9. Do you consider the alternative options to be more appropriate? If so, please state why.

Comment

Representation ID: 638

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

No but it should be recognised that the Urban Place Supplement to the Essex Design Guide does provide some useful advice on the approach to urban design principles that would be appropriate to Southend and is not wholly focussed on rural or the vernacular

Comment

Representation ID: 983

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Q9). 1 "Ensuring that tall buildings would only be permitted in the sites / areas identified in the Area Action Plans". This approach is inflexible and does not allow for tall (or large) buildings to come forward in changing circumstances over the life of the plan and on sites not foreseen in the AAPS
This wording should be deleted. The policy should allow for tall buildings to come forward on other sites, provided they meet the policy criteria.
Reference to be made to the joint CABE / EH guidance on Tall Buildings July 2007
Although the policy is entitled "Tall Buildings" the detail in points (i)-(vi) relate to both tall and large building. This is confusing and may results in criteria that are not appropriate being used to assess tall rather than large buildings.
e.g. (ii) building to relate in "scale and character to surrounding buildings" - not an appropriate criteria to consider introduction of tall buildings.
Tall buildings are defined as being different (standing out) from their surroundings or prevailing townscape scale. Therefore they are unlikely to relate to the scale of the surrounding.

Comment

Representation ID: 984

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

(1) (iv) "Incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials." - policy too rigid and inflexible
Should read "high standard of design" and "appropriate materials"
(1) ((vi) "Make a significant contribution to local regeneration"
The word "local "is undefined and confusing and should be removed.