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.

Comment

Representation ID: 2416

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Historic England

Recommend that paragraph 184 in the supporting text includes conservation areas and listed buildings as specific 'environmental designations' as this links through to paragraph1 of Policy CS1 which talks about the impact of proposals on 'environmental designations'.

Support

Representation ID: 2417

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome paragraph 4 of Policy CS1

Support

Representation ID: 2423

Received: 25/02/2016

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are very supportive of this policy. Point 5, in particular, is very positive, as it recognises the opportunity that new development provides for integrating tidal defences into the public realm.

Comment

Representation ID: 2424

Received: 25/02/2016

Respondent: Environment Agency

Point 7 could potentially be strengthened by allowing development south of the sea wall only by exception and where the proposed land use is deemed to be 'water compatible' as defined in the Planning Practice Guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 2454

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

Up to 1970 we had a direct bus route from Southend Victoria Railway station down the High street, down Pier Hill to and along the sea front. Unfortunately engineers of the day ignored our access committee and went along with their plans of pedestrianising the high street and cutting off the sea front from the high street restricting hundreds of people getting to the shops by bus.

Comment

Representation ID: 2455

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

OS8 - Spanish steps will certainly stop many disabled people from getting to the sea front. Spanish steps are not accessible and should not be used.

Comment

Representation ID: 2456

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

The City Beach scheme was built without proper consultation and did not take into account the needs of disabled people. The Courtesy crossings are not legal crossings and cannot be used safely by blind people. The whole area should be reinstated to a proper road with kerbs and proper pedestrian crossings, with audible signals and tactile markings. The City Beach scheme should not be extended.

Comment

Representation ID: 2457

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

A bus service should be established from the Kursaal to Chalkwell along the sea front.

Comment

Representation ID: 2458

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

OS9 - The proposed new Museum will not be able to be visited by non car drivers if you do not have a bus service, which is discrimination.

Comment

Representation ID: 2459

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

Currently there is no cycle route at City Beach and cycles ride illegally on the foot path. A cycle route should be built the whole length of the sea front on the road and not on the footway. The cyclists should stop at pedestrian crossings.

Comment

Representation ID: 2460

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

There should be more public toilets, none are listed.

Comment

Representation ID: 2461

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

In the central seafront policy area there should also be parking for disabled people at frequent intervals.

Support

Representation ID: 2469

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Support enhancement of the Pier as national icon and a significant regeneration and enhancement of this key tourist attraction, which at present underperforms both in terms of its attraction and in terms of its visitor experience.