132

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016

Representation ID: 2534

Received: 14/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Michael Thwaites

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The SCAAP fails to recognise the importance of day visitors and the use of the car, sufficiently accessible, convenient quality parking to the seafront to cater for primarily family visitors and importance of peak days to businesses. It also has glaring omissions in terms of a parking strategy and tourist strategy which are fundamental l to the unique character of southend and its huge potential to grow expand and encourage businesses to invest.

Full text:

CS1 /DS5
There is no recognition throughout the plan that Southend as a seaside resort attracts visitors from London, across the county of essex and from the region. The profile of visitors is extensively families and there preferred mode of transport to access the seafront is by car.
The SCAAP does not positively recognise that the economy of the town is very much built on day visitors and majors on longer stay visitors which in its self is commendable but not at the expense of the day visitors. We do not have the propensity of accommodation etc like many other seaside towns and because of this and proximity out day visitors have been the backbone of the local economy. If southend council aspires to build on the already thriving economy, its is a high risk strategy simply to ignore our very important day trippers. The plan also completely neglects the fact that the peak days (when the sun shines) is essential to each and every businesses survival for the rest of the year. It is a fact that our geographical location and difficulty in accesses the seafront is also completely lost in this document. It we want the town to thrive and proper there needs to be an increase in parking and the SCAAP reliance on no net loss is totally unacceptable.

Attachments:

Object

Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016

Representation ID: 2552

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

SKArchitects provide architectural and planning consultancy to the Stockvale Group the main seafront business together with a number of other seafront and town centre businesses.
CS1/DS5
It is apparent from the manner in which the SCAAP has been compiled that there is a lack of understanding of the demographics of visitors to Southend on Sea and indeed the social economics of the wider catchment area of South Essex and East London.
Clearly Southend is a strong day visitor attraction which mainly caters for families from South Essex and East London. The majority of these visitors travel to the town by car and experience great difficulty in travelling into the town and indeed finding a parking space within proximity to the Central Seafront.
It is also clear that whilst tourism is a key strength the fragility of the tourist economy is dependent upon easy vehicular access into the town and parking arrangements once in the Central Seafront area. We believe that the Local Authority through the SCAAP have dramatically under represented the value of the tourist economy to the SCAAP area.
The SCAAP fails completely to have regard for the necessity of the Seafront businesses to operate to maximum capacity on the sunny days. Without maximizing the income on such days, there is a challenge to the very sustainability of the Seafront as an attraction and the associated Seafront businesses.
Whilst the Council would like to see the tourist economy increase and include longer stay visits, this to some extent negates the success of the day visits and the importance of those day visits to the local economy. The Local Authority's encouragement of staycation as opposed to day visits will potentially be to the detriment of the existing seaside offer. This is likely to see a decline of the family orientated day visits that Stockvale in the main have promoted and extensively invested in. Through the continued reinvestment by the Stockvale Group and other Seafront businesses Southend as a seaside town has seen significant regeneration and is now a safe, clean, high quality family destination of choice.
The SCAAP is primarily based on the residential intensification of the central area with development opportunities identified on existing public car parks. Through the SCAAP the Council want to see and encourage alternative modes of transport within the Central Area. This should be an aspiration for the new residents in the Town Centre and not day visitors. However in reality there will be a parking demand as a result of the proposed residential re-use and regeneration of the Central Area and this will be at further detriment to the already strained public car parking provision and in particular the southern part of the SCAAP area.
Whilst the Council have indicated no net loss, this is not an aspiration for growth! Indeed it has been made very clear to the Council through various consultations that their position of no net loss will see no further growth or investment from the seafront businesses. The seafront economy is already declining due to the constrained access and parking arrangements and the SCAAP does not encourage or indicate any improvement.
It is also apparent that the Council's approach towards consultation, has seen a total lack of any acceptance or awareness of the importance of the tourist economy to the Central Area and indeed the difference between tourism and leisure. The Seafront businesses have gone to lengths to explain this difference to the Council through their consultation responses to-date which have been completely discarded. This has currently removed any confidence in those businesses to further invest and will, as suggested see a decline in the Seafront and tourist economy of Southend unless the Local Authoritiy dramatically review the proposed SCAAP.
As part of the car parking study in the local transport plan 3 the Central Area parking demand is forecast to grow by 25% by 2021. The car park study undertaken by Steer Davies Gleave as part of the SCAAP takes no account of this projected growth and the Councils position in no net loss against their own local transport plan indicates a clear flaw in the SCAAP analysis of Public Car Parking Provision.
Summary
Through the SCAAP Southend on Sea Borough Council have failed to recognise the difference between tourism and leisure and indeed the importance of access and easy parking in close proximity to the Central Seafront for the tourist economy day visitor customer base.
The Council have identified a number of the surface car parks for redevelopment with a principle of no net loss of car parking spaces, however, this has been made clear through consultation that this a standstill position which will not encourage any further re-investment and growth in the tourist economy.
Southend is in a unique position in terms of the success of its tourist economy and Central Seafront. This relies heavily on its catchment area of South Essex and East London and the unique social economics and demographics of its geography and its proximity to London.
The Seafront economy is absolutely reliant on day visits. The day visits market is being and will further be discouraged by the sheer frustration of visitors' inability to easily access the town and to find convenient car parking facilities in close proximity to the Seafront.
If the Council do not engage in the concerns that have been raised by the Seafront businesses it is inevitable that the renewal and regeneration that has occurred over the last two decades will start to recede and the Seafront will decline like many other seasides around Britain.

Full text:

SKArchitects as planning consultancy to Stockvale Group and other seafront businesses.

Attachments:

Comment

Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016

Representation ID: 2658

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Belfairs Gardens Residents Association

Representation Summary:

There is also a statement that there is an excess of parking available. This has been in these plans for years. In my opinion they take account of all the sea front parking which few would park at and walk uphill from to shop in Hamlet Court Road or the town centre. Also the Cliffs Pavilion car park is not used much when a show is not taking place. This is not near shops and any restaurants on the sea front are a substantial walk away. Also underground car parking by the university is only at certain times and including any parking by private shopping areas is quite wrong.

Full text:

The following response includes comments from Belfairs Gardens Residents Association and Southend District Pensioners Campaign.
A major concern with the plan, as it has been with previous development plans for 2006, 2010 and 2015 which I have, is that the plan is prepared solely on planning and environmental grounds and the Department responsible has no dialogue with departments concerned with people. There is therefore no recognition of an ageing population , that people will work into older age but have health issues of that age and no mention or concept of dealing with disability in all ages whatsoever. The document repeats the assumptions that people will use public transport or cycle. Transport has been an issue in the town for decades. East West is possible except no buses to the sea front at all, but North South has always been poor. The bus companies control the public transport on road and routes come and go as the recent withdrawal of No. 5 bus along Leigh Road shows. The numbers cycling are low and doing so into pensionable age is questionable. Therefore cars remain the main means of transport both for personal shopping and important appointments with opticians, dentists and other practitioners either personally driven or assisted by friends and family. Blue badge spaces are not mentioned and again maintaining a worthwhile lifestyle for a disabled person is often dependant upon a blue badge. 'Making reasonable provision' is required under the disability legislation and the diminution of any blue badge spaces should be resisted. Culture and leisure, recreation and tourism are mentioned on page 28. People have to get there and park . Pedestrianisation of further parts of the town such as London Road P.58 near the Odeon will make it difficult for older and disabled people to take advantage of the excellent transmissions of opera and ballet and the Thursday afternoon tea and films much enjoyed. I have been asked specifically to mention this and I have difficulty finding a blue badge space in the evening now. If it is too far away in the dark with a bad pavement and near the collegewhich seems have some undesirable happenings, I just go back home. My friend's husband can sometimes take us and meet us afterwards .
The statement that there is a low level of car ownership in the town centre , possibly because of multi occupation, is losing credibility as more flats are coming all over the town and the exceptionally high cost of many would indicate that car ownership will go up rapidly. There is also a statement that there is an excess of parking available has been in these plans for years. In my opinion they take account of all the sea front which few would park and walk uphill from to shop in Hamlet Court Road or the town centre. Also The Cliffs Pavilion not used much without a show is not near shops and any restaurants on the sea front are a substantial walk. Also underground car parking by the university is only at certain times and including any parking by private shopping areas is quite wrong.

Building on central car parks therefore is a retrograde step. P42 It might provide additional facilities but these could be offset by the public going elsewhere that Southend and we support the Traders is saying that town car parking is essential.(plus disabled places as above). The car park by the Southend Association of Voluntary Services and the old municipal offices are examples. Around that area are lots of businesses such as solicitors, accountants, care providers etc. whose customers go there for short periods of time and then go on to other places. The idea of an out of town car park and bus or walk could lead those to lose business and just move out. Places like Colchester and Ipswich are a nightmare.
We support the sea front style p72 but why put a tower of flats by the Kursaal or flats above the Esplanade pub(former) . This should just be leisure not housing. We support the key views but we have already lost some by enormous flat development in Leigh and on the sea front. The Council never seems to enforce this and developers rely on appeals. Prittlewell Conservation area is certainly important because there is little of it now so we do not understand why the Council wanted to allow demolition of cottages in East Street and we hope that the Council is facilitating the restoration of these.
Shared Space. This has been an ongoing problem with accidents near Southend Victoria Station and on the sea front. We do not want any more shared spaces. On the sea from there is nowwhere for taxis to drop off (no buses of course) . Kerbs help to keep pedestrians safe and also, vitally to direct rainwater to drains. There is flooding there as the owner of Happidrome will agree. Southend Victoria needs a crossing . There are so many near misses and elderly and disabled people are afraid to use as I am myself.
One senior Councillor from previous administration said it did not matter what buildings looked like as long as they brought in money. Another current councillor said it was ok to build on car parks if there was parking underneath. The costs are great and underground car parks can be very dangerous places.
Conclusion
We recognise the amount of work which has gone into this document but too many assumptions have continued from previous ones and the absence of any consideration of people we feel makes it not viable as a policy document.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Attachments:

Object

Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016

Representation ID: 2846

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 132 again uses the Parking Study as its basis and this causes a number of errors or inappropriate conclusions. For example, it states that "The Study found that the Southend Central Area parking network rarely exceeds 85% occupancy." This masks the problems faced in the seafront
areas where there is currently a significant under capacity of parking spaces. Although this paragraph does acknowledge an imbalance, the Study fails to capture the extent of the issue as the survey dates used were not appropriate for understanding how tourism businesses operate and how
their visitors get to them (for example, inappropriate dates, surveys undertaken in poor weather).
This is covered in more detail in the RPS Technical Note. But looking at the dates used compared to the peak days recorded at The Stockvale Group's Adventure Island theme park and Sea Life Adventure attractions, it can be seen that the dates selected were far from representative of a peak day in the school holidays. The level of visitors to Southend seafront is primarily a result of the weather, and the consultants did not select appropriate days to understand the existing level of
pressure on car parks that serve the seafront, and therefore how sensitive the seafront businesses will be to change in this capacity.
As can be seen in our separate comments on policies that are partly based on this study, this has had
the effect of generating policies that do not support the seafront tourism businesses. Indeed, these
policies will have the effect of reducing visitor numbers and therefore investment into Southend
seafront.

Full text:

RPS has prepared the following representations to Southend Borough Council's Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP), Revised Proposed Submission Version (November 2016) The following Headings represent Paragraphs or Policies contained within the SCAAP. These representations should be read in conjunction with the accompanying completed Representations Forms.
Our client operates the largest and most successful tourism businesses in Southend (The StockvaleGroup is the owner and operator of: Adventure Island theme park; Sealife Adventure; Three Shells beach café; Pavilion Fish and Chips; Feelgoods Pizza Pasta Restaurant; Sands Bistro restaurant; Adventure Inside and Radio Essex). We would like an opportunity to explain our client's business aspirations and explain why the policies in the Plan will not provide a firm basis for the growth of tourism in Southend, and indeed will have the opposite effect on tourism businesses to the objectives set out at the start of the SCAAP. It is very important to our client that the Inspector understands the consequences of adopting the SCAAP as currently drafted.

Attachments: