Policy CS1: Central Seafront Policy Area Development Prinicples

A cinema that close to the beach is a waste of valuable public land. Nobody books a hotel because there is a cinema nearby and those that do go to the cinema don't spend money in the town while they are there.

Dear Councillors,

At a recent SBTP executive meeting I heard issues raised and responses from the Town Planning department on the critical issues concerning the Scaap.
As a company we have traded in the Southend Borough since 1901 and have seen many changes not just physical and social in Southend but in Business terms too.

Let me give you my own personal thoughts on the town of which we are all very proud. Over the last 5/10 years Southend Council, supported by many agencies has managed to attract more funding than many other areas and some great developments have taken place.

I believe the strength of Southend is in our Tourism, Leisure, Culture, Arts and Education. Sadly as a retailer, it is not a retail destination and given Chelmsford's recent Bond Street development I think you will find it hard to knock them off the perch as the counties top town centre shopping destination. John Lewis are the anchor and with that other adjacencies like Jo Malone, The White Company and other luxury/ mid market retailers have the confidence to support the development.

What retailers need is footfall and there is no magic wand to achieve this apart from having the Shops and business that people want to visit.

I therefore firmly believe that Tourism which is the art of bringing in non resident visitors is the key to the success and regeneration of our town.

People clearly will visit our seafront and the more we do to enhance that with Restaurants, Cafes, Attractions, Music, Fireworks, Car Shows, Street Food Markets, Craft Beer, Museum, the more they will come for the day.
Once they are here you then have half a chance of them percolating around the rest of the Borough. This tourist pound then revitalises our local economy and in turn local businesses and particularly retailers will see the benefits.

The other key is keeping Adventure Island on board. I know Philip Miller and I recognise that his direct approach can be challenging for committee orientated Council decision making, but at the end of the day he has invested significant amounts of money at great risk to his company in the Tourism market which I do not reckon anyone else would have had the resources, capability nor tenacity to do.

Adventure Island is the focal point and if I were the Council I would have someone directly consulting with him and facilitate where reasonably possible his future investment.

At the SBTP executive meeting he publically intimated that he was going to stop investing in the town which is potentially disastrous for the key driver going forward.

My understanding is that his main gripe is car parking and road infrastructure. As a business man I have to tell you that car parking is critical to the success or failure of any project and investment when you want to attract consumers. It is the oxygen. Rather than be car unfriendly we need to look at practical solutions of recognising that the car is vital to the success of the projects - it brings the footfall to us.

Bond Street in Chelmsford created an additional 288 car parking spaces underground. Look at Bluewater and Lakeside built around car parks. Free to boot! That is what potential visitors and customers expect and if it is not available they will go elsewhere. Sadly we only have to look at our own travel and parking habits.

Far from reducing car parking space, consideration must be given to how much extra parking might be required given a lift in visitor numbers and the location is also critical - Lazy UK Adult will not want to have to walk too far.

It is unrealistic to think we can change people's travelling habits, it is reasonable to hope that some might use the trains and by all means this should be encouraged.

It is very difficult to compare Southend's connectivity with many other towns or Cities. Few have just one direction of entry in our case from the West.

Another major issue is sign posting. We should have sign posting on the A127 and the A13. Large brown signs directing people to our magnificent facilities should start at the boundary and follow on consistently along those two roads. It will serve both as a directional aid and importantly market the attractions to the visitor.

Please listen to the local businesses, it is us who know what potentially will and will not work commercially in the town and the requirements to facilitate this.

Working in partnership will lead to the successful regeneration of our town. The start has been positive let's carry on the good work together.


Yours sincerely,



Nigel Havens

Managing Director

Southend has gradually been strangled to people outside the central area by the narrowing of access roads and restrictions to parking.

I think the development of Seaway & Tylers car parks is a mistake. These are critical car parking areas for day visitors and local residents. We are local residents and have young children. using public transport is a totally impractical option. We will just avoid Southend entirely if there is nowhere to park. We'll end up going to Chelmsford or Lakeside shopping instead.

Ref CS1.2 The redevelopment of Seaway car park is based upon very unsound figures that will leave central Southend in gridlock which is not sustainable development.

CSI Seaway car park. The Council has failed to deliver promised direct linkage of Spanish Steps to seafront which is essential if this scheme is to work.

There should be no extension of the "Shared Space" concept and the current provision should be removed and replaced by a more conventional approach.

The current scheme is confusing and impedes traffic flow in off peak times.

Again the singling out of the Sea Life Centre appears inappropriate. It is an attraction provided at no cost to the town which adds to what the town offers.

I hope the policy refers only to the disused part of the Crazy Golf site.

There should be no extension of the "Shared Space" concept and the current provision should be removed and replaced by a more conventional approach.

The current scheme is confusing and impedes traffic flow in off peak times.

Again the singling out of the Sea Life Centre appears inappropriate. It is an attraction provided at no cost to the town which adds to what the town offers.

I hope the policy refers only to the disused part of the Crazy Golf site.

Much has been said over the past about traffic /parking /development re the central seafront with comments to the council from say the operators of all the entertainments and now a new museum in place of slip cliffs and loss of a band stage , I would ask the council to look at the possibility of creating from the old swimming pool from a reclaimed sea area say 200 yards out eastwards towards the pier a raised area for parking and other seasonal events with a sand beach area at the eastern end out of the outgoing tidal flow this would preserve the sand and safety of swimmers creating a small bay ,decrease the flood tides which each year invade the carriage way, cost from the moaning(about lack of parking) playground operators and others /museum/seaway developer. it would also be good to see a band stage at roof level on the museum and some parking at that level. Back to sea level why not include a green area c/w trees some shade( keep tree fellers off ) and a channel for your ne. Roads and access from the east of town, not much has changed from 1940,s the A127 became dual carriage way a new single road adjacent to the airport and the sea front has been down graded very much Shoeburyness was with population say 8K and garrison now pop increased to 20K Thorpe Bay was 3k now 9k. so many minor improvements to roads and the dual roads all go back into single original roads Sutton road is now over used as is A127 and suffer any accident/blockage we all know other routes ie Prittlewell chase and London roadA13 .To assist with blockages how about considering another link from Sutton rd/ industrial site/Journeymans ways and north of the sports ground in to an improved Warner's bridge close/improved bridge crossing at least this would relieve and offer alternate road way also if the proposed football stadium ever materialised foot access from the airport station.

Much has been said over the past about traffic /parking /development re the central seafront with comments to the council from say the operators of all the entertainments and now a new museum in place of slip cliffs and loss of a band stage , I would ask the council to look at the possibility of creating from the old swimming pool from a reclaimed sea area say 200 yards out eastwards towards the pier a raised area for parking and other seasonal events with a sand beach area at the eastern end out of the outgoing tidal flow this would preserve the sand and safety of swimmers creating a small bay ,decrease the flood tides which each year invade the carriage way, cost from the moaning(about lack of parking) playground operators and others /museum/seaway developer. it would also be good to see a band stage at roof level on the museum and some parking at that level. Back to sea level why not include a green area c/w trees some shade( keep tree fellers off ) and a channel for your ne. Roads and access from the east of town, not much has changed from 1940,s the A127 became dual carriage way a new single road adjacent to the airport and the sea front has been down graded very much Shoeburyness was with population say 8K and garrison now pop increased to 20K Thorpe Bay was 3k now 9k. so many minor improvements to roads and the dual roads all go back into single original roads Sutton road is now over used as is A127 and suffer any accident/blockage we all know other routes ie Prittlewell chase and London roadA13 .To assist with blockages how about considering another link from Sutton rd/ industrial site/Journeymans ways and north of the sports ground in to an improved Warner's bridge close/improved bridge crossing at least this would relieve and offer alternate road way also if the proposed football stadium ever materialised foot access from the airport station.

Car parking and development overview
Having read the consultation document please see BERA's comments below regarding the Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP).
It appears to me that there needs to be some clarification concerning parking. It has to be borne in mind that the more car parking spaces there are along Southend seafront, the more chance there is of substantial traffic flow problems throughout the town in high seasonal periods, including the seafront. It is on this basis that officers should be instructed to consider a number of options. These options should include having zone parking charges in individual car parks, depending whether they are north or south of the railway line, to encourage footfall along the High Street.
To try and alleviate problems in relation to the re-development of Queensway, Seaway car park, Marine Plaza and the town centre, proposals should be considered to multi-storey Tylers Avenue car park as a first stage, before developing the car parks in Clarence and Alexandra Street and of course Warrior Square. The aim should also include relocation of the bus station from its current position, to that of the rebuilt Tylers Avenue car park, to encourage greater use of the bus service. This could also boost the chances of Southend-on-Sea becoming a City in the future. Another phase to be considered would be the compulsory purchase of the old gas works site to enable car parking to take place while the Seaway car park and the town centre were being developed. Also we should be expediting the plans to build the 200 space car park for the new museum as a first stage of that development, replacing the unofficial car park on the Marine Plaza site, opposite the Kursaal.
Finally, the Council should be encouraging more use of the car parks in the eastern and western parts of town, a free of charge land train during the peak summer periods has to be considered, with the car parking ticket being used as the free ticket to ride. The planning and phasing of this would be in conjunction with whatever development proposals come through first. It is BERA's opinion that no matter how many car parking places are provided, there will, at some point during the year, be a potential for lack of capacity. What we cannot do, is have empty parking spaces for the majority of the year, which will have no financial benefit to the town at all. The plans should also consider maximising the use of public transport, with serious consideration especially given in encouraging people to use the Southend-bound trains. One thing is for certain, the Council should never contemplate putting a decked car park on the beach side of the sea front, as this would restrict sea views and create a narrowing effect on the promenade between any proposed decked car park and the beach.
Southend-on-Sea, over the next 10-15 years, has a fantastic opportunity to develop and be financially and economically stable, mainly because of the proposals of the growing business projects coming forward. The planning of all these opportunities will, instead of restricting our tourism industry, be crucial in creating opportunities in education, skills, jobs and infrastructure improvements.
I will now go into detail on the SCAAP document itself.
Below are the revised proposed amendments from the original consultation process.
As part of the local planning framework it would be useful to have an indication of likely timescales of the forthcoming aspects of the plan process. Specifically the new Local Plan will set out new long term growth targets which will include a review of SCAAP proposals but there is no indication of timescales. We have no idea at this stage of when SCAAP is expected to be adopted and therefore how long it may be valid.
The introduction also makes reference (1.2 para 7) to a joint assessment of needs for the housing market but, and this was asked at the consultation draft stage, no indication as to who the joint assessment will be with.
Context and Issues
Page 8 Housing
There seems to be a preoccupation with footfall to the extent that this supposed increase in footfall is the sole argument for providing more housing in the plan area. But the validity of this point is dubious. Residential areas are devoid of on street activity in the evening. The justification for more housing in the SCAAP area needs to be more robustly made. If greater footfall is required then leisure activities and housing are required, not solely housing.
Page 9 Access and car parking
The policy on accessibility appears to be skewed towards satisfying the demands of the residents of the Central area whereas additionally accessibility improvements must satisfy those wishing to access the area from outside. You appear to ignore the fact that a significant factor in determining car park usage overall and in particular the town centre and between individual car parks is the cost of parking, eg zoning.
Page 18 para 48/49
The reality is that the High Street no longer provides any unique shopping experiences. The lack of investment shows that there is little sign the retailers have any interest in boosting Southend. Already most disposable income of Southend residents for non-food shopping finds its way to the regional centres including Chelmsford because the quality of merchandise on offer in our high street is so poor.
Para 52
One way of encouraging a temporary uplift to empty units is to provide an example by dealing with the council's own property, and although it is not on the primary shopping frontage it is in a prime location. We are talking about the unit at the foot of the pier lift which has been empty since it was built. Perhaps the local college could be encouraged to join with businesses to provide visual displays.
Page 20 Policy DS1
Are you able to define in a planning context how a particular café/restaurant would contribute to the vitality of the town centre .Because Southend at present probably has as many restaurants/cafes/fast food outlets as anywhere in the country but the overwhelming majority are of poor quality. The prospect of more of the same potentially making up 40% of the High Street is an appalling prospect not a unique and diverse visitor/shopper experience you are seeking.
Map 3
It is difficult to see why the western side of the High street south of Alexandra Road has been downgraded to a secondary shopping frontage when a) the eastern side is primary and b) it is immediately at the meeting between the high street and the sea front. It seems to offer no less potential than the eastern side and is important in setting the scene for visitors from the sea side activities into the town. It should remain primary shopping frontage.

Car parking and development overview
Having read the consultation document please see BERA's comments below regarding the Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP).
It appears to me that there needs to be some clarification concerning parking. It has to be borne in mind that the more car parking spaces there are along Southend seafront, the more chance there is of substantial traffic flow problems throughout the town in high seasonal periods, including the seafront. It is on this basis that officers should be instructed to consider a number of options. These options should include having zone parking charges in individual car parks, depending whether they are north or south of the railway line, to encourage footfall along the High Street.
To try and alleviate problems in relation to the re-development of Queensway, Seaway car park, Marine Plaza and the town centre, proposals should be considered to multi-storey Tylers Avenue car park as a first stage, before developing the car parks in Clarence and Alexandra Street and of course Warrior Square. The aim should also include relocation of the bus station from its current position, to that of the rebuilt Tylers Avenue car park, to encourage greater use of the bus service. This could also boost the chances of Southend-on-Sea becoming a City in the future. Another phase to be considered would be the compulsory purchase of the old gas works site to enable car parking to take place while the Seaway car park and the town centre were being developed. Also we should be expediting the plans to build the 200 space car park for the new museum as a first stage of that development, replacing the unofficial car park on the Marine Plaza site, opposite the Kursaal.
Finally, the Council should be encouraging more use of the car parks in the eastern and western parts of town, a free of charge land train during the peak summer periods has to be considered, with the car parking ticket being used as the free ticket to ride. The planning and phasing of this would be in conjunction with whatever development proposals come through first. It is BERA's opinion that no matter how many car parking places are provided, there will, at some point during the year, be a potential for lack of capacity. What we cannot do, is have empty parking spaces for the majority of the year, which will have no financial benefit to the town at all. The plans should also consider maximising the use of public transport, with serious consideration especially given in encouraging people to use the Southend-bound trains. One thing is for certain, the Council should never contemplate putting a decked car park on the beach side of the sea front, as this would restrict sea views and create a narrowing effect on the promenade between any proposed decked car park and the beach.
Southend-on-Sea, over the next 10-15 years, has a fantastic opportunity to develop and be financially and economically stable, mainly because of the proposals of the growing business projects coming forward. The planning of all these opportunities will, instead of restricting our tourism industry, be crucial in creating opportunities in education, skills, jobs and infrastructure improvements.
I will now go into detail on the SCAAP document itself.
Below are the revised proposed amendments from the original consultation process.
As part of the local planning framework it would be useful to have an indication of likely timescales of the forthcoming aspects of the plan process. Specifically the new Local Plan will set out new long term growth targets which will include a review of SCAAP proposals but there is no indication of timescales. We have no idea at this stage of when SCAAP is expected to be adopted and therefore how long it may be valid.
The introduction also makes reference (1.2 para 7) to a joint assessment of needs for the housing market but, and this was asked at the consultation draft stage, no indication as to who the joint assessment will be with.
Context and Issues
Page 8 Housing
There seems to be a preoccupation with footfall to the extent that this supposed increase in footfall is the sole argument for providing more housing in the plan area. But the validity of this point is dubious. Residential areas are devoid of on street activity in the evening. The justification for more housing in the SCAAP area needs to be more robustly made. If greater footfall is required then leisure activities and housing are required, not solely housing.
Page 9 Access and car parking
The policy on accessibility appears to be skewed towards satisfying the demands of the residents of the Central area whereas additionally accessibility improvements must satisfy those wishing to access the area from outside. You appear to ignore the fact that a significant factor in determining car park usage overall and in particular the town centre and between individual car parks is the cost of parking, eg zoning.
Page 18 para 48/49
The reality is that the High Street no longer provides any unique shopping experiences. The lack of investment shows that there is little sign the retailers have any interest in boosting Southend. Already most disposable income of Southend residents for non-food shopping finds its way to the regional centres including Chelmsford because the quality of merchandise on offer in our high street is so poor.
Para 52
One way of encouraging a temporary uplift to empty units is to provide an example by dealing with the council's own property, and although it is not on the primary shopping frontage it is in a prime location. We are talking about the unit at the foot of the pier lift which has been empty since it was built. Perhaps the local college could be encouraged to join with businesses to provide visual displays.
Page 20 Policy DS1
Are you able to define in a planning context how a particular café/restaurant would contribute to the vitality of the town centre .Because Southend at present probably has as many restaurants/cafes/fast food outlets as anywhere in the country but the overwhelming majority are of poor quality. The prospect of more of the same potentially making up 40% of the High Street is an appalling prospect not a unique and diverse visitor/shopper experience you are seeking.
Map 3
It is difficult to see why the western side of the High street south of Alexandra Road has been downgraded to a secondary shopping frontage when a) the eastern side is primary and b) it is immediately at the meeting between the high street and the sea front. It seems to offer no less potential than the eastern side and is important in setting the scene for visitors from the sea side activities into the town. It should remain primary shopping frontage.

Car parking and development overview
Having read the consultation document please see BERA's comments below regarding the Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP).
It appears to me that there needs to be some clarification concerning parking. It has to be borne in mind that the more car parking spaces there are along Southend seafront, the more chance there is of substantial traffic flow problems throughout the town in high seasonal periods, including the seafront. It is on this basis that officers should be instructed to consider a number of options. These options should include having zone parking charges in individual car parks, depending whether they are north or south of the railway line, to encourage footfall along the High Street.
To try and alleviate problems in relation to the re-development of Queensway, Seaway car park, Marine Plaza and the town centre, proposals should be considered to multi-storey Tylers Avenue car park as a first stage, before developing the car parks in Clarence and Alexandra Street and of course Warrior Square. The aim should also include relocation of the bus station from its current position, to that of the rebuilt Tylers Avenue car park, to encourage greater use of the bus service. This could also boost the chances of Southend-on-Sea becoming a City in the future. Another phase to be considered would be the compulsory purchase of the old gas works site to enable car parking to take place while the Seaway car park and the town centre were being developed. Also we should be expediting the plans to build the 200 space car park for the new museum as a first stage of that development, replacing the unofficial car park on the Marine Plaza site, opposite the Kursaal.
Finally, the Council should be encouraging more use of the car parks in the eastern and western parts of town, a free of charge land train during the peak summer periods has to be considered, with the car parking ticket being used as the free ticket to ride. The planning and phasing of this would be in conjunction with whatever development proposals come through first. It is BERA's opinion that no matter how many car parking places are provided, there will, at some point during the year, be a potential for lack of capacity. What we cannot do, is have empty parking spaces for the majority of the year, which will have no financial benefit to the town at all. The plans should also consider maximising the use of public transport, with serious consideration especially given in encouraging people to use the Southend-bound trains. One thing is for certain, the Council should never contemplate putting a decked car park on the beach side of the sea front, as this would restrict sea views and create a narrowing effect on the promenade between any proposed decked car park and the beach.
Southend-on-Sea, over the next 10-15 years, has a fantastic opportunity to develop and be financially and economically stable, mainly because of the proposals of the growing business projects coming forward. The planning of all these opportunities will, instead of restricting our tourism industry, be crucial in creating opportunities in education, skills, jobs and infrastructure improvements.
I will now go into detail on the SCAAP document itself.
Below are the revised proposed amendments from the original consultation process.
As part of the local planning framework it would be useful to have an indication of likely timescales of the forthcoming aspects of the plan process. Specifically the new Local Plan will set out new long term growth targets which will include a review of SCAAP proposals but there is no indication of timescales. We have no idea at this stage of when SCAAP is expected to be adopted and therefore how long it may be valid.
The introduction also makes reference (1.2 para 7) to a joint assessment of needs for the housing market but, and this was asked at the consultation draft stage, no indication as to who the joint assessment will be with.
Context and Issues
Page 8 Housing
There seems to be a preoccupation with footfall to the extent that this supposed increase in footfall is the sole argument for providing more housing in the plan area. But the validity of this point is dubious. Residential areas are devoid of on street activity in the evening. The justification for more housing in the SCAAP area needs to be more robustly made. If greater footfall is required then leisure activities and housing are required, not solely housing.
Page 9 Access and car parking
The policy on accessibility appears to be skewed towards satisfying the demands of the residents of the Central area whereas additionally accessibility improvements must satisfy those wishing to access the area from outside. You appear to ignore the fact that a significant factor in determining car park usage overall and in particular the town centre and between individual car parks is the cost of parking, eg zoning.
Page 18 para 48/49
The reality is that the High Street no longer provides any unique shopping experiences. The lack of investment shows that there is little sign the retailers have any interest in boosting Southend. Already most disposable income of Southend residents for non-food shopping finds its way to the regional centres including Chelmsford because the quality of merchandise on offer in our high street is so poor.
Para 52
One way of encouraging a temporary uplift to empty units is to provide an example by dealing with the council's own property, and although it is not on the primary shopping frontage it is in a prime location. We are talking about the unit at the foot of the pier lift which has been empty since it was built. Perhaps the local college could be encouraged to join with businesses to provide visual displays.
Page 20 Policy DS1
Are you able to define in a planning context how a particular café/restaurant would contribute to the vitality of the town centre .Because Southend at present probably has as many restaurants/cafes/fast food outlets as anywhere in the country but the overwhelming majority are of poor quality. The prospect of more of the same potentially making up 40% of the High Street is an appalling prospect not a unique and diverse visitor/shopper experience you are seeking.
Map 3
It is difficult to see why the western side of the High street south of Alexandra Road has been downgraded to a secondary shopping frontage when a) the eastern side is primary and b) it is immediately at the meeting between the high street and the sea front. It seems to offer no less potential than the eastern side and is important in setting the scene for visitors from the sea side activities into the town. It should remain primary shopping frontage.

Having waded through the Southend Central Action Plan (SCAAP) I am appalled by the proposals. Southend is a seaside resort an image successive councils have tried to suppress, even from before the days of Maplin. Success is not based restricting visitors, trying to make Southend unwelcoming or strangling business. Southend Council has a very poor reputation amongst the public for doing anything right! Encourage visitors and make Southend a 12 month attraction. To achieve this the most obvious is ease of car and coach parking with reasonable parking charges. Hotel chains have committed to coming to Southend. After years of dithering the Council released its unprofitable grip on the Airport to a company with business acumen - Stobart. (A hint there perhaps?)
Reading this it might be thought that there is nothing constructive in it, but I want Southend Borough Council to think very carefully about these proposals. It should be remembers that Southend seafront is an asset that should be maintained as a key attraction. The High Street is struggling (Mainly by restricting parking and high parking charges). Come to think of it that might be the reason the suspicious claim that only 25% of visitors to Southend come by car - they are frightened off and have probably gone to Bluewater or Lakeside.

This being our second attempt to make a our comments on the SCAAP
we hope it is successful.
We are surprised and shocked that the SCAAP as it stands, incorporates
the demolition of perfectly good dwellings in Baxter Avenue. If this were
part of a 'slum clearance' programme, we would support it although with reservations.
This seems to us, to be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Genesis (whom we have already contacted - no reply as yet) need to look at the management of the development and offer refurbishment where it is needed.
Central Southend already has a high population density which will increase once the Office blocks
are 'morphed' into flats. We feel that little consideration has so far been given to the infrastructure.

I am writing directly to you regarding the SCAPP consultation. If you are not dealing with this matter please would you pass this document on as I require my comments to be included within the consultation period ending 5.00pm 16th December 2016
Whilst I am registered on the Councils System for commenting - I cannot get it to work for me regarding SCAAP.
The scope & range of the documents for consideration is such that possibly most will not bother, put off by the input system?
Hopefully the following will be considered in relation to the Seaway car park 'Windfall development opportunity'
1) The basic flaw in the proposal is that it robs the town of a Parking asset no matter what the skillfully crafted reports state about alternatives.
2) Council data suggests it (the carpark) is a poor revenue generator for the town --this is misguided -- many local & national businesses benefit from the revenue stream generated by those using the facility.
3) More important to a long list of objections is the highlighting of a possible work around?
5) The parachuted in Windfall development proposal could easily go ahead if the developer was told to provide on site replacement parking by way of underground car parking - soil away could easily disposed of at Gunners Park Shoeburyness!
6) A simple practical local illustration is the new mini development at Bond Street Chelmsford---underground parking, shops, Restaurants & and even a luxury Cinema!!
Regarding infrastructure, it is a given that the town has serious problems at peak times on the roads - forcing people to walk will not work without a comprehensive Park & Ride scheme -why is it that the town has never considered such an option? Again in use all over the Country --Local example refer: Chelmsford

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.

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.

It is difficult on a normal day to park in Southend sea front area. If the council decide to reduce the parking in this area for whatever reason they will definitely reduce the amount of visitors. It will not stop me or my very large family going to the sea front but sadly it won't be Southend that we will visit. Please do not turn Southend back to a second class seafront

I refer to the publicity regarding the above.
The Council appears to be proceeding with plans which (with the greatest respect) do not appear to have been thought through and do not benefit either residents or businesses in the Town. In particular, 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. I also understand that there will be bicycle/bus lanes, which will simply further add to the already congested state of the roads in the Borough. I already frequently have calls from clients who are attending meetings at my office where they advise me they are late due to the traffic problems.
I trust my letter an indeed those of others who have written will be acted upon.

I have been trying to register my concern about the reduction of car parking spaces at Tyler's Ave,Seaway and Marine Plaza but find it impossible to navigate the SBC document. This is impossible for most residents to use and therefore removes input from most residents. I am extremely concerned that 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. Please use a common sense approach and think again if you want Southend to be a welcoming and prosperous seaside venue.

I'm writing with concern about plans to change the parking in Southend. I live in Kent but am an annual pass holder at Adventure Island so visit quite regularly.
On most occasions we have visited, especially in the summer we have found traffic into 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 at least some of the parking 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.
I don't know Southend well and so could not easily interpret the map. I wonder if you could allay my concerns and explain how it is you intend to "Maintain parking capacity* within Southend Central Area at a level that supports vitality and viability and does not undermine the Central Area's ability to accommodate visitor trips, whilst enabling the delivery of relevant opportunity sites and 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!
I couldn't find an obvious place to respond to the consultation and hope this will be taken as a response in the open period.

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.

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.

Thank you for your consultation on the above which was received by Natural England on 03 November 2016.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Context
We responded on 11 July 2011 on the Draft Southend Central Area Action Plan and associated HRA Screening Report (our ref 27040) and supplied comments online to the Central Area Action Plan - Proposed Submission on 17 October 2011 (our ref 33069). We also responded on 26 January 2016 on the Preferred Approach Option 2015 (our ref 176229).
While you have provided a Representation Form, we are providing comments below in the same format as that form in order to expedite this response:

Thank you for your consultation on the above which was received by Natural England on 03 November 2016.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Context
We responded on 11 July 2011 on the Draft Southend Central Area Action Plan and associated HRA Screening Report (our ref 27040) and supplied comments online to the Central Area Action Plan - Proposed Submission on 17 October 2011 (our ref 33069). We also responded on 26 January 2016 on the Preferred Approach Option 2015 (our ref 176229).
While you have provided a Representation Form, we are providing comments below in the same format as that form in order to expedite this response: