Central Area Action Plan: Issues and Options

Thank you for offering us the opportunity to comment on the above consultation document earlier this year. Unfortunately we missed the deadline for consultation responses due to work prioritisation. We are now in the position to be able to offer you comment on this document that might assist you in the production of future iterations.


Option Box 1

You have failed to recognise flood risk and climate change as a key challenge that could be addressed through this AAP. You need to consider all risks of flooding which are identified in your updated SFRA, Water Cycle Study and in the future by your Surface Water Management Plan. These background studies form a key part of your evidence base and must support the formulation of policies within this document and in your Core Strategy review.


Option Box 2

Specific policies in this AAP could help in achieving leisure and tourism aspirations in the central seafront areas whilst improving the flood defence infrastructure affording protection to the whole town. New development can provide opportunities for the incorporation of innovative flood defences into the design of the development. This would not only afford protection to the development, but could also make better use of the riverfront areas. The TE2100 Plan provides a vision for this area where improvements to the flood risk management system provide amenity, recreation and environmental enhancement. This could also positively contribute to the Thames Gateway Parklands vision.

Development should also improve and enhance biodiversity and the natural environment. For example, where flood defences are to be redesigned or improved as part of a development, their design can add to the ecological value of the area. Setting back defences in some areas could also allow for foreshore habitat enhancement or recreation to mitigate for the impacts of coastal squeeze brought about by climate change.


Option Box 3

Flood risk and water efficiency are two issues that could be incorporated into objective 4.


Option Box 4

Additional evaluation criteria that could be included in "Public realm and Movement" are "improve biodiversity/the natural environment" and "improve urban drainage" (where the Water Cycle Study/SFRA or Surface Water Management Plan indicate that this should be achieved.


Option Box 6

You will need to ensure that all sources of flood risk identified in your updated SFRA, Water Cycle Study and in the future by your Surface Water Management Plan are taken into consideration in the further development of this option.


Section 6

We are pleased to see that the proposed land uses and visions for those areas subject to tidal flood risk are compatible with the flood risk posed. No more or highly vulnerable development appears to be proposed in these areas.


Option Box 17

We would advise that the Development Management DPD covers all development, including that covered by this AAP (please see our response to that DPD). If higher standards are to be sought then specific policies in this AAP would be acceptable.


Option Box 18

We agree with the inclusion of options d-f.





Option Box 22

This will depend very much on the findings of the SFRA review, Water Cycle Strategy and Surface Water Management Plan currently being produced. The proposed Development Management DPD also provides additional clarification on some points. We will be in a position to advise further following the completion of the studies currently being undertaken.