Keyford
The South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2008) was adopted on the 5th of March 2015 following a public enquiry and examination with the Planning Inspectorate. This was the conclusion of a lengthy process lasting many years, hence the ‘back dating’ of the start date of this plan. Essentially, The South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2008) “sets out the long term planning framework for the district up to the year 2028. It represents the starting point for decisions on where development will be located in the district and will be used to reach conclusions on planning applications across South Somerset.”
Amongst the multiple matters decided upon were locations for a Yeovil Urban Extension (YUE). Precise numbers and locations for the YUE changed markedly throughout the long process but, ultimately, it was decided that there should be two YUEs, one to the north east of the built form of Yeovil in the parish of Mudford and one to the south of the built form of Yeovil in the parish of East Coker, on the site known as Keyford. This was summarised in Policy YV2 of the South Somerset Local Plan:
“POLICY YV2: YEOVIL SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXTENSIONS
The Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extensions should be located in two areas to the south and north-east of the town and should provide the following:
The south area:
Approximately 2.58 hectares of land for economic development;
Approximately 800 dwellings;
One Primary school;
A health centre; and
A neighbourhood centre.
The north east area:
Approximately 2.58 hectares of land for economic development;
Approximately 765 dwellings;
One Primary school;
A health centre;
A neighbourhood centre; and
Landscape mitigation to address:
o Potential massing effects across the site’s northward face; and
o Potential visual dominance at the site’s edge and skyline.
The Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extensions will be developed to the highest sustainability objectives and garden city principles, subject to viability.
Development within the Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extensions will be permitted where features supporting bat movement are not severed and that access between feeding areas and roosts is maintained unless it can be proven that there would be no significant effect by the proposal on such features.”