Object

Representation ID: 2849

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

This paragraph states that there are 2,550 publicly available spaces to the south of the central area. As stated in the RPS Technical Note, this is actually closer to 4,000.It goes on to state that there will be "no net loss of public car parking to the south of the Central
Area."
Firstly, The Stockvale Group objects to this statement because it is a negative approach, not a positive one to meet the needs of businesses. The Stockvale Group have been planning for growth in
visitor numbers, supported by significant investments in their attractions Adventure Island and Sea
Life Adventure, as well as their numerous restaurants, cafes and kiosks on the seafront. It states in paragraph 28 that the Council's vision is to promote economic growth. Specifically, in Paragraph 29 it states that a Strategic Objective is to attract "greater visitor numbers", which is a direct reference to
the town as a resort. Paragraph 30 also reiterates that the Council is aiming to support growth. Similarly, in Paragraph 81, the Council states: "The tourism and hotel sector is expected to grow in
Southend over the next 20 years".
A policy of no net loss of public car parking spaces south of the Central Area will not support growth.
As Stockvale's surveys have shown (see the RPS Technical Note), the seafront tourism sector is reliant on visitors from outside the town who largely travel by car, with high car occupancies
(families). This Paragraph should be making a clear statement that the intention of the Council is to
increase the number of car parking spaces that provide convenient access to the seafront area. If this statement is not included, then this plan cannot be considered to be positively prepared as it is not meeting the needs of the seafront area. Equally seriously, it is not clear whether this approach will even be effective in protecting against net
loss of spaces as the Plan is not clear enough about how this is calculated. In order to make investment decisions. The Stockvale Group and other seafront traders need the certainty that
visitors will be able to access their attractions and other facilities that support tourists visiting Southend. A number of points need to be clarified:
1. It is not clear to Stockvale how the net loss will be calculated. As can be seen from the RPS Technical Note, the Council does not appear to have included all available spaces in and around Southend seafront in the capacity, nor accounted for all the demand. Given that, at peak times the seafront car parks are full, this is likely to result in an over-estimation of the
percentage of available spaces in Southend north of the railway line.
2. It is not clear whether the Council has taken into account the trips generated by substantial new development proposed, for example, at the Seaways car park site. If this has not been
taken into account, then there will be an immediate net loss on spaces due to displacement caused by traffic parking for the new developments. The RPS Technical Note suggests that this has not been correctly factored in.
3. It is not clear what level of importance will be attached to the most accessible spaces, or whether spaces nearer the town centre (some of which are up a steep slope from the main seafront area) will be considered as part of this 'net' figure.
4. Similarly it is not clear if the Council has considered spaces that have poor links to the seafront as part of this 'net' figure.

We support the Council's attempt to secure additional car parking spaces as part of the new Southend Museum development (approximately 220 spaces). However, this development is in thevery early stages, is not yet funded and cannot be relied upon. For the purposes of this policy, and in the timescales available to this plan, we do not consider much regard should be taken to this in assessing the availability of car parking spaces now and in the future.
In short we do not have the confidence that this policy is going to be effective. Indeed, it is likely on the basis of the work undertaken by RPS that this policy will be ineffective and actually counterproductive by resulting in a net loss of spaces available to visiting tourists. We are not confident that the Council is planning positively to accommodate growth, nor that its policies will be effective in ensuring no net loss.