PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN 2006-2028 - Aug 12

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

10 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Abbey Manor Group 10 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 2258
  • Response Type: Object
Inset Maps 15 and 15A: Yeovil and Yeovil Town Centre We do not believe that the flood map proposal plans are drawn incorrectly.
Cllr Gina Seaton 09 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 753
  • Response Type: Object
Map 15 fails to show East Coker itself i.e the settlement around the Church and Helyar Arms, and the relationship to the SUE.
P Benham 08 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 492
  • Response Type: Object
The zoning in the maps is quite unreadable using the key in which the hatching and dots are shown on a different less concentrated scale. The colours are also too similar. Interpretation might have been made easier with added initials such as FR for flood risk. As it stands it is meaningless to the ordinary reader.
R Cobden 06 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 656
  • Response Type: Object
We suggest below minor wording changes to proposed text and policy, a specific Direction of Growth Policy possibly to be inserted after paragraph 7.38 and a consequential amendment to the Inset Map 9.
R Cobden 06 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 658
  • Response Type: Object
We suggest below minor wording changes to proposed text and policy, a specific Direction of Growth Policy possibly to be inserted after paragraph 7.38 and a consequential amendment to the Inset Map 9.
R Cobden 06 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 660
  • Response Type: Object
We suggest below minor wording changes to proposed text and policy, a specific Direction of Growth Policy possibly to be inserted after paragraph 7.38 and a consequential amendment to the Inset Map 9.
R Cobden 06 Aug 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 655
  • Response Type: Object
We suggest below minor wording changes to proposed text and policy, a specific Direction of Growth Policy possibly to be inserted after paragraph 7.38 and a consequential amendment to the Inset Map 9.
Paul Douglass 25 Jul 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 163
  • Response Type: Object
With respect to the Langport/Huish Episcopi map, I consider that the proposed direction of development towards Wearne will be highly detrimental to the community in Wearne. At present a considerable number of vehicles each day use the road through Wearne as a "rat run" between the B3153 and the A372 to Bridgwater and the M5. Note that traffic from the A303 (and effectively the whole of the country to the south and east of this area) is directed from the A372 to the west of Langport along Tengore
G & A Tulloch 22 Jul 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 138
  • Response Type: Object
Inset Map 8: Langport/Huish Episcopi There is no key on the Langport/ Huish Episcopi map (map 8), which makes it rather difficult to discern what different colours of shading/ hatching/ lines/ edges are portraying. Lack of clarity in this sole visual representation of the area is unacceptable.
M W Slade and Son Ltd 12 Jul 2012

Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Proposals Maps Proposals Map Contents

  • Comment ID: 51
  • Response Type: Object
We support the inclusion of Bower Hinton as part of the 'Built Up Area' however we believe the defined area to be flawed. There is existing residential development directly adjoining the western edge of the built up area that should also be included within the shaded area. In the vicinity of these houses there is also an area of brownfield land, previously used as a jigsaw puzzle factory, which warrants inclusion in the built up area.