South Somerset Settlement Role and Function Study Final ... · Final Report by Baker Associates, April 2009 1 Contents 1. Introduction - P3 2. Methodology - P4 3. Settlements with

South Somerset Settlement Role and Function Study Final Report April 2009

South Somerset Settlement Role And Function Study Baker Associates on behalf of South Somerset District Council

Final Report by Baker Associates, April 2009

1

Contents 1. Introduction - P3 2. Methodology - P4 3. Settlements with a Strong Employment Role - P10

4. Identifying Retail and Community Service Centres - P35

5. Sustainable Transport Opportunities and Self Containment - P60

6. Settlement Classification Recommendations - P74 Appendices - P86 Appendix 1: Settlement definition by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)

Appendix 2: Settlement Maps with LSOA Areas

Appendix 3: Retail Household Survey Areas Map



2



3

1 Introduction 1.1 Baker Associates have been commissioned to undertake analysis on the role and

function of settlements in South Somerset. The Settlement Role and Function Study will form part of the evidence base informing the authority’s Local Development Framework. The main objectives of the study are set out below:

The objectives

• Develop a methodology to identify the current role and function and functional relationships of settlements and their potential future roles;

• Provide recommendations on settlement classification as defined in Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West, Development Policy A, B and C;

• Enable monitoring for future reference and analysis. 1.2 In broad terms the study comprises the development of a methodology, its

subsequent application and desk based analysis of information to provide recommendations on settlement classification and establish an evidence base for the LDF and future monitoring of data allied to this subject.

1.3 Government policy on the role and function of settlements is set out within a number

of Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs). PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3: Housing, PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, PPS6: Planning and Town Centres and PPG13: Transport all contain relevant sources of national guidance on settlement strategy matters. The key messages regarding the role and function of settlements in Government policy are:

• Well connected – locating development to reduce the need to travel by maximising accessibility to employment opportunities, services and facilities by walking, cycling and public transport.

• Concentration – most development should be directed to existing towns and cities. These urban areas benefit from being well served by public transport, and concentrations of jobs, facilities and services, through compact urban forms. In rural areas development should be focussed on settlements that can act as service centres for surrounding areas, where needed to contribute to their sustainability. In the case of housing, only a limited amount of growth should be expected through the expansion of villages.

• Quality services – meeting the needs of present and future communities by focussing development in areas where services are viable and can be realistically maintained or enhanced.

• Robust and vibrant communities – where people are satisfied and value where they live and are able to participate in a range of community activities.

• Self containment – settlements should be more self-contained, providing the opportunity to both live and work in the same area, with access to facilities and services to meet the needs of the communities.

1.4 For the purposes of the study, role and function is defined as “locations that clearly

provide employment, retail or community services for residents and surrounding areas”.



4

2 Methodology 2.1 The study required a series of objectives and outputs and the following methodology

sets out the broad approach needed to address these requirements. 2.2 The first objective of the study was to develop a methodology to identify the current

role and functions and functional relationships of settlements and their potential roles. This was required to establish an evidence based settlement hierarchy to inform the South Somerset Local Development Framework Core Strategy and comply with Regional Spatial Strategy Policy classifications.

2.3 The methodology for the identification of settlement role and function has been

tailored towards South West Regional Spatial Strategy Development Policies A, B and C, to ensure that settlements identified clearly meet the criteria of RSS Development Policy category classification.

2.4 Development Policy A category settlements have been defined within the Regional

Spatial Strategy and will not be determined by this study. Within South Somerset, Yeovil has been identified as a Strategically Significant City or Town (SSCT). Analysis of settlement role and function will include information for Yeovil to enable its use as a comparison settlement and enable future monitoring of this category (A) settlement. South West Regional Spatial Strategy Development Policy A is set out below:

Development Policy A: Development at Strategically Significant Cities and Towns (SSCTs) The primary focus for development in the South West will be the Strategically Significant Cities and Towns (SSCTs): Barnstaple, Bath, Bridgwater, Bristol, Cheltenham, Chippenham, the Cornish Towns (Camborne-Pool-Redruth, Falmouth-Penryn & Truro), Dorchester, Exeter, Gloucester, Newton Abbot, Plymouth, Salisbury, South East Dorset, Swindon, Taunton, Torbay, Trowbridge, Weston-super-Mare, Weymouth and Yeovil. Provision will be made to maintain and enhance the SSCTs' regionally and sub-regionally significant roles and functions for housing, employment, cultural, education, retail, health and other services and facilities and as strategic hubs for public transport by:

• improving the quality of the urban environment, including new development and the public realm

• promoting social cohesion and healthy and secure living conditions through access to good social and community facilities

• supporting growth in the economy and skills through the availability of a range of premises and land that meet the needs of business

• securing improvements to public transport, traffic management and use of road space to tackle congestion and poor air quality

• making efficient and effective use of land, including through regeneration, and planning for and delivering development and infrastructure in a comprehensive and co-ordinated way.

2.5 Most importantly RSS policy states that, “it is the role of the Local Development

Framework to define local service centres which represent RSS Development Policy



5

B and C”. Tasks 2.6 The study has undertaken statistical analysis in a range of specific areas, with each

area of analysis being broken down into a series of tasks. The study addressed the following analysis areas:

• Employment

• Housing

• Retail

• Community Facilities

• Travel 2.7 The specific tasks related to each analysis area are set out below: Employment Analysis:

1) The existing location and sector of jobs and workers, the level of economically active population, and working age population in individual settlements.

2) Employment growth projections, how and where the economy is likely to grow. 2.8 The employment analysis was one of the key considerations for settlement role and

function, to reflect the emphasis on economic led development expressed in the RSS for the South West. The location of existing employment, economically active people and potential future economic growth will all have a strong bearing on the sustainability of existing settlements.

Housing Analysis:

1) Availability of residential development opportunities within settlements. 2) Affordable housing and special housing needs. 3) Market variations across the district.

2.9 The housing analysis looked specifically at housing issues, affordable need and existing development opportunities.

Retail and Community Facilities Analysis:

1) Location and size of retail services and the identification of retail catchments. 2) Framework illustrating the level of services and facilities in each settlement.

2.10 Retail and community facilities analysis was concerned with identifying retail and

service provision to help to define settlements, which act as retail and service centres.

Travel Analysis:

1) Travel to and from work will be analysed by ward and settlement to establish functional relationships in terms of employment.

2) Sustainable travel opportunities. 2.11 Self containment is a key consideration with regard settlement role and function.

Travel patterns, related to employment opportunities were investigated for South Somerset and the Yeovil Travel to Work Area.



6

Define Study Settlements: 2.12 Before analysis could be undertaken the methodology needed to define the scope of

search of the study, review existing literature and refine the approach to settlement classification. This stage analysed Regional Spatial Strategy Development Policy Criteria to define a clear set of indicators for settlement classification and clearly define the settlements to be included in the study. For the basis of consideration all settlements identified in the adopted South Somerset Local Plan have formed the initial settlement list, however the study has not be constrained to these settlements.

2.13 Existing research by the Countryside Agency considered how a number of modern

rural service centres functioned. It found that simplistic assumptions are unlikely to relate to the actual behaviour of rural residents. ‘Our Countryside: Our Future’ (the Rural White Paper 2000) stated that “there are no such thing in economic or social terms as a stereotypical market town”.

2.14 To incorporate the complexity of settlement roles and functions likely to exist across

South Somerset, it was considered that a broad iterative approach to settlement selection would be utilised rather than constrain the scope of the study with prior definitions. The initial selection process has been to identify a broad range of settlements; however their analysis is dependent on the level of statistical information available.

2.15 The main objective of the study has been to identify and categorise settlements in line

with South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) Development Policy A, B and C as set out in the Proposed Changes document July 2008. The spatial development of the region is covered by three linked policies - A, B and C - which address the outcomes to be achieved through development at the SSCTs, in market and coastal towns which play an important functional role locally and in other smaller settlements.

2.16 South West RSS states that “Development Policies A, B and C set specific outcomes

for different types of places. They do not set out a sequential or 'cascade' approach to the location of development; so development needs relating to an SSCT should not be met at a settlement identified under Development Policies B and C, and development needs relating to a market or coastal town should not be met at a settlement identified under Development Policy C”. Yeovil is the only settlement within South Somerset that has been identified as a SSCT (category A settlement), and consequently will be the primary focus for development in the District.

Development Policy B: Development at Market and Coastal Towns At Market and Coastal Towns that meet all of the following criteria:

• there is an existing concentration of business and employment and realistic potential for employment opportunities to be developed and enhanced

• there are shopping, cultural, religious, faith, educational, health and public services that can be provided to meet the needs of the settlement and the surrounding area

• there are sustainable transport modes that can be maintained or developed to meet identified community needs in the settlement and the surrounding area

Provision will be made for housing, employment, shopping and other services that increase their self-containment and enhance their roles as service centres.



7

2.17 Development Policy C:

Development Policy C: Development at Small Towns and Villages In small towns and villages greater self-containment and stronger local communities will be promoted by making provision that:

• supports economic activity appropriate to the scale of the settlement

• extends the range of services to better meet the needs of the settlement and its surrounding area

• meets identified local housing needs.

2.18 The key messages arising from the literature review, general sustainability practice

and analysis of RSS Development Policy Criteria was the clear reoccurring factors that inform settlement function, role and increased sustainability. These factors are best expressed as three themes:

1. Settlements with a strong employment role

2. Important retail and community services

3. Sustainable travel opportunities and self containment 2.19 The methodological approach to defining settlement role and function and ultimately

settlement classification was divided into two distinct but related areas. The first was based on the existing situation for each settlement and identified a series of indicators for each area of analysis. In this way the Settlement Role and Function Study focussed analysis towards the main determinates of settlement function rather than simply presenting statistical information. The indicators were identified with the primary purpose of differentiating settlements based on existing information.

Key Indicators for the existing situation 2.20 The key indicators are present below by theme:


• Level of employment (No. of Jobs)

• Economically active population and employment density 2. Identifying important retail and community services centres

• Level of retail provision

• Position in the retail hierarchy

• Level of community service provision 3. Sustainable travel opportunities and self containment

• Employment self containment

• Travel to work pattern

• Cycling, bus and rail services, including demand responsive services 2.21 The second part of the methodological approach was to identify issues for potential

change. This included population forecasts, employment growth and the availability of residential development opportunities to support sustainable travel patterns. The issues for potential change have been identified to illustrate issues that will affect settlement role and function in the future.



8

Issues for Potential Change 2.22 The issues for potential change are set out below by theme:


• The effect of a reduction in the population of economically active age

• Harnessing future employment growth

• Meeting local employment needs

2. Identifying important retail and community services centres

• The effect of a reducing household size and total population

• The level of population required to support facilities

3. Sustainable travel opportunities and self containment

• Addressing future affordable housing need

• Future residential development opportunities 2.23 The Settlement Role and Function Study has sought to use low level data from the

Census 2001 and NOMIS where available to best reflect South Somerset’s rural nature. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) has defined the NeSS Geography Hierarchy. This is based on aggregations of Output Areas (OAs) and has been introduced nationally to avoid the frequently changing geography of electoral wards. It is also intended to allow a range of different sizes of area at which data can be presented from the Census 2001 on people and Nomis on jobs. These include:

• Output Areas: These were introduced as the smallest units of output for the 2001 Census. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland they have a minimum size of 100 residents and 40 households.

• Lower Super Output Area: Lower Layer SOAs are aggregations of OAs. They cover England and Wales and have minimum size 1000 residents and 400 households.

• Middle Super Output Area: These are aggregations of Lower Layer SOAs in England and Wales. They have minimum size 5000 residents and 2000 households

2.24 The majority of information required by the study is only available at Lower Super

Output Area (LSOA) and the starting point for settlement identification and definition for statistical purposes was the identification of settlements within each LSOA. This process has resulted in specific information for a large selection of individual settlements and joint results for a series of smaller settlements within the same LSOA area based on the Office of National Statistics data. The main area where this level of information is not available is for travel to work data. Appendix 1 sets out the list of settlements and their respective LSOA codes and wards.

2.25 The amalgamation of settlements has been avoided where possible, however, the

Census and Nomis data required for the study is not available for Output Areas which could potentialy present all settlements individually, therefore LSOA areas have been used which unavoidably amalgamates particular settlements due to the larger geographic nature of the areas. Ideally the study would have wished to keep all settlements separate or link them where they have a clear bond, such as shared community facilities. To conduct the analysis on a more consistent basis LSOA have been chosen to allow analysis of a wide range of statistics areas e.g employment that would not have been possible otherwise.



9

2.26 The Office of National Statistics requires sensitive data at LSOA level to be rounded for confidentiality reasons. Nomis employment figures and Census population data at LSOA level have been rounded to the nearest 50 or left blank for figures under 50.

2.27 Table 2.1 overleaf sets out existing settlements that have been included in the study

and shows how they have been separated to allow low level analysis using LSOA data.

Table 2.1: Identified Settlements divided into LSOA groups.

Settlements

Ansford / Castle Cary High Ham Norton Sub Hamdon

Ashill / Broadway

Holton / Charlton Horethorne / South Cheriton Odcombe

Barrington / Kingsbury Episcopi Horton

Seavington St Michael / Seavington St Mary / Shepton Beauchamp

Barwick / Stoford Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton Somerton

Bruton Ilminster South Brewham / Bayford

Chard Ilton South Petherton

Charlton Adam / Charlton Mackrell / Kingsdon

Keinton Mandeville / Barton St David Sparkford / Queen Camel

Combe St Nicholas Langport / Huish Episcopi Stoke Sub Hamdon

Compton Dundon Long Load / Ash Tatworth / South Chard

Crewkerne Long Sutton Templecombe

Curry Rivel Martock Tintinhull

Fivehead Merriott West Camel

Galhampton / North Cadbury / South Cadbury Milborne Port

West Chinnock / East Chinnock

Hardington Mandeville / West Coker Misterton / Winsham Wincanton

Haselbury Plucknett Montacute Yeovil

Henstridge North Coker / East Coker

2.28 For amalgamated settlements it is important that it is remembered that the data

represents multiple settlements and therefore the importance of these grouped settlements must not be overstated.

Report Structure 2.29 The report has been structured to reflect the main classification themes. It uses the

information from each of the area of analysis to present information on both the key indicators and issues for potential change. The structure of the report will comprise the following sections:

• Section 3: Settlement with a Strong Employment Role

• Section 4: Identifying Retail and Community Service Centres

• Section 5: Sustainable Transport Opportunities and Self Containment

• Section 6: Settlement Classification Recommendations.



10

3. Settlements with a Strong Employment Role 3.1 The first theme was the consideration of employment related key indicators. The

research report, A Functional Analysis of Settlements’ (Roger Tyms & Partners 2005) commissioned by the South West Regional Assembly concluded that a key factor determining the functionality of a town (and a good basis therefore for targeting future development) was its self containment level for employment.

3.2 The consideration of employment and the ability to live and work within close

proximity is a central issue for settlement function. The identification of strong employment centres should be a defining feature of a robust settlement hierarchy. This section looks at employment issues in South Somerset. The section covers the following key indicators and potential issues for change:

• Level of Existing Employment (No of Jobs)

• Economically Active Population and Employment Density

• The Effect of a Reduction in the Population of Economically Active Age

• Harnessing Future Employment Growth

• Meeting Local Employment Needs Level of Existing Employment (No of Jobs) 3.3 Analysis has used 2006 Annual Business Inquiry information from Nomis to identify

the distribution of employment across South Somerset. This information has been analysed at Lower Super Output Area (LSOA). Table 3.1 shows the main results. Settlements in bold represent the largest settlements in terms of jobs:

Table 3.1: Level of Existing Employment (ABI Nomis 2006)

Settlements within LSOA Area Total Jobs*

(approximate) % of District

Jobs

Yeovil 30,100 47.4

Chard 5,400 8.5

Wincanton 2,900 4.6

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 2,700 4.3

Crewkerne 2,500 3.9

Ilminster 1,900 3.0

Somerton 1,300 2.0

Langport / Huish Episcopi 1,200 1.9

Ansford / Castle Cary 1,100 1.7

Martock 800 1.3

Templecombe 700 1.1

South Petherton 700 1.1

Bruton 700 1.1

Misterton / Winsham 700 1.1

Sparkford / Queen Camel 600 0.9

Combe St Nicholas 500 0.8

South Brewham / Bayford 500 0.8

Ash / Long Load 500 0.8

Henstridge 500 0.8

Ilton 500 0.8



11

Settlements within LSOA Area Total Jobs* % of District

Jobs

Galhampton / North Cadbury / South Cadbury 500 0.8

Tatworth / South Chard 500 0.8

Fivehead 500 0.8

Barrington / Kingsbury Episcopi 400 0.6

Curry Rivel 400 0.6

Milborne Port 400 0.6

Montacute 400 0.6

Seavington St Mary / Seavington St Michael / Shepton Beauchamp / South Petherton 300 0.5

Charlton Horethorne / Holton / South Cheriton 300 0.5

Merriott 300 0.5

East Coker / North Coker 300 0.5

Charlton Adam / Charlton Mackrell / Kingsdon 300 0.5

Keinton Mandeville / Barton St David 300 0.5

Haselbury Plucknett 300 0.5

High Ham 300 0.5

Horton 300 0.5

Compton Dundon 200 0.3

Tintinhull 200 0.3

West Camel 200 0.3

Ashill / Broadway 200 0.3

Long Sutton 200 0.3

Stoke Sub Hamdon 200 0.3

Odcombe 200 0.3

Norton Sub Hamdon 200 0.3

Hardington Mandeville / West Coker 100 0.2

East Chinnock / West Chinnock 100 0.2

Barwick / Stoford 100 0.2

South Somerset District Total 63,500 100% Note: * Total Jobs has been rounded to the nearest 100 for confidentiality

3.4 Table 3.1 shows that in 2006 there were approximately 63,500 jobs across South

Somerset. The main concentration of employment is Yeovil, which accounts for 47.5 % of all employment. In addition analysis shows that there is a significant gap between settlements with over 1100 jobs and the next level of settlements below. In additional to existing services centres and towns, Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton is the focus for a significant level of employment. The main settlements for employment are:

• Yeovil

• Chard

• Wincanton

• Crewkerne

• Ilchester and RNAS Yeovilton

• Ilminster

• Somerton

• Langport / Huish Episcopi



12

• Ansford / Castle Cary 3.5 These nine settlements represent 77% of all employment in the District. Only 5 other

settlements within South Somerset account for more than 1% of the remaining employment individually. Baker Associates consider that these nine settlements represent substantial levels of employment within the district and that these settlements display a strong employment role relative to other settlements. The remaining employment in the district is relatively evenly distributed around the settlements. Other settlements have between 800 jobs to 1,000 jobs and these include existing rural centres, Bruton, Martock, South Petherton and Milborne Port.

3.6 It is considered that only settlements with a higher level of employment can be

considered as strong employment centres and therefore likely to fulfil RSS Development Policy B. Given the rural nature of South Somerset and valuable employment function provided by relatively small settlements, the analysis has looked at all settlements, even those with relatively low levels of employment to assist in the identification of settlements for Development Policy C. There is no clear division between the remaining settlements but those with higher levels of employment are clearer candidates for Development Policy C categorisation, where it is considered appropriate within the wider spatial planning context.

Economically Active People and Employment Density 3.7 The distribution of population has a good bearing on the function and role of a

settlement. The South Somerset Markets Towns Vision (2005) highlights a variety of approaches to defining settlement hierarchy. The simplest defines market towns as “all settlements with more than 2000 residents”. The complicated issue for the classification of settlements is that certain population levels do not guarantee a relative degree of functionality. Spatial issues such as the proximity to neighbouring settlements or transport access come into effect, which cannot be easily correlated.

3.8 The total population as identified in the Census 2001 for South Somerset is 150,950.

2001 Census data has been chosen over 2006 mid year estimates because is it considered more robust than a projection based on short term trends. Mid year estimates suggest the population was 156,700 people in 2006. Table 3.2 below shows the population of settlements identified within each Lower Super Output Area with a broad age structure to show locational variations. Settlements in bold in Table 3.2 are the largest settlements in terms of population. Settlements italicised are those with over 2000+ people:

Table 3.2: Existing Population Structure (Census 2001)

Settlements within LSOA Area Population 0-19 % 19-64 % 65+ %

Yeovil 42150 10850 26 24600 58 6700 16

Chard 12000 2950 25 6450 54 2650 22

Crewkerne 7500 1650 22 4150 56 1700 23

Ilminster 4750 1100 23 2500 53 1150 25

Wincanton 4650 1100 23 2600 56 950 21

Martock 4000 950 24 2200 55 800 20

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 4000 1100 27 2500 62 400 11

Somerton 3600 800 21 2050 56 800 22

South Petherton 3150 600 20 1700 53 850 27

Ansford / Castle Cary 3050 650 21 1650 54 750 25



13

Settlements within LSOA Area Population 0-19 % 19-64 % 65+ %

Bruton 2950 1150 38 1400 46 450 15

Langport / Huish Episcopi 2750 650 23 1450 53 650 24

Milborne Port 2650 650 24 1500 56 500 19

Tatworth / South Chard 2600 600 23 1400 53 600 23

Curry Rivel 2500 550 23 1300 53 600 24

Merriott 2400 500 21 1400 57 550 22

South Brewham/Bayford 2400 600 25 1350 56 450 19

Misterton/Winsham 2250 500 22 1250 56 500 21

Combe St Nicholas 2200 400 19 1250 56 550 25

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 2200 550 24 1250 56 450 20

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 2150 500 24 1200 56 400 20 Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 1800 400 22 950 54 450 24

Templecombe 1750 400 23 1050 59 300 17

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 1600 450 27 900 55 300 17

Compton Dundon 1600 350 22 900 56 350 21

Henstridge 1500 350 22 900 61 250 18

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 1500 300 21 860 57 300 22

North Coker/East Coker 1500 300 21 850 57 350 22

Ilton 1500 350 23 850 56 300 19

Stoke Sub Hamdon 1450 350 25 850 60 200 15

Long Load/Ash 1450 350 23 900 62 200 15

Sparkford/Queen Camel 1400 350 27 700 52 300 22

Hardington Mandeville / West Coker 1400 350 25 800 55 250 19

High Ham 1350 300 23 750 56 250 20

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 1350 300 23 750 56 250 19

Odcombe 1300 250 18 800 61 300 22

Fivehead 1300 300 22 750 57 300 22

Haselbury Plucknett 1250 300 22 700 55 250 22

Norton Sub Hamdon 1250 300 22 700 54 250 21

Tintinhull 1200 300 25 700 59 200 15

Long Sutton 1200 250 20 650 55 250 22

Ashill/Broadway 1150 250 21 650 56 300 24

West Camel 1150 200 18 650 58 300 24

Horton 1100 250 21 600 55 300 27

Montacute 1100 250 23 600 53 250 24

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 1100 250 22 600 56 250 21

Barwick / Stoford 1050 250 22 600 58 200 21

South Somerset District 150950 36300 24 85050 56 29600 20 Note: Figures rounded to nearest 50, numbers may not add due to rounding.



14

3.9 Table 3.2 shows the population for each settlement. Yeovil accounts for 28% of the

total population. There is a clear gap in terms of population between the largest settlements and other settlements in the district. Three settlements are considerably larger than any other settlement within the district with population in excess of 7500 people. These include:

• Yeovil

• Chard

• Crewkerne 3.10 Many settlements within the district contain over 2000 people. These settlements

(italicised) range in population from 2150 to 4750. Below this are the remaining settlements which vary between 1050 and 1850 people. These divisions represent clear gaps between settlements of different population sizes.

3.11 Table 3.2 shows that the age structure for each settlement varies significantly. The

overall South Somerset age structure comprises of 24% 0-19, 56% 20-64 and 20% 65+. However, specific settlements across the district differ from this average. Bruton and Ilchester in particular, are considerably different to the South Somerset average with a predominately young population. 38% of the total population of Bruton, and 34% in Ilchester are aged 0-19 years. For Bruton this could be explained by the high presence of secondary schools that attract families with children. Baker Associates, consider that settlements with a high level of young people should be considered for future employment growth to ensure a better balance of jobs to homes and reduce travel to work distances. The high level of young people is reflected in a lower proportion of people of working age and the older generation.

3.12 Vice versa, settlements such as Ansford / Castle Cary and Ilminster have a relatively

high proportion of older residents and fewer young people. In the future, with a population aging nationally, these settlements could require additional housing growth to ensure that existing employment has sufficient economically active residents to support it. As can be clearly seen the number of people aged 20-64 remains relatively constant across South Somerset with the exception of a few locationally specific variations such as Stoke Sub Hamdon and Henstridge, which have higher than average levels of 20-64 year olds.

Economically Active People 3.13 A good indicator of settlement sustainability with regard to population and

employment is the number of economically active people and the corresponding employment density. Employment density is the simple ratio of jobs to the number of economically active people. This issue is closely related to self containment and travel to work patterns which is covered in section 5. A good ratio of jobs to homes increases the potential for residents to live and work within the settlement and therefore improve self containment and reduce travel to other settlements. Table 3.3 below sets out the level of economically active people for each settlement:

Table 3.3: Economically Active Population (Census 2001 Rounded)

Population aged 16-74

Economically active %

Economically inactive %

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 2900 1350 81 550 19

Long Load/Ash 1100 800 73 300 27

Stoke Sub Hamdon 1050 750 73 300 27



15




Milborne Port 1850 1350 72 500 28

Yeovil 29900 21550 72 8400 28

Martock 2750 1950 71 800 29

Templecombe 1250 900 71 350 29

Tintinhull 900 600 71 250 29

Wincanton 3300 2300 70 950 30

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 1550 1100 70 450 30

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 1150 800 70 350 30

Fivehead 950 650 70 300 30

Crewkerne 5350 3650 69 1700 31

Langport / Huish Episcopi 1850 1250 69 600 31

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 1100 750 69 350 31

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker 1000 700 69 300 31

Montacute 700 500 69 250 31

Merriott 1750 1200 68 550 32

Henstridge 1100 750 68 350 32

Chard 8250 5550 67 2700 33

Ilminster 3250 2300 67 1050 33

Ansford / Castle Cary 2150 1450 67 700 33

South Brewham/Bayford 1700 1150 67 500 33

Compton Dundon 1150 750 67 400 33

Ilton 1050 700 67 350 33

Odcombe 1000 650 67 350 33

Sparkford/Queen Camel 950 600 67 300 33

Norton Sub Hamdon 850 550 67 300 33

Barwick / Stoford 750 500 67 250 33

Tatworth / South Chard 1700 1150 66 600 34

Curry Rivel 2750 1800 66 950 34

Misterton/Winsham 1600 1050 66 550 34

Galhampton/North Cadbury/ South Cadbury 1550 1050 66 550 34

North Coker/East Coker 1100 700 66 400 34

High Ham 1000 650 66 350 34

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 950 600 66 300 34

Horton 750 500 66 250 34

Somerton 2600 1700 65 900 35

Combe St Nicholas 1650 1050 65 600 35

Ashill/Broadway 800 550 65 300 35

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 800 500 65 300 35

South Petherton 2200 1400 63 800 37



16




Bruton 1900 1200 63 700 37

Haselbury Plucknett 900 550 62 350 38

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 1250 800 61 500 39

Long Sutton 850 550 61 350 39

West Camel 850 500 60 350 40

South Somerset 106850 73650 69 33200 31 Note: Figures rounded to nearest 50, numbers may not add due to rounding

3.14 The economically active rate for South Somerset is 69% of the 16-74 population. The

16-74 age group is defined by the Office National Stastics as people of economically active age, even though retirement age is currently 65. The following settlements in bold in Table 3.3 comprise settlements with a greater rate of economic activity than the South Somerset average. These include:

• Ilchester /RNAS Yeovilton

• Long Load / Ash

• Yeovil

• Stoke Sub Hamdon

• Milborne Port

• Martock

• Templecombe

• Tintinhull

• Wincanton

• Barrington / Kingsbury Episcopi

• Keinton Mandeville / Barton St David

• Fivehead

3.15 Table 3.4 below brings together employment (no. of Jobs) and rates of economically active population to identify employment density ratio. It must be noted that population data on economically activity is from the Census 2001 whilst employment data is from Nomis 2006. These are inconsistent base dates, however it is considered more reliable to use 2001 Census data that 2006 mid year population estimates, see para 3.8. Until actual counts are taken, the future distribution of population will be unknown and estimates will not clarify this. It is considered that identifying the ratio based on real counts is more reliable even if the base date disparity will result in generally lower ratios for all settlements in the future.

3.16 Settlements in bold in Table 3.4 have a greater than 1:1 employment density, Those

italicised have a better than South Somerset average (0.86+). Table 3.4: Employment Density Ratio

Economically Active

Population No Jobs Employment

Density

Yeovil 21550 30100 1.40

Wincanton 2300 2850 1.24

Chard 5550 5450 0.98

Langport / Huish Episcopi 1250 1200 0.96



17

Economically Active


Density

Sparkford/Queen Camel 600 600 0.96

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 2350 2650 1.12

Ilminster 2200 1900 0.86

Templecombe 900 750 0.82

Somerton 1700 1300 0.78

Crewkerne 3650 2750 0.75

Ansford / Castle Cary 1450 1050 0.74

Montacute 500 350 0.73

Fivehead 650 450 0.73

Misterton/Winsham 1050 700 0.64

South Petherton 1400 900 0.64

Henstridge 750 500 0.63

Long Load/Ash 800 500 0.62

Bruton 1200 750 0.60

Horton 500 250 0.50

Combe St Nicholas 1050 500 0.49

Haselbury Plucknett 550 250 0.47

High Ham 650 300 0.47

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 1050 450 0.46

South Brewham/Bayford 1100 500 0.45

Curry Rivel 1050 450 0.44

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 800 350 0.44

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 600 250 0.43

West Camel 500 200 0.43

Martock 1950 850 0.43

North Coker/East Coker 700 300 0.41

Ilton 700 300 0.40

Ashill/Broadway 550 200 0.40

Tatworth / South Chard 1150 450 0.40

Tintinhull 600 250 0.39

Long Sutton 550 200 0.38

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 1100 400 0.35

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 800 250 0.34

Compton Dundon 750 250 0.32

Norton Sub Hamdon 550 150 0.27

Odcombe 650 200 0.27

Milborne Port 1300 350 0.27

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 750 200 0.27

Merriott 1200 300 0.26



18

Economically Active


Density

Stoke Sub Hamdon 750 200 0.26

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 500 100 0.20

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker 700 150 0.19

Barwick / Stoford 500 50 0.12

South Somerset District 73650 63,450 0.86 Note: Figures rounded to nearest 50, numbers may not add due to rounding

3.17 Table 3.4 shows the employment density for each settlement within South Somerset.

Employment density ratio highlights the ratio of jobs to economically active population. A ratio of 1:1 would indicate that there is one job available for every resident. However in reality, if settlements are to provide an appropriate range of jobs to meet the requirements of all residents in terms of sectors and skills, then a ratio greater than 1:1 would be required. The analysis shows that three settlements have a ratio close to 1:1 of jobs to workers, these are:

• Chard


• Sparkford / Queen Camel 3.18 Baker Associates consider that these represent relatively balanced settlements in

terms of jobs to economically active population. Table 3.4 also shows three settlements that have a ratio considerably in excess of 1:1: These are:

• Yeovil

• Wincanton

• Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton

3.19 These settlements have a greater number of jobs than economically active residents and will attract workers from surrounding settlements. Only one other settlement (Illminster) has a better than South Somerset average employment density ratio (0.86+).

3.20 It must be noted that there is not a direct link between jobs and economically active

population in each settlement. Employment density judges the opportunity to live and work within close proximity. The table highlights settlements with a high level of economically active residents compared to jobs. Combined with travel to work analysis in Section 5, a view can be taken on the relative benefits of directing future employment growth to assist in reducing commuting, improving sustainability and strengthening employment roles.

The Effect of a Reduction in the Population of Economically Active Age 3.21 Settlements do not exist in isolation and over time changes in the economy,

population and level of service provision could potentially alter the function of an individual settlement in relation to others. The issues for potential change seek to highlight key considerations that will affect settlement classification. Settlements can be classified based on existing data and this will provide a robust snapshot in time, however, settlement function and therefore classification could change over time.



19

3.22 If the population of South Somerset is ageing and household size is reducing, then in the future the level of economically active population will reduce. This in turn will affect the ratio of jobs to workers (employment density) resulting in potentially fewer workers than jobs. The ONS provides sub-national population projections forecasting the change in population and age structure. Table 3.5 overleaf sets out the subnational population projections for South Somerset.

Table 3.5: 2006-based subnational population projections (ONS)

AGE GROUP 2006 2011 Change 2016 Change 2021 Change 2026

Overall Change

0-4 8.0 8.8 0.8 9.2 1.2 9.5 1.5 9.5 1.5

5-9 9.0 8.6 -0.4 9.5 0.5 9.8 0.8 10.1 1.1

10-14 9.9 9.5 -0.4 9.1 -0.8 10.1 0.2 10.4 0.5

15-19 10.2 9.9 -0.3 9.5 -0.7 9.3 -0.9 10.2 0.0

20-24 7.2 9.0 1.8 8.8 1.6 8.4 1.2 8.3 1.1

25-29 7.4 8.2 0.8 9.7 2.3 9.4 2.0 9.0 1.6

30-34 8.3 8.1 -0.2 8.9 0.6 10.2 1.9 9.9 1.6

35-39 10.9 9.2 -1.7 8.9 -2.0 9.9 -1.0 11.2 0.3

40-44 11.4 11.5 0.1 9.8 -1.6 9.5 -1.9 10.6 -0.8

45-49 10.4 11.9 1.5 11.9 1.5 10.3 -0.1 10.0 -0.4

50-54 10.0 10.9 0.9 12.5 2.5 12.5 2.5 10.8 0.8

55-59 11.9 10.6 -1.3 11.6 -0.3 13.2 1.3 13.3 1.4

60-64 10.4 12.6 2.2 11.2 0.8 12.4 2.0 14.1 3.7

65-69 8.5 10.7 2.2 12.9 4.4 11.7 3.2 12.9 4.4

70-74 7.3 8.4 1.1 10.6 3.3 12.8 5.5 11.6 4.3

75-79 6.6 6.8 0.2 7.8 1.2 9.9 3.3 11.9 5.3

80-84 4.9 5.3 0.4 5.6 0.7 6.6 1.7 8.5 3.6

85+ 4.3 5.0 0.7 5.8 1.5 6.8 2.5 8.4 4.1

ALL AGES 156.7 164.8 8.1 173.4 16.7 182.2 25.5 190.6 33.9

Note: figures are thousands 3.23 Table 3.5 shows how that population of South Somerset is projected to change by

2026. This has been used in Table 3.6 to show how the population and age structure could look if future demographic change forecast for South Somerset were to occur on a consistent basis across all settlements by 2026.

Table 3.6: Future Population Structure (2026)

Settlements 0-19 % 20-64 % 65+ % Total

Yeovil 11750 23 27300 54 11550 23 50650

Chard 3200 22 7150 48 4550 31 14900

Crewkerne 1800 19 4600 49 3000 32 9400

Ilminster 1150 20 2800 47 2000 34 5950

Wincanton 1200 21 2900 50 1650 29 5700

Martock 1050 21 2450 50 1400 29 4900

Somerton 850 19 2250 51 1350 31 4450

South Petherton 650 17 1850 47 1450 37 4000

Ansford / Castle Cary 700 18 1850 47 1350 35 3850

Bruton 1200 35 1500 44 750 21 3500



20

Settlements 0-19 % 20-64 % 65+ % Total

Langport / Huish Episcopi 700 20 1600 47 1100 33 3400

Milborne Port 700 22 1650 51 850 27 3200

Tatworth / South Chard 650 20 1550 48 1000 32 3200

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 1200 26 2750 59 700 15 4650

Curry Rivel 600 20 1450 46 1050 34 3150

Merriott 550 18 1550 51 950 31 3000

South Brewham/Bayford 650 23 1500 51 800 26 2900

Combe St Nicholas 450 17 1400 50 950 34 2750

Misterton/Winsham 550 19 1400 51 850 30 2750

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 550 21 1350 51 750 28 2700

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 550 21 1350 51 750 28 2600

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 400 19 1050 48 750 33 2250

Templecombe 450 21 1150 55 500 24 2100

Compton Dundon 400 20 1000 50 600 30 1950

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 450 25 1000 50 500 25 1950

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 350 19 950 51 550 30 1850

North Coker/East Coker 350 19 950 51 550 30 1850

Henstridge 350 19 1000 55 450 26 1850

Ilton 400 21 950 51 500 27 1800

Long Load/Ash 350 21 1000 57 400 22 1750

Stoke Sub Hamdon 400 23 950 55 400 22 1750

Sparkford/Queen Camel 400 23 800 46 550 30 1750

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker 350 22 850 50 450 28 1700

High Ham 350 20 850 52 450 28 1650

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 350 21 850 51 450 28 1650

Odcombe 250 16 900 54 500 31 1600

Fivehead 300 19 800 51 500 30 1600

Haselbury Plucknett 300 20 750 50 450 30 1500

Norton Sub Hamdon 300 20 750 50 450 30 1500

Long Sutton 250 18 750 50 450 32 1450

West Camel 200 15 750 51 500 33 1450

Ashill/Broadway 250 18 700 49 500 33 1450

Tintinhull 350 23 800 55 300 22 1450

Horton 250 18 650 47 500 36 1400

Montacute 300 20 650 47 450 33 1400

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 250 19 700 50 400 30 1350

Barwick / Stoford 250 20 650 51 400 29 1300

District Total 39400 21 94350 51 51300 28 185050 Note: Figures rounded to nearest 50, numbers may not add due to rounding

3.24 The information shows that the population of South Somerset is projected to grow by

33,900 people. However, due to an aging population this will comprise 3,100 0-19 year olds, 9,300 20-64 years olds and 21,700 65+. This will have implications for



21

existing settlements and the number of people of economically active age. 3.25 Future population growth will generally only be facilitated by new housing

development especially taking into consideration reducing household size. Table 3.7 overleaf shows what could happen to the existing economically active population if the total population was effected by a reducing household size. Across South Somerset the percentage of people aged 20-64 will go down in relative terms by -5.7%.

Table 3.7: Future Economically Active Population

Settlement

Economically Active Pop

2001


2026

Decrease in Economically

Active Pop

Yeovil 21550 20300 -1250

Chard 5550 5250 -300

Crewkerne 3650 3450 -200

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 2350 2200 -150

Wincanton 2300 2200 -150

Ilminster 2200 2050 -100

Martock 1950 1850 -100

Somerton 1700 1600 -100

Ansford / Castle Cary 1450 1350 -100

South Petherton 1400 1300 -100

Milborne Port 1350 1250 -100

Langport / Huish Episcopi 1250 1200 -50

Bruton 1200 1150 -50

Merriott 1200 1150 -50

South Brewham/Bayford 1150 1100 -50

Tatworth/South Chard 1150 1100 -50

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 1100 1050 -50

Misterton/Winsham 1050 1000 -50

Combe St Nicholas 1050 1000 -50

Curry Rivel 1050 1000 -50

Galhampton/North Cadbury 1050 1000 -50

Templecombe 900 850 -50

Long Load/Ash 800 750 -50

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 800 750 -50

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cadbury/South Cheriton 800 750 -50

Stoke Sub Hamdon 750 750 0

Henstridge 750 700 -50

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 750 700 -50

Compton Dundon 750 700 -50

North Coker/East Coker 700 700 -50

Ilton 700 650 -50

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker 700 650 -50

Odcombe 650 650 -50

Fivehead 650 600 -50



22

Settlement


2001


2026

Decrease in Economically

Active Pop

High Ham 650 600 -50

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 600 600 0

Tintinhull 600 600 0

Sparkford/Queen Camel 600 600 0

Norton Sub Hamdon 550 550 0

Haselbury Plucknett 550 500 -50

Ashill/Broadway 550 500 -50

Long Sutton 550 500 -50

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 500 500 0

West Camel 500 500 0

Horton 500 500 0

Barwick / Stoford 500 500 0

Montacute 500 450 -50

South Somerset 73650 69450 -4200 Note: Figures rounded to nearest 50, numbers may not add due to rounding

3.26 The figures have been calculated based on the proportional reduction of 5.6% in the

population aged 16-74 forecast in the subnational population projections. Overall, the population is projected to grow, including the 16-74 age group, but the table highlights the effect of population aging on the number of economically active people in a constrained environment. In reality, other factors will come in to play, including migration, new development and household size reduction. The objective of this table is to illustrate that, factors such as aging population and reducing household size, as illustrated in Section 4, will slowly reduce the population of settlements and the number of economically active people. This will ultimately undermine employment function in the absence of positive migration trends or proactive allocation of future development.

3.27 Migration will result in a natural exchange of population within settlements, which will

influence demographic structure. However, reducing household size and ageing population are national demographic trends and Baker Associates consider it unlikely that migration trends will dramatically alter demographic structures. The key message for settlement function therefore, is the importance of future development allocations when is comes to supporting existing settlement role and function.

3.28 Table 3.7 shows the hypothetical effect of an aging population on the number of

economically active people within each settlement. In all cases it shows that the number of economically active people will decrease if no other influences are considered. Dependant on the level of future development, it is clear that a reduction of economically active population is likely to occur is some settlements. A rational decision needs to be taken on which settlements should be allowed to have a reduced economically active population, i.e. locations with low levels of employment and current high levels of out commuting; and locations which should have their employment role supported by providing additional residential accommodation for new economically active people.



23

Harnessing Future Employment Growth 3.29 The second of the potential for issues for change is the effect of future economic

growth. This is related to the previous issue because, in addition to a changing economically active population, the changing economic structure can result in an increase or decrease in jobs in particular employment sectors within individual settlements.

3.30 The Roger Tym report, RSS Employment Land Provision Spatial Implications (2008)

and Business Perspectives on Property Workspace Survey and Review (Atisreal 2008), provides detailed information on the future growth of the South Somerset economy.

3.31 The RSS Employment Land Provision Spatial Implications (2008) provides forecasts

for economic growth by 2026. There are two scenarios, a 2.8% GVA growth and 3.2% GVA growth. GVA or Gross value added is the difference between output and intermediate consumption for any given sector/industry. It is the difference between the value of goods and services produced and the cost of raw materials and other inputs which are used up in production. Table 3.8 shows the forecasts.

Table 3.8: Future Economic Projections

3.32 Table 3.8 shows that under the higher growth scenario the economy grows by 10,700

jobs. However, this masks considerable variations between employment sectors. The forecasts show that several employment sectors will decline, whilst many will grow. The declining sectors include Agriculture, Food, Textiles and Wood, Chemicals and Minerals, Metals and Engineering, Electronics and Transport Equipment.

3.33 Growth sectors include: Distribution, Hotel and Catering, Business Services, Public

Administration, Education and Health and Other Services. The changing economic structure will have an implication for existing settlements with high levels of employment identified within growing or declining sectors. Table 3.9 overleaf, highlights LSOA settlement employment structure.

3.34 Based on the job projections in Table 3.8 sectors highlighted red are at risk. Whilst



24

the growth sectors G, K, L, M, N and O are in bold. The declining sectors will have implications for some settlements. Sectors A, D and I, highlighted red, could reduce the employment role of settlements in the future, unless growing sectors can compensate. Settlements in bold are consider most susceptible to decline in the manufacturing sector based on the high existing proportion of manufacturing employment relative to other employment sectors. It must be noted that category B: fisheries, has been excluded from analysis. Category D includes a percentage figure to illustrate the vulnerability of the manufacturing sector.



25

Table 3.9: Employment By Settlement (2006 ABI Employment Data by LSOA) Employment Category / Settlement A C D % E F G H I J K L M N O Total

Ansford / Castle Cary - - 100 7% - 50 350 50 - - 150 - 150 200 50 1,050

Ashill/Broadway - - - 1% - 50 50 50 - - - - 50 - - 200

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi - - 50 15% - 50 50 - 50 - 50 - 50 - 100 400

Barwick Stoford - - - 3% - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bruton - - 150 18% - 50 150 50 50 - 50 - 200 50 - 750

Chard - - 2,250 42% - 250 1,000 200 150 50 300 100 500 550 100 5,450

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon - - 50 21% - 50 - - - - 50 - 100 - - 250

Combe St Nicholas - - 150 29% - 50 50 50 - - 50 - 50 - 50 500

Compton Dundon - - 50 24% - - 50 - - - 50 - - - - 250

Crewkerne - - 800 29% 50 100 450 150 50 50 450 50 300 250 100 2,750

Curry Rivel - - 50 10% - 50 50 - - - 150 - 50 100 - 450

Fivehead - - 150 36% - 50 50 - - - 100 - - 50 50 450

Galhampton/North Cadbury - - 50 8% - - 100 50 50 - 100 - 50 - 50 450

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker - - - 7% - - - - - - 50 - - - 50 100

Haselbury Plucknett - - 50 13% - - 50 50 - - 50 - 100 - - 250

Henstridge - - 50 11% - 50 150 50 50 - 50 - - 50 50 500

High Ham - - - 3% - - 50 - - - 50 50 50 - 50 300



26

Employment Category / Settlement A C D % E F G H I J K L M N O Total Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cadbury/South Cheriton - - - 6% - - 50 50 - - 50 - 50 100 50 350

Horton - - - 1% - - - 50 - - 100 - - 100 - 250

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton - - 750 28% - 250 100 100 - - 200 900 200 50 100 2650

Ilminster - - 500 27% - 150 350 100 100 50 200 - 250 150 50 1,900

Ilton - - 50 15% - - 100 - - - 50 - 50 - - 300

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David - - 50 12% - 50 - - - - 50 - 50 50 - 250

Langport and Huish - - 100 10% - 50 400 50 50 - 100 - 250 150 50 1,200

Long Load/Ash - - 200 39% - 50 100 - - - 100 - 50 - - 500

Long Sutton - - - 4% - 50 - 50 - - 50 - - - 50 200

Martock - - 150 17% - 50 150 50 50 - 200 - 50 100 - 850

Merriott - - 50 17% - 50 50 50 - - 50 - 50 50 - 300

Milborne Port - - 50 11% - 50 50 50 - - 50 - 50 50 - 350

Misterton/Winsham - - 100 17% - 100 50 250 - - 50 - - - 50 700

Montacute - - - 0% - - - 50 - - - - 200 50 50 350

North Coker/East Coker - - - 6% - - 50 50 - - 100 - 50 - - 300

Norton Sub Hamdon - - - 13% - - - - - - - - 50 - - 150

Odcombe - - - 4% - - - 50 - - 50 - - 50 - 200



27

Employment Category / Settlement

A

C

D

%

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

Total

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp - - 50 19% - 50 50 - - - 50 - - - - 200

Somerton - - 100 8% - 100 350 50 50 - 350 - 100 150 50 1,300

South Brewham / Bayford - - 50 6% - - 50 100 - - 100 - 150 - 50 500

South Petherton - - 200 20% - 100 100 50 50 - 100 - 50 250 - 900

Sparkford/Queen Camel - - 200 29% - 50 50 100 - - 50 - 150 50 50 600

Stoke Sub Hamdon - - - 9% - - 50 - - - 50 - 50 - - 200

Tatworth / South Chard

- - 150 37%

- 50 50 - 50 - - - 50 - - 450

Templecombe - - 500 66% - - - 50 - - 100 - 50 50 - 750

Tintinhull - - - 1% - - 50 50 - - 50 - 50 - - 250

West Camel - - 50 18% - - 50 50 50 - 50 - - - - 200

West Chinnock/East Chinnock - - - 8% - - - - - - 50 - - - - 100

Wincanton - - 400 14% - 150 1,100 100 250 - 250 50 200 300 100 2,850

Yeovil - - 6,350 21% 50 1,100 7,600 1,100 650 400 4,050 1,400 2,000 4,300 1,200 30,100

South Somerset District Total 150 50 14,000 22% 100 3,250 13,550 3,350 1,800 700 8,150 2,550 5,750 7,350 2,700 63,450

Note: Due to confidentiality issues, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest 50 or left blank



28

Employment Sector Key: A: Agriculture, hunting & forestry C: Mining & quarrying D: Manufacturing E: Electricity, gas & water supply F: Construction G: Wholesale & retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles & personal & household goods H: Hotels and restaurants I: Transport, storage & communication J: Financial intermediation K: Real estate, renting & business activities L: Public administration & defence M: Education N: Health & social work O: Other community, social & personal service activities



29

3.35 Table 3.9 highlights the vulnerability of particular employment locations to economic change. The most important declining sector in terms of jobs is manufacturing. Table 3.9 includes a percentage column for manufacturing, identifying the percentage of employment currently in manufacturing within the LSOA settlements. The South Somerset average is 22% of all employment in manufacturing. Settlements in bold in Table 3.9 have a higher than average level of manufacturing, which could be subject to decline and undermine settlement employment role unless replaced by new industry. These settlements are:

• Chard

• Combe St Nicolas

• Crewkerne

• Fivehead


• Ilminster

• Long Load/Ash

• Sparkford/Queen Camel

• Tatworth/South Chard

• Templecombe

3.36 This issue could ultimately undermine the settlement role as future employment centre. It is a particular concern for smaller settlements that are less likely to off set manufacturing decline with growth in other sectors due to a narrower economic base. Baker Associates consider that the Council will have to make a rational decision regarding the location of future employment and the potential decline of existing employment in particular settlements. The Council’s Economic Strategy will need to take this issue into account in identifying where the Council should focus its efforts to attract future employment

3.37 The current draft Employment Land Review identifies available employment land of

117.97 ha across the district. This includes allocations, sites with planning permission or under construction and vacant land. The South Somerset Core Strategy will need to consider the future provision of employment issues to support settlement classification over the plan period.

Meeting Local Employment Need 3.38 One of the criteria for Development Policy C Settlements is development that

supports economic activity appropriate to the scale of the settlement. It is considered that meeting employment needs is an important consideration for spatial planning. Comparison of jobs by employment sector and the industry which existing residents work provides a good indication of the balance of employment opportunities above and beyond employment density.

3.39 Table 3.10 overleaf shows the number of people working within each industry based

on where they live. This is effectively a breakdown of economically active people who live in each settlement and in what sector they work, (whether that is manufacturing or business services). In the future to create a better settlement balance in terms of jobs and workers, this information could be considered when deciding on the future level and type of employment provision/ This is to ensure that opportunities to maximise self containment for existing residents can be harnessed by focusing employment premises provision towards identified specific sectoral requirements.



30

Table 3.10: Settlement Residents Employed in Each Employment Sector (Census 2001)

LSOA Settlement 16-74 in

Employment A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

Yeovil 20,800 250 - - 4,700 50 1,300 4,500 700 1250 400 1,800 1,700 1,250 2,100 750

Chard 8,300 100 - - 1,650 - 450 1,050 250 200 100 350 150 250 500 200

Crewkerne 3,550 100 - - 950 50 300 650 150 150 50 350 100 250 350 150

Wincanton 2,250 100 - - 400 - 200 500 50 200 50 250 100 200 200 100

Ilminster 2,100 50 - - 550 - 200 350 50 100 - 200 100 100 250 100

Martock 1,900 50 - - 450 - 100 350 50 100 50 150 150 100 200 50

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 2,300 100 - - 250 - 100 200 100 100 - 150 950 100 150 100

Somerton 1,650 50 - - 300 - 150 300 50 50 50 150 150 100 200 50

Ansford / Castle Cary 1,400 50 - - 200 - 100 300 50 100 - 150 50 100 150 50

South Petherton 1,350 50 - - 250 - 100 250 50 50 - 150 100 100 150 50

Milborne Port 1,300 50 - - 300 - 100 200 50 50 - 150 50 150 150 100

Langport / Huish Episcopi 1,250 50 - - 200 - 150 200 50 50 - 100 100 100 150 50

Bruton 1,150 50 - - 150 - 50 200 50 50 - 100 50 250 100 50

Merriott 1,150 50 - - 250 - 100 200 50 50 50 100 50 100 100 50

South Brewham/Bayford 1,100 150 - - 150 - 50 150 50 50 - 150 50 100 100 50

Tatworth / South Chard 1,100 50 - - 300 - 100 200 50 50 - 100 50 50 100 50

Curry Rivel 1,100 50 - - 150 - 100 200 50 50 - 100 100 100 150 50

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 1,050 100 - - 200 - 100 150 50 50 - 100 50 100 100 50

Misterton/Winsham 1,050 100 - - 200 - 100 150 50 50 - 100 50 50 100 50

Combe St Nicholas 1,050 100 - - 200 - 100 150 50 50 - 150 50 50 100 50

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 1,000 150 - - 150 - 50 100 50 50 - 150 50 100 100 50

Templecombe 850 50 - - 150 - 50 150 50 50 - 100 50 50 100 50

Long Load/Ash 800 50 - - 150 - 50 150 50 50 - 100 50 50 50 50



31



Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 750 50 - - 100 - 50 100 50 50 - 100 50 100 50 50 Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 750 100 - - 100 - 50 100 50 50 - 100 50 50 50 50

Henstridge 750 50 - - 150 - 50 150 50 50 - 50 50 50 100 50

Stoke Sub Hamdon 750 - - - 150 - 50 150 50 50 - 50 50 50 100 50

Compton Dundon 750 50 - - 100 - 50 150 - 50 - 100 50 100 50 50

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 750 50 - - 150 - 50 100 50 - - 100 50 50 100 50

North Coker/East Coker 700 - - - 150 - 50 100 50 50 - 100 50 50 50 50

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker 650 50 - - 100 - 50 100 50 50 - 100 50 50 50 50

Ilton 650 50 - - 100 - 50 100 50 50 - 50 50 50 50 50

Odcombe 650 50 - - 150 - 50 100 50 50 - 100 50 50 50 -

High Ham 650 50 - - 100 - 50 100 - - - 50 50 50 50 50

Fivehead 600 50 - - 100 - 50 100 - 50 - 50 50 50 50 50

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 600 50 - - 100 - 50 100 - 50 - 50 50 100 50 50

Tintinhull 600 50 - - 100 - 50 100 50 50 - 50 50 50 50 -

Sparkford/Queen Camel 600 50 - - 100 - 50 100 50 50 - 50 50 50 50 50

Norton Sub Hamdon 550 - - - 100 - 50 100 - - - 50 50 50 50 -

Haselbury Plucknett 550 50 - - 100 - 50 100 - - - 50 - 50 50 -

Long Sutton 500 50 - - 50 - 50 100 - - - 50 50 50 50 50

Ashill/Broadway 500 50 - - 50 - 50 100 - - - 50 50 50 50 50

West Camel 500 50 - - 100 - 50 100 50 50 - 50 50 50 50 50

Horton 500 50 - - 100 - 50 100 - - - 50 - 50 50 -



32



West Chinnock/East Chinnock 500 50 - - 100 - - 100 50 - - 50 50 50 50 -

Barwick / Stoford 500 - - - 100 - 50 100 - - - 50 50 50 50 -

Montacute 500 - - - 100 - 50 100 50 - - 50 - 50 50 -

South Somerset 71,250 2,750 - 100 14,950 250 5,250 13,100 2,850 3,550 1,200 6,750 5,250 5,200 7,050 2,950 Note: Due to confidentiality issues, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest 50 or left blank Employment Sector Key: A: Agriculture, hunting & forestry C: Mining & quarrying D: Manufacturing E: Electricity, gas & water supply F: Construction G: Wholesale & retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles & personal & household goods H: Hotels and restaurants I: Transport, storage & communication J: Financial intermediation K: Real estate, renting & business activities L: Public administration & defence M: Education N: Health & social work O: Other community, social & personal service activities

3.40 Table 3.10 presents Census 2001 information for Settlements within the LSOA areas. Table 3.11 overleaf takes the information presented in Table

3.10 and compares this against existing employment structures. This comparison of jobs by sector, against residents employed in each employment sector, identifies existing deficiencies or surpluses of jobs to meet residents demand for employment by sector.

3.41 It must be noted, that settlement residents who work in each sector do not necessarily work at jobs within the settlement. The large variety of jobs

required to meet all residents needs, ultimately means that even settlements with a 1:1 ratio of jobs to workers will still have levels of out and in commuting. The reduction of economically active workers for settlements with no employment role could be considered a good thing in terms of travel to work patterns. Table 3.11 overleaf shows that the majority of settlements in South Somerset have less people employed than jobs. Overall, South Somerset is a net importer of labour. Only settlements in bold have sufficient residents to potentially fill all existing jobs.



33

Table 3.11: Balance of Jobs and Workers by Sector

Settlements C D E F G H I J K L M N O Total

Yeovil - 1,650 -50 -200 3,100 350 -650 50 2,250 -350 750 2,150 450 9,300

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton - 500 - 150 -150 - -100 - 100 -100 100 -100 50 350

Wincanton - - - -50 600 - 50 - - -100 50 100 - 600

Chard - 650 - -200 - -50 -50 -50 -100 -100 250 - -100 150

Sparkford/Queen Camel - 100 - - -50 50 - - - -50 50 - - -

Langport / Huish Episcopi - -50 - -100 200 - - - - -100 150 - - -

Montacute - -100 - - -100 - - - -50 - 150 - 50 -100

Templecombe - 300 - -50 -100 - -50 - - -50 -50 -50 -50 -100

Fivehead - 50 - - -50 - - - - -50 - - - -150

Ilminster - -50 - -100 - - - 50 - -50 150 -50 -50 -200

Horton - -100 - -50 -100 - - - 50 - -50 50 - -250

Henstridge - -100 - -50 - - - - -50 -50 -50 -50 - -250

Haselbury Plucknett - -100 - - -50 - - - - - - -50 - -300

Long Load/Ash - 50 - - -50 - -50 - - -50 - -50 -50 -300

West Camel - -50 - - -50 - - - - -50 -50 -50 - -300

Ashill/Broadway - -50 - - -50 - - - -50 -50 - -50 - -300

Long Sutton - -50 - - -50 - - - -50 -50 - -50 50 -300

Somerton - -200 - -50 50 - - - 200 -150 - -50 -50 -300

High Ham - -100 - -50 -50 - - - - - - -50 - -350

Ansford / Castle Cary - -150 - -100 50 - -50 - - -50 - 50 -22 -350

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon - -50 - - -100 - - - -50 -50 - -50 - -350

Misterton/Winsham - -50 - - -50 200 -50 - -50 -50 -50 -100 - -350

Tintinhull - -100 - -50 -50 - - - -50 -50 - -50 - -350

Ilton - -50 - -50 - - - - - -50 - -50 -50 -400

West Chinnock/East Chinnock - -100 - - -50 - - - -50 -50 - -50 - -400



34

Settlements C D E F G H I J K L M N O Total

Norton Sub Hamdon - -100 - - -100 - - - -50 -50 - -50 - -400

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton - -100 - -50 -50 - - - -50 -50 -50 - - -400

North Coker/East Coker - -150 - - -100 - - - - -50 - -50 - -400

Barwick Stoford - -100 - -50 -100 - - - -50 -50 - -50 - -450

Bruton - -50 - - -100 - -50 - -50 -50 - -50 -50 -450

Odcombe - -150 - -50 -100 - -50 - - -50 -50 -50 - -450

South Petherton - -100 - -50 -150 - -50 - -50 -100 -50 100 -50 -450

Compton Dundon - -50 - -50 -100 - - - -50 -50 -50 -50 - -500

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David - -50 - - -100 - -50 - -50 -50 -50 - - -500

Combe St Nicholas - -50 - -50 -100 - - - -100 -50 - -100 - -500

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp - -100 - - -100 - - - -50 -50 -50 -50 -50 -550

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury - -150 - -50 -50 - - - -50 -50 -50 -100 - -550

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker - -100 - -50 -100 - - - -50 -50 -50 -50 - -550

Stoke Sub Hamdon - -150 - -50 -100 - - - - -50 - -50 -50 -550

South Brewham/Bayford - -100 - -50 -100 50 -50 - -50 -50 - -50 - -600

Curry Rivel - -100 - -50 -150 - -50 - 50 -100 -50 - -50 -600

Tatworth / South Chard - -150 - -50 -150 -50 50 - -100 -50 -50 -100 -50 -650

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi - -150 - -50 -100 - -50 - -50 -50 -50 -100 - -650

Crewkerne - -150 - -200 -200 - -100 - 100 -100 50 -100 -50 -800

Merriott - -200 - -50 -150 - -50 -50 -50 -50 -50 -50 -50 -850

Milborne Port - -250 - -50 -150 - -50 - -50 -50 -100 -50 -100 -950

Martock - -300 - -50 -200 - -50 -50 - -150 50 -100 -50 -1,050

South Somerset -50 -950 -150 -2,000 400 550 -1,700 -500 1,400 -2,700 550 300 -250 -7,800



35

Note: Due to confidentiality issues, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest 50 or left blank. Minus figures show an in balance of jobs in each sector compared to resident workers. Sector A has been excluded as ABI data does not represent a good reflection of the agricultural economy.

Employment Sector Key: A: Agriculture, hunting & forestry C: Mining & quarrying D: Manufacturing E: Electricity, gas & water supply F: Construction G: Wholesale & retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles & personal & household goods H: Hotels and restaurants I: Transport, storage & communication J: Financial intermediation K: Real estate, renting & business activities L: Public administration & defence M: Education N: Health & social work O: Other community, social & personal service activities



36

4 Identifying Retail and Community Service Centres 4.1 The second theme was the identification of important retail and community service

centres. In addition to employment many settlements provide additional retail or community service functions. The location of facilities has a strong bearing on the position of settlements within a hierarchy and therefore their settlement classification/

4.2 The section covers the following key indicators and potential issues for change:

• Level of retail provision

• Position in the retail hierarchy

• Level of community service provision

• The effect of a reducing household size and total population

• The level of population required to support facilities Level of retail provision 4.3 The South Somerset Retail Study (2006) was completed by Development Planning

and Design Services Ltd. This looked at the main retail centres across South Somerset to identify retail catchment areas, expenditure and the quantity of existing retail provision. Table 4.1 below sets out the number of existing retail units for those main retail centres within South Somerset, as identified by DPDS:

Table 4.1: Existing Retail Provision (no of units) 2006

Settlement Convenience Comparison Service Misc Vacant Total

Yeovil 22 186 116 7 34 365

Chard 18 69 43 3 14 147

Crewkerne 18 60 32 0 28 138

Wincanton 13 42 24 1 18 98

Ilminster 13 33 24 1 11 82

Somerton 7 30 24 1 2 64

Castle Cary 10 29 19 1 0 59

Langport 6 16 7 1 5 35

South Petherton

8 10 7 2 1 28

Bruton 5 9 5 1 2 22

Martock 4 8 9 1 0 22

Milborne Port 2 3 2 1 1 9 Source: South Somerset Retail Study 2006

4.4 Table 4.1 shows that Yeovil has more than twice as many retail units than any other

settlement. Yeovil is clearly the dominant shopping centre in the South Somerset District, with a strong comparison goods sector attracting 60% of expenditure within the study area. There is no doubt Yeovil ranks highest within the retail hierarchy based on Table 4.1, with Chard being the second largest in terms of the number of shop units.

4.5 Ilminster is one of the “principle centres (towns)” defined in the adopted Local Plan

and has a diverse range of uses and attracts a large walk-in-population; whilst Crewkerne has a busy town centre anchored by two supermarkets and has a good range of units.

4.6 Currently Wincanton shows high levels of viability and vitality, but several factors



37

undermine its status, notably out-of-town Morrison’s and the settlements proximity to Gillingham (10km).

4.7 The seven secondary centres (“rural centre”) defined in the adopted Local Plan vary in size. Castle Cary attracts more retail expenditure than any other “rural centre”. Somerton and Langport are located closely in a geographical sense away from a defined principle centre and for that reason are particularly important in terms of serving the needs of the local residents in a wider rural catchment area. This view is supported by the fact that these centres attract more expenditure than other rural centres apart from Castle Cary.

4.8 Bruton, Martock and South Petherton are secondary centres with a lower range of

shops serving day to day needs of their catchment areas, whilst Milborne Port is relatively small with a very low footfall.

Position in the retail hierarchy 4.9 The South Somerset Retail Study provides an indicative retail hierarchy. It is

considered that all settlements in this hierarchy have a retail function for their surrounding settlements and rural areas. The settlements are set out below:

1. Yeovil, Chard, Crewkerne, Ilminster and Wincanton

2. Castle Cary, Langport and Somerton

3. Bruton, Martock, South Petherton and Milborne Port 4.10 Appendix 3 shows the retail household survey areas defined by DPDS. These areas

represent surveys conducted to gather views on specific retail centres. It is considered that these areas represent indicative retail catchment for local services for each main settlement.

Level of community service provision 4.11 Community facilities are a vital part of creating sustainable community that are

healthy, active and well educated. The study has utilised a community facilities matrix to identify the level of community service provision. South Somerset District Council Planning Policy officers have compiled information on the available facilities located within each parish. This information has been verified by Local Parish Council Clerks and, where no return was received or significant doubts remained, Planning Policy officers have investigated further to ensure the robustness of the data.

4.12 The community facility Matrix has identified facilities within the following categories:

• Education

• Health

• Retail

• Financial

• Leisure

• Community. 4.13 Tables 4.2 to 4.8 set out the results for each area. It must be noted that the results by

parish have been used to identify facilities within or in close proximity to each settlement within the identified Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA). The table shows the settlements under consideration in the study and information about what facilities are available in each one. Bold highlighted facilities indicate important facilities in the



38

determination of community service function. 4.14 This differentiation is based on relative importance. All community facilities are

important, but the population required to support each one varies. This results in a natural grading of facilities with more strategic facilities such as hospital and secondary schools requiring larger catchments and therefore only being present in larger settlements. This effectively results in residents from smaller settlements and rural areas travelling to settlements with strategic facilities to use them.

4.15 This pattern of travel is less sustainable than that of people located within a

settlement with all the community facilities they require on a regular basis. All settlements perform a function and the information gathered in the community facilities matrix illustrates this by showing that valuable community facilities such as the local pub exists in all settlements examined in the study. However facilities such as the pub do not help to differentiate between settlements and identify which settlements have a greater role and community service centres relative to others. Settlements with an emboldend Y in the following tables, highlights settlements with facilities that differentiate them from other settlements in terms of the relative degree of community service function.



39

Table 4.2: Education Facilities

Education Facilities

Settlement

Parish(es) Primary School

Secondary School

College/Further Education

Adult Education Facilities

Nursery Children’s Centre

Ash Ash Y N N N Y N

Ashill Ashill Y N N N Y N

Ansford / Castle Cary

Ansford Castle Cary

Y Y N Y Y N

Barrington Barrington Y N N N Y N

Barton St David Barton St David N N N N Y N

Barwick / Stoford Barwick Y N N N Y N

Bayford Stoke Trister N N N N N N

Broadway Broadway Y N N N Y N

Bruton Bruton Y Y Y (private) Y Y N

Chard Chard Town Y Y Y Y Y Y

Charlton Adam Charlton Mackrell N N N N Y N

Charlton Horethorne Charlton Horethorne Y N N N N N

Charlton Mackrell Charlton Mackrell Y N N N Y N

Combe St Nicholas Combe St Nicholas Y N N N Y N

Compton Dundon Compton Dundon Y N N N Y N

Crewkerne Crewkerne Y Y N N Y Y

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel Y N N N Y N

East Chinnock East Chinnock N N N N Y N

East Coker East Coker Y N N N Y N

Galhampton North Cadbury N N N N Y N

Hardington Mandeville

Hardington Mandeville N N N N Y N



40

Settlement


Secondary School




Haselbury Plucknett Haselbury Plucknett Y N N N N N

Henstridge Henstridge Y N N Y Y N

Holton Holton N N N N N N

Horton Horton N N N N N N

Ilminster Ilminster Y Y N Y Y Y

Ilton Ilton Y N N N Y N

Ilchester Ilchester Y N N N Y Y

Keinton Mandeville Keinton Mandeville Y N N Y Y N

Kingsbury Episcopi Kingsbury Episcopi Y N N N Y N

Kingsdon Kingsdon Y N N N N N

Langport / Huish Episcopi

Langport Huish Episcopi

Y Y N Y Y Y

Long Load Long Load N N N N N N

Long Sutton Long Sutton Y N N Y Y N

Martock Martock Y N N N Y N

Merriott Merriot Y N N N Y N

Milborne Port Milborne Port Y N N Y Y N

Misterton Misterton Y N N N Y N

Montacute Montacute Y N N N Y N

North Cadbury North Cadbury Y N N Y N N

North Coker East Coker N N N N N N

Norton Sub Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon Y N N N N N

Odcombe Odcombe N N N N N N

Queen Camel Queen Camel Y N N N Y N

Seavington St Mary Seavington St Mary N N N N N N

Seavington St Michael

Seavington St Michael N N N N N N



41

Settlement


Secondary School




Shepton Beauchamp

Shepton Beauchamp Y N N N Y N

Somerton Somerton Y N N Y Y N

South Brewham Brewham N N N Y N N

South Cadbury South Cadbury N N N N N N

South Cheriton Horsington Y N N N Y N

South Petherton South Petherton Y N N N Y N

Sparkford Sparkford Y (private) N N N N N

Stoke Sub Hamdon Stoke Sub Hamdon Y Y N Y Y N


Tatworth and Forton Y N N N Y N

Templecombe Abbas and Templecombe

Y N N N Y N

Tintinhull Tintinhull Y N N N Y N

West Camel West Camel N N N N N N

West Chinnock West Chinnock Y N N N Y N

West Coker West Coker Y N N N N N

Wincanton Wincanton Y Y N Y Y Y

Winsham Winsham Y N N N Y N

Yeovil

Yeovil Brympton Yeovil Without Mudford

Y Y Y Y Y Y

4.16 The results show that education facilities such as secondary schools and colleges provide settlements with an increased level of community service

function relative to other settlements. The majority of settlements have access to a primary school and nursery.



42

Table 4.3: Health Facilities

Health Facilities

Settlement

Parish(es) Hospital Health Centre/Doctor’s Surgery

Pharmacy Dentist Optician

Ash Ash N N N N N

Ashill Ashill N N N N N

Ansford / Castle Cary Ansford Castle Cary

N Y Y Y Y

Barrington Barrington N N N N N

Barton St David Barton St David N N N N N

Barwick / Stoford Barwick N N N N N

Bayford Stoke Trister N N N N N

Broadway Broadway N Y N N N

Bruton Bruton N Y Y Y N

Chard Chard Town Y Y Y Y Y

Charlton Adam Charlton Mackrell N N N N N

Charlton Horethorne Charlton Horethorne N N N N N

Charlton Mackrell Charlton Mackrell N N N N N

Combe St Nicholas Combe St Nicholas N N N N N

Compton Dundon Compton Dundon N N N N N

Crewkerne Crewkerne Y Y Y Y Y

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel N N N N N

East Chinnock East Chinnock N N N N N

East Coker East Coker N N N N N

Galhampton North Cadbury N N N N N

Hardington Mandeville Hardington Mandeville N N N N N

Haselbury Plucknett Haselbury Plucknett N N N N N

Henstridge Henstridge N N N N N



43

Settlement



Holton Holton N N N N N

Horton Horton N N N N N

Ilminster Ilminster N Y Y Y Y

Ilton Ilton N N N N N

Ilchester Ilchester N Y Y Y N

Keinton Mandeville Keinton Mandeville N Y N N N

Kingsbury Episcopi Kingsbury Episcopi N N N N N

Kingsdon Kingsdon N N N N N

Langport / Huish Episcopi Langport Huish Episcopi

N Y Y Y Y

Long Load Long Load N N N N N

Long Sutton Long Sutton N N N N N

Martock Martock N Y Y Y Y

Merriott Merriot N N N N N

Milborne Port Milborne Port Y Y Y N N

Misterton Misterton N N N N N

Montacute Montacute N N N Y N

North Cadbury North Cadbury N N N N N

North Coker East Coker N N N N N

Norton Sub Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon N N N Y N

Odcombe Odcombe N N N N N

Queen Camel Queen Camel N Y N N N

Seavington St Mary Seavington St Mary N N N Y N

Seavington St Michael Seavington St Michael N N N Y N

Shepton Beauchamp Shepton Beauchamp N N N Y N

Somerton Somerton N Y Y Y Y



44

Settlement



South Brewham Brewham N N N N N

South Cadbury South Cadbury N N N N N

South Cheriton Horsington N N N N N

South Petherton South Petherton Y Y Y N N

Sparkford Sparkford N N N N N

Stoke Sub Hamdon Stoke Sub Hamdon N Y Y Y N

Tatworth / South Chard Tatworth and Forton N N N N N


N Y Y N N

Tintinhull Tintinhull N N N N N

West Camel West Camel N N N N N

West Chinnock West Chinnock N N N N N

West Coker West Coker N Y N N N

Wincanton Wincanton Y Y Y Y Y

Winsham Winsham N N N N N

Yeovil


Y Y Y Y Y

4.17 Settlement classification for health facilities appears relatively clear cut. The majority of settlements with a Health centre also have additional health

facilities such as opticians, dentist and pharmacy. The settlements with the strongest community service role in terms of health have hospitals. Other settlements that perform a community service function in terms of health provision have health centres.



45

Table 4.4: Retail Facilities

Settlement Parish(es) Retail Park Supermarket/Large

foodstore Convenience Shop Market/Farmer’s

Market

Ash Ash N N Y N

Ashill Ashill N N N Y


N N Y Y

Barrington Barrington N N N N

Barton St David Barton St David N N N N

Barwick / Stoford Barwick N N N N

Bayford Stoke Trister N N N N

Broadway Broadway N N Y N

Bruton Bruton N N Y Y

Chard Chard Town N Y Y Y

Charlton Adam Charlton Mackrell N N N N

Charlton Horethorne Charlton Horethorne N N N N

Charlton Mackrell Charlton Mackrell N N N N

Combe St Nicholas Combe St Nicholas N N Y N

Compton Dundon Compton Dundon N N N N

Crewkerne Crewkerne N Y Y Y

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel N N Y N

East Chinnock East Chinnock N N Y N

East Coker East Coker N N Y N

Galhampton North Cadbury N N Y N

Hardington Mandeville Hardington Mandeville N N N N

Haselbury Plucknett Haselbury Plucknett N N Y N

Henstridge Henstridge N N Y N

Holton Holton N N N N



46

Settlement

Parish(es) Retail Park Supermarket/Large foodstore

Convenience Shop Market/Farmer’s Market

Horton Horton N N N N

Ilminster Ilminster N Y Y Y

Ilton Ilton N N Y N

Ilchester Ilchester N N Y N

Keinton Mandeville Keinton Mandeville N N Y N

Kingsbury Episcopi Kingsbury Episcopi N N N Y

Kingsdon Kingsdon N N Y N


N Y Y Y

Long Load Long Load N N N Y

Long Sutton Long Sutton N N Y Y

Martock Martock N Y Y Y

Merriott Merriot N Y Y N

Milborne Port Milborne Port N Y Y Y

Misterton Misterton N N N N

Montacute Montacute N N Y N

North Cadbury North Cadbury N N Y N

North Coker East Coker N N N N

Norton Sub Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon N N N N

Odcombe Odcombe N N Y N

Queen Camel Queen Camel N N N

Seavington St Mary Seavington St Mary N N N N

Seavington St Michael Seavington St Michael N N N N

Shepton Beauchamp Shepton Beauchamp N N Y N

Somerton Somerton N Y Y Y

South Brewham Brewham N N N N



47

Settlement

Parish(es) Retail Park Supermarket/Large foodstore

Convenience Shop Market/Farmer’s Market

South Cadbury South Cadbury N N N N

South Cheriton Horsington N N N N

South Petherton South Petherton N N Y N

Sparkford Sparkford N N Y N

Stoke Sub Hamdon Stoke Sub Hamdon N Y Y N

Tatworth / South Chard Tatworth and Forton N N Y N

Templecombe Abbas and Templecombe N N Y N

Tintinhull Tintinhull N N N N

West Camel West Camel N N N N

West Chinnock West Chinnock N N N N

West Coker West Coker N N Y N

Wincanton Wincanton N Y Y Y

Winsham Winsham N N Y N

Yeovil


Y Y Y Y

4.18 In addition to retail centres, as defined in the South Somerset Retail study, other retail facilities can help to define settlement function in terms of

community service provision. Several settlements have some form of retail facilities generally a convenience store. It is considered that settlements with a supermarket/large foodstore perform stronger retail function.



48

Table 4.5: Financial Services

Financial Services

Settlement

Parish(es) Bank Building Society Post Office

Ash Ash N N Y

Ashill Ashill N N N


Y N Y

Barrington Barrington N N N

Barton St David Barton St David N N N

Barwick / Stoford Barwick N N Y

Bayford Stoke Trister N N N

Broadway Broadway N N Y

Bruton Bruton Y Y

Chard Chard Town Y Y Y

Charlton Adam Charlton Mackrell N N Y

Charlton Horethorne Charlton Horethorne N N Y

Charlton Mackrell Charlton Mackrell N N Y

Combe St Nicholas Combe St Nicholas N N Y

Compton Dundon Compton Dundon N N Y

Crewkerne Crewkerne Y Y Y

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel N N Y

East Chinnock East Chinnock N N N

East Coker East Coker N N Y

Galhampton North Cadbury N N N

Hardington Mandeville Hardington Mandeville N N Y

Haselbury Plucknett Haselbury Plucknett N N Y

Henstridge Henstridge N N N



49

Settlement


Holton Holton N N N

Horton Horton N N Y

Ilminster Ilminster Y Y Y

Ilton Ilton N N Y

Ilchester Ilchester N N Y

Keinton Mandeville Keinton Mandeville N N N

Kingsbury Episcopi Kingsbury Episcopi N N N

Kingsdon Kingsdon N N N


Y N Y

Long Load Long Load N N N

Long Sutton Long Sutton N N Y

Martock Martock Y N Y

Merriott Merriot N N Y

Milborne Port Milborne Port N N Y

Misterton Misterton N N N

Montacute Montacute N N Y

North Cadbury North Cadbury N N Y

North Coker East Coker N N N

Norton Sub Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon N N Y

Odcombe Odcombe N N Y

Queen Camel Queen Camel N N N

Seavington St Mary Seavington St Mary N N N

Seavington St Michael Seavington St Michael N N N

Shepton Beauchamp Shepton Beauchamp N N Y

Somerton Somerton N N N



50

Settlement


South Brewham Brewham N N N

South Cadbury South Cadbury N N N

South Cheriton Horsington N N N

South Petherton South Petherton Y N Y

Sparkford Sparkford N N N

Stoke Sub Hamdon Stoke Sub Hamdon N N Y

Tatworth / South Chard Tatworth and Forton N N Y

Templecombe Abbas and Templecombe N N Y

Tintinhull Tintinhull N N N

West Camel West Camel N N N

West Chinnock West Chinnock N N N

West Coker West Coker N N Y

Wincanton Wincanton Y Y Y

Winsham Winsham N N Y

Yeovil


Y Y Y

4.19 Banks and building societies differentiate between the relative community service roles of settlements. The majority of settlements have a Post Office.



51

Table 4.6: Leisure Facilities

Leisure Facilities

Settlement

Parish(es) Swimming Pool Sports Hall Skate Park Multi Use Games Area (MUGA)

Children’s Playground

Sports Pitches

Ash Ash N N N N Y Y

Ashill Ashill N N N Y Y Y

Ansford / Castle Cary Ansford / Castle Cary N Y N N Y Y

Barrington Barrington N N N N Y N

Barton St David Barton St David N N N N Y N

Barwick / Stoford Barwick N N Y N Y Y

Bayford Stoke Trister N N N N N N

Broadway Broadway N N N N Y N

Bruton1 Bruton N N Y N Y Y

Chard Chard Town Y Y Y Y Y Y

Charlton Adam Charlton Mackrell N N N N N N

Charlton Horethorne Charlton Horethorne N N N N Y N

Charlton Mackrell Charlton Mackrell N N N N Y N

Combe St Nicholas Combe St Nicholas N N N N Y Y

Compton Dundon Compton Dundon N N N N N Y

Crewkerne Crewkerne Y Y Y N Y Y

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel N N N N Y Y

East Chinnock East Chinnock N N N N Y Y

East Coker East Coker N N N N Y Y

Galhampton North Cadbury N N N N Y N

Hardington Mandeville Hardington Mandeville N N N N N N

Haselbury Plucknett Haselbury Plucknett N N N N Y N

Henstridge Henstridge N N N N Y Y

1 There is both a swimming Pool and Sports Hall in Bruton, but they do not meet the supply parameters.



52

Settlement



Sports Pitches

Holton Holton N N N N N N

Horton Horton N N Y N Y N

Ilminster Ilminster N N Y Y Y Y

Ilton Ilton N N Y N Y Y

Ilchester2 Ilchester N N Y N Y Y

Keinton Mandeville Keinton Mandeville N N Y N Y Y

Kingsbury Episcopi Kingsbury Episcopi N N N N Y Y

Kingsdon Kingsdon N N N N Y N


3

Langport Huish Episcopi

N Y Y N Y Y

Long Load Long Load N N N N N N

Long Sutton Long Sutton N N Y N Y Y

Martock Martock N N N N Y Y

Merriott Merriot N N N N Y Y

Milborne Port Milborne Port N N N N Y Y

Misterton Misterton N N N N Y Y

Montacute Montacute N N N N Y Y

North Cadbury North Cadbury N N N N Y N

North Coker East Coker N N N N Y N

Norton Sub Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon N N N Y Y Y

Odcombe Odcombe N N N N Y Y

Queen Camel4 Queen Camel N N N N Y N

Seavington St Mary Seavington St Mary N N N N N N

Seavington St Michael Seavington St Michael N N N N Y Y

Shepton Beauchamp Shepton Beauchamp N N N Y Y Y

2 There is both a swimming Pool and Sports Hall in Ilchester, but they do not meet the supply parameters.

3 The swimming Pool does not meet the supply parameters.




53

Settlement



Sports Pitches

Somerton Somerton N N Y Y Y Y

South Brewham Brewham N N N N N N

South Cadbury South Cadbury N N N N Y N

South Cheriton Horsington N N N N Y Y

South Petherton South Petherton N N N N Y Y

Sparkford Sparkford Y Y N N Y Y

Stoke Sub Hamdon Stoke Sub Hamdon N Y Y N Y Y


Tatworth and Forton N N N Y Y Y

Templecombe Abbas and Templecombe N N N N Y Y

Tintinhull5 Tintinhull N N N Y Y Y

West Camel West Camel N N N N Y Y

West Chinnock West Chinnock N N N N Y Y

West Coker West Coker N N N N Y Y

Wincanton Wincanton Y Y Y Y Y Y

Winsham Winsham N N N N Y Y

Yeovil


Y Y Y Y Y Y

4.20 Sports pitches and children’s play areas are present in most settlements. More strategic facilities include swimming pools and sports halls are located

in only a handful of settlements. These leisure facilities require a large population to support and clearly will attract use from surrounding settlements and rural areas.




54

Table 4.7: Community Facilities

Community Facilities

Settlement

Parish(es) Libraries Village Hall/ Community Centre

Church Museum Cinema Public House

Ash Ash N Y Y N N Y

Ashill Ashill N Y Y N N Y


Y Y Y Y N Y

Barrington Barrington N Y Y N N Y

Barton St David Barton St David N Y Y N N Y

Barwick / Stoford Barwick N N Y N N Y

Bayford Stoke Trister N N Y N N Y

Broadway Broadway N Y Y N N Y

Bruton Bruton Y Y Y Y N Y

Chard Chard Town Y Y Y Y N Y

Charlton Adam Charlton Mackrell N Y Y N N Y

Charlton Horethorne Charlton Horethorne N Y Y N N Y

Charlton Mackrell Charlton Mackrell N Y N N N Y

Combe St Nicholas Combe St Nicholas N Y Y N N Y

Compton Dundon Compton Dundon N Y Y N N Y

Crewkerne Crewkerne Y Y Y Y N Y

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel N Y Y N N Y

East Chinnock East Chinnock N Y Y N N Y

East Coker East Coker N Y Y N N Y

Galhampton North Cadbury N Y N N N Y

Hardington Mandeville Hardington Mandeville

N Y Y N N Y

Haselbury Plucknett Haselbury Plucknett N Y Y N N Y



55

Settlement



Henstridge Henstridge N Y Y N N Y

Holton Holton N Y N N Y

Horton Horton N Y Y N N N

Ilminster Ilminster Y Y Y N N Y

Ilton Ilton N Y Y N N Y

Ilchester Ilchester Y Y Y Y N Y

Keinton Mandeville Keinton Mandeville N Y Y N N Y

Kingsbury Episcopi Kingsbury Episcopi N N Y N N Y

Kingsdon Kingsdon N Y Y N N Y


Y Y Y N N Y

Long Load Long Load N Y Y N N Y

Long Sutton Long Sutton N Y Y N N Y

Martock Martock Y Y Y N N Y

Merriott Merriot N Y Y N N Y

Milborne Port Milborne Port Y Y Y N N Y

Misterton Misterton N Y Y N N Y

Montacute Montacute N Y Y N N Y

North Cadbury North Cadbury N Y Y N N Y

North Coker East Coker N N N N N N

Norton Sub Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon N Y Y N N Y

Odcombe Odcombe N Y Y N N Y

Queen Camel Queen Camel N Y Y N N Y

Seavington St Mary Seavington St Mary N Y Y N N Y

Seavington St Michael Seavington St Michael

N Y Y N N Y

Shepton Beauchamp Shepton Beauchamp N Y Y N N Y



56

Settlement



Somerton Somerton Y Y Y N N Y

South Brewham Brewham N Y Y N N Y

South Cadbury South Cadbury N Y Y N N Y

South Cheriton Horsington N Y Y N N Y

South Petherton South Petherton Y Y Y N N Y

Sparkford Sparkford N Y Y Y N Y

Stoke Sub Hamdon Stoke Sub Hamdon N Y Y N N Y

Tatworth / South Chard Tatworth and Forton N Y Y N N Y


N Y Y N N Y

Tintinhull Tintinhull N Y Y Y N Y

West Camel West Camel N Y Y N N Y

West Chinnock West Chinnock N Y Y N N Y

West Coker West Coker N N Y N N Y

Wincanton Wincanton Y Y Y Y N Y

Winsham Winsham N Y Y N N Y

Yeovil


Y Y Y Y Y Y

4.21 Community facilities appear in a large variety of settlements. The information shows that the majority of settlements have access to a public house,

church and village hall. The main differentials in terms of community provision are the presence of library and museum facilities. These elevate the relative community service role of several settlements within South Somerset. There is only one cinema facility located in South Somerset and this is within Yeovil.



57

Community Facilities Matrix Findings 4.22 The community facilities matrix has identified a large range of community facilities.

Analysis has shown particular facilities are the key facilities for the differentiation and identification of settlement community service roles. RSS Development Policy B states:

• there are shopping, cultural, religious, faith, educational, health and public services that can be provided to meet the needs of the settlement and the surrounding area.

4.23 RSS Development Policy C states:

• extends the range of services to better meet the needs of the settlement and its surrounding area.

4.24 Baker Associates interpretation of Development Policy B and C criteria is that

settlements that meet category B criteria must have a range of facilities addressing different aspects of community provision. Category C settlements must also have some level of community service role that could potentially be expanded with future development. Table 4.8 below sets out Baker Associates interpretation of RSS Development Policy B criteria. The facilities included under each category have been identify through analysis of community and retail provision in South Somerset and highlight which facilities act as key determinates for community service function. Facilities have been put into two groups, standard facilities (i.e. facilities that settlements with a community service role provide) and strategic facilities (i.e facilities that settlements with a strategic community role provide for residents and surrounding settlements).

Table 4.8: Facilities that Fulfil Development Policy B

Facility Category Strategic Facilities Standard Facilities

Shopping Defined Retail Centre and/or Supermarket/large foodstore

Convenience shop

Cultural Library and/or Museum Public house and village hall/community centre

Religion Church or other faith facility

Education Secondary School and/or College

Primary school and/or Nursery

Health Hospital Health centre

Other: Leisure Sports hall and/or swimming pool

Children’s play area and/or sports pitch

Other: Financial Bank and/or Building society Post Office

4.25 The facilities have been divided into two groups to help in the classification of

settlements within RSS development Policy B and C. Facilities identified in tables 4.2 to 4.7 that clearly differentiate between settlements and highlight those with a relatively strong community service role. Grading community service provision is not a clear cut exercise because roles are relative and no two settlements are the same, however as a general approach settlements with a stronger community service role will contain a greater number of strategic facilities and it is recommended that Development Policy B settlements reflect this. Settlements that include more than one strategic facility include:



58

• Yeovil

• Chard

• Crewkerne

• Wincanton

• Ilminster

• Somerton

• South Petherton

• Ilchester

• Martock


• Ansford / Castle Cary

• Bruton

• Milborne Port


The Effect of a Reducing Household Size and Total Population 4.26 The first issue for potential change in section 4 is reducing household size. A

reduction in average household size will result in a reduction of overall population levels in settlements that do not receive additional residential development. In reality most settlements in South Somerset will benefit from additional development over the next 20 years. The objective of examining the impact of reducing household size is to isolate and illustrate the potential impact this factor could have. Reducing household size could have implications for the level of economically active population in a settlement but will also affect the level of community service provision that can be supported if the population declines.

4.27 In 2006 there were 67,000 households in South Somerset. Office of National

Statistics latest household projections, indicate additional household growth of 19,000 new households by 2026. This will result in a reduction in average household size from 2.36 to 2.12 people per household (dwelling).

4.28 Table 4.9 overleaf sets out the impact of a reduction in average household size could

have on the existing Census 2001 population, if no additional dwellings were provided, no migration occurred and household projections occurred in line with forecasts by 2026. Whilst residential development will occur and people will move freely, this scenario illustrates that a decreasing household size will reduce population, reduce travel and demand for employment opportunities and potentially undermine community services in each settlement. The effect of household size reduction will affect all settlements to a lesser and greater extent in the future and how the South Somerset Spatial Strategy decides to allocate new residential development is ultimately an opportunity to provide additional accommodation to maintain population levels, reduce unsustainable travel, support community services and closely match jobs and economically active people.



59

Table 4.9: The impact of household size reduction on existing population levels

Settlements Current

Population Existing

Households Future

Population Population Decrease

Combe St Nicholas 2200 950 2000 -200

Henstridge 1500 650 1350 -150

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 1800 750 1600 -200

Templecombe 1750 750 1550 -200

Bruton 2950 1250 2650 -300

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 2200 950 2000 -200

Sparkford/Queen Camel 1400 600 1250 -150

West Camel 1150 500 1050 -100

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 2150 900 1900 -200

Ansford / Castle Cary 3050 1300 2750 -300

Chard 12000 5100 10800 -1200

North Coker/East Coker 1500 650 1350 -150

Barwick / Stoford 1050 450 950 -100

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker 1400 600 1250 -150

Odcombe 1300 550 1200 -150

Crewkerne 7500 3200 6750 -750

Curry Rivel 2500 1050 2250 -250

Merriott 2400 1000 2150 -250

Norton Sub Hamdon 1250 500 1100 -150

Stoke Sub Hamdon 1450 600 1300 -150

Ilminster 4750 2000 4250 -500

Ilton 1450 600 1300 -150

Ilchester 1300 550 1150 -150

RNAS Yeovilton 1300 550 1150 -150

Fivehead 2700 1150 2450 -300

Langport / Huish Episcopi 2750 1150 2450 -300

Long Load/Ash 1450 600 1300 -150

Martock 4000 1700 3600 -400

Milborne Port 2650 1100 2400 -250

Horton 1100 500 1000 -100

Ashill/Broadway 1150 500 1050 -100

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 1600 700 1450 -150

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 1350 550 120 -150

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 1100 450 1000 -100

Haselbury Plucknett 1250 550 1100 -150

Tintinhull 1200 500 1050 -100

Montacute 1100 450 1000 -100

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 1500 650 1350 -150

South Petherton 3150 1350 2500 -300



60

Settlements Current

Population Existing

Households Future

Population Population Decrease

Tatworth / South Chard 2600 1100 2300 -250

South Brewham/Bayford 2400 1000 2150 -250

High Ham 1350 550 1200 -150

Long Sutton 1150 500 1050 -100

Compton Dundon 1600 650 1400 -150

Somerton 3600 1500 3250 -350

Wincanton 4700 1950 4150 -450

Misterton/Winsham 2250 950 2000 -250

Yeovil 42150 17850 37850 -4300

District Total 150950 63950 135600 -15350 Note: Figures rounded to nearest 50, numbers may not add due to rounding

4.29 Table 4.9 shows that the reduction in household size will result in a smaller

population within existing dwellings in each settlement. This could be a significant issue for community service provision. The reduction in population could result in the closure of valuable community facilities. Settlement classification is based on the identification of settlements with a community service centre role. In the future this role could be undermined.

The level of population required to support facilities 4.30 The community facilities matrix has enabled the broad community service role to be

identified. Potential household size change could result in insufficient population to support community facilities and therefore undermine a settlements role and function and therefore its position within a Settlement hierarchy.

4.31 Communities and Local Government Guidance on Eco-towns (2008) and Shaping

Neighbourhood Guide for Health Sustainability and Vitality (2001), provide guidance on the level of population required to support key facilities. This information has been combined with the indicative population required for each facility identified through the Community Facilities Matrix. This has resulted in the following indicative thresholds:

Facilities Population Threshold

1. Higher Education College 24,000 2. Secondary School 8,000 3. Swimming Pool or Sports Hall 24,000 4. Hospital 24,000 5. Primary School 1,000 to 5,000 6. Health Centre 1,000 7. Bank/Building Society 1,000 to 1,500 8. Convenience Store 1,500

4.32 Based on these thresholds and the population decline identified in Table 4.9, the

settlements could potentially face a reduction in there community service role if no new additional development was provided to support existing population levels. The key message for spatial planning is without intervention, the population of key community service settlements could fall to levels that are insufficient to support key facilities and therefore undermine their identified community service role.



61

5 Promoting Sustainable Travel Opportunities and Self Containment

5.1 The third main theme was the promotion of sustainable travel opportunities and self

containment. The functional relationship between settlements can be shown through self containment levels and how settlements interact in regards to travel to work patterns.

5.2 This section covers the following key indicators and potential issues for change:

• Employment self containment

• Travel to work pattern (in and out commuting)

• Bus and rail services

• Addressing future affordable housing need

• Future residential development opportunities Employment self containment 5.3 Travel to work analysis has been conducted on a ward basis. The study area has

been expanded for this analysis to include all areas of South Somerset and the parts of the Yeovil and Chard TTWA outside the District in Dorset. This shows the number of people who travel to work from each ward and where they go. A good indicator of self containment is the number of people who live and work within the same ward. Table 5.1 sets out the results by ward, emboldened settlements have self containment of more than 50%:

Table 5.1: Travel to Work Self Containment (Census 2001)

South Somerset Wards Settlements within Wards

Journeys from Ward

Journeys within same

ward Self

Containment

Yeovil Wards Yeovil 20643 15282 74.5

Chard Wards Chard 5129 3140 61.2

Ivelchester Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 2336 1370 58.6

Wincanton Wincanton 2288 1210 52.9

Crewkerne Crewkerne 3516 1712 48.7

Ilminster Ilminster 2140 1020 47.7

Bruton Bruton 1185 545 46

Cary Ansford / Castle Cary / Galhampton / North Cadbury / South Cadbury 2367 1089 46

Blackdown Combe St Nicholas 963 430 44.7

Tower South Brewham/Bayford 1102 488 44.3

Windwhistle Misterton/Winsham 1041 457 43.9

Langport and Huish Langport / Huish Episcopi 1249 508 40.7

Camelot Sparkford/Queen Camel/West Camel 1064 429 40.3

Blackmoor Vale Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton/ Henstridge/Templecombe 2394 906 37.8

Wessex Somerton/Compton Dundon 2388 903 37.8

Turn Hill Long Sutton / High Ham 1169 434 37.1



62

South Somerset Wards Settlements within Wards

Journeys from Ward

Journeys within same

ward Self

Containment

Burrow Hill Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 1079 397 36.8

South Petherton

South Petherton/Seavington St Michael/Seavington St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp/ 2031 732 36

Neroche Horton/Ashill/Broadway 1004 360 35.9

Islemoor Ilton 1322 461 34.9

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel / Fivehead 1119 367 32.8

Coker

North Coker/East Coker/Barwick/Stoford/Hardington Mandeville/West Coker/Odcombe 2025 656 32.4

Eggwood Merriott 1150 365 31.7

Tatworth and Forton Tatworth / South Chard/ 1132 359 31.7

Martock Martock/Long Load 2660 820 30.8

Northstone

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David/Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 1422 436 30.7

Milborne Port Milborne Port 1271 367 28.9

Parrett West Chinnock/East Chinnock/Haselbury Plucknett 1044 298 28.5

St Michael's Tintinhull/Montacute 1084 291 26.8

Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon/Stoke Sub Hamdon 1342 309 23

South Somerset District Total 70659 36241 51.3

5.4 Table 5.1 shows that the average level of self containment for South Somerset Wards

is 51.3%. Settlements with a relatively higher level of self containment clearly provide a stronger employment role in the sense that they provide greater opportunities for people to live and work in close proximity. In South Somerset only Yeovil and Chard have self containment levels over 60%.The following list represents settlements with self containment levels of greater than the South Somerset average of 51%.

• Yeovil

• Chard


• Wincanton Travel to work pattern (in and out commuting) 5.5 Travel to work patterns can show the employment relationships between locations.

Table 5.1 has shown the level of self containment. Correspondingly the level of out commuting reflects self containment. Functional relationships can be identified through analysis of In and Out commuting. Table 5.2 and 5.3 overleaf shows the level of out and in commuting for each ward in South Somerset. It also lists the four main travel to work destinations (wards) for those people who leave and enter the ward for employment.



63

Table 5.2: Out Commuting Destinations (2001 Travel to Work Data)

South Somerset Wards Settlements within Wards Out commuting

% First Second Third Fourth

Blackdown Combe St Nicholas 55.3 Chard Taunton Deane Ilminster Yeovil

Blackmoor Vale Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton/ Henstridge/Templecombe 62.2 North Dorset Wincanton Yeovil Sherborne

Bruton Bruton 54.0 Mendip Wincanton Tower Cary

Burrow Hill Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 63.2 Yeovil South Petherton Martock Ilminster

Camelot Sparkford/Queen Camel/West Camel 59.7 Yeovil Ivelchester Cary Sherborne

Cary Ansford / Castle Cary / Galhampton / North Cadbury / South Cadbury 54.0 Yeovil Wincanton Bruton Ivelchester

Chard Wards Chard 38.8 Taunton Deane Yeovil Ilminster Windwhistle

Coker

North Coker/East Coker/Barwick/Stoford/Hardington Mandeville/West Coker/ Odcombe 67.6 Yeovil Sherborne Ivelchester Crewkerne

Crewkerne Crewkerne 51.3 Yeovil Chard Windwhistle Taunton Deane

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel / Fivehead 67.2 Taunton Deane Yeovil

Langport and Huish Islemoor

Eggwood Merriott 68.3 Yeovil Crewkerne Chard Taunton Deane

Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon/Stoke Sub Hamdon 77.0 Yeovil St Michaels Ivelchester Crewkerne

Ilminster Ilminster 52.3 Taunton Deane Chard Yeovil Neroche

Islemoor Ilton 65.1 Taunton Deane Yeovil Sherborne

Langport and Huish

Ivelchester Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 41.4 Yeovil Camelot Cary Crewkerne

Langport and Huish Langport / Huish Episcopi 59.3 Yeovil Taunton Deane Wessex Ivelchester



64

South Somerset Wards Settlements Out commuting

% First Second Third Fourth

Martock Martock/Long Load 69.2 Yeovil Ivelchester Taunton Deane Crewkerne

Milborne Port Milborne Port 71.1 Yeovil Sherbourne Wincanton Blackmoor Vale

Neroche Horton/Ashill/Broadway 64.1 Chard Ilminster Taunton Deane Crewkerne

Northstone Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David/Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 69.3 Mendip Yeovil Ivelchester Cary

Parrett West Chinnock/East Chinnock/Haselbury Plucknett 71.5 Yeovil Crewkerne Ivelchester Martock

St Michael's Tintinhull/Montacute 73.2 Yeovil Ivelchester Martock Taunton Deane

South Petherton

South Petherton/Seavington St Michael/Seavington St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 64.0 Yeovil Crewkerne Ilminster Ivelchester

Tatworth and Forton South Chard/Tatworth 68.3 Chard Taunton Deane Yeovil Windwhistle

Tower South Brewham/Bayford 55.7 Wincanton Bruton Yeovil Blackmoor Vale

Turn Hill Long Sutton / High Ham 62.9 Yeovil Mendip Taunton Deane

Langport and Huish

Wessex Somerton/Compton Dundon 62.2 Mendip Yeovil Ivelchester Taunton Deane

Wincanton Wincanton 47.1 Yeovil North Dorset Mendip Blackmoor Vale

Windwhistle Misterton/Winsham 56.1 Chard Yeovil Crewkerne Taunton Deane

Yeovil Wards Yeovil 25.5 Ivelchester Crewkerne Camelot Taunton Deane



65

Table 5.3: In Commuting Destinations (2001 Travel to Work Data)

South Somerset Wards Settlements In commuting % First Second Third Fourth

Blackdown Combe St Nicholas 0.7% Chard

Tatworth and Forton

Ilminster

Neroche

Blackmoor Vale Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton/ Henstridge/Templecombe 1.8%

Wincanton

Yeovil

Milborne Port

Cary

Bruton Bruton 1.0% Cary Tower Wessex Wincanton

Burrow Hill Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 0.7% Chard South Petherton Wessex Martock

Camelot Sparkford/Queen Camel/West Camel 1.4% Yeovil

Cary

Ivelchester

Martock

Cary Castle Cary / Ansford / Galhampton / North Cadbury / South Cadbury 1.8%

Wincanton

Yeovil

Camelot

Bruton

Chard Wards Chard 5.9% Tatworth and Forton

Crewkerne

Ilminster

Blackdown

Coker North Coker/East Coker/ Barwick/ Stoford/ Hardington Mandeville/West Coker/ Odcombe 1.3%

Yeovil

St Michael's

Hamdon

Halstock

Crewkerne Crewkerne 3.7% Yeovil Eggwood Chard Parrett

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel / Fivehead 0.6% Langport and Huish

Turn Hill

Islemoor

Wessex

Eggwood Merriott 0.6% Crewkerne South Petherton

Parrett

Yeovil

Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon/Stoke Sub Hamdon 0.6% Yeovil South Petherton St Michael's

Crewkerne

Ilminster Ilminster 2.5% Chard Neroche Islemoor South Petherton

Islemoor Ilton 1.0% Ilminster Curry Rivel Chard Langport and Huish



66

South Somerset Wards Settlements In commuting % First Second Third Fourth

Ivelchester Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 4.9% Yeovil Wessex Martock Coker

Langport and Huish Langport / Huish Episcopi 1.2% Curry Rivel Turn Hill Wessex Martock

Martock Martock/Long Load 1.7% Yeovil South Petherton Burrow Hill

St Michael's

Milborne Port Milborne Port 0.6% Blackmoor Vale

Sherborne East

Sherborne West Yeovil

Neroche Horton/Ashill/Broadway 0.7% Ilminster Chard Yeovil South Petherton

Northstone Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David/Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 0.8% Yeovil Wessex Islemoor Chard

Parrett West Chinnock/East Chinnock/Haselbury Plucknett 0.6% Crewkerne Yeovil Martock Hamdon

St Michael's Tintinhull/Montacute 0.7% Yeovil Hamdon Martock Coker

South Petherton

South Petherton/Seavington St Michael/Seavington St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 1.4% Crewkerne Martock Burrow Hill Yeovil

Tatworth and Forton South Chard/Tatworth 0.7% Chard Windwhistle Ilminster Crewkerne

Tower South Brewham/Bayford 0.8% Bruton Wincanton Cary Blackmoor Vale

Turn Hill Long Sutton / High Ham 0.8% Langport and Huish Wessex Curry Rivel

South Petherton

Wessex Somerton/Compton Dundon 1.6% Yeovil Turn Hill Langport and Huish

Northstone

Wincanton Wincanton 2.8% Blackmoor Vale Yeovil Cary Tower

Windwhistle Misterton/Winsham 1.1% Chard Crewkerne Tatworth and Forton Yeovil

Yeovil Wards Yeovil 33% Martock Coker Crewkerne Hamdon



67

5.6 The destinations highlighted in Table 5.2 and 5.3 have been identified through analysis of travel to work data and identify the top four locations that people travel to and from to work in each ward. Table 5.2 shows that only a small number of settlements/wards within South Somerset act as destinations for out commuting. These include:

• Yeovil

• Chard

• Ivelchester including Ilchester and RNAS Yeovilton

• Wincanton

• Crewkerne

• Ilminster

• Bruton

• South Petherton including South Petherton/Seavington St Michael/Seavington St Mary and Shepton Beauchamp

• Camelot including Sparkford/Queen Camel and West Camel

• St Michaels including Tintinhull/Montacute 5.7 The following Districts/Settlements outside the district attract a significant level of

commuting:

• Taunton Deane

• Mendip

• Sherborne

• North Dorset 5.8 Table 5.3 shows that the majority of wards do not attract large amounts of in

commuting. Of all settlements within South Somerset only 6 wards attract level of in-commuting over 2.5%. It is considered that the following settlements act as strong functional centres:

• Yeovil

• Chard

• Crewkerne

• Ilminster

• Ivelchester including Ilchester and RNAS Yeovilton

• Wincanton Bus, Rail Cycling opportunities including demand responsive services 5.9 Section 5 has looked at existing cycle, bus and rail services to understand the level of

existing provision settlements have and therefore which settlements are potentially more sustainable then others due to the higher level of public transport and the service this provides residents to access settlements with higher functionality.

Bus Services

5.10 Bus services represent the primary mode of public transport within South Somerset

and existing services provide a useful indication of the level of public transport provision. It must be noted that bus routes and services are subject to regular change; therefore this indicator will have to be monitored on a regular basis. Table 5.4 below sets out the LSOA settlements and highlight which settlements have more



68

than 5 journeys for 5 days a week. The frequency criterion has been defined by information provided by the bus operator to differentiate between frequent and less frequent services across the county. These broke service in two clear categories:

• Settlements with a bus service more than 5 times a day and 5 days a week

• Settlements with a bus service less than 5 times a day and 5 days a week 5.11 The majority of settlements have a bus service that runs a least 5 times a day for 5

days a week. It is considered that this indicator is not definitive of settlement function. It must be noted that higher frequecny services is clearly linked to the role and function of settlements. More detailed analysis has not been conducted as part of this study. South Somerset is a large rural district and inevitably the frequency of services is not high when compared with the main towns or other urban areas. Results are highlighted in Table 5.4 overleaf: Rail Services

5.12 The following settlements have a railway station with national and local services have

been emboldened in table 5.4:

• Yeovil

• Crewkerne

• Templecombe

• Castle Cary

• Bruton Cycling Routes 5.13 South Somerset is served by the national cycle network, routes 33 and 27 and

regional routes linking several main settlements. The main routes connect settlements and potentially enable more sustainable travel to work patterns. Settlements served by either national or regional routes have been emboldened in Table 5.4.

Demand Responsive Travel 5.14 Demand Responsive Travel (DRT) is a form of flexible public transport that covers

designated areas rather than having fixed routes. DRT services in South Somerset include Slinky, Nippylink and Nippy Night Bus.

5.15 The Slinky bus service and Nippylink are door-to-door pre booked demand

responsive transport (DRT), with some routes based on fixed routes and a wider service area. DRT is available for those who can not access public transport, where public transport is not readily available and for those without their own transport. Slinky in South Somerset has two area of coverage centred on Chard / Ilminster and Wincanton. Nippylink provides services centred on Yeovil and Crewkerne, extending to Martock, South Petherton and Ilchester. Nippy night bus provides evening and night services from Yeovil.

5.16 In summary five main settlements and surrounding settlements have access to DRT

services. It terms of public transport this increases their sustainability. For Development Policy C settlements the presence of DRT could help support access to service, employment and help facilitate affordable housing or rural employment needs in smaller settlements. Table 5.4 overleaf summaries the main public transport



69

opportunities across South Somerset. Table 5.4: Public Transport Opportunities

Settlements within LSOA Area

Higher frequency bus services

Cycle Network

Rail Station

DRT Service

Yeovil Yes Yes Yes Yes

Chard Yes Yes No Yes

Crewkerne Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ilminster Yes Yes No Yes

Wincanton Yes Yes No Yes

Martock Yes No No Yes

Somerton Yes Yes No No

South Petherton Yes No No Yes

Ansford / Castle Cary Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bruton Yes Yes Yes Yes

Langport / Huish Episcopi Yes Yes No No

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton Yes No No Yes

Milborne Port Yes No No Yes

Tatworth / South Chard Yes No No Yes

Curry Rivel Yes No No No

Merriott No Yes No Yes

South Brewham/Bayford Partial Coverage Partial No Yes

Misterton/Winsham Yes No No Yes

Combe St Nicholas Yes No No Yes

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi

No No No Yes

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury

Yes Yes No Yes

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton

Partial Coverage No No Yes

Templecombe Yes No Yes Yes

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David

Partial Coverage Yes No Yes

Compton Dundon Yes No No No

Henstridge Yes No No Yes

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp

No Partial No Yes

North Coker/East Coker No Yes No Yes

Ilton Yes No No Yes

Stoke Sub Hamdon Yes Yes No Yes

Long Load/Ash Partial Coverage No No Yes

Sparkford/Queen Camel Partial Coverage No No Yes

Hardington Mandeville / West Coker

No Yes No Yes

High Ham No No No No

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon

Yes Partial No Yes

Odcombe Yes Yes No Yes



70

Fivehead No No No No

Settlements within LSOA Area

Higher frequency bus services

Cycle Network

Rail Station

DRT Service

Ilchester Yes No No Yes

Haselbury Plucknett Yes No No Yes

Norton Sub Hamdon Yes Yes No Yes

Tintinhull Yes No No Yes

Long Sutton No No No No

Ashill/Broadway Yes No No Yes

West Camel Yes No No Yes

Horton Yes No No Yes

Montacute Yes Yes No No

West Chinnock/East Chinnock

Partial Coverage Yes No Yes

Barwick / Stoford Yes Yes No No

5.18 Table 5.4 shows the public transport opportunities for settlements within the LSOA

areas. The information shows that the majority of settlements are served by DRT services and a bus service. The availability of rail services and the cycle network is less available and settlements that have access to these opportunities are considered potentially more sustainable. The following settlements have access to bus, DRT and rail and/or cycle opportunities:

• Yeovil

• Chard

• Crewkerne

• Ilminster

• Wincanton


• Bruton

• Galhampton / South Cadbury / North Cadbury

• Templecombe


• Odcombe

• Norton Sub Hamdon Addressing future affordable housing need 5.19 Housing analysis has looked at existing housing stock and tenure; however this issue

is not really a key determinant of settlement role and function and will not be presented in this study. However the underlying principle of sustainable travel patterns is the location of existing employment and existing housing. The availability and cost of housing has a strong influence on where people choose to live.

5.20 One criteria of RSS Development Policy C is to meet identified local needs. The

South Somerset Strategic Housing Market Assessment by Fordham Research 2008 (SHMA) sets out the need for affordable housing in South Somerset. Housing need is defined as the number of households who lack their own housing or who live in unsuitable housing and who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the market.



71

5.21 Affordable need comprises two main components, current need and newly arising need. Current need is the backlog of households who’s needs are currently unmet, whilst future need is a measure of the number of households who are expected to have an affordable housing need at some point in the future (measured annually). This total affordable housing need is offset by affordable housing supply to generate an annualised housing need. Table 5.5 taken from the SHMA summarises these three stages:

Table 5.5 Housing need and supply

Stages and Steps Units

Stage 1: Current Need

1.1 Homeless households and those in temporary accomodation 36 1.2 overcrowding and concealed households

1.3 Other groups

1231

1.4 Total Current housing need 1267

Stage 2: Future Need

2.1 New Houshold Formation (gross per year) 1389

2.2 Proportion of new household unable to buy or rent in the market 42.6%

2.3 Existing households falling into need 728

2.4 Newly arising housing need (gross per year) 1320

Stage 3:Affordable Housing Supply

3.1 Affordable dwellings occupied by households in need 619

3.2 Surplus stock 0

3.3 Committed supply of affordable housing 373 3.4 Units to be taken out of management 0

3.5 Total affordable housing stock available 992

3.6 Annual supply of social market sub-lets (gross) 670

3.7 Annual supply of intermediate housing available for re-let or resale at sub market levels

46

3.8 Annual supply of affordable housing 716

Source: SHMA Report 2, 2008

5.22 Table 5.5 shows that 1,267 affordable units are needed to address current needs and

1320 units per annum will be required to meet future needs. Afforable supply also consists of 992 of available stock and an annual supply of 716 units. Table 5.6 below summaries Table 9.2 from the SHMA which summaries housing need in South Somerset:

Table 5.6: Summary of Housing Needs

Need Units

Backlog need (annual) 253

Backlog supply (annual) 198

Net Backlog need (annual) 55

Future need (annual) 1320

Future supply (annual) 704

Net Future Need (annual) 604

Total Net Annual Need 659 Source: SHMA Report 2, 2008

5.23 Table 5.6 highlights that the SHMA estimates that total existing and future need will

be 659 units per annum, comprising 604 units of future need and 55 units of existing need.

5.24 Table 5.7 overleaf shows the potential distribution of affordable housing need based

on existing housing waiting lists information as at February 2009. If local housing needs are to be met then current needs of individual settlements will need to be



72

considered. The information provides an indicative distribution of where affordable housing should be provided to meet existing identified need on the housing waiting list.

Table 5.7: Indicative Distibution of Affordable Housing Need

Settlement

Parish(es)

Housing Waiting List

Total %

SHMA Annual Need

Ash Ash 5 0.16 1

Ashill Ashill 0 0.00 0

Ansford / Castle Cary Ansford Castle Cary 77 2.52 17

Barrington Barrington 7 0.23 2

Barton St David Barton St David 7 0.23 2

Barwick / Stoford Barwick 23 0.75 5

Bayford Stoke Trister 0 0.00 0

Broadway Broadway 2 0.07 0

Bruton Bruton 37 1.21 8

Chard Chard Town 337 11.01 73

Charlton Adam Charlton Mackrell 4 0.13 1

Charlton Horethorne Charlton Horethorne 3 0.10 1

Charlton Mackrell Charlton Mackrell 2 0.07 0

Combe St Nicholas Combe St Nicholas 15 0.49 3

Compton Dundon Compton Dundon 4 0.13 1

Crewkerne Crewkerne 154 5.03 33

Curry Rivel Curry Rivel 16 0.52 3

East Chinnock East Chinnock 2 0.07 0

East Coker East Coker 16 0.52 3

Fivehead Fivehead 4 0.13 1

Galhampton North Cadbury 0 0.00 0

Hardington Mandeville Hardington Mandeville 0 0.00 0

Haselbury Plucknett Haselbury Plucknett 12 0.39 3

Henstridge Henstridge 45 1.47 10

High Ham High Ham 6 0.20 1

Holton Holton 1 0.03 0

Horton Horton 10 0.33 2

Ilminster Ilminster 127 4.15 27

Ilton Ilton 7 0.23 2

Ilchester Ilchester 31 1.01 7

Keinton Mandeville Keinton Mandeville 13 0.42 3

Kingsbury Episcopi Kingsbury Episcopi 4 0.13 1

Kingsdon Kingsdon 5 0.16 1

Langport / Huish Episcopi Langport Huish Episcopi 68 2.22 15

Long Load Long Load 1 0.03 0

Long Sutton Long Sutton 3 0.10 1

Martock Martock 82 2.68 18

Merriott Merriot 29 0.95 6



73

Settlement

Parish(es)

Housing Waiting List

Total %

SHMA Annual Need

Milborne Port Milborne Port 37 1.21 8

Misterton Misterton 4 0.13 1

Montacute Montacute 11 0.36 2

North Cadbury North Cadbury 5 0.16 1

North Coker East Coker 0 0.00 0

North Cheriton North Cheriton 2 0.07 0

Norton Sub Hamdon Norton Sub Hamdon 7 0.23 2

Odcombe Odcombe 12 0.39 3

Queen Camel Queen Camel 22 0.72 5

Seavington St Mary Seavington St Mary 0 0.00 0

Seavington St Michael Seavington St Michael 0 0.00 0

Shepton Beauchamp Shepton Beauchamp 3 0.10 1

Somerton Somerton 108 3.53 23

South Brewham Brewham 3 0.10 1

South Cadbury South Cadbury 7 0.23 2

South Cheriton Horsington 5 0.16 1

South Petherton South Petherton 52 1.70 11

Sparkford Sparkford 5 0.16 1

Stoke Sub Hamdon Stoke Sub Hamdon 44 1.44 9

Tatworth / South Chard Tatworth and Forton 28 0.92 6

Templecombe Abbas and Templecombe 27 0.88 6

Tintinhull Tintinhull 9 0.29 2

West Camel West Camel 4 0.13 1

West Chinnock West Chinnock 4 0.13 1

West Coker West Coker 27 0.88 6

Wincanton Wincanton 129 4.22 28

Winsham Winsham 0 0.00 0

Yeovil

Yeovil Brympton Yeovil Without Mudford 1255 41.01 270

Other Settlements Numerous Parishes* 91 2.97 20

South Somerset 3060 100.00 659

5.25 These figures are only indicative and seek to show that based on the distribution of

housing need based on the housing waiting list, the majority of settlements would have a need for affordable housing units to meet existing needs.

Future residential development opportunities 5.26 The location of future residential development has the opportunity to influence travel

to work patterns and take advantage of existing and potential public transport facilities. The South Somerset Urban Housing Potential Study (2006) identifies opportunities for residential development across the district and makes a series of allowances to predict the rate of particular types of windfall such as sub division of houses into flats. Urban potential allows towns to develop and achieve their potential



74

and growth in an appropriate way by utilising previously developed land opportunities. Table 5.8 identifies the following amount of residential development (dwellings):

Table 5.8: Urban Housing Potential Results

Settlement 2007-2012 (Five Year Supply)

Yeovil 959 Chard 487

Crewkerne 251

Wincanton 237

Ilminster 187

Rural Centres 444

Villages 588

Rest of the District 514

South Somerset Total 3667 Source: South Somerset UHPS 2006

5.27 Table 5.8 shows that 3,667 could come forward over the next 5 years. South

Somerset District Council is currently in the process of completing a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). This study will up date the Urban Housing Potential Study and will provide a more comprehensive survey with a lower threshold to specifically identify more site specific development opportunities. Currently the latest position on housing supply is best presented in the South Somerset Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) and Housing Trajectory. The Housing Trajectory identifies housing supply across South Somerset. Table 5.9 overleaf sets out this spatially:

Table 5.9: Housing Trajectory

Settlement Allocations with

Planning Permission

Allocations Without Planning

Permission

Windfall 2007-2012 (Five Year

Supply)

Yeovil 1757 0 696 2453

Chard 18 810 347 1175

Crewkerne 26 567 128 721

Wincanton 392 0 169 561

Ilminster 0 0 131 131

Rest of the District 169 260 975 1401

South Somerset Total

2362 1637 2446 6445

Source: South Somerset Residential Land Monitor (Dwelling No’s)

5.28 Table 5.9 shows that 6,446 residential dwellings are expected to be built by 2016.

The vast majority of these should be completed in Yeovil and Chard and account of 56.3% of new dwellings.

5.29 Publication of proposed changes to the South West Regional Spatial Strategy has

identified a requirement for 19,700 new dwellings in South Somerset 2006 - 2026. This specifies that 11,400 of those should be built at Yeovil, with 6,400 within the urban area and 5,000 in a suitable urban extension. The remaining 8,300 should be built in the rest of the district. It is clear from current travel to work patterns that Yeovil is in a good position to support sustainable travel to work patterns due to its high level of self containment (75%) and strong pull for in commuting (33%). See table 5.2 and 5.3 earlier in section 5.



75

6 Settlement Classification and Profiles 6.1 The study has analysed a number of key areas to identify information to help

determine the settlement role and function of individual settlements. Section 6 provides recommendations on the potential categorisation of settlements within South Somerset.

Regional Spatial Strategy Development Policy Criteria 6.2 The main objective of the study has been the classification of settlements within

South Somerset in line with RSS Development Policy A, B and C. Policy A already defines Yeovil as a “Strategically Significant City or Town” (SSCT). Development Policy B and C are defined as:

Development Policy B: Development at Market and Coastal Towns At Market and Coastal Towns that meet all of the following criteria:

• there is an existing concentration of business and employment and realistic potential for employment opportunities to be developed and enhanced

• there are shopping, cultural, religious, faith, educational, health and public services that can be provided to meet the needs of the settlement and the surrounding area

• there are sustainable transport modes that can be maintained or developed to meet identified community needs in the settlement and the surrounding area

Provision will be made for housing, employment, shopping and other services that increase their self-containment and enhance their roles as service centres.

Development Policy C: Development at Small Towns and Villages In small towns and villages greater self-containment and stronger local communities will be promoted by making provision that:

• supports economic activity appropriate to the scale of the settlement

• extends the range of services to better meet the needs of the settlement and its surrounding area

• meets identified local housing needs.

6.3 It is clear that RSS Development Policy B and C provide qualitative criteria to help

categorise settlements. However the criteria for Development Policy C is very open ended and it is considered that all of the settlements examined in this study could be considered as Development Policy C settlements to a greater or lesser extent.

6.4 To enable the identification of settlements for Policy B and highlight the best

candidates for Development Policy C, the statistical analysis has been undertaken and findings quantified where possible. Table 6.1 to 6.3 overleaf sets out the indicators examined in sections 3, 4 and 5 and provides initial recommendations on RSS Development Policy B Classification by each theme. Table 6.4 provides a summary of these results with a short list of settlements that have a clear role and function whether that is employment retail or community service. Table 6.4 also highlights self containment and sustainable travel opportunities.



76

Table 6.1: Settlement Classification by Employment Indicators

Settlements within LSOA

Population

Employment (No of Jobs) (%)

Economically Active Population (%)

Employment Density Ratio

Employment Function

Yeovil 42150 47.5% 72% 1.40 Yes

Chard 12000 8.5% 67% 0.98 Yes

Crewkerne 7500 3.9% 69% 0.75 Yes

Ilminster 4750 3.0% 67% 0.86 Yes

Wincanton 4650 4.6% 70% 1.24 Yes

Martock 4000 1.3% 71% 0.43 No

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 4000 4.2% 80% 0.89 Yes

Somerton 3600 2.0% 65% 0.78 Yes

South Petherton 3150 1.1% 63% 0.64 No

Ansford / Castle Cary 3050 1.7% 67% 0.74 Yes

Bruton 2950 1.1% 63% 0.60 No

Langport / Huish Episcopi 2750 1.9% 69% 0.96 Yes

Milborne Port 2650 0.6% 72% 0.27 No

Tatworth / South Chard 2600 0.8% 66% 0.40 No

Curry Rivel 2500 0.6% 66% 0.44 No

Merriott 2400 0.5% 68% 0.26 No

South Brewham/Bayford 2400 0.8% 67% 0.45 No

Misterton/Winsham 2250 1.1% 66% 0.64 No

Combe St Nicholas 2200 0.8% 65% 0.49 No

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 2200 0.6% 70% 0.35 No

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 2150 0.8% 66% 0.46 No

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 1800 0.5% 61% 0.44 No

Templecombe 1750 1.1% 71% 0.82 No

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 1600 0.5% 70% 0.34 No



77


Population

Employment (No of Jobs) (%)

Economically Active Population (%)

Employment Density Ratio

Employment Function

Compton Dundon 1600 0.3% 67% 0.32 No

Henstridge 1500 0.8% 68% 0.63 No

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 1500 0.5% 69% 0.27

No

North Coker/East Coker 1500 0.5% 66% 0.41 No

Ilton 1500 0.8% 67% 0.40 No

Stoke Sub Hamdon 1450 0.3% 73% 0.26 No

Long Load/Ash 1450 0.8% 73% 0.62 No

Sparkford/Queen Camel 1400 0.9% 67% 0.96 No

Hardington Mandeville / West Coker 1400 0.2% 69% 0.19 No

High Ham 1350 0.5% 66% 0.47 No

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 1350 0.5% 66% 0.43 No

Odcombe 1300 0.3% 67% 0.27 No

Fivehead 1300 0.8% 70% 0.73 No

Haselbury Plucknett 1250 0.5% 62% 0.47 No

Norton Sub Hamdon 1250 0.3% 67% 0.27 No

Tintinhull 1200 0.3% 71% 0.39 No

Long Sutton 1200 0.3% 61% 0.38 No

Ashill/Broadway 1150 0.3% 65% 0.40 No

West Camel 1150 0.3% 60% 0.43 No

Horton 1100 0.5% 66% 0.50 No

Montacute 1100 0.6% 69% 0.73 No

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 1100 0.2% 65% 0.20 No

Barwick / Stoford 1050 0.2% 67% 0.12 No

South Somerset District Total/Average 150950 1% 69% 0.86



78

6.5 Table 6.1 highlights the main findings of the economic indicators examined in Section 3. Settlements and findings emboldened in the Table 6.1 represent results where analysis of the settlements has identified a clear employment function relative to other settlements in South Somerset. The Table specifically looks at the three clear population groups (7500+, 2150 to 4750 and below 1800) identified in Table 3.2. Population size is not considered the main determinate of employment function, but there is a clear correlation between the population size of a settlement and its employment role.

6.6 The presence of employment is considered a key indicator. Table 3.1 identifies that

employment is dispersed across the District due to the rural nature of South Somerset, but nine settlements have more jobs located within them than the other 39 settlements in South Somerset combined. The study has examined 48 settlements or amalgamations of settlements and the top nine settlements account for 77% or all job provision.

6.7 The South Somerset economic active rate is 69% of people aged 16-74. Economic

activity levels have been highlighted to show existing concentrations of economically active people and compare this to employment provision. Economic activity is a good indicator of employment function but settlements with a slightly lower rate, could also be considered for RSS Development Policy B categorisation, if findings indicate that residential development could reinforce existing employment concentrations and subsequently improve economic activity levels and employment density levels.

6.8 Employment density ratio in Table 3.4 highlights that the average employment density

in South Somerset is 0.86. It is considered that a ratio of 1:1 or slightly above indicates a good balance of jobs to workers. Several settlements meet this criterion and these findings are emboldened in Table 6.1. Other settlements have ratios slight below this level and as with economic activity rates, these settlements should be considered for RSS Development Policy B classification due to the benefit additional residential development, if they have a high concentration of exiting population or employment.

6.9 The final column in Table 6.1 summarises the recommendations based solely on

employment indicators. These settlements are taken forward to Table 6.4 for consideration alongside other settlements identified in Table 6.2 which looks at retail and community service roles and Table 6.3 that summarises self containment commuting patterns and opportunities for sustainable travel.

6.10 Table 6.2 is set out overleaf. It summaries indicators that have been used to identify

settlements that have a strong retail and/or community service role:



79

Table: 6.2: Settlement Classification by Retail and Community Service Role

Settlements within LSOA Population

DPDS Retail

Hierarchy Community Service Role Retail and

Community Role

Yeovil 42150 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Chard 12000 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Crewkerne 7500 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Ilminster 4750 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Wincanton 4650 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Martock 4000 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 4000 - Strategic Role Yes

Somerton 3600 Yes Strategic Role Yes

South Petherton 3150 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Ansford / Castle Cary 3050 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Bruton 2950 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Langport / Huish Episcopi 2750 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Milborne Port 2650 Yes Strategic Role Yes

Tatworth / South Chard 2600 - Yes No

Curry Rivel 2500 - Yes No

Merriott 2400 - Yes No

South Brewham/Bayford 2400 - Yes No

Misterton/Winsham 2250 - Yes No

Combe St Nicholas 2200 - Yes No

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 2200 - Yes No

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 2150 - Yes No

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 1800 - Yes No

Templecombe 1750 - Yes No

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 1600 - Yes No

Compton Dundon 1600 - Yes No



80

Settlements within LSOA Population

DPDS Retail

Hierarchy Community Service Role Retail and

Community Role

Henstridge 1500 - Yes No

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 1500 - Yes No

North Coker/East Coker 1500 - Yes No

Ilton 1500 - Yes No

Stoke Sub Hamdon 1450 - Strategic Role Yes

Long Load/Ash 1450 - Yes No

Sparkford/Queen Camel 1400 - Yes No

Hardington Mandeville / West Coker 1400 - Yes No

High Ham 1350 - Yes No

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 1350 - Yes No

Odcombe 1300 - Yes No

Fivehead 1300 - Yes No

Haselbury Plucknett 1250 - Yes No

Norton Sub Hamdon 1250 - Yes No

Tintinhull 1200 - Yes No

Long Sutton 1200 - Yes No

Ashill/Broadway 1150 - Yes No

West Camel 1150 - Yes No

Horton 1100 - Yes No

Montacute 1100 - Yes No

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 1100 - Yes No

Barwick / Stoford 1050 - Yes No

South Somerset District 150950



81

6.11 Table 6.2 highlights the main findings of the retail analysis and community facilities matrix examined in Section 4. Settlements and findings emboldened in the table represent results where analysis of the settlements has identified a clear retail or community service role relative to other settlements in South Somerset.

6.12 The South Somerset Retail Study (2006) provides a retail hierarchy for South

Somerset. This hierarchy is presented in Table 6.2 and shows that twelve settlements are considered to have a strong retail role in the District. The community facilities matrix was presented in section 4 by community facility theme, e.g. education or health. The findings highlighted that the majority of settlements in South Somerset have some level of community service role, due to provision of facilities such as primary schools, village hall, churches, children’s play areas and playing fields. Table 6.2 identified settlements with a strong community service role. Analysis showed that strategic facilities differentiated the community service role of settlements. Analysis in Tables 4.2 to 4.7 identified settlements with a relatively stronger community service role.

6.13 The final column in Table 6.2 summarises the recommendations based solely on

retail and community indicators. These settlements are taken forward to Table 6.4 for consideration alongside other settlements identified in Table 6.3 that summarises self containment commuting patterns and opportunities for sustainable travel. Table 6.4 is set out overleaf:



82

Table: 6.3: Settlement Classification by Self Containment and Sustainable Travel Opportunities


Population

Self Containment

In Commuting

Sustainable travel Options

Good Self Containment and travel opportunities?

Yeovil 42150 74.5% Yes Yes Yes

Chard 12000 61.2% Yes Yes Yes

Crewkerne 7500 48% Yes Yes Yes

Ilminster 4750 47.7% Yes Yes Yes

Wincanton 4650 52.9% Yes Yes Yes

Martock 4000 30.8% No No No

Somerton 3600 37.8% Yes No No

South Petherton 3150 36% No No No

Ansford / Castle Cary 3050 46% No Yes No

Bruton 2950 46% Yes Yes Yes

Langport / Huish Episcopi 2750 40.7% No No No

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton 4000 58.6% Yes No No

Milborne Port 2650 28.9% No No No

Tatworth / South Chard 2600 31.7% No No No

Curry Rivel 2500 32.8% No No No

Merriott 2400 31.7% No No No

South Brewham/Bayford 2400 44.3% No No No

Misterton/Winsham 2250 43.9% No No No

Combe St Nicholas 2200 44.7% No No No

Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi 2200 36.8% No No No

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury 2150 46% No Yes No

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton 1800 37.8% No No No

Templecombe 1750 37.8% No Yes No

Keinton Mandeville/Barton St David 1600 30.7% No No No



83


Population

Self Containment

In Commuting

Sustainable travel Options

Good Self Containment and travel opportunities?

Compton Dundon 1600 37.8% No No No

Henstridge 1500 37.8% No No No

Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp 1500 36% No No No

North Coker/East Coker 1500 32.4% No No No

Ilton 1500 34.9% No No No

Stoke Sub Hamdon 1450 23% No Yes No

Long Load/Ash 1450 30.8% No No No

Sparkford/Queen Camel 1400 40.3% No No No

Hardington Mandeville / West Coker 1400 32.4% No No No

High Ham 1350 37.1% No No No

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon 1350 30.7% No No No

Odcombe 1300 32.4% No No No

Fivehead 1300 32.8% No No No

Haselbury Plucknett 1250 28.5% No No No

Norton Sub Hamdon 1250 23% No Yes No

Tintinhull 1200 26.8% No No No

Long Sutton 1200 37.1% No No No

Ashill/Broadway 1150 35.9% No No No

West Camel 1150 40.3% No No No

Horton 1100 35.9% No No No

Montacute 1100 26.8% No No No

West Chinnock/East Chinnock 1100 28.5% No No No

Barwick / Stoford 1050 32.4% No No No

South Somerset District 150950 51.3%



85

6.14 Table 6.3 highlights the main findings of the self containment and sustainable travel opportunities analysis examined in Section 5. Settlements and findings emboldened in the table represent results where analysis of the settlements has identified a relatively high level of self containment, a good level of available travel opportunities, or role for commuters in South Somerset.

6.15 The South Somerset average level of self containment, i.e. the percentage of people

who live and work within the same settlement is relatively high at 51.3% when compared to wards within urban areas such as Bristol, which average only 22% due to the close proximity of employment opportunities and easier transport access. Settlements with a better than average level of self containment have a stronger role relative to other settlements and this is reflected in more sustainable travel patterns and a more balanced settlement.

6.16 In commuting levels are good indicators for identifying settlement roles, in terms of

travel. Several settlements within South Somerset act as magnets for commuters across South Somerset. These settlements clearly perform a strategic employment function in the District and whilst self containment should be encouraged across South Somerset, understanding and improving sustainable transport links serving these destinations is also important.

6.17 Sustainable transport opportunities have been examined to identify settlements with a

greater opportunity to travel in a more environmentally friendly way. Whilst this indicator is important is its not considered definitive in terms of settlement function. It is clearly important to support settlements with a clear role that have better self containment and sustainable transport opportunities, but existing settlements can perform employment, retail or community service roles without good self containment or sustainable travel opportunities.

6.18 The final column in Table 6.3 summarises the recommendations based solely on self

containment and sustainable travel opportunities. These settlements are taken forward to Table 6.4 for consideration alongside other settlements identified in Table 6.1 and 6.2.



86

6.19 Table 6.4 below sets out all settlements taken forward from Tables 6.1 to 6.3. All settlements in the list have a clear role and function, whether that is employment, retail or community service.

Table 6.4: Settlement Classification Summary

Settlements Settlement with a Employment

Function

Identified Retail and Community

Role

Self Containment and Sustainable

Travel opportunities

Yeovil Yes Yes Yes

Chard Yes Yes Yes

Crewkerne Yes Yes Yes

Ilminster Yes Yes Yes

Wincanton Yes Yes Yes

Somerton Yes Yes No


Yes Yes No

Ansford / Castle Cary

Yes Yes No

Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton

Yes Yes No

South Petherton

No Yes No

Martock No Yes No

Bruton No Yes Yes

Milborne Port No Yes No

Stoke Sub Hamdon

No Yes No

6.20 It is recommended that settlements with a strong employment, retail and community

role should be considered for RSS Development Policy B Classification. This would include:

• Chard

• Crewkerne

• Ilminster

• Wincanton

• Somerton



6.21 These settlements have a strong employment function with an existing concentration of business and a good variety of shopping and community services that meet the needs of the settlement and the surrounding area. The settlements are relatively well self contained with relative low out commuting and dominant role in terms of travel to work within South Somerset, which can be maintained or developed to meet the needs of the settlement and the surrounding area. The settlements bulleted in para 6.18 represent some of the largest centres within South Somerset in terms of employment, population, economically active people and retail and community service provision.

6.22 Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton, is a strong location for employment within South

Somerset and jobs numbers and commuting patterns reflect this. However due to the



87

specific nature of RNAS Yeovilton, the location should be considered separately to other settlements and should not specifically be identified as an RSS Development Policy B settlement.

6.23 Table 6.4 identifies six other settlements that have a retail and community service

role. These settlements are important in the District as they act as focal points for surrounding settlements for retail and strategic community facility provision. Martock, South Petherton and Bruton also exhibit lower levels of employment function and it is considered that all six settlements should be considered for RSS Development Policy C Classification:

• Illchester

• South Petherton

• Martock

• Bruton

• Milborne Port

• Stoke Sub Hamdon 6.24 The settlements provide a range of retail or community services to meet the needs of

the local area. The settlements are well placed to meet local housing needs given their geographical distribution across the district. It is considered that some perform a valuable employment provision role for the surrounding area at a lower level to Development Policy B settlements

6.25 As previously stated, RSS development Policy C criteria are open ended and if clear

justification for additional development can be identified that meets Development Policy C criteria, then future development could be directed towards other settlements. This is important for rural Districts such as South Somerset. Baker Associates consider that justification for category C could include:

• Supports rural diversification and provision of small scale employment opportunities in settlements with relatively high economically active population, a young population or limited sustainable transport opportunities;

• Maintains the viability of existing community services or adds justification for additional facility provision where there is an identified need;

• Meets identified affordable housing need Monitoring 6.26 The final task of the Settlement Role and Function Study has been to consider future

monitoring. It is important to monitor settlement function and this will require further analysis of information established in the study to identify possible changes to settlement function and ultimately settlement classification. It is recommended that summary Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 forms the basis of future monitoring.



88

Appendix 1: Settlement Definition by Lower Super Output Area (LSOA)

Settlement LSOA Code Ward Code Ward Name

Combe St Nicholas E01029153 40UDJP Blackdown

Henstridge E01029154 40UDJQ Blackmoor Vale

Holton/Charlton Horethorne/South Cheriton E01029155 40UDJQ Blackmoor Vale

Templecombe E01029156 40UDJQ Blackmoor Vale

Bruton E01029157 40UDJR Bruton

Bruton E01029158 40UDJR Bruton

Yeovil E01029159 40UDJS Brympton




Barrington/Kingsbury Episcopi E01029163 40UDJT Burrow Hill

Sparkford/Queen Camel E01029164 40UDJU Camelot

West Camel E01029165 40UDJU Camelot

Galhampton/North Cadbury/South Cadbury E01029166 40UDJW Cary

Ansford / Castle Cary E01029167 40UDJW Cary

Ansford / Castle Cary E01029168 40UDJW Cary

Chard E01029169 40UDJX Chard Avishayes

Chard E01029170 40UDJX Chard Avishayes

Chard E01029171 40UDJY Chard Combe

Chard E01029172 40UDJZ Chard Crimchard

Chard E01029173 40UDJZ Chard Crimchard

Chard E01029174 40UDKA Chard Holyrood

Chard E01029175 40UDKA Chard Holyrood

Chard E01029176 40UDKB Chard Jocelyn

Chard E01029177 40UDKB Chard Jocelyn

North Coker/East Coker E01029178 40UDKC Coker

Barwick Stoford E01029179 40UDKC Coker

Hardington Mandeville/West Coker E01029180 40UDKC Coker

Odcombe E01029181 40UDKC Coker

Crewkerne E01029182 40UDKD Crewkerne





Curry Rivel E01029187 40UDKE Curry Rivel

Curry Rivel E01029188 40UDKE Curry Rivel

Merriott E01029189 40UDKF Eggwood

Merriott E01029190 40UDKF Eggwood

Norton Sub Hamdon E01029191 40UDKG Hamdon

Stoke Sub Hamdon E01029192 40UDKG Hamdon

Ilminster E01029193 40UDKH Ilminster



Ilton E01029196 40UDKJ Islemoor

Fivehead E01029197 40UDKJ Islemoor

Ilchester E01029198 40UDKK Ivelchester



89


Ilchester / RNAS Yeovilton E01029199 40UDKK Ivelchester

Langport / Huish Episcopi E01029200 40UDKL Langport and Huish

Langport / Huish Episcopi E01029201 40UDKL Langport and Huish

Martock E01029202 40UDKM Martock

Long Load / Ash E01029203 40UDKM Martock



Milborne Port E01029206 40UDKN Milborne Port

Milborne Port E01029207 40UDKN Milborne Port

Horton E01029208 40UDKP Neroche

Ashill / Broadway E01029209 40UDKP Neroche

Keinton Mandeville / Barton St David E01029210 40UDKQ Northstone

Charlton Adam/Charlton Mackrell/Kingsdon E01029211 40UDKQ Northstone

West Chinnock/East Chinnock E01029212 40UDKR Parrett

Haselbury Plucknett E01029213 40UDKR Parrett

Tintinhull E01029214 40UDKS St Michael's

Montacute E01029215 40UDKS St Michael's Seavington St Michael/St Mary/Shepton Beauchamp E01029217 40UDKT South Petherton

South Petherton E01029216 40UDKT South Petherton

South Petherton E01029218 40UDKT South Petherton

Tatworth E01029219 40UDKU Tatworth and Forton

South Chard E01029220 40UDKU Tatworth and Forton

South Brewham/Bayford E01029221 40UDKW Tower

High Ham E01029222 40UDKX Turn Hill

Long Sutton E01029223 40UDKX Turn Hill

Compton Dundon E01029224 40UDKY Wessex

Somerton E01029225 40UDKY Wessex

Somerton E01029226 40UDKY Wessex

Wincanton E01029227 40UDKZ Wincanton



Misterton / Winsham E01029230 40UDLA Windwhistle

Yeovil E01029231 40UDLB Yeovil Central





Yeovil E01029236 40UDLC Yeovil East





Yeovil E01029241 40UDLD Yeovil South






90



Yeovil E01029246 40UDLE Yeovil West





Yeovil E01029251 40UDLF Yeovil Without






Final Draft Report by Baker Associates, April 2009

90

Appendix 2: Settlement Maps with LSOA areas


Final Draft Report by Baker Associates, April 2009

91

Appendix 3: Retail Household Survey Area Map

Baker Associates The Crescent Centre Temple Back Bristol BS1 6EZ www.bakerassocs.com t 0117 933 8950

f 0117 925 7714

e [email protected]

South Somerset Settlement Role and Function Study Final ... · Final Report by Baker Associates, April 2009 1 Contents 1. Introduction - P3 2. Methodology - P4 3. Settlements with

Documents