Football Club for mixed use 6.1(c) YEO 3: Land at Brimsmore for housing 6.1(d) YEO 4: Land at Marshes Hill Farm and at the junction of Combe Street Lane and A37 for housing 6.1(e) YEO 5: Land north of Mudford Road for housing 6.1(f) YEO 6: Land at Key Farm, Dorchester Road for housing 6.1(g) YEO 7: Land at Greggs Riding School and land off Sandhurst Road and Gunville Lane Thorne Coffin, first designated a conservation area in 1978, is so situated that there is little capacity for change without adverse impact upon its secluded character. It involves development immediately abutting the Conservation Area and nine listed buildings, including St Andrews Church and The Old Rectory. This is a threat to an area with continuous community history stretching back to Anglo-Saxon era, with uninterrupted views of the historic village and Montacute House, and the current archaeological excavations if a Roman villa at Lufton. SSDC Conservation Unit objects to the site, due to potential harm to Thorne Coffin Conservation Area, adjacent listed buildings; and Lufton Villa Scheduled Ancient Monument. Historic England consider that development of the site is likely to cause substantial harm to historic assets in their vicinity and are probably inappropriate for development . There are objections as the site sits entirely within the identified setting of Montacute House registered landscape. The site is visible from the house; and the continued encroachment of Yeovil to the west is increasingly visible during the day, but also evident within hours of darkness and late afternoon in winter. Education Educational facilities, both primary and secondary are lacking in this area, the new primary schools being built at Brimsmore and Lufton will barely address current shortage. Transport and Access The road and transport access are completely inadequate. Highways issues are a major concern in the area. Rat- running is already a problem and the Western Corridor improvements are only designed to cater for existing development and allocations. There is an historic problem with YTFC supporters parking. - Adjacent Yeovil Town FC – for mixed use Comments in favour include: This is one of SSDC Conservation Unit’s preferred options from a landscape perspective. This is only of three options that would not be on BMV agricultural land.
changed to housing. Ilminster does not need 22ha. Highways England consider that any reduction in employment land allocations should carefully consider the impact of this in terms of shifting commuting patterns and the potential impact on the surrounding highway network including the SRN. Development should be targeted at sustainable sites which reduce any imbalance between population and jobs in order to avoid out-commuting. 7.14 Do you agree that the designated Town Centre for Ilminster should be amended to include the entire Tesco store? Some people think that it seems logical and a sensible recognition of the status-quo, whilst others state that the boundary should not be extended and that the benefits of this are not clear. 7.15 Do you agree that there is no need for the Local Plan to make retail allocations in Ilminster? People generally seem to be in agreement with this. It is stated that planning permission for the conversion of existing town centre retail premises to residential properties should be granted with caution; there is very little space in the town centre to add more retail sites and should larger companies come into the town they may build them on the outskirts of the town which would gradually kill the town centre. There are enough coffee shops and food shops. 7.16 In addition to the infrastructure described above, are Transport and Access Transport solutions for Ilminster should be addressed. The centre has a one-way system; movement onto A303; highways England would need to be consulted. Another town centre car park A high quality cycleway link from the projected housing growth area to the town centre.
before any development. Capacity appraisals have been completed for existing planning permission 13/03272/OUT (North of SOME 3) and 15/03585/OUT (Mid of SOME 2) which indicated improvements are required to the downstream sewer network. Further assessment of options in respect of foul/ water supply networks will be necessary. Healthcare A senior partner in Langport GP surgery is concerned about current and future housing developments in Langport and Huish Episcopi and Somerton. Community Facilities A single primary school site is required due to rapidly expanding population and rising birth rate. Open Space The town is growing fast, with several new developments either in-hand or in prospect, yet none include any suggestion of preserving or creating open green spaces for family pleasure and relaxation, or for young and old to mix. Somerton has lost a large area of playing fields to development, to the horror of local residents. 8.1 Which of the following options should be taken forward through the LPR? 8.1(a) BRUT 1: Land west of Frome Road 8.1(b) BRUT 2: Land at Brewham Road 8.1(c) BRUT 3: (a) Frome Road The Town Council states it is currently negotiating a long-term lease for its protection but up to five dwellings would be supported. There are now no plans to relocate the surgery here. However, Historic England considers the site to be sensitive due to the proximity to a number of heritage assets. The site may be visible from the Grade II* Listed Dovecote, which is also an Ancient Monument. Potential impacts on views and setting of the Dovecot should be considered. There is concern about the potential location of the access; it is a steep road; with poor pedestrian access along the main route from Frome. It would not normally be good practice to allocate a site of less than 10 dwellings in the Local Plan. A site for 5 dwellings will deliver no affordable housing. It is sloping and visually prominent from long distance views. Brewham Road Comments in support are that:
growth at Ilchester include: 8.4(a) ILCH 1: Costello Fields for mixed use development 8.4(b) ILCH 2: Land North of Troubridge Park for mixed use development 8.4(c) ILCH 2: Land North of Troubridge Park for housing 8.4(d) Another option (please specify) will create a more sustainable community, with improved and much needed facilities, including balancing ponds for SUDs and bio-diversity enhancement; and screening from the A303 etc. Concerns expressed about the Option: There are concerns about the northward extension towards the Lytes Cary Estate. if the site is taken forward, a more compact development that did not extend into the northern most part would be preferred – and it should include boundary vegetation and screening. There is a potential Historic Environment impact, being adjacent to the Listed Buildings at the southern end of the site. Any building will need to be designed to respect the setting of the heritage assets. Historic England consider that development of the site is likely to cause substantial harm to historic assets in their vicinity. (b) Troubridge Park for mixed use Expressions of support: This is one of SSDC Conservation Unit’s preferred landscape options. Huntstowe Strategic Land intend to progress baseline studies to feed into a capacity/concept masterplan over the coming months. The site has moderate-high capacity to accommodate built form, but a more detailed assessment of constraints and potential layouts is required to understand the realistic capacity of the site. This will create a more sustainable community, with improved and much needed facilities, including balancing ponds for SUDs and bio-diversity enhancement; and screening from the A303 etc. One suggestion is that the site could be used as a ‘test’ site for any future development along the A303 between Podimore and Sparkford roundabouts. It has access to Yeovilton where it has been stated that its underuse could be improved by making it open for industrial/commercial development. Additionally, there is good road access. Concerns expressed about the Option: There are concerns about the northward extension towards the Lytes Cary Estate; and ILCH2 would not be supported.
Options for housing growth at Milborne Port include: 8.10(a) MIPO 1: Land at Wynbrook Farm 8.10(b) MIPO 2: Land north of Manor Road 8.10(c) MIPO 3: South of Court Lane 8.10(d) MIPO 4: Land north of Wheathill Lane 8.10(e) Another option (please specify) for cars. It is an infill to the village. It is well-located on an established road, serving existing residential areas. It is also stated that this site could be potentially suitable for mixed use of employment with residential. However, there are also strong reservations: SSDC’s Conservation Unit state that there are potential HE impacts, where development impact would adversely affect the well-designed setting of Newtown conservation area. Historic England also considers the site to be sensitive due to proximity to a number of heritage assets. As the sites may contribute to their significance, an appropriate heritage assessment would be required to determine the principle of development. It is also stated that the site is located to the extreme north-eastern edge of the village and is some distance from the settlement’s main services and facilities; and that it is not within 400m of a bus stop. (b) Manor Road This one of SSDC’s Conservation Unit’s preferred landscape options However, it is also stated that a development here would encroach upon quiet roads and views to rural landscapes; it is farmland continually in use. There are also a number of concerns regarding highways and access. There is no road access – only a Right of Way and track access; Manor Road has cars parked all the way down one side of the road and exit and entry at the top is dangerous due to vehicles parked near the junction; and it is not within 400m of a bus stop. (c) Court Lane There is also considerable disagreement about whether this site should be allocated. Those in favour state the following reasons: It is one of two options that would have the least impact in relation to the changing nature of the village