Policy DS5 - Transport, Access and Public Realm

Object

Representation ID: 2808

Received: 13/12/2016

Respondent: Pebble One, Subway, Baskin Robbins, Maple House

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

NOT POSITIVELY PREPARED
It is essential that the Transport Access and Public realm section recognises the need for tourists to be able to access the town and seafront by car. A survey carried out by Stockvale and the Seafront Traders Association has identified that 85% of tourists (out of 1500 surveyed) come by car.
The implementation of the points listed under CS1.c, f and g will be at the cost of the car. Bus lanes etc will increase journey times into the SCAAP area by car and result in more congestion. This will deter tourists from visiting Southend and result in cars turning around and going elsewhere as the roads are so congested.
The policies under section 2 are not sufficient to deal with the current or future demand for car spaces, particularly to the south.
The CPS and Local Transport Plan3 highlight the council's estimated 25% increase in demand for parking spaces in the SCAAP area in the next 4 years. The SCAAP and the measures above do nothing to address this extra demand that will arise.
On busy days, warm sunny days, there is a massive shortage of parking spaces and congestion results as cars are continually circulating looking for spaces. Visitors vow not to return as it can take hours to enter the town and get parked. Traffic jams back up along the A 127 and many cars turn around and go elsewhere.
This means on warm sunny days the seafront has reached it's maximium capacity as no more visitors can get here by car. As a result investment by businesses will stop. Visitors often cancel bookings as they can't get into the town. Visitors opt to visit other resorts and use out of town shopping centres such as Lakeside and Bluewater.
The policies do not meet the development needs of businesses on the seafront and the infrastructure will be insufficient to meet future growth in demand. The CPS recognises that there are already problems in the south on peak days but does nothing to deal with this.

Object

Representation ID: 2809

Received: 13/12/2016

Respondent: Pebble One, Subway, Baskin Robbins, Maple House

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
The NPPF is clear that policies should contribute to building a strong responsive and competitive economy. The provision of infrastructure is vital to this and the plan should proactively meet the development demands of business. This plan will deter from economic growth as it does not allow for the growth in visitor numbers by car.
The government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and different opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary.
The sustainable transport policies identified in the SCAAP will make journey by car to the central area much longer and much harder to navigate and thus will cause economic harm to the local economy. Residents lives will also suffer due to increased congestion and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 2811

Received: 13/12/2016

Respondent: Southend Seafront Traders Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

I am making this representation on behalf of the Seafront Traders Association in my role as Chair of
the association. The Association represents approximately 30 seafront businesses which are all located on the
seafront within the Southend Central Area. I have been a trader on the seafront for over 15 years and own 4 businesses located on Marine
Parade. I have been the Chair of this association for the past 3 years and a member for 15 years. I am also a director of the Southend BID.
Parking and the road network infrastructure in central Southend has been an issue that has caused
much debate within the association for many years. The association meets on a regular basis and the SCAAP document and consultation process has been widely discussed at meetings for the last
few years. The view of the businesses in the association is a unanimous one and has been represented in this form.
feel it is important for the association to be represented at the oral examination as the body represents a significant percentage of the businesses that are located in the main tourist part of
Southend and the scaap area (The Golden Mile as it has been named historically). I have spent considerable time over the last few years working with businesses and the council on
various committees with issues related to parking, congestion and infrastructure. I have spent time at the civic centre with the council's VMS team and have a good understanding of how this works. I have even walked round and counted every parking space in the SCAAP area to the south of the
railway line and can thus safely state that my figures for the parking capacity in this area are far more accurate and significantly different to those published. I have also spent considerable time this summer walking around the car parks on busy weekends
witnessing how the network performs and where problems exist. Sharing this first hand knowledge at the oral examination would be useful I think from the inspector's point of view.
We have significant evidence with regard to the accuracy of the council's vms system, and have strong concerns re the Car Parking Study commissioned by SBC. The oral examination is the best forum to discuss this information as it is difficult to scribe.

Object

Representation ID: 2812

Received: 13/12/2016

Respondent: Southend Seafront Traders Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

NOT POSITIVELY PREPARED
It is essential that the Transport Access and Public realm section recognises the need for tourists to be able to access the town and seafront by car. A survey carried out by Stockvale and the Seafront Traders Association has identified that 85% of tourists (out of 1500 surveyed) come by car.
Southend has built up its reputation over the last 100 years as a resort popular for family day trips,
with many visitors coming from the Thames gateway area, London, Essex and Kent. For families, the easiest, convenient and most cost effective mode of transport to visit Southend is the car. Sustainable modes of transport are often too impractical for family visits to Southend seaside. As car ownership has increased considerably over the last 20 years the importance of the car to the local tourist economy is vital. The scaap and the CPS fail to recognise this and its importance to the viability of the tourist industry in Southend. The implementation of the points listed above under no.1 will be at the cost of the car. Bus & cycle lanes etc will increase journey times into the SCAAP area by car and result in more congestion. This will deter tourists from visiting Southend and result in cars turning around and going elsewhere as
the roads are so congested.
The policies under section 2 are not sufficient to deal with the current or future demand for car spaces, particularly to the south.
The CPS and Local Transport Plan3 highlight the council's estimated 25% increase in demand for parking spaces in the SCAAP area in the next 4 years. The SCAAP and the measures above do
nothing to address the capacity shortages this extra demand will create.
On busy days, warm sunny days, there is already a massive shortage of parking spaces and congestion results as cars are continually circulating looking for spaces. Visitors vow not to return as it can take hours to enter the town and get parked. Traffic jams back up along the A 127 and many cars turn around and go elsewhere.
This means on warm sunny days the seafront has reached it's maximium capacity as no more visitors can get here and parked by car. As a result investment by businesses will stop. Visitors often cancel bookings as they can't get into the town. Visitors opt to visit other resorts and use out of town shopping centres such as Lakeside and Bluewater.
The policies do not meet the development needs of businesses on the seafront and the infrastructure will be insufficient to meet future growth in demand. The CPS recognises that there
are already existing problems in the south on peak days but does nothing to deal with this.

Object

Representation ID: 2813

Received: 13/12/2016

Respondent: Southend Seafront Traders Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY
The NPPF is clear that policies should contribute to building a strong responsive and competitive economy. The provision of infrastructure is vital to this and the plan should proactively meet the development demands of business. This plan will deter from economic growth as it does not allow
for the growth in visitor numbers by car.
The government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and different opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary.
The sustainable transport policies identified in the SCAAP will make journey by car to the central
area much longer and much harder to navigate and thus will cause economic harm to the local economy. Residents lives will also suffer due to increased congestion and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 2814

Received: 13/12/2016

Respondent: Southend Seafront Traders Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

JUSTIFIED
Paragraph 130 page 41
The Traders Association objects to the use of the Car Parking Study (CPS) commissioned by Southend Council and undertaken by Steer Davies Gleave as part of the evidence base for the
SCAAP. The study has been used to form the Parking Management Techniques adopted within the SCAAP.
We believe the Study is flawed for reasons set out below and will result in an inefficient transport network in and around the SCAAP area, with a severe shortage of parking capacity to the south resulting in heavy congestion at busy periods.
The Association has worked in conjunction with Stockvale Ltd and RPS planning in assessing the accuracy and reliability of the CPS. RPS have evaluated the CPS and their report has been submitted as part of Stockvale Ltd's representation. The Traders association fully support the findings of this report. The parking report and surveys have underestimated the parking capacity, particularly in the central area to the south of railway, and thus have underestimated the demand for spaces from visitors to the seafront. The surveys have been predominantly focused on the High Street and on bad weather days thus the parking situation & demand to the south of the railway line has been misrepresented.
The southern area has been identified as the area which experiences the greatest pressure on it parking supply. The report relies on over 99% of data from the VMS system which is inaccurate and
unreliable. Therefore the report is flawed and thus the related policies within the SCAAP are flawed.
Page 5 paragraph 2.1 of the CPS identifies the increased future estimated growth in demand for
parking within the scaap area in the Southend Local Transport Plan 3 by 2021, stating:
"The Southend L TP3 Strategy Document outlines key considerations related to Central Area parking provision. It notes that Central Area car parking demand is forecast to grow by 25% by 2021. 11
Although this is stated early in the CPS, no further policies have been suggested to increase the parking capacity to meet this forecast demand. Thus, the predicted increased future demand for
parking of 25% is not accounted for within the strategy.
Paragraph 2.1 goes on to say:
"The document notes that Southend Central Area has a high level of car parking, which can encourage people to drive to the Central Area rather than using other more sustainable modes.
For tourist attractions, high levels of car parking are necessary. The tourist industry in Southend relies upon the busiest days of the year to subsidise other periods of the year when they are not busy. The car parking demand for these busy periods therefore must be met to maximise their customer attraction. If this is not met, then it jeopardises the viability of the businesses throughout the remainder of the year, which has a significant knock-on effect in terms of jobs and the local economy.
There are many days where there is spare capacity in the parking network however these spaces
are vital as they fill up rapidly on busiest days. Figures from the council's car park department show the annual revenue per space in the Seafront car parks is higher than elsewhere in the town.
paragraph 2.1 recognises this by stating:
"The L TP highlights a seasonal shortfall of parking capacity in certain car parks in summer and in December."
Table 3.2 page 16 of survey report shows weather conditions on the survey days. These are incorrect and differ to the weather recorded at the time by traders:
13 August 2015 Rain & Thunderstorms
15 August 2015 Cloudy, Brightening up late afternoon
23 March 2016 Cloudy, Av temp 7c (90% seafront closed)
25 March 2016 Partly Cloudy, Av temp 11c
26 March 2016 Cloud & Rain, Av temp 1 Oc (storm Katie weekend)
30 May 2016 Mostly Cloudy, Av temp 14c
Please see attached time stamped photos taken on seafront on 4 of the dates above
No parking surveys done on a warm sunny day - ie in good weather
Thus surveys do not show how parking capacity in central area performs in good weather conditions, which obviously are the peak times. This report greatly influences the transport/parking section of SCAAP and thus it is flawed.
Page a Table 2.2 and page 9 table 2.4 shows the off street and on street car parking used in the report. However significant amounts of car parking spaces have not been included and some have not been identified. Table 2.3 page 8 identifies some car parks not included but gives no
explanation as to why. The Marine Plaza car park is a major car park on the seafront with 200 spaces that has not been identified? (planning permission granted 26th Oct 2000 ref 00/00765FUL)
Not including this car park underestimates the total car parking supply for tourists and visitors within the Southend Central Area and also (by not counting cars parked here) underestimates the total car parking demand created by tourists and visitors within the Southend Central Area. Similarly this has the effect of over stating the percentage figure on any day for spare capacity. Policy CS1
The scaap document has very little meaningful substance in terms or a strategic approach to tourism within the central area. The document fails to understand the drivers behind tourism and the attractions, facilities and infrastructure that is needed to grow tourism within the scaap area. The
dpd in effect neglects the day visitor to the area for a desire to attract longer stay visitors. It is important to try to encourage visitors to stay for longer but this should not be at the expense of the
vast amount of day visitors which form the bulk of the industry's customer base.

Object

Representation ID: 2817

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Aaron Dorn

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

I wanted to find out about apparent (ridiculous) proposal to build on more car parks in the town, but you've made it too complicated for laypersons directly affected by it.

Object

Representation ID: 2818

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Mrs Katherine Gibbinson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

I have heard about the plans to make Southend a car free zone. I feel that this would be inappropriate for the town for a number of reasons. I have 3 disabled children and the only way I can enjoy the seafront is if I travel by car. This is true for many people with disabilities and being car free could be considered discriminatory towards them. I think you would find that in reality the majority of visitors to the town travel by car. I think that the study showing only 25 percent may have been conducted outside of the train station.

Object

Representation ID: 2820

Received: 12/12/2016

Respondent: Goldwyns

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

There is already a lack of car parking available in the town and the plans to develop sites which are currently car parks appear nonsensical.

Object

Representation ID: 2823

Received: 12/12/2016

Respondent: Goldwyns

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

I understand that there will be bicycle/bus lanes, which will simply further add to the already congested state of the roads in the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 2824

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Mrs Vivien Fletcher

Concerned about the reduction of car parking spaces at Tyler's Ave, Seaway and Marine Plaza. Parking in the town is already poor and absolutely object to the removal of any more parking places. This summer I have had many problems finding both parking spaces and finding working meters. It is as if the Council want to deter visitors and make things as difficult as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 2827

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Gillian Beeching

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

On most occasions we have visited Southend, especially in the summer, we have found traffic into the town slow and the parking around the seafront awful - sometimes taking at least 45 minutes to find a space and almost getting in a fight on one occasion. Every time we visit it is the thing that mars my anticipation of arriving, travelling that far with 2 young children and not knowing how long we will be driving round to find a space.
Due to this I have researched travelling to Southend by public transport, but this would take me even longer than the journey time and cost a lot more, plus would mean having to walk further from the station or getting another bus with 2 kids, so driving is still our best option.
I'm concerned that the SCAAP seems to be reducing the amount of parking available for getting easily to the Seafront.
Ensure that there is no net loss in car parking to the south of the Southend Central Area;" and if the plan goes ahead let me know where I should park!

Object

Representation ID: 2851

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

We are very concerned about this Policy. It is partly based on the Car Parking Study (CPS), undertaken by Steer Davis Gleave, Reference 22958604, dated November 2016. The Stockvale Group commissioned a review of the CPS by RPS Transport. This review is summarised in the RPS
Technical Note submitted with these representations.
This review highlights a significant number of errors and omissions within the report which in our view demonstrate that this is not a robust evidence base on which to build policies on transport and access. In summary, these points include:
* No recognition of the fact that the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) forecasts a 25% increase in parking demand by 2021, which is ignored throughout the document. LTP3 also recognises a
shortfall in seafront car parking in the summer.
* The report underestimates both parking supply and demand.
* The report severely underestimates tourism demand in the seafront area due to a number of omissions/errors. The RPS Transport Technical Note states that it has "no confidence" in the results for this area (Paragraph 66/67).
* The methodology used actually has the effect of suppressing peak demand and spreading it throughout the day (Paragraph 71) and makes no attempt to assess the true demand (Paragraph 75).
* Visitors to the seafront area choose not to use capacity elsewhere in the Central Area when it is available, but this is not recognised in the CPS (Paragraph 91).
* The busiest days for the seafront are not assessed (Paragraph 98).
* Key car parks are excluded from the calculations of the impacts of the Opportunity Sites. This seriously underestimates the number of spaces lost to development and overestimates parking availability.
* RPS concludes that the Opportunity Sites will result in a net loss of parking spaces, so will not cater for their own impact, let alone provide an increase in spaces to allow for the growth of Southend's seafront attractions. Indeed, the Opportunity Sites result in a loss of
car parking space in the areas where there is already significant pressure and a predicted significant increase by 2021.
* In addition, the visitor surveys were mainly undertaken in the Town Centre area, yet the report identifies the main car parking pressure as being the seafront, and there is little attempt to disaggregate the results.
* The recommendations mainly assist the Town Centre area, not the seafront.
We cannot rely on the CPS and we therefore do not consider policies that are clearly based upon the conclusions and recommendations of the CPS as being sound.
Our representations to Paragraphs 123 to 136 summarise a large amount of our concerns and should be read in conjunction with our representations on this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 2852

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

We support 1a, the provision of strategic junction improvements, which is important to improve vehicle circulation and to accommodate growth.

Support

Representation ID: 2853

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

We also support 1b, which is to better manage the demand on the road network. However, the RPS Transport Technical Note demonstrates that visitors to the seafront do not like to utilise car parks elsewhere in the Central Area, even when there is spare capacity. Traffic management measures are only, therefore, part of the solution, and there needs to be a focus on convenient supply for the seafront area, noting that evidence in the Stockvale visitor survey (reported in the RPS Note) shows that car occupancy is very high amongst visitors to Adventure Island as they are predominantly families, so at these occupancy levels this is actually a sustainable use of the road network.

Support

Representation ID: 2854

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

We strongly support 1g, as there needs to be a marked improvement in the quality of pedestrian routes from the main parking areas and Town Centre to the seafront areas.

Object

Representation ID: 2855

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

We object to 2a, as this only proposes to "maintain parking capacity".

Object

Representation ID: 2856

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

We strongly object to the wording of 2b, which states that the Council will "Ensure that there is no net loss in car parking to the south of the Southend Central Area". We set out in some detail our concerns about this statement in our representations to Paragraph 135, and these representations should be read as representations to Part 2b of Policy DS5. The proposals to redevelop three of the Council's main seafront car parks (Tylers Avenue, Seaways and Marine Plaza) have resulted in great uncertainty for Stockvale, which is impacting upon its investment plans for Adventure Island (Southends most visited commercial attraction and the UK's most successful seaside fun park) and the Sea-Life Adventure aquarium attraction. Business needs confidence to invest; the SCAAP as currently drafted, and most worryingly Policies DS5 and CS1, have almost entirely removed confidence and this is now holding back investment and growth. It has already resulted in the cancellation of significant projects at Adventure Island. A Policy that results in such a lack of certainty and confidence is inherently unsound and not effective.
The RPS Technical Note shows that there is already significant pressure on car parks in the Central South Area that serve the seafront. The SCAAP recognises the need to support the growth of businesses on the seafront, as set out in the Vision and Strategic Objectives (page 12). It states in Paragraph 28 that the Council's vision is to promote economic growth. Specifically, in Paragraph 29 it
states that a Strategic Objective is to attract "greater visitor numbers", which is a direct reference to
the town as a resort. Paragraph 30 also reiterates that the Council is aiming to support growth, as does Paragraph 81. LTP3 also advises planning for a 25% increase in car parking demand in the central area (see RPS Technical Note). The businesses along Southend seafront had been planning for growth, including The Stockvale Group at their attractions Adventure Island and Sea Life Adventure, as well as investment in their various sea front catering establishments. Yet this policy is only looking for no net loss in car parking capacity, and when coupled with Policy CS1 (which allows for the redevelopment of the three most important car parks serving the seafront), it has left businesses with a level of uncertainty that is not conducive to investment as there can be no confidence that these policies will support growth. Quite the contrary, these proposed policies as drafted are the single biggest cause of business uncertainty amongst seafront operators.
In addition to not being effective, by having the opposite effect to that intended in the early sections of the SCAAP, this approach is also not justified, especially when our work has shown that "no net loss" is likely to mean a significant loss of parking in the seafront area.

Object

Representation ID: 2857

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

We also object to 2c, as it proposes acting on the outcomes of the Parking Study. As set out in the RPS Technical Note, this study cannot be relied upon as it does not correctly respond to the parking situation in the seafront area, and because of this the conclusions and recommendations are seriously flawed. This Plan cannot be sound if it is relying on this Study. This is a fundamental issue with this and other policies in the SCAAP and the seafront traders are very concerned that the Plan might be adopted on the basis of this flawed work. We ask that this is carefully reviewed prior to the adoption of this part of the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 2858

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Whilst the approach set out in 2f is welcomed (relieving pressure on the more well-used car parks), this is only likely to have a marginal impact, for the reasons set out in the RPS Technical Note. In addition, the supporting text does not adequately explain how this can be done

Object

Representation ID: 2883

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Transport and Access into the Town is a key theme and in order to deliver the aspired number of new dwellings and new jobs in the Central Area, the BID wish to see this appropriately addressed through the SCAAP documentation. At present the BID does not believe that the Transport, Access and Parking issues have been given enough consideration. Nor has the ability of the existing infrastructure to cope with the increased pressure on it that will be created from the aspirational growth. During busy periods business believes that the parking and infrastructure network is insufficient to deal with existing demand, let alone cope with the predicted growth.

The Council's Local Transport Plan 3 estimates the growth in demand for car parking in the central area over the next 4 years will be 25%. No policy is in place within the scaap to deal with this estimated shortage in capacity.
The BID notes that the omission of an effective parking strategy, stating the need to increase parking stock over the next 4 years, neglects the needs of existing business and the development needs of the area as well as the existing and future infrastructure requirements.

The BID would like to emphasise its concern that the above, combined with the desired sustainable transport measures proposed in DS5, will lead to a major shortage of parking capacity during peak periods and heavy congestion throughout the area.

The Seafront businesses rely on easy access to car parking and convenient access to the seafront so the large number of families visiting by car can access the tourist attractions on the seafront easily. The retail businesses located in and around the high street rely on a large supply of easy to access car parking spaces to encourage trips into the high street. The BID believe the omission of planned infrastructure improvements and increases in the parking stock will create parking chaos and congestion and drive the customers of its businesses elsewhere. Tourists will simply choose another resort destination and increasing numbers of shoppers will choose out of town shopping centres and retail parks such as Lakeside and the Mayflower retail Park at Basildon.

Object

Representation ID: 2884

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Members of the BID have raised considerable concerns as to the validity of the evidence in the form of the Car Parking Study produced by Steer Davies Gleave for SBC. The CPS helped formed the transport and access policy DS5.

The parking report and surveys have underestimated the parking capacity, particularly in the central area to the south of railway, and thus have underestimated the demand for spaces
from visitors to the seafront. The surveys have been predominantly focused on the High Street and on bad weather days thus the parking situation & demand to the south of the railway line has been misrepresented. The southern area has been identified as the area which experiences the greatest pressure on its parking supply. The report relies heavily on data from the VMS system which is inaccurate and unreliable. Therefore the report cannot
be relied upon and thus the related policy within the SCAAP, DS5 is flawed.
The policy as it stands will result in an inefficient transport network in and around the SCAAP area, with a severe shortage of parking capacity to the south resulting in heavy congestion at busy periods, clogging up the road network across the whole of Southend.

The CPS makes reference to car parking studies carried out on 6 dates over 2015 and 2016. SBC consulted the BID board of directors in February 2016 as to when the BID thought the surveys should be carried out to best give an indication of how the parking network performs in busy periods. The recommendations from the BID were that the council should not conduct any surveys at Easter and should concentrate surveys on hot sunny weekends during July and August. Following on from this advice SBC conducted surveys at Easter and one in May but none in July or August 2016!
The dates the surveys were done on experienced poor weather conditions, and thus the high street and seafront were not busy. Thus the surveys do not show how the network copes at peak busy times, ie when the sun is out and it is warm. Table 3.2 page 16 of survey report shows weather conditions on the survey days. The weather conditions were not published in any earlier version of the dpd. The BID contests the weather conditions published by SDG in the CPS. Weather conditions on these dates were not as described in the CPS, but were far worse.

Object

Representation ID: 2885

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Most of the opportunity sites in the scaap are large car parks owned by SBC. Due to the scale and complexity of developments that would likely replace the car parks the BID does not see the sites as deliverable in the next 4 years.

Object

Representation ID: 2886

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Great emphasis has been placed in the NPPF on the 'golden thread' of sustainable development. The scaap should deliver a strategy that leads to the growth of a strong economy within the area, and the economic role is one of the key principles of sustainable development.
"an economic role -contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure"
A major concern held by the businesses in the BID is that policy DS5 will make access to the central area by car difficult and frustrating, driving it's customer base elsewhere. This will have a severe negative impact on economic growth and will threaten the viability of retail and tourism within the central area. This policy thus is inconsistent with the NPPF.