Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

158 Mr & Mrs White
Some compulsory purchase must become necessary. Builders have economised enormously on construction methods - but
retained high prices. They should contribute to local amenaties and improvements to roads etc…
There should be no compulsory purchases, only in dire circumstances. Councillors should put themselves in their
constituents place, (how would they like it?) Developers who wish to compulsory purchase should pay a substantial amount
in compensation, over and above the price of the property/business they wish to compulsory purchase. This might make
159 Mr & Mrs J Collins them think twice and come up with an alternative idea.
No one should have the right to take land away from an owner - this is, and always will be stealing. The land should be
160 Ms S Barnes
purchased at the going rate.
Compulsory purchase of neglected or empty properties is acceptable. The compulsory purchase of land undeveloped and
161 Mr S J Benee
owned by developers or individuals would seem to be too much Big Brother.
162 Mr & Mrs Livens All financial contribution based on the profits for the developer is fair.
It seems to me that developers only have to submit their applications unitl they have been granted even though they have
163 Mr S T Cardwell been turned down on numerous occasions.
164 Mr I King Major developers should help with the infrastructure.
I was told that Countryside properties (Rawreth Lane) offered to provide a bus stop. How unbelievably exciting! How on
165 Mr G Searles
earth would Alan Cherry be able to afford it. It's a joke.
166 G W Fleming Compulsory purchase should only be considered as a last resort
167 Mrs J Marshall Pay full market value and compensation where applicable. Put yourself in their position before deciding.
168 Ms L Young I do not like compulsory purchase and if it is unavoidable the main financial beneficiaries should be made to pay.
Compulsory purchase is reasonable if land is required for the good of everyone so this would generally be for improved
transport, road, rail or perhaps a hospital. We do not feel people should be evicted from there homes and property just
169 Mr & Mrs Garlick because a developer/the council can make money by putting several houses in place of one.
Developers must contribute to the local infrastructure by way of roads, rail investment (eg Wickford to Chelmsford) and
must also build homes that are energy efficient and designed for life. They should also contribute to the development of
170 Mr & Mrs Gibson community facilitise such as libraries, schools and local NHS.
171 Ms K Meiklejohn
173 Mr & Mrs Cripps
175 Mr H J Rowland
176 Mr R Abbott
This is reasonable for derelict buildings - most are dangerous anyway and this brownfield is needed so we don't give up
green belt. Unused agricultural land must be utilised for allotments or peoples gardens in new developments are too small.
CPO's are a measure of last resort. Full compensation should be made to those effected. It is wrong to burden developers
with planning gains. This simply increases the price of property for the buyers and is negative towards affordable housing.
Infrastructure improvements should come from government when forcing development on communities.
Before even considering compulsory purchase, let alone agreeing to it, I would wish to see the "problems" highlighted, with
all the seasons why such action could be necessary. Financial contributions from developers merly leads to more out of
town shopping Tesco/Sainsbury and farther ? of the original comunity and shops etc.
Compulsory purchase should always be at the market rate agreed by a third party. Any planning must be in character with
local buildings, for frontage, height etc, with parking available for a minimum of 3 cars per house/dwelling - each car must
be able to get on/off the plot without shuffling cars. Take more care over the shape of driveways.