Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

102 Mr T Newton
Compulsory purchase is inevitable if roads are to be expanded, to stop polluting traffic james becoming even worse. Do a
months survey on Ashingdon and Southend, Sutton Road. Planning obligations should prevent over crowding of building
plots with large energy wasting housing. Large developers should contribute to road development, and infrastructure. The
council should consult on how people could get to and from developments without always using cars ie cycling or public
transport.
104 B Aspinall Unfortunately compulsory purchase occassionally necessary - ok where proper compensation paid
Do not let the developers in the Rochford area. Is bigger already we do not need a new library for flats and houses building
105 Mr R J Aldridge houses in Rochford hospital land was not good enough no more building to be allowed. Enough is enough.
Developers particularly "Barrats" have made millions out of Rochford and have given nothing back, when agreeing
107 Mr P S Reid
developments planners need to gain positive benefits for the area eg fund local charities etc.
109 Mr C Fantides In these days of global warming land should be given over to the environment NOT developers!
110 Mr P Nippard Why should anyone be subject to compulsory purchase when this whole initiative is flawed!
There is always room for improvement. No one wants industrial units at the end of there garden with the increase in traffic
111 Mr & Mrs Curtis etc.
Use empty properties. Build council houses and flats. Strict rules for tenants and enforced evictions for those who do not
take reasonable care. Developers should be made to think about schooling, etc and pay towards these (especially large
113 Mr & Mrs Rowland scale developments).
Compulsory purchase should be used where property is left empty and land becomes derelict. Planning should apply
116 R S Barton
equally to all and not be unfairly biased towards developers or travellers.
117 W R H Beehag As and when necessary for progress
119 Mr C Gabell Reasonable - especially for new roads!
At a local level I don't believe compulsory purchase is appropriate. It is an infringement of individual rights and should only
120 Mr B Poole
come from central government level.
No definitely not, why should anyone have the right to compulsory purchase another persons homes, at the end of the day it
is taking away the rights of the individual. The developers should look at the overall plan of who they are targetting their
houses to, certainly not the local population, at the unaffordable prices currently advertised. I wonder how many of the
121 Mrs S J Attfield properties at the present time are actually not sold due to the current over inflation of house prices.
In view of the profits generated in the building industry, am amazed that the cost of compulsory purchase is not already
122 F E Wells
borne by developer.
Yes for empty houses and waste ground, unused Industrial Estates, developers should design houses better, not for a cheap
123 Mr K Walcer
quick buck planning obligations should include solar and wind.
Developers should contribute to local transport plans eg subsidise loss making bus routes to outlying communities.
Landscaping around new build areas should benefit the residents and not be a case of just throwing down a few trees and
125 Mr D Brown & Mrs J Kirk bushes.
It is obvious that the developer should make a substantial financial contribution importantly when there is a costly planning
enquiry, during the initial stages. Substantial contributions towards the provision of new infrastructure is essential. As to the
126 Mr J Jefferies
amount I could not say.
Compulsory purchase should only be used as the very last resort when it is clear that the benefit of the majority is being
disrupted by an individual. Unless local council or the government is going to pay for community-based projects on a large
127 Mr G Ware
scale (pits might also fly) private developers will have to fund the vast majority of projects.