12. Do you agree with the suggested option?

Support

Representation ID: 473

Received: 03/08/2010

Respondent: Carole Mulroney

Particular care needs to be taken in historic areas to ensure there is no detrimental effect on conservation interests

Support

Representation ID: 535

Received: 04/08/2010

Respondent: Cllr Burdett

DM3 - In agreement with a lack of family homes

Support

Representation ID: 615

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

Generally yes but the parking restriction should also be look at on a case by case basis. If conversion is taking place to provide student accommodation then parking should not be required because students do not usually have cars.

Support

Representation ID: 642

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Renaissance Southend supports the thrust behind the suggested option to protect existing established residential areas and encourage development to specific locations, such as the town centre, where opportunity and scope exists for new housing. The Character Study should be incorporated to give additional robustness to policy that seeks to protect specific locations from overdevelopment or inappropriate schemes that cumulatively would result in a change in character to the detriment of local amenity.

Comment

Representation ID: 765

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 23. The analysis of the problems caused by conversion into flats is self evident and begs the question as to why the Council did so little in the past to resist the trend. Given the nature of the problems e.g. increased parking, it is difficult to see how a continued supply of 1 and 2 bed flats can be assured to satisfy the demand. Your suggested option does not deal with the loss of family accommodation, nor loss of private amenity space and is too vague on the concentration of flatted units in a street. Certainly the Council should provide a lower limit on conversions and 125sm seems an appropriate minimum. So far as the protection of bungalows is concerned there needs to be a firmer line taken which, aside from character and appearance, includes going against the grain of the area, intensifying activity levels and adversely affecting the living conditions of neighbours.

Comment

Representation ID: 784

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

Issue DM3 - Intensification of Existing Residential Sites and Areas: The proposed approach of the policy needs to be subject of wholesale review in light of the changes to the classification of backland and infill land in PPS3;

Comment

Representation ID: 947

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

Issue DM3 - Intensification of Existing Residential Sites and Areas, p22
The second paragraph on page 23 refers to the cumulative impacts on climate change, surface water flooding and biodiversity. Historic environment should also be included within this list.

Comment

Representation ID: 985

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Need to differentiate in policy terms between additional development, conversion and redevelopment, as different levels of intensification are likely to be appropriate for each of these types of development proposals.
In this context it is not clear what is meant by "over intensification"

Object

Representation ID: 986

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The requirement for all new homes, including conversions, to meet Lifetime Homes Standards, is too onerous.
Redraft policy "should aim to be 100% Lifetime Homes Standards, unless there are special circumstances, which can be demonstrated. "

Comment

Representation ID: 987

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

To be consistent with other policies in this DPD and the CAAP the policy on floorspace calculation to support conversion should be on Gross Internal Area, rather than Net Internal Area

Comment

Representation ID: 1257

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

This also should be some protection as to permitted development, in particular utilising roof space, where the extensions are more dominate and are out of keeping with the integrity of the original roof. (i.e. hipped to gable, or a flatted dormer that fits uncomfortably with the existing roof line)

Comment

Representation ID: 1258

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

There is a potential policy conflict arising from the interaction between these policies on residential intensification and other policies, in particular those on Tall Buildings