Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

274 Mr S Mckinnon
CPO should be a last resort. Alternative locations should be investigated. Where financial contributions from developers
are made via S106 these should be used to 'directly' improve immediate areas close to the development.
Planning Obligations These should including the facilitation of environmental enhancements and habitat maintenance.
276 Mr M Barrell
SuDS also require ongoing maintenance, so sums should be sought to contribute to this.
277 Ms S A Elkington Full market price should be offered and compensation.
I think it is reasonable to ask developers to contribute to local social activities. Many to help the local youth like the ski
278 Mr P Marshall
slope.
279 S J Heeney Not qualified to answer, and lack of information.
280 Mrs M A Tyrell Compulsory purchase is a last resort. No view.
Developers should be expected to make financial contributions to infrastructure but the Council must be aware that
developers are in business to make a profit - set the costs too high and they will go elsewhere. If a site is left un-occupied
285 Mrs B E Dale
for a very long time then certainly a compulsory purchase should be made and affordable housing built asap.
286 Mr L F Knight Yes, developers should pay for parking for every dwelling (off the road) and infrastructure extra costs.
287 Mr R Forster Derelict areas should only be considered.
Compulsory purchase is reasonable if it benefits the community as a whole, but should not be an opportunity for developers
288 Mr & Mrs C Cummins to make huge profits.
Developers, large and small must make green spaces part of their plans. Replace any trees lost and ensure adequate
289 Mrs J Warner
infrastructure. Compulsory purchase should be a last resort, but useful for buildings left to deteriorate.
292 Mr & Mrs Goring Developers should be asked to contribute financially if they are to benefit from any schemes.
Planning contributions Fairview require that the use of planning contributions for purposes set out in the document (page
39) should conform to the guidance issued in ODPM Circular 05/2005. The need for such provision should be applied on a
site-by-site basis and planning obligations should adhere to the tests that they should be: i) relevant to planning; ii)
necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; iii) directly related to the proposed
development; iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and v) reasonable in all other
respects. Fairview request that the document recognises the impact that planning obligations can have on the viability of
development. As such, the following text should be included in Section Four of the document: "The Council will have
regard to the impact of planning contributions on the viability of development and will ensure that they are
necessary to allow consent to be given for a particular development and that they are fairly and reasonably related
293 Wai-Kit Cheung in scale and kind to the proposed development, and reasonable in all other respects".
Developers are there to make money. For them to make contributions is an illusion. Then they put up their prices to
298 Mr & Mrs Hewitt compensate.
299 Mr & Mrs Tuson
We do not agree with compulsory purchase; the amount paid is never the going rates and it is seen as getting land/buildings
on the cheap. Better planning is needed within policy that is not detrimental to the town. We need the council to fight our
corner and not allow us to be driven down paths that will cause us problems and damage our environment both now and in
the future. Views sought from residents are important; we put the government in and we can also take it away.
300 Mrs Upson
Planning on curb issues plus damage to adjoining property should be considered before builders are given permission to
continue.
302 Mr B Short Compulsory etc yes. Do not know about developers contributions.
303 Mr K Hatfield Developers should be made to pay more in contributing to infrastructure of the area.