Proposed Modifications to the Thanet Local Plan

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

7 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Gill Gray - Westgate-on-Sea To… 27 Jan 2020

Main Modifications Strategy & Implementation MM/003 MM/003

  • Comment ID: 221
We welcome these comments.
C Solly 27 Jan 2020

Main Modifications Strategy & Implementation MM/003 MM/003

  • Comment ID: 271
* Concern remains on the clarity of the Draft Infrastructure Development Plan July 2018 TDC (CD1.2). This should be re-reviewed in light of new information regarding Bethesda, and the provision of medical facilities of the plan. They are not clearly marked out and the recruitment position of GPs is unclear. Planning consideration should be made on whether medical services are sustainable to new development https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2019/10/17/northdown-surgery-merger-plans-with-bethesda-h
Nicole Burnett - Gladman 23 Jan 2020

Main Modifications Strategy & Implementation MM/003 MM/003

  • Comment ID: 132
Gladman note that a number of amendments are proposed to the wording of Policy SP01 to improve the effectiveness and clarity of the policy. Whilst generally supportive of the modifications, Gladman would suggest that where the policy refers to contributions that are necessary to secure off-site infrastructure there should be a follow on reference to relevant tests set out in Paragraph 204 of the Framework (2012). This is to ensure that where contributions are sought, they are not only necessary
Phoebe Juggins - Department fo… 21 Jan 2020

Main Modifications Strategy & Implementation MM/003 MM/003

  • Comment ID: 82
DfE welcomes reference already within the plan to support the development of appropriate social and community infrastructure at policy SP01, and the clarification made to this through MM/003 is welcomed.
Kevin Bown - Highways Agency 16 Jan 2020

Main Modifications Strategy & Implementation MM/003 MM/003

  • Comment ID: 51
We note the revised Implementation Policy. We are concerned that the requirement for off-site contributions, for example, towards Strategic Road Network schemes may not always be captured in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Therefore the text should make it clear that the IDP is not the only source/ generator of contributions.
NICK BLANKLEY 13 Jan 2020

Main Modifications Strategy & Implementation MM/003 MM/003

  • Comment ID: 39
It is no good 'expecting' all new development to meet its infrastructure requirements, there should be an absolute requirement that all new development must fully meet its' infrastructure requirements. Furthermore there should be full enforcement of robust penalties for developers failing to meet requirements including legal action and prevention of any further development until agreed infrstructure requirements are delivered. In order to protect existing communities the policy should further
Ruth Bailey 24 Dec 2019

Main Modifications Strategy & Implementation MM/003 MM/003

  • Comment ID: 6
Stringent enforcement regarding agreed developer's contributions, be that infrastructure, affordable housing quota, community contributions etc., will require adequate staffing numbers and a zero tolerance approach to back-sliding.