33. Do you agree with the suggested option?

Comment

Representation ID: 452

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Context. DM8 also contains many generalities under the heading "context" which sounds fine. But, as ever, the devil is in the detail. We are not hopeful in this regard.

Support

Representation ID: 453

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

The Council's stated approach in DM8 ["Our approach is"] contains a commitment to ensuring that site specific [e.g. Undercliff Gardens] design briefs and design codes are prepared - which is welcome, but hopefully this will cover all sites in the borough and not just major development sites as suggested. We suggest that all residents wish to live in an area of which they can be proud and not just those affected by major developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 454

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

A sense of place. Item 4 confirms a commitment to recognize a sense of place and to retain and protect from any development that would adversely affect their character, appearance and setting. TOO LATE! The approval of the latest planning application for 82 Undercliff Gardens shows a total disregard for this commitment and has wrecked any chance of that policy being implemented in spite of strong written protests by this Society.

Support

Representation ID: 478

Received: 03/08/2010

Respondent: Carole Mulroney

Particular attention should be paid to the historic areas of the Borough to ensure that the public realm sets a good example for private development and enhances the areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 536

Received: 04/08/2010

Respondent: Cllr Burdett

DM8 -The slot machines in my opinion do not give the impression of high quality. Like character zones - but most day trippers go to the area by the slot machines.

Comment

Representation ID: 670

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

There should be a clear link in the policy to more detailed proposals to be contained within the Greenspace and Green Grid Strategy SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 769

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 42. There is nothing specific in the document to suggest that an Article 4 directive is needed. This seems somewhat draconian.

Support

Representation ID: 938

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: Environment Agency

Issue DM8: Question 33
We generally agree with the approach being taken in this suggested option. Public realm and open space along the seafront presents opportunities to tie-in with the Thames Gateway Parklands vision and the wider green-grid initiatives.

Under part 1 we would suggest that native planting is sought rather than purely aesthetic planting. Using species of local provenance would maximise the ecological value of sites.

As mentioned above, under Part 3, seeking opportunities for the incorporation of innovative flood defences into public realm and open space design would not only afford protection to the development, but could also make better use of the riverfront areas. The TE2100 Plan provides a vision for this area where improvements to the flood risk management system provide amenity, recreation and environmental enhancement. This could also positively contribute to the Thames Gateway Parklands vision.

Under Part 11 you should also ensure that development will improve and enhance biodiversity and the natural environment. Where flood defences are to be redesigned or improved as part of a development, their design can add to the ecological value of the area. Setting back defences in some areas could also allow for foreshore habitat enhancement or recreation to mitigate for the impacts of coastal squeeze brought about by climate change.

Comment

Representation ID: 958

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

SECTION 5 THE SEAFRONT

In discussing the main functions of the estuary, there is a lack of consideration given to the historic environment, for example the grazing lands to the north of Southend are an area of high historical interest.

Comment

Representation ID: 959

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

Issue DM8 - Seafront Public Realm and Open Space

The introductory paragraph on page 39 should include mention of the historic environment within the identification of other environmental resources of the area. This should also be brought forward into the bullet-pointed list lower down this page. It could be incorporated into the last two points.

Support

Representation ID: 1002

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

There are some omissions and suggested changes to the suggested option:

Comment

Representation ID: 1261

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

All public realm works should also include consideration of flood risk (point 3)
The detailed proposal to enhance Cliff Gardens may be more appropriately included in the CAAP

Comment

Representation ID: 1262

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Seaside Character Zones should be identified in policy text and on plan in both the Submission Draft of the DMDPD and CAAP