Question 27: Do you agree with the proposed approach to managing development within the Central Seafront Policy Area and sites OS7, OS8, OS9 and CS1.1? Please explain your answer.

Support

Representation ID: 2206

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

The BID townscape improvements and guidance on design quality and Heritage preservation and enhancement are inextricably linked to improvements to Public Realm and pedestrian connectivity. The BID like the majority of the Town support the continued regeneration and reinvention of the Towns greatest icon Southend's Pleasure Pier. As there are a number of opportunity sites outlined in the SCAAP document, the BID would suggest that the Council (through the SCAAP document) develop design codes and development briefs to ensure that the townscape improvements and quality of design of future developments meet the aspirational high standard to create a coherent and consistent Central Area. This need to reflect on the Towns Heritage and look towards the future to create Southend as unique place and destination for leisure, shopping, living and working.

Comment

Representation ID: 2209

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

There is concern that proposals for the Seaway Car Park (OS8) are missing the opportunity to see this as a key gateway site for both the Town and Seafront and an opportunity to provide a greatly enhanced Public Car Park provision as part of the overall site redevelopment.

Support

Representation ID: 2210

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

In relation to OS9 the STOCKVALE GROUP wholly support the Museum but would seek the inclusion of a public car park which would appear to be feasible as the construction method for creating the Museum would involve extensive ground work, which could utilise the lower levels for a covered car park.

Support

Representation ID: 2223

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

The BID support the Public Realm improvements and further connectivity down through and into the Seafront. The BID recognise that Pier Hill has had a huge success in this regard.

Comment

Representation ID: 2224

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

There is a greater opportunity to look at the Seaway site as a Gateway both connecting the High Street around St Johns through Lucy Road and down onto the Seafront. This is a fantastic opportunity that could yield both greatly improved Public Realm, High Street offer and experience and a significant number of residential units.

Comment

Representation ID: 2232

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

STOCKVALE GROUP would wish to ensure that the Queensway policy area provides connectivity into the Seaway Car Park and the opportunity to see Seaway as a Gateway to the Seafront and the first visual connection to the Sea is not lost.

Comment

Representation ID: 2252

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

68% of recipients scored the Seafront as a top 10 priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 2260

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Due to the topography of the Seaway Car Park there is an opportunity to cut into the site and create a formal entrance that can create a visual gateway as part of the access route. There is an opportunity to accommodate somewhere in the region of 1500 parking spaces arranged over 2-3-4 floors. Traffic movements would then come in directly at the northern edge of the site and filter through into the layered car park.
To the south side Lucy Road could then be completely pedestrianised and a punch through to the seafront creating a large piazza activated by new A1, A3 uses to compliment both the Central Seafront and the links into the High Street. The pedestrian link would then improve the environs around St John's church. To drive some additional value it is perfectly legitimate to consider a number of floors of residential uses above the car park and retail/A3 commercial offer.

Comment

Representation ID: 2281

Received: 21/01/2016

Respondent: Mr Rod Levin

Put 'The Golden Mile' under a high-level cover to provide for inclement weather

Comment

Representation ID: 2310

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Indigo Planning

Agent: Royals Shopping Centre

Valad (Europe) Ltd are concerned about the proposal to produce a development brief in relation to Seaway Car Park and Marine Parade. There is sufficient opportunity to provide an appropriate level of detail in Policy CS1 and avoid the potential delay and uncertainty that may arise if a development brief is now progressed. The submission of an application for its redevelopment should not be delayed a result of a failure to produce a development brief

Support

Representation ID: 2311

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Indigo Planning

Agent: Royals Shopping Centre

Valad (Europe) support the proposed allocation of Opportunity Site 8 on the basis that it proposes a mixed use development that will help to bolster the town centre economy. The indicative phasing for the redevelopment of Opportunity Area 8 is supported but the Council must actively resist developments that would undermine this policy and what it seeks to achieve for the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 2312

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Indigo Planning

Agent: Royals Shopping Centre

Further wording should be provided which states that the redevelopment of the Central Seafront Policy Area will be key to the success of the Southend Central Area Action Plan and that in turn, it will help to improve the vitality and viability of the town centre and sustain existing facilities in the town centre such as The Royals by increasing footfall and linked trips within the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 2313

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Indigo Planning

Agent: Royals Shopping Centre

The Council should consider whether the inclusion of retail at Opportunity Site 8 would bring further benefits to the town centre. The success of this development and the subsequent beneficial spin off effects will largely be down to how well the site links in with the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 2314

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Indigo Planning

Agent: Royals Shopping Centre

The provision of appropriate signage to increase and enhance connectivity between the High Street and the seafront should also be included in the design criteria for both the Policy Area and Opportunity Site 8.

Comment

Representation ID: 2315

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Indigo Planning

Agent: Royals Shopping Centre

There is a real concern that if the revised proposals (yet to be submitted to the Council) for Fossetts Farm are approved, then town centre developments such as that at Seaway Car Park and further town centre investment generally will not go ahead to the detriment of the town centre.

Support

Representation ID: 2325

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Turnstone Southend Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Policy CS1.13.2 - Broadly support the proposed policy approach for OS8, but we do suggest some minor changes to the policy wording to Section 13ii in Policy CS1 to ensure the delivery of the development. The proposed development would make more efficient use of previously developed land within the town centre

Comment

Representation ID: 2326

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Turnstone Southend Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Policy CS1.13.2 - Delete the requirement for a development brief to be prepared for the site. A planning application is currently being prepared for the Seaway Car Park site. Section 13ii of Policy CS1 already provides sufficient detail to guide the proposed development on the site. The land required to deliver the proposed development at the Seaway Car Park site is controlled by a single developer. A development brief would add unnecessary delay and cost to the proposed development.
Suggested Change:
This should be taken forward through the preparation of a development brief. Design and layout solutions should allow for:

Comment

Representation ID: 2327

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Turnstone Southend Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Policy CS1.13.2 It should be clearly stated that residential development should be located on the Marine Parade site. Planning permission has already been granted for residential development on the Marine Parade site; referred to as Marine Plaza. Residential uses are not proposed within the current scheme on the Seaway Car Park site. It is not clear whether residential uses would be compatible with the proposed leisure uses, and further investigation would be required if residential uses were proposed.
Suggested Change:

Comment

Representation ID: 2328

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Turnstone Southend Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Policy CS1.13.2 There is a requirement for allocated sites to be deliverable and viable, and as such all parts of a policy should meet those requirements. The delivery of a new link from the Seaway Car Park site to Marine Parade is uncertain, and this should be expressed in the policy.
Suggested Change:
c. explore opportunities for a new link to Marine Parade from the Seaway site designed around 'Spanish Steps' subject to deliverability and viability;

Comment

Representation ID: 2329

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Turnstone Southend Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Policy CS1.13.2 It is not clear at this stage where the coach drop-off point would be relocated to, and it could be on or off site or a combination of both, and as such this uncertainty should be expressed in the policy.
Suggested Change
e. relocation of the coach-drop off point, either on or off-site or a combination of both, following the development of the Seaway site.

Object

Representation ID: 2350

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Belfairs Gardens Residents Association

Policy CS1.10g - Against proposal 10g to further develop City Beach. Comments have been made about flooding, accidents, risks to pedestrians in non-stopping traffic and no marked and lighted official crossing with blister paving put down where there is no crossing risking the lives of blind people.
City Beach - Kerbs are not only a safety zone for pedestrians but help to direct rain water to drains which should be adequate.
The seafront shared space is dangerous, has no formal crossings and various accidents have occurred. A proper crossing should be in place and not further extension of any shared space.

Object

Representation ID: 2351

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Belfairs Gardens Residents Association

Policy CS1.12.ii.c - The 'Spanish Steps ' are a thoroughly dangerous idea for all users and will have to go through property(ies). This should not be pursued.

Object

Representation ID: 2352

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Belfairs Gardens Residents Association

Policy CS1.12.iii - The Museum is in the wrong place not in tune with the leisure area. If just to shore up the cliffs it should be a leisure building. We do not have the like of the Mary Rose in the town and the thought that people coming down for the day to the beach, pier or lagoon will spend time in a museum is not considered to be sensible.

Comment

Representation ID: 2371

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend & District Pensioner's Campaign

(191) Seaways car park and Marine Parade. We do not believe another cinema is sustainable in Southend

Comment

Representation ID: 2372

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend & District Pensioner's Campaign

(193) We believe that the Saxon King find should be housed in Prittlewell. It is not appropriate to have this displayed on our seaside tourist area.

Comment

Representation ID: 2373

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend & District Pensioner's Campaign

Yes apart from the above

Support

Representation ID: 2383

Received: 12/02/2016

Respondent: Procuresure Consulting

OS9 - Southend-On-Sea museum position on the seafront below Clifftown parade is a good idea in principle but the residents of Clifftown will not allow access to be gained from Clifftown parade and all access to development whether it be by bus coach or car should be via the sea front road and not Clifftown parade, which is a residential road. The Museum should be reduced in height from its current plan to ensure it steps down from the cliff and not in line with the cliff. This drop down would stop the extension that juts out impeding on the Clifftown area, local views and the Victorian design of the area. Any brickwork used in the build should be of high quality and fit with the old red brick of the backdrop houses on the clifftop. The band stand and shelters should be incorporated in to the design of the museum to gently mix new with old and celebrate the heritage as the museum should not only exhibit artefacts and images but the local architecture of the seaside town too. Should the conservation area be extended this would assist in making the whole seafront and town in to a living museum but with a modern function. Remember shabby Chic is the new modern!! If the museum is built then all parking for the museum should be provided by the museum in underground parking (including coaches) and access should be from the seafront and no access at all from Clifftown Parade. This is a residential area and should be protected as such.

Comment

Representation ID: 2390

Received: 12/02/2016

Respondent: Procuresure Consulting

OS7 - The Council should actively seek investment for the pier and include such things as a proper boat marina for Southend, 24 hour access to the pier, ferry access to the pier, quality restaurants and cafes. Why not move the museum to the end of the pier, have yacht club facilities and a purpose built sheltered marina at the end of the pier?

Comment

Representation ID: 2412

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Historic England

Paragraph 4 of Policy PA6 relates to energy efficiency and relates to existing development. We note that versions of this paragraph appear under other policy areas and opportunity sites, so the following comments also apply.
Listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled monuments are exempted from the need to comply with energy efficiency requirements of the Regulations where compliance would unacceptably alter their character and appearance. Special considerations under Part L are also given to locally listed buildings, buildings of architectural and historic interest within registered parks and gardens and the curtilages of scheduled monuments, and buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture. Any policy encouraging energy efficiency should note that the application will be different in relation to these classes of buildings. Further information can be found in the Historic England advice Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings -Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to historically and traditionally constructed buildings https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/energy-efficiency-historic-buildings-ptl/. This similarly applies to Policy PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4, PA5, PA7, CS1, PA8 and PA9.

Comment

Representation ID: 2415

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Historic England

In the aims of the Central Seafront Policy Area we would suggest a small word order change as it currently reads as if the Pier is not an iconic landmark, but will be rejuvenated into one, instead of being the iconic landmark that it is which you are proposing will be rejuvenated.