50. Do you agree with the suggested option?

Support

Representation ID: 484

Received: 03/08/2010

Respondent: Carole Mulroney

Strongly support the proetection of bungalows and resistance to conversions

Object

Representation ID: 631

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

The market should determine the housing mix.

Support

Representation ID: 661

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Adult & Community Services Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Agree with suggested option

Object

Representation ID: 1016

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The option is too inflexible, although the objective is laudable.
The policy when drafted should include wording "loss of bungalows and / or family housing will be resisted, unless their loss is part of redevelopment proposals which make equivalent or improved provision and / or meet other significant regeneration objectives."

Support

Representation ID: 1017

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

See comments to 50

Comment

Representation ID: 1263

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 56. The suggested option for protecting single storey dwellings could be strengthened by an Article 4 direction as put forward elsewhere for the sea front. The deletion of "deemed necessary" in the option would also help. It is doubtful whether further protection could be given to family accommodation as that is too broad a definition.