135

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

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

Representation ID: 2543

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: P. Tomassi & Son Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Car parking at the seafront and car parking in the southern town centre are not interchangeable in use, thus we should not look to maintain *net* numbers here by building a new car park at Southend museum, potentially allowing town centre car parks to be re-developed.

Full text:

We are concerned by the assertion that there will be 'no *net* loss of public car parking to the south of the Central Area'. Given the plans to build 200+ spaces at Southend Museum, this could allow for spaces to be lost in the southern part of the town centre, which this plan acknowledges as the busiest parking area. Parking spaces on the seafront and parking spaces in the southern town centre do not have an interchangeable use, and any loss of parking in the southern part of the town centre could result in the High Street being less competitive versus other town centres/out of town locations. Furthermore, museum parking should be primarily for those visiting the museum, and it is unlikely that people will park on the seafront and then walk up to the town centre & carry shopping back etc.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 2659

Received: 16/12/2016

Respondent: Belfairs Gardens Residents Association

Representation Summary:

Building on central car parks is a retrograde step. P42 It might provide additional facilities but these could be offset by the public going elsewhere. We support the Traders 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.

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: 2849

Received: 15/12/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Agent: Stockvale Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

This paragraph states that there are 2,550 publicly available spaces to the south of the central area. As stated in the RPS Technical Note, this is actually closer to 4,000.It goes on to state that there will be "no net loss of public car parking to the south of the Central
Area."
Firstly, The Stockvale Group objects to this statement because it is a negative approach, not a positive one to meet the needs of businesses. The Stockvale Group have been planning for growth in
visitor numbers, supported by significant investments in their attractions Adventure Island and Sea
Life Adventure, as well as their numerous restaurants, cafes and kiosks on the seafront. 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. Similarly, in Paragraph 81, the Council states: "The tourism and hotel sector is expected to grow in
Southend over the next 20 years".
A policy of no net loss of public car parking spaces south of the Central Area will not support growth.
As Stockvale's surveys have shown (see the RPS Technical Note), the seafront tourism sector is reliant on visitors from outside the town who largely travel by car, with high car occupancies
(families). This Paragraph should be making a clear statement that the intention of the Council is to
increase the number of car parking spaces that provide convenient access to the seafront area. If this statement is not included, then this plan cannot be considered to be positively prepared as it is not meeting the needs of the seafront area. Equally seriously, it is not clear whether this approach will even be effective in protecting against net
loss of spaces as the Plan is not clear enough about how this is calculated. In order to make investment decisions. The Stockvale Group and other seafront traders need the certainty that
visitors will be able to access their attractions and other facilities that support tourists visiting Southend. A number of points need to be clarified:
1. It is not clear to Stockvale how the net loss will be calculated. As can be seen from the RPS Technical Note, the Council does not appear to have included all available spaces in and around Southend seafront in the capacity, nor accounted for all the demand. Given that, at peak times the seafront car parks are full, this is likely to result in an over-estimation of the
percentage of available spaces in Southend north of the railway line.
2. It is not clear whether the Council has taken into account the trips generated by substantial new development proposed, for example, at the Seaways car park site. If this has not been
taken into account, then there will be an immediate net loss on spaces due to displacement caused by traffic parking for the new developments. The RPS Technical Note suggests that this has not been correctly factored in.
3. It is not clear what level of importance will be attached to the most accessible spaces, or whether spaces nearer the town centre (some of which are up a steep slope from the main seafront area) will be considered as part of this 'net' figure.
4. Similarly it is not clear if the Council has considered spaces that have poor links to the seafront as part of this 'net' figure.

We support the Council's attempt to secure additional car parking spaces as part of the new Southend Museum development (approximately 220 spaces). However, this development is in thevery early stages, is not yet funded and cannot be relied upon. For the purposes of this policy, and in the timescales available to this plan, we do not consider much regard should be taken to this in assessing the availability of car parking spaces now and in the future.
In short we do not have the confidence that this policy is going to be effective. Indeed, it is likely on the basis of the work undertaken by RPS that this policy will be ineffective and actually counterproductive by resulting in a net loss of spaces available to visiting tourists. We are not confident that the Council is planning positively to accommodate growth, nor that its policies will be effective in ensuring no net loss.

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: