35. Are there any other design considerations that the Council should consider when assessing schemes along the Seafront?

Comment

Representation ID: 449

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Our residents care deeply about their local area. They expect good quality design in new development, renovation schemes, streets and urban spaces whilst safeguarding and enhancing local character. Interesting buildings, quality streets, good relationships with existing development, and the use of public art and landscaping all help to develop local identity and places people are proud of. In the last few years Southend Council have constantly ignored such expectations of our residents which is in direct conflict with the above quotation, taken verbatim from Page 1 of the Council's own Design and Townscape Guide 2009. Clearly a change in fundamental attitude will be required if the latest DPD is to be worth the paper is written on - which may be difficult in the light of the Council entrenched position witnessed over the last decade.

Comment

Representation ID: 450

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Therein lies the conflict of expectation and reality which ensures that residents approach any document relating to design and planning with a jaundiced eye in the light of many years experience during which time Southend Council have widely and consistently ignored their own policies and guidelines. In other words we suggest that Southend Council have "form" and we fear that a change in attitude will be very difficult to implement. For this reason, the latest DPD will need to be carefully co-ordinated with the Design and Townscape Guide to avoid confusion,and eventually a lack of certainty.

Comment

Representation ID: 451

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

High quality design. DM8 contains many references to "high quality design standards" but the evidence to date is that bland references to high quality design is an ambition which has eluded the Council for many years. We therefore question whether the continuation of general "nice idea policies" based on all embracing phrases is a good idea. We strongly believe that it is the detail of any planning application that is important and hope that at last the Council may be willing to accept this argument.

Object

Representation ID: 626

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

The road between the Pier and the Kursal Roundabout should be made into an underground road, freeing the surface for pedestrians. Further underground car parking could be incorporated if funding permits.

Comment

Representation ID: 915

Received: 18/10/2010

Respondent: Cllr Alan Crystall

Seafront Public realm. Page 39.
Park and ride needed and seafront bus service .Link to tramway/land train from Victoria station to pier hill.
Adequate parking for sea front. Seaway CP is inadequate in Summer.
Long term Strategic objective Rochford, Hockley Rayleigh bypass from East of town to A 130.

Comment

Representation ID: 1005

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Microclimate