5. Do you agree with the suggested option?

Support

Representation ID: 471

Received: 03/08/2010

Respondent: Carole Mulroney

Option supported

Comment

Representation ID: 610

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

As far as they go the suggestions are good, however the Council are constrained in meeting these objectives because they have incorporated the plans devised by Renaissance Southend Ltd. in their development structure and it is considered by Herbert Grove Residents that these plans do not agree with the suggested options.

Support

Representation ID: 637

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Renaissance Southend supports the suggested Option for DM1.

Suggested that para.3 could be strengthened and amended to read: Ensuring that the requirements of sustainable development are fully reflected in the design and layout to give priority to the needs of pedestrians (including disabled people and those with restricted mobility), cyclists and access to public transport.

Para 8. should be strengthened with a clearer commitment to raising design quality standards and ensuring the D&A statements are prepared early enough on major schemes to inform the decision making process rather than justify what has already been decided.

Support

Representation ID: 702

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Planning Perspectives LLP

Question 5
The proposed approach is supported. In particular, the approach taken towards density is the correct one as this should always be design led and not prescriptive. A comprehensive approach should be taken towards the development of a site, which aims to optimise the use of land whilst taking account of local context. Design policies must be flexible enough to ensure that areas which are in need of regeneration can be viably developed.

Support

Representation ID: 942

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

Issue DM1 Design of Developments
Context, p16/17
English Heritage welcomes the Borough Wide Character Study that is being commissioned. We would be pleased to advise on the brief or, if the study is already underway, to comment on the draft report.

We agree with the statement that the density of new schemes should arise from the design rather than be imposed as a constraint at the beginning.

We note on page 17 that you encourage pre-application discussion involving the local planning authority and the local community. Engagement with other stakeholders and environmental bodies, including English heritage should also be encouraged, where appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 943

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

Design of developments - suggested option, p17.
English Heritage supports the criteria listed, especially ii) historic development and local vernacular and iii) urban grain and morphology. However, these need to be identified and understood as part of a character study exercise.

Design of developments - alternative options 1to 4, p18
English Heritage agrees that these options are not appropriate in Southend.

Relevant Local Plan saved policies, p19
Under saved policies, we consider the heritage policies C1, C4, C5 and C6 should be mentioned.

Support

Representation ID: 973

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Generally support design objectives and criteria for assessment of development proposals. However we consider that the policy is too inflexible and makes no allowance for other factors. The preferred option places high quality of design above all other planning considerations, such as feasibility/viability, in all cases.

Comment

Representation ID: 974

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The policy focuses too much on high-quality architectural design and townscape, at the expense of a variety of environmental, social and economic factors that should have a strong influence on the design of sustainable development. (Q7)
The policy should be redrafted to include many of the criteria currently included in DM4 and in Sections 8.4- 8.11 (Addressing Resource Minimisation And Carbon Emissions) of the CAAP.
­ Flood risk
­ Passive design for energy efficiency and carbon minimisation
­ Water efficient design and SUDS
­ Energy efficiency - district heat and energy systems
­ Green Travel Plans
­ Part L of Building Regs
­ Zero Carbon developments by 2016

Comment

Representation ID: 976

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The detailed design criteria set out in DM1 (1) are very detailed and there is potential for the detail to overlap / or conflict with the policies of the Design and Townscape Guide SPD, and with Policies in Section 8 of CAAP leading to duplication and potential confusion.
Replace the detailed criteria in the numbered bullet points in DM1 (1) with a cross reference to the DTG SPD and ensure that all points are covered in the SPD.
If this is not considered appropriate, changes are required to the detail in Policy DM1 (1) subsections as set out below in this table.

Comment

Representation ID: 977

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

1 (1) The links between the development and adjoining / surrounding areas are as important as the links to the wider areas. Suggest policy should address "local context" in addition to the wider context.
Suggest policy should include the words "and local" after the word "wider"
1 (vii) - the wording "Natural environment and trees" is inappropriate in an built urban context
Add the words "and trees" to sub-para (iv)
Replace 1 (vii) with "Ecology and environment "l
1(ix) - there will be locations in the Borough, especially in the Central Area where Council and/or applicant may not want to enhance uses throughout the night
1(x) "Levels of activity" is ambiguous and may mean either "economic activity" i.e. jobs created on site or "social activity" - pedestrian movements / increased usage of urban space within and around the site

Comment

Representation ID: 978

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

5 - There is no justification for the design of a development particular regard to "Secure by Design" principles over other design objectives. In certain localities these principles could militate against the desire for increased pedestrian linkages and permeability.
This criteria should be deleted

Comment

Representation ID: 980

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

8 - Design and Townscape Guide SPD principles to be followed.
This wording should be incorporated into DM1 (1)

Comment

Representation ID: 981

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Para 5.6.7
We consider that the aspiration for high quality design is laudable, but needs to be tempered by commercial realities.
Although we support the thrust of the preferred option, the final draft policy needs to be modified so that the approach, although design-led, is more flexible. The policy should allow the design of development proposals to be considered on a site-by-site basis, having regard to local circumstances, the need to meet other objectives within the LDF and any other relevant factors.

Comment

Representation ID: 1243

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

These DM policy sections should be removed from DMP4 and CAAP and redrafted as one policy in Design and Townscape SPD, or as an interim measure, in the DMDPD