important to distinguish the needs of Hinkley Power Station construction process from the longer
term pattern of viable service centres in the District. The appropriate level of provision for Stogursey should take
account of facilities in Nether Stowey and Bridgwater. The relatively large scale of development needed to render
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
new services commercially viable must also be borne in mind if they are to have a long term presence in the
settlement and justify other infrastructure provision.
32/3
Strategy option 3 is rejected:
o
The proposed scale of development in smaller communities would not support a critical mass of homes and
employment needed to render local shops and services commercially viable where they do not exist already.
o
Public transport is more costly to provide for scattered small settlements and is unlikely to prove economically
viable.
o
Alternative less costly modes of transport such as walking and cycling are not practicable for the bulk of the
population as distances between dwellings and the services, employment and shops in other settlements are too
great.
32/4
Alternative strategy option with more dispersed pattern of development is rejected, see comment 32/3 above
32/5
Alternative strategy option with no significant development at Minehead, and development focused closer to the M5 corridor
is rejected.
32/6
o
It is important to include Minehead in the distribution of development to make use of and increase the viability of the
good level of commercially viable services there.
o
The most viable alternative focus for development after Minehead would appear to be Watchet / Williton. The
strategy must seek to meet the needs of the existing communities and needs to relate to them well. Notionally
linking proposed development with the “M5 corridor” would not achieve this and could be unsustainable
development meeting need arising outside the District. The anticipated level of development would be insufficient
to achieve self containment unless focused on Watchet / Wiliton
Alternative strategy option with the bulk of development in a single eco village / new settlement is rejected:
o
32/7
32/8
The level of development proposed is insufficient to create a settlement self contained in services homes and
employment. (Part of the development provision for the area has already been delivered across the District).
Any other potential strategy options? No, but comments made:
o
A new strategic objective could be the development of sustainable transport infrastructure for non-motorised road
users.
o
Noise should be highlighted as a significant issue in locating and designing development. Zonal reseverations
could be made for industrial development in large developed areas. Guidance on acceptable adverse
environmental impact levels should also be provided to protect subsequent residential development
o
Noise prevention / protection should be an important objective of the Core Strategy.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
42
Somerset
Strategic
Partnership
42
It is noted that the development of the Core Strategy has given appropriate consideration to the Somerset Sustainable
Community Strategy. Challenges number 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,13,14,18, and 19 being specifically mentioned. (Options Paper
section 4.2 refers, as does Appendix 2)
(summary of all
comments)
9
South West
Water
40
Exmoor
National Park
Authority
9
(summary of all
comments)
43
Somerset
Primary
CareTrust
43/1
(summary of all
comments)
Somerset PCT
Public Health
43/2
No comments to make at this stage.
o
No specific views were expressed for or against any of the strategy options set out for comment
o
The importance of taking account of the Exmoor National Park Management Plan was stressed
o
The importance of the natural environment and the conservation of the landscape, especially in places adjacent to
the national park
o
Strong concern was expressed at the potential damange to the National Park from proposed development around
Minehead on the National Park’s border.
o
The proposed addition of 2500 dwellings to the District dwelling stock 2006 – 2026 would increase the population
by some 5000 people. Each GP provides for about 1,750 patients, there would therefore be a need for three
additional GPs.
o
If the expansion were to be in a single location, a new GP practice could potentially be justified. As the proposed
strategies disperse the new development between Minehead, Watchet and Williton the expansion of existing
practices may be more appropriate.
o
The current programme of primary care investment (to 2015) provides for the expansion of Harley House and
Irnham Lodge surgeries in Minehead, and a replacement surgery in Dunster.
o
The revenue funding for the PCT is based on a sum per capita and therefore expands shortly after a growth in
population occurs. Capital development is based primarily on existing facilities and it is this aspect that is the
greatest challenge to the PCT in the face of an expanding population.
o
In discussions with other planning authorities we have proposed that a contribution of £200.00 per dwelling is made
in planning agreements towards the provision of extended or replacement primary care facilities.
o
As part of the proposed population growth for West Somerset, the reprovision of the current surgery in Watchet and
possibly an extension to the Brendon Hills Surgery should be considered.
o
Hinkley point would give rise to the need for a contribution towards the planned new community hospital in
Bridgwater, whilst the funding for the West Somerset Community Hospital in Minehead is secured.
Strategy Option 1 is supported on balance due to it offering the most favourable prospects of delivering the elements set
out in the comments below:
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
– Public Health
response
out in the comments below:
o
(summary of all
comments)
There are a number of positive issues highlighted in the document, namely:
Affordable energy efficient housing –
o
a key feature of overall health and wellbeing. The strategy should ensure appropriate standards and
explore opportunities to include improvements to the existing housing stock, particularly with regard to the
insulation of solid walled properties.
Access to employment opportunities –
o
We would support the strategic option which maximises local access to employment opportunities.
Planning policy should support development of vibrant local economies by supporting small and medium
sized enterprises. Associated transport infrastructure should include not only walking, cycling and public
transport but also longer distance commuting via eg the West Somerset Railway.
Access to leisure and recreation facilities –
o
The choice of strategic options should maximise the potential for public involvement in community and
leisure activities without undue reliance on personal transport which tends to disadvantage the less affluent
members of society and increases health inequality.
o
Easy and sustainable access to the natural environment and open space should also be provided
Self contained, sustainable communities –
o
This strategy aspect is strongly supported due to the benefits for development of community support
networks and activities
o
Also space for community allotments should be provided
Infrastructure for active travel, including walking and cycling –
o
o
129
West Somerset
Council
Environment
Policy Advisory
129/1
Dedicated walking and cycling routes should be provided, but also urban design which promotes priority for
the pedestrian. Communities across Europe have demonstrated the health benefits which accrue from
innovative design focusing on people rather than cars. Community safety is also a key issue in delivering
such development features.
From a public health point of view, these elements should be maximised.
The comments made did not relate specifically to the strategy options set out in the document.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
Group
131
Quantock Hills
AONB Service
131/1
(strategy related
comments only)
Express no specific preference for any strategy option, on the basis that insufficient detail is given to judge the relative
impact of the strategy options included on the Quantock Hills AONB.
More information is needed (eg on the likely locations of development) to support the consideration of the relative impact of
the options. Notwithstanding that, the AONB service would prefer the strategy which would guarantee the least impact on
the character and visual amenity of the landscape setting of the Quantock Hills AONB.
Town and Parish Councils
3
Watchet Town
Council
3/1
Submitted a copy of the Watchet 2025 strategy document as the Watchet Town Council response at the issues stage. It
contains a wide range of issues identified by the group as affecting Watchet and a range of proposed actions in response to
them. The content of the report is more relevant to the current stage of the Core Strategy. Clearly it makes no comment
on the present strategy options.
44
Stogumber
Parish Council
44
Did not explicitly comment on the strategy options put forward but concluded that it would support the building of some
open market housing in the village provided:
(Strategy
comments only)
45
46
o
that they were smaller, 2 and 3 bedroomed terraced and semi-detached houses suitable for younger families, and;
o
that the housing development was accompanied by non-residential development that would lead to increased
employment within the villlage (not necessarily on the same site).
Nettlecombe
Parish Council
45/1
Neither support nor object to Strategy Options 1 or 2, commenting that it was a long commute from Minehead to Taunton,
Bridgwater or Exeter.
(strategy
comments only)
45/2
Support Strategy Option 3, commenting that this was a good option if the villages have good links to the A roads, and that it
would be good for village schools.
45/3
Support an alternative Strategy Option involving dispersed development to smaller villages and less development at the
larger settlements.
45/4
Support an alternative Strategy Option involving no significant development at Minehead with substantial development
being focused elsewhere in the District closer to the M5 corridor.
45/5
Object to an alternative Strategy Option providing a single eco village 3, commenting that this was a good option if the
villages have good links to the A roads, and that it would be good for village schools.
46/1
Support for Strategy Option1 - The best infrastructure and work prospects are in the main settlements
46/2
Support for Strategy Option 2 - as it serves Bridgwater it seems appropriate
46/3
Object to Strategy Option 3
Monksilver
Parish Council
(strategy
comments only)
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
comments only)
46/4
Object to an alternative Strategy Option involving dispersed development to smaller villages and less development at the
larger settlements – families with children need to be near to larger settlements for facilities and transport
46/5
Object to an alternative Strategy Option involving no significant development at Minehead with substantial development
being focused elsewhere in the District closer to the M5 corridor.
46/6
Object to an alternative Strategy Option providing a single eco village 3, commenting that this was a good option if the
villages have good links to the A roads, and that it would be good for village schools.
46/14
Disagree that non-service centre rural settlements should have development boundaries removed, because the countryside
should not be encroached upon.
47
Chipstable
Parish Council
47/1
Requested that they be removed from the LDF consultation list.
21
Stogursey
Parish Council
21/1
Strategy Option 1 is supported:
The larger settlements have the best infrastructure to support new development. There is no objection to some smaller
scale development in Stogursey, say 80 – 100 dwellinges however. A large proportion of these would have to be low cost
rather than affordable, in order to allow Stogursey to keep its existing level of services.
(strategy
comments only)
21/2
Strategy Option 2 is rejected:
Stogursey is not adequately served by existing infrastructure to accommodate development at this level, in particular there
would not be sufficient jobs to enable people to live and work locally. Hinkley Point C is irrelevent due to the transitory
nature of the project, and benefits from the project are being exaggerated.
21/3
Strategy Option 3 is rejected:
This is the least desirable option of the three, many communities would suffer increased housing with no possibility of
improved infrastructure.
21/4
Alternative strategy option with more dispersed pattern of development is rejected,
see comment 21/3 above
6
Williton Parish
Council
(strategy
comments only)
6/1
Opposes Strategy Option1
6/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2
6/3
Supports Strategy Option 3 – to sustain the vitality of these villages
6/4
Support for an alternative strategy option with more dispersed pattern of development,
6/5
Opposes an alternative strategy option with little development at Minehead, with substantial development focussed
elsewhere near the M5,
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
6/6
Opposes an alternative strategy option with a single eco settlement to accommodate the bulk of the 2500 dwellings,
Community groups / organisations
48
Governing Body
of Crowcombe
and Stogumber
Primary Schools
48/1
Future development within village development boundaries should be allowed to continue at Crowcombe and Stogumber in
order to secure the future success of those communities and their schools. Eg: Crowcombe has the potential for future
growth of approximately nine market and five affordable dwellings.
49
Williton
Chamber of
Commerce
49/1
Strategy Option 1 is supported, it would be most favourable to the businesses in Williton
(strategy
comments only)
49/2
Opposed to Strategy Options 2 and 3
Minehead
Conservation
Society
25/1
Opposed to Strategy Option 1:
25
Minehead has no capacity for continued growth and depends on its attractive setting for the success of its tourism industry.
The tourism industry should be promoted more energetically. New housing and industrial development should be sited
away from Minehead nearer to the main routes of communication.
(strategy
comments only)
25/2
Support for Strategy Option 2:
Stogursey should be upgraded to being a rural service centre, it should take more development than proposed so that it can
provide improved services for the poorly served communities to the east of the Quantocks, and housing for the power
station workforce. Its proximity to the M5 would encourage light industry to the area. The remaining growth should be
shared evenly betweek Watchet, Williton and Minehead.
25/3
Qualified support for Strategy Option 3:
This approach could make service provision in the larger villages more viable.
25/4
27
Transition
Minehead and
Opposed to the three other alternative strategy options included in the paper:
o
greater dispersal to small villages
25/5
o
no significant development at Minehead, with development closer to the M5 instead
25/6
o
a single eco-settlement
27/1
Opposed to Strategy Option 1:
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
Alcombe
(strategy
comments only)
This would allow continuing decline in rural villages, it accentuates the service provision difference between the three main
settlements and the villages which would become dead dormitories for car-borne commuters and the wealthy retired.
27/2
Opposed to Strategy Option 2:
The Core Strategy should not be based on the assumption that a major infrastructure project will proceed. Following the
removal of government subsidy for new nuclear power stations it is unlikely that Hinkley Point C will proceed. No case for
developing Stogursey further in the absence of the New Nuclear project.
27/3
Support is expressed for Strategy Option 3:
Challenged the view that this is the least sustainable of the three. Expanded sustainable transport links together with
sustainable village development can support local services benefitting all residents of the District unlike the outcome for
Options 1 or 2. If option 3 cannot be made to work, the preference is for Option 1.
27/4
Opposed to the three other alternative strategy options included in the paper:
o
greater dispersal to small villages – impossible to make this sustainable
27/5
o
no significant development at Minehead, with development closer to the M5 instead – settlements across the
District need affordable housing
27/6
o
a single eco-settlement – the infrastructure required would make this unsustainable
Developers and businesses
103
Denning
Architects
103/1
Oppose Strategy Options 1 and 2:
Whilst new employment and tourism in Minehead is welcomed there is still too much commuting from the Minehead area to
Taunton and the M5 corridor. The strategy should tie in with those for Taunton Deane and Sedgemoor. Improving road,
bus and train links would be highly beneficial to business. Large scale housing development in West Somerset’s main
settlements would harm its landscape and the tourism industry.
(strategy
comments only)
103/2
Support Strategy Option 3:
Taunton Deane are proposing development in Bishops Lydeard, Cotford St Luke and Wiveliscombe on the West Somerset
border. Better public transport including train and bus, and cycling route improvements, together with the larger villages
having some development would promote these services, and help to strengthen local service provision in the villages.
Many small sites will have less landscape impact.
103/3
Support for a strategy with less development at Minehead and a greater degree of dispersal including to smaller villages.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
18
Tetlow King
Planning for SW
RSL Planning
Consortium
103/4
Oppose any strategy involving no development at Minehead, with development being focused close to the M5 instead.
103/5
Oppose a strategy involving a single eco-village
18
No view was expressed as to which strategy was preferred.
104/1
Support for Strategy Option 1:
(strategy
comments only)
104
Summerfield
Development
SW Ltd (strategy
Although would also support small scale development in the villages.
comments only)
104/2
Support for Strategy Option 2:
Although would also support small scale development in the villages.
104/3
Oppose Strategy Option 3:
Main development should be in major settlements.
7
Bourne Leisure
Ltd. (owner of
Butlins and
Doniford
Holiday Park)
(strategy
104/4
Oppose alternative strategy with greater dispersal to smaller settlements – not sustainable
104/5
Oppose alternative strategy with main development close to the M5 and no significant development at Minehead – not
sustainable, also Minehead is the major settlement within West Somerset.
104/6
Oppose alternative strategy with a single eco-settlement – a non-starter, there are too many issues to resolve.
7/1
No view was expressed as to which strategy option was preferred.
response only)
105
EDF Energy
105
Do not comment specifically on the strategy options put forward in the Paper, but do state that the Hinkley Point project will
not necessitate the development of additional housing beyond the worker’s accommodation proposed.
39
Entec on behalf
of The Crown
Estate
39/1
Oppose Strategy Options 1, 2 and 3 as well as the three alternative strategies identified.
Instead, an alternative strategy is proposed focussing development on the Minehead / Dunster Marsh area, which, it is
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
stated will provide development in a highly sustainable pattern. Minehead’s self containment would be significantly
strengthened as would its role and function. There is a clear opportunity to deliver more housing, employment and
community facilities at Dunster Marsh, which out-performs all the other settlements outside of Minehead in sustainability
terms.
Estate
(strategy
response only)
106
J Gliddon &
Sons
106/1
The most sustainable option for growth in the District, development in Williton in particular will be sustainable and promote
self-containment.
(strategy
response only)
Support for Strategy Option 1:
106/2
Support for Strategy Option 2:
Although this is not as sustainable as option 1.
106/3
Oppose Strategy Option 3.
Representations from individuals
107
A Gladwin
107/1
(strategy
response only)
Opposes Strategy Option 1:
Unless road transport is improved the A358 will become an even worse road to travel.
107/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2:
Utilising Stogursey would mean that transport is closer to the M5
107/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3:
Due to lack of good roads and infrastructure.
108
M Ross
107/4
Opposes a strategy involving a wider degree of dispersal to smaller villages.
107/5
Support for a strategy involving no significant development at Minehead and development closer to the M5 instead.
107/6
Supports a strategy for a single eco settlement, perhaps in the Stogursey area.
108/1
Supports Strategy Option 1
108/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2
108/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3
108/4
Opposes a strategy involving a wider degree of dispersal to smaller villages.
108/5
Support for a strategy involving no significant development at Minehead and development closer to the M5 instead – the
A39 between Williton and Minehead is not fit for purpose
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
A39 between Williton and Minehead is not fit for purpose.
108/6
Opposes a strategy for a single eco settlement.
Individual representations from Brushford, refs. 50 – 101.
These representations all, at least, express opposition to medium or large scale development at Brushford, some go further and oppose any development there. Only the
essential position of each individual is given here, the matters cited in support of these views are set out at Appendix 1 together with an indication of the number of people
making each point.
109
S. Thomas
109/1
Support for Strategy Option 1:
More industry and facilities should be provided.
109/2
Support for Strategy Option 2
109/3
Support for Strategy Option 3:
Brushford is not big enough, should build 10-15 new houses for local people.
110
R Harbour
110/1
Opposes Strategy Option 1:
Negative and restrictive policy preventing organic growth in the villages.
110/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2:
Negative and restrictive policy preventing organic growth in the villages.
110/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3:
Continues the approach of the Local Plan.
111
T Stewart
110/4
Proposes an alternative strategy which includes mixed residential development in Minehead, Williton and Watchet, plus the
enlargement of Stogursey to form a new rural service centre, as well as development in the larger villages. Crowcombe
and Stogumber in particular would be appropriate locations for some additional development.
111/1
Opposes Strategy Option 1 –
(strategy
response only)
There is insufficient developable land within these areas to fulfill this strategy. Existing facilities would be lost, it would be
impossible to achieve an overall integrated development.
111/2
Support for strategy option 3:
By allowing more land to be considered, the potential for a more integrated development would arise. The plan would
require approximately 1000 acres of development land excluding Hinkley Point Power Station.
112
B Summers
112/1
Opposes Strategy Option 1
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
(strategy
response only)
112/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2
112/3
Supports Strategy Option 3:
Options 1 and 2 benefit only Minehead Watchet and Williton but will neglect the villages. West Somerset has a high
proportion of elderly residents, and is reliant on tourism and agriculture, therefore young people must be encouraged to stay
in the rural communities, which Strategy Option 3 would support. A mix of market and affordable housing should be
allowed in the larger villages.
10
Mrs Janet
Manley
(strategy
response only)
10/1
Opposes Strategy Option 1:
Further development in Minehead would mean more travelling to access the facilities provided.
10/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2:
To develop Stogursey to the proposed level would require building on productive agricultural land which is already being
taken over by the proposed Hinkley Point nuclear power station. Britain needs to be able to grow as much food as
possible.
10/3
Support for Strategy Option 3:
This would give rise to less travel than for options 1 or 2, as the larger villages could develop their own services so people
would be able to meet their needs locally.
113
G Punnett
10/4
Opposes a strategy involving a wider degree of dispersal to smaller villages.
10/5
Support for a strategy involving no significant development at Minehead and development closer to the M5 instead.
10/6
Supports a strategy for a single eco settlement, perhaps in the Stogursey area.
113/1
Support for Strategy Option 1:
Minehead should be give the opportunity for further development
113/2
Oppose Strategy Option 2:
Although with the new nuclear power station proposed, this may be forced upon Stogursey
113/3
Oppose Strategy Option 3
113/4
Opposes a strategy involving greater dispersal:
This would not be sustainable.
113/5
Opposed to a strategy involving development close to the M5 instead of at Minehead.
113/6
Opposed to a single eco village – a wasteful option.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
114
E Crane
114/1
Support for Strategy Option 1 –
Expansion of Minehead Watchet and Williton is preferred if 2500 are really needed. This would maximise preservation of
open countryside. Brownfield development site use should be maximised.
114/2
Opposed to Strategy Option 2 –
The residents of Stogursey do not want additional development.
115
B MaitlandWalker
114/3
Opposed to Strategy Option 3.
114/4
Opposes a strategy involving a wider degree of dispersal to smaller villages.
114/5
Support for a strategy involving no significant development at Minehead and development closer to the M5 instead.
114/6
Supports a strategy for a single eco settlement, perhaps in the Stogursey area.
115/1
Opposed to Strategy Option 1 –
Very elderly population, some child poverty and an unbalanced workforce. Any new housing should focus on families on
middle incomes, 3-4 bedrooms with good gardens. Insufficient leisure facilities help to send the town on a downward path.
Business must be encouraged into the area, access being the main obstacle. The scheme to improve the A39 east of
Minehead should be implemented.
115/2
Support for Strategy Option 2 –
Hinkely C and D are likely to be built, there are already some shops and services locally.
115/3
Support for Strategy Option 3 –
As at 115/1 above, also, very limited land available to develop in Minehead, we shouldn’t build on remaining green spaces,
also, we shouldn’t allow too many flat conversions from guest houses and hotels. If the road problem can be addressed,
then the villages such as Carhampton and Washford become attractive for residential development. Also Williton if its flood
problems can be resolved.
116
J Greenaway
116/1
Support for Strategy Option 3 –
The smaller communities would benefit from some organic development which might allow them to provide their own small
shops, interests and identities. It would also help to alleviate the pressure on the main centres.
117
P Kirkham
117/1
Support for an alternative strategy developing mainly around Stogursey, to take advantage of the M5 corridor, Bridgwater
and Hinkley Point. There is no employment demand further west in the District.
26
PA Brain
26/1
Support for Strategy Option 2:
Stogursey’s road connection is very poor, enlarging Stogursey in such a way to avoid the worst bottlenecks would make
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
sense.
26/2
Opposes Strategy Option 3:
The spoilation of village communities would result.
118
J Clarke
118/1
Support for Strategy Option 1 –
There is infrastructure to support such development, however, the level of need is questioned.
118/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2.
118/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3 –
Totally inappropriate due to: a lack of appropriate infrastructure, lack of facilities, lack of public transport, a lack of
employment and no need.
119
G Barlow
118/4
In terms of a suggested alternative, suggests a lower level of housing growth.
119/1
Support for Strategy Option 1 –
Insufficient well paid jobs in Minehead, need more housing to reduce prices and encourage the young to stay. There is also
the need for a better road to encourage businesses.
119/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2 –
This sounds more like support for the Hinkley project than meeting the need of a local community.
119/3
Supports Strategy Option 3 –
This would work best with village by-passes implemented on the A39, so that the village development partially funds the bypass and is accessed from it. Unless we go back to the horse and cart a by-pass must happen so that businesses can
grow in Minehead.
120
S Robinson
119/4
None of the suggested alternative strategies would deliver more jobs in Minehead or a better road to the national network.
120/1
Opposed to Strategy Option 1 –
Minehead is a seaside resort, constrained by the sea and the National Park. The ‘green belt’ between Minehead and
Dunster should not be built upon, neither should the slopes of Grabbist or North Hill be built on. Watchet may benefit from
some additional housing. Williton is better placed for housing development than the other two settlements. There is no
option for development in smaller settlements.
120/2
Opposed to Strategy Option 2 –
Stogursey should feature in the development proposals, as this would reduce distances travelled by workers at Hinkley
Point power station, also has good access to Bridgwater and the M5.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
120/3
Support for Strategy Option 3 –
Subject to very strict controls on development in Minehead, there should be a much wider dispersal of development
including smaller communities, especially those close to the M5 corridor.
121
CJ Morgan
121/1
Support for Strategy Option 1 –
This option minimises the need to travel and takes advantage of Minehead’s infrastructure. Minehead Watchet and Williton
have employment, leisure and education facilities to serve expanded communities. Stogursey, Kilve and Holford are closer
to Bridgwater.
121/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2 –
The necessary upgrading of facilities for an enlarged Stogursey would further destroy the rural nature of the area. Hinkley
Point nuclear new built is not the be all and end all for Stogursey. Services in Sedgemoor DC area serve this part of West
Somerset already. It could become a ghost town once the Hinkley new build is complete.
121/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3 –
The level of development proposed would damage the rural character of these communities, diminishing the nature of the
area.
122
J Craig
121/4
Opposes a wider dispersal option.
121/5
Opposes a strategy with most of development near to the M5 corridor.
121/6
Opposes a strategy consisting of a single new eco-settlement.
122/1
Opposes Strategy Option 1 –
Watchet and Williton are overpopulated and with no real job prospects.
122/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2 –
Concentrating development in just four settlements risks each losing its own identity, they will become large housing
estates with no real community.
122/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3 –
Just building houses without new shops schools etc. will put a strain on existing services in the area.
122/4
Opposes a wider dispersal option –
It does not make sense to build where there are no facilities
122/5
Supports a strategy with most of development near to the M5 corridor –
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
It makes more sense to build close to the motorway in relation to deliveries etc. so there will be less travelling needed.
123
J Harris
122/6
Supports a strategy consisting of a single new eco-settlement, depending on where it is located
123/1
Supports Strategy Option 1 –
Supports Strategy Option 2 –
Opposes Strategy Option 3 –
Opposes a wider dispersal option –
Opposes a strategy with no development at Minehead and most of development near to the M5 corridor –
Supports a strategy consisting of a single new eco-settlement.
124
B Druitt
124/1
Supports Strategy Option 1 –
It has the least impact upon the local area and is most sustainable.
124/2
Supports Strategy Option 2 –
Also a good sustainable option.
124/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3 –
A very poor option, would mean more cars on our very poor roads and also parking issues in the villages as most
households have three or four cars and parking spaces are limited in new developments.
125
L Flash
124/4
Opposes a more dispersed strategy.
124/5
Opposes a strategy with no development at Minehead and most development near the M5 corridor
124/6
Opposes a single eco-settlement
125/1
Supports Strategy Option 1 –
There are likely to be more flexible employment opportunities for the young in a larger centre, and more flexible options for
housing. Most necessary facilities could be developed at Minehead if they do not exist already.
125/2
Supports Strategy Option 2 –
Subject to the very sensitive treatment of Stogursey in order to avoid creating a “Hinkley Point ghetto”. The advantages
could be support for the school and local businesses, reducing the need to travel. A co-op venture to secure houses for
local occupation in the long term, perhaps through shared ownership, would be best. Stogursey’s heritage must be
protected.
125/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3 –
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
Would result in considerable increase in private car traffic, and is likely to ruin the character of the area.
126
L Hesselgren
125/4
Opposes a more dispersed strategy.
125/5
Opposes a strategy with no development at Minehead and most development near the M5 corridor
125/6
Whatever strategy is chosen, press for high quality development.
126/1
Opposes Strategy Option 1 –
C21st high-technology businesses can be located anywhere, they need not be tied to a town or service centre. Therefore,
strategic concentration of development does not seem such a good idea.
126/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2 –
See comment for option 1 above. Hinkley is a short term project and should not influence strategy.
126/3
Supports Strategy Option 3 –
The parts of West Somerset accessible from the M5 offer the most potential for new population. No development should
take place on the coast until the road situation has been resolved.
126/4
Supports a more dispersed strategy –
It is unlikely that jobs will be attracted merely by concentrating development in larger settlements.
126/5
Supports a strategy with no development at Minehead and most development near the M5 corridor –
Minehead is poorly accessed and therefore an unattractive place to attract new employment and further development in
general.
126/6
Opposes a strategy involving a single eco-settlement –
This would not draw on the strengths of existing settlements and farms.
127
J Summers
126/7
Proposes an alternative strategy focused on further developing existing settlement patterns, let them expand naturally to
cater for real wants and allow local initiatives to thrive. Sustainability will be achieved through better technology, not the
tight definition of settlement patterns.
127/1
Supports Strategy Option 1 –
Minehead has the greatest scope for new development in West Somerset with least impact upon the mostly rural nature of
the District.
127/2
Supports Strategy Option 2 –
127/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3 –
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
The road network is insufficient to support the expansion of villages.
127/4
Opposes a more dispersed strategy.
127/5
Opposes a strategy with no development at Minehead and most development near the M5 corridor
127/6
Opposes a strategy involving a single eco-settlement.
128
AG James
128/1
Proposes a combined container port / wind turbine farms / hydro-electric barrage off Hinkley Point with associated
motorway linking to M5 J23.
50
D Norman
50/1
Small scale development for local people only would be acceptable. May support strategy with 5-10 properties in each
village
51
IM Green
51
Opposed to development
52
M & D Harris
52
Organic / micro growth only
53
C Goslie
53
Small scale development for local people only would be acceptable
54
R & Y Brentnall
54
Opposed to development
55
J P Lindsay
55
Small scale development only <10
56
M Watson
56
Small scale development only – individual plots
57
J Spencer
57
Small scale development only – affordable and for younger residents only
58
Mr and Mrs T
Wilson
58
Object to large scale development, no objection to one or two houses however.
59
J Beggs
59
Objects to large scale development in excess of 10-15 dwellings
60
JA Sutherland
60
Was prepared to accept some development in Brushford
61
K and A Warren
61
Strongly object to any development on the field behind the Parish Hall
62
R and G Gray
62
Small scale only, gradual and organic growth on infill plots if anything
63
S Gillison
63
Not against small scale development, but much which occurs is of poor quality
64
L and M
Grimshaw
64
Completely opposed to the proposed development
65
S Dymond
65
Small scale only, gradual and organic growth on infil plots if anything – opposed to large scale development
66
J Wood-Roberts
66
Opposes large or medium scale development, there should be sporadic infilling only
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
67
B Oliver
67/1
Supports Strategy Option 1
67/2
Supports Strategy Option 2
67/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3
67/4
Opposes an alternative strategy with greater dispersal
67/5
Supports an alternative strategy involving no development at Minehead, with the majority of development being focused
elsewhere in the District closer to the M5 corridor.
67/6
Opposes a strategy consisting of a single eco-settlement.
68
C Keene
68
Opposes large or medium scale development, 10-15 new affordable homes during the next 5-10 years would be adequate
69
T Keene
69
Small scale development only – affordable and for younger local people only
70
J Mackelden
and J Kelvie
70
Opposed to development
71
J Hawes
71
Opposes large or medium scale development, small groups of affordable homes for local people would be appropriate
72
L MiddletonDare
72
Opposed to development
73
D I Mather
73
Opposed to development
74
J RoffeSilvester
74
Opposed to development
75
ME Bidmead
75
Opposes large or medium scale development, a very small number of affordable homes for local people would be
acceptable
76
TR and JM
Barnes
76
Object to large scale development, no objection to ‘controlled development’
77
R and G
Sheasby
77
Small scale only, gradual and organic growth on infil plots if anything – opposed to large scale development
78
M Collard
78
Opposed to any additional housing
79
Illegible
79
Small scale development for local people only would be acceptable – preferrably none
80
T Simmonds
80
Opposed to any additional housing
81
L J Madden
81
Opposed to any additional housing – an unsustainable location
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
82
Dr M Jones
82/1
Opposed to any additional housing
83
S GoddardWatts
83/1
Opposed to any additional housing
84
AD Williams
and AM
Williams
84/1
Opposed to any additional housing
85
J Erith
85/1
Opposed to any additional housing
86
D Darton
86/1
Opposed to any additional housing
87
Mr & Mrs RJ
Organ, Mr &
Mrs SC Puttock
and V Moore
87/1
Opposed to any major additional housing development. Small scale development only – for affordable housing if justified.
88
AJ Hawes
88/1
Object to the large scale development proposed
89
S Madden
89/1
Opposed to any additional housing
90
G&D
Christopher
90/1
Opposes large or medium scale development, small groups of affordable homes for local people would be appropriate
91
L Madden
91/1
Opposed to any additional housing
92
L London
92/1
Object to the large scale development proposed
93
MC Kelly & CL
Field
93/1
Object to the large scale development proposed
94
Dr E Barnes &
Dr H
Richardson
94/1
Object to the large scale development proposed
95
AJ Payne & TS
Payne
95/1
Object to the large scale development proposed
96
D Currie & K
Currie
96/1
Object to any housing proposal to be accessed from Ellersdown Lane.
97
W Gillison
97/1
Objects to large scale development, no objection to some development so that the community can continue to thrive
however.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
98
C Boundy
98/1
Supports Strategy Option 1 - Is in favour of housing for local working people rather than affordable housing
98/2
Supports Strategy Option 2
98/3
Opposes Strategy Option 3
98/4
Opposes an alternative strategy with greater dispersal
98/5
Supports an alternative strategy involving no development at Minehead, with the majority of development being focused
elsewhere in the District closer to the M5 corridor.
99
J Beggs
99/1
Objects to large scale development, no objection to some development so that the community can continue to thrive
however.
100
R Low
100/1
Object to the large scale development proposed
101
A Haylett
101/1
Objects to large scale development, no objection to some development so that the community can continue to thrive
however.
102
Petition of 108
names
102/1
A petition of 108 names opposing development at Brushford.
130
J Turner
130/1
Opposes Strategy Option 1
130/2
Opposes Strategy Option 2
130/3
Support for Strategy Option 3 –
Some development in the larger villages would be of benefit as well as more development particularly in Watchet and
Williton.
132
R&G
Darbyshire
132/1
Support is expressed for Strategy Option 2.
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
Appendix 1
Summary of the numbers of individuals making various points in relation to the issue of development at Brushford
(Representor reference numbers 50 to 101 inclusive).
No. of respondents making
each point
Insufficient local employment – out-commuting would result
36
Brushford has insufficient local facilities to prevent the need for travel elsewhere (eg: for main shopping, doctor and
educational facilities)
35
Overloaded sewage treatment facilities
25
Poor roads, development would increase traffic and accident risk
24
Opposition to medium / large scale housing development at Brushford
21
Brushford is an unsustainable location for significant development
18
Poor local public transport facilities
16
Green fields should be kept for agriculture
14
No recreation facilities locally – particularly for the younger residents – more would be needed
10
Opposition for any housing development at Brushford
8
Support for small scale housing scheme at Brushford – only for local people
8
Support for small scale housing scheme at Brushford
8
If significant development were to take place in Brushford, more infrastructure and facilities would have to be provided, which
is unlikely to happen
7
Social problems have been caused in some West Somerset villages by housing those in housing need from elsewhere –
these have sometimes been ‘problem families’
6
Damage to the character of the settlement and natural beauty of the area would result
6
Problems with water supply would be exacerbated
5
The proposed sites would impact upon the privacy of existing residents
4
The proposed sites would impact upon the privacy of existing residents
4
Business rents are too high locally, more employment needed in the area
3
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
Parking in Dulverton is inadequate to cope with the additional demand which would be created
3
Brushford already has an elderly population, new housing would appeal to more elderly retirees and unbalance the community
2
The village’s good social mix would be damaged
2
Unacceptable damage to character of village from development
1
Poor telecommunications services (broadband, radio, digital TV etc.)
1
The existing community would be unbalanced by a large addition of new population
1
Insufficient local housing need to warrant additional housing
1
There is very little need for affordable housing for young people
1
Against structure plan policy
1
Property blight has resulted from the way the matter has been handled
1
If housing is really needed in the Brushford area, south of Amory Road Dulverton is the obvious place to build.
1
More development has failed to deliver the promised better facilities for Bampton
1
A proper survey of local Brushford housing needs would be needed to justify local affordable housing
1
Green field housing development should be provided near to a town or industry, not in a hamlet
1
A paper should be prepared on Social Housing Development in Brushford to inform local views.
1
Some of the land put forward for development was considered and rejected by the West Somerset Local Plan Inspector.
1
The housing is needed more in places such as Minehead and Williton
1
Development would damage the local tourism industry
1
The proposed site to the rear of the village hall is poorly drained and unsuitable for development flooding neigbouring gardens
1
It might prove possible to secure a playing field and / or allotments if development did take place
1
Better broadband access is vital if the local economy is to thrive
1
The land proposed for development is too steep for viable development.
1
The village shop does not provide a meaningful service to the community
1
Objection made to any proposal for housing to be accessed from Ellersdown Lane on road safety grounds
1
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010
return to contents
West Somerset Core Strategy
Options Response Report
August 2010