Title 1     |     home                                                    Title 17 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document Ends on: 18 Dec 2009 FINAL RESPONSE (PUBLIC) Submitted by ******  on 17 Dec 2009 13:40 1a Are the 5 priority areas appropriate, and in the correct order? Please select one option from the list. Yes [ ] No [ Selected ] 1b If you selected "No" for question 1a, please specify what alternatives you propose [ Whilst laudable, the five priorities also lead to social exclusion (at all levels)...in that Quality of life issues do matter. The fact that affordable housing is top of the tree (rightly so) - this is not achievable given the current rental prices? The exclusion of single working people also leads to social exclusion. Having gone round some of the rental market with a family member I am somewhat bewildered that these people are allowed to rent properties or even get planning permission to rent? It is clear that TDC is reliant on external organisations having input in this whilst excluding a good number of people who are not dealt with by social services etc? Given that the Transport infrastructure in Thanet is a class 1 screw up perhaps this should be expunged from the list and deal with the quality of life issues that genuinely affect everyone? ] View Response 2a Other than the 5 areas, are there any other priorities which should be brought within the scope of the SPD? Please select one option from the list. Yes [ Selected ] No [ ] 2b If you selected "Yes" for question 2a please state what other priorities should be included [ As above ] 3a Do you think there are priorities included that should not be included within the SPD? Please select one option from the list. Yes [ Selected ] No [ ] 3b If you selected "Yes" for question 3a, please state which priorities should not be included [ Transport, as it now not achievable as over development has taken place without a Thanet wide EIA on development issues which sadly the Core Strategy does not address. Frankly green travel plans do not address this fundamental flaw. ] 4a Is the flow chart "When are planning obligations required" clear? Please select one option from the list. Yes [ ] No [ Selected ] 4b If you selected "No" for question 4a, do you have any suggestions to improve it? [ Primarily as developers can and do manipulate it? ] 5a Is the "What about development viability?" section reasonable? Please select one option from the list. Yes [ ] No [ Selected ] 5b If you selected "No" for question 5a, what alternative approach would you propose? [ It should not be for the public to make alternative proposals that is the task of planners - however what is required is a more robust manner in dealing with development viability in Thanet instead of the current system We the public have continually ended up paying for developer improvements and site viability - I guess that an option is to have more public viability scrutiny via the CAAGs and civic Societies and allow more pubic speaking on these issues much like the Asset management three minute speeches? ] 6a Would a model legal agreement be useful? Please select one option from the list. Yes [ Selected ] No [ ] 6b If you selected "Yes" for question 6a, should it available online to download as a template? [ Yes ] 7a Is the document clear enough? Please select one option from the list. Yes [ Selected ] No [ ] 7b If you selected "No" for question 7a, do you suggest any improvements? [ ] 8 Any other comments? [ I would like to see an assessment instigated of the development travel routes for the HGV's from and too development site in Thanet - reason - a large amount of road infrastructure is damaged by these lorries, such as signs, pavements and drain covers. The costs are then born by the tax payer well after the developers have left site. The prior assessment and after assessment should be paid for by the developers. I would also add that local drain/gully emptying should be mandatory for all sites as well. Sites should be assessed even for one dwelling. ]