Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

196 Mr A E Hodges The voluntary approach for purchase or sale of development land should be tried first.
Compulsory purchase in my opinion of past experience brings the area down and it never regains its original charm. People
197 P McAllister
are made to move out and they never come back to the area.
Private development of the area should be more tansparent. Any such development should be encouraged to show that
198 Mr J Clamp
their development is putting something into the area that will improve it not just line the pockets of the developer.
Don't agree with compulsory purchase, planning on developers should be controlled too many houses knocked down and
199 Mr & Mrs Crockford apartments put on the same piece of land.
If compulsory purchase means that the developer will make excessive profit the owners should be paid well above the
market price. If it is because of a new road etc. they must be paid the market price plus an amount to cover all relocation
200 Mr T O'Shea
costs and upheaval.
Compulsory purchase is not a fair means of acquiring land/property. If a fair market value price was provided in exchange
201 Mr M Thomas
this would provide 90% of the solution.
202 K Cardnell Yes
203 M T Conaty No. Developers to ensure all the existing infrastructure is adequate for what they are going to develop in an area.
204 Mr R Gould None
205 Mrs Whitham No I do not agree at compulsory purchase. Why should people be deprived of their homes because someone says so
If local authorities were allowed to use housing funds as a revolving fund, compulsory purchases if property held dommant
206 Mrs G Harper
might be applicable, but as things are I would say 'no' to it.
"set framework to ensure residential enhancements can be brought forward using compulsory purhcase power" has a
sinister ring. In the past this was solely for public schemes: road, airports etc, not private development. However, the
Planning Policy office was unable to assure that such acquisition of owner occupied homes for house redevelopment
207 Ms G Yeadell
wouldn't occur in future.
If people want to make profit out of developing then they should be forced to pay towards the infrastructure they are
208 I Gyres
overloading.
No to compulsory purchase - developers could be more sympathetic to surrounding neighbours and the landscaping
210 Mrs M A King
thereafter.
Developers are in it to make money and therefore must contribute to enable others to benefit. Such as refered in my
answer 7. There should be more effort by developers and local authorities for both the younger and more mature
generations such as say an ice or roller skating facilities for the young with say locations for dancing by the middle and
211 Mr B W Williams mature public which could include bars and other leisure facilities.
Compulsory purchase should only be used when establishing a public amenity such as a road. Developers should be asked
213 Mr M Wheeler
to contribute to public amenities where it is obvious that the new house holder would be using that amenity.
No I do not believe in compulsory purchase, if developers develop they should finance all of the schooling, hospitals, new
215 Mr T R Thompson roads etc. Tesco at Southend re routed the whole 127 and what was gained other than local shops closing?
220 Mrs S Clarke I suggest that buildings should be in keeping with affordable property.
221 Mr G Hoy Can our roads, schools and emergency services withstand more major development?
I have never agreed with compulsory purchase and I strongly disagree with developers offering financial contributions to
222 R Luck
schemes. This always sounds like a type of blackmail.
223 C Morris Let developers make their money elsewhere.