Are there further opportunities which could be explored and developed through this Area Action Plan?

I do not support any loss of parking from the area being discussed, nor agree the railway is a major obstacle, its a minor in the Clifftown /Elmer sector only. The educational elements should not be confined purely to the current area and elmer but be across the town centre. I believe that within the central town centre and seafront areas there is scope for good quality appartments and some high rise (10+) storeys but with adequate parking. the foreshaore is a vital assest that needs developing to improve the tourist offer and for residents to better understand

The Highways Agency has no comments to make on the document other than to
encourage the promotion of modal shift from the private car to more sustainable means of transport including the promotion of travel planning, either through individual work place and residential Travel Plans or where appropriate Overarching or Area Wide Travel Plans.

The Society is Primarily concerned with protecting Undercliff Gardens in Leigh. Our comments therefore are brief, and do not address the detail of your proposals.

In general terms we see the Central Area as an historic core or anchor, to the Borough. In the last 15 years it has deteriorated for reasons that the Council has not addressed. we suggest that these may include:

1. It is a sterile space, devoid of local character. The recent replacement paving nad seating did not tackle the problem, it merely demonstrated that the Council had expensively lost the plot. It does not attract shoppers and visitors who are free to travel to more attractive areas.
2. Many shops are empty, which may be due to alledgelly high business rates.
3. The University does not provide the positive contribution expected.
4. The old Victoria Circus area lacks initmacy. For example residents and visitors must wonder why trees were planted then ripped up and nobody has bother to repair or replace the millennium clock.
The suggestion that the retail area of the centre should be extended east and west is unlikely to resolve the central problem - it may even compound it. We doubt whether there is any demand for more retail space.

The Society is Primarily concerned with protecting Undercliff Gardens in Leigh. Our comments therefore are brief, and do not address the detail of your proposals.

In general terms we see the Central Area as an historic core or anchor, to the Borough. In the last 15 years it has deteriorated for reasons that the Council has not addressed. we suggest that these may include:

1. It is a sterile space, devoid of local character. The recent replacement paving nad seating did not tackle the problem, it merely demonstrated that the Council had expensively lost the plot. It does not attract shoppers and visitors who are free to travel to more attractive areas.
2. Many shops are empty, which may be due to alledgelly high business rates.
3. The University does not provide the positive contribution expected.
4. The old Victoria Circus area lacks initmacy. For example residents and visitors must wonder why trees were planted then ripped up and nobody has bother to repair or replace the millennium clock.
The suggestion that the retail area of the centre should be extended east and west is unlikely to resolve the central problem - it may even compound it. We doubt whether there is any demand for more retail space.

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The language of the document is not always clear. It is a document comprising many strategies and Acronyms that can be off putting to the lay reader.
Eg
Local transport plan and Regional transport strategy
Central area masterplan
Core Strategy
Sustainable community strategy
Spatial strategy
Strategic transport interchanges
Core strategy policy CP2

Section 1
Good outline.

Section 2
2.6 Impressive.
2.7 Makes no specific mention of access for people with disabilities (and yet could do so).
2.10 I or We back the notion of job creation efforts - much more could be made of the river thames in terms our proximity to London - hover service to Kent
2.12 Does not happen in reality. Its intentions are merely a paper exercise
2.13 Is there a difference between "seeking improvement" and "influencing decision making"? Our preference is for SBC to be committed to holding our partners (eg C2C) to account.
2.15 and 2.16 What have we achieved to date?

Section 3
3.1. Sentences are too long
3.4 Recent multi coloured building opposite Sainsburys is a perceived eye saw for some residents. SBC must be careful in this respect. Younger generation like the design.
3.7 to 3.9 Is accurate
3.10 We do not know what Bulky Food outlets mean. If you mean Cash and Carry then we have good outlets already in the town.
3.11 and 3.15 Good words but in reality sme s struggle as no discounts are available to use empty retail and office spaces.
3.12 We agree with
3.13 Rennaissance Southend Limiteds activity is an empty pledge. Will they continue to exist under the new government.
3.14 SBC is desperate for this we need the entrepreneurial spirit of the FE and HE sector.
3.18 to 3.20 is surprisingly sparse! Why?
3.27 How is under provision measured? Why are we conceding such an important aspect if our towns ecology? This section needs clarification and re writing.
3.28 This will never happen (It is already happening!). Why does SBC need Renaissance? It is reinveting itself every day!
3.30 just words especially the last sentence.
3.35 Well written- there is serious intent here.

Section 4
Is good. The two to three large eye sores on the seafront. These include two large arcades on the western side of the Marine parade. The abandoned land owned by Rembrant is on the market for over £2million pounds. Can the council purchase these as investment and turn them into an educational facility (eg school building; library or learning zone).

Section 5
Are based on the authors opinions. Footnotes with objective reference would help to create the feeling of the reading not being led to option 3.

Section 6
I do not like the title City by the Sea. You must be careful not to create a vision that residents do not want. Everyone knows that the portrayal of cities relate to high crime, pollution and overcrowding.

I think a vision more suited to southend is : " Safety and fun by the sea" or " smiles on sea".

If we need inward investment and more local spending good and services must be reasonably priced and high quality. Getting rid of rat infested HMOs like the one of the corner of Pleasant Road and Marine Parade would be a start.

6.5 . - iii. As Kursaal ward councillor I am deeply offended by the narrative: Kursaal estate and its environs. The author needs to re word with the correct title. Gateway neighbourhoods have the most socially and economically deprived communities. They should form the corner stone of any economic re vitalisation in my opinion.

6.10 I disagree entirely with this sorry. Why does overcrowding make sense? If I am wrong re word "Southends Heart" to Southend as a whole.

I don't agree with quarters and circuits.

6.13 to 6.16 is very good.

Section 7, 8 and 9

Substantial proposals. Well written and much needed.

Section 8
There also needs to be better lighting along the high street as people do not feel safe, especially by Farringdon's car park. There are lots of spaces with no lighting.
The offices opposite the university are completely empty this is making the rejuvenated area by the university look run down.
High street is so much cleaner and neater than it used to be and there is a strong presence of police in the high street

The identification of opportunities and constraints draws heavily on the analytical work presented in the Central Area Masterplan (CAM), which is welcomed. The inclusion of the Gateway Neighbourhoods is supported but greater clarity is needed to define their role and what action is needed to justify inclusion in the AAP.

Southend has a very defined visitors season and no out of season attractions. The Council should consider the provision of a major venue for 'out of season' activities.
The Lido on the beach at Le Touquet or the Pyramids centre in Blackpool should be considered.

Cultural opportunities to enhance the visitor experience, linking with leisure and tourist accommodation.

GENERAL COMMENTS AND PPS5
PPS5 builds on the earlier national guidance for the historic environment and brings it up-to-date based on the principles of heritage protection reform. Policy HE3 of PPS5 relates to local planning approaches to the historic environment. The following parts are of particular relevance:

Policy HE2.1 '...local planning authorities should ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area and that this is publicly documented. The level of detail of the evidence should be proportionate and sufficient to inform adequately the plan-making process.'

Policy HE3.1: '...local development frameworks should set out a positive, proactive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in their area, taking into account the variations in type and distribution of heritage asset, as well as the contribution made by the historic environment by virtue of (inter alia) its influence on the character of the environment and an area's sense of place.'

Policy HE3.2 advises that the level of detail contained in a LDF 'should reflect the scale of the area covered and the significance of the heritage assets within it'.

Policy HE3.4 states that 'At a local level, plans should consider the qualities and local distinctiveness of the historic environment and how these contribute to the spatial vision in the local development framework core strategy. Heritage assets can be used to ensure continued sustainability of an area and promote a sense of place. Plans at local level are likely to consider investment in and enhancement of historic places including the public realm, in more detail. They should include consideration of how best to conserve individual, groups or types of heritage assets that are most at risk of loss through neglect, decay or other threats'.

The emphasis on a positive, proactive approach to the historic environment in plans is especially noteworthy. We would also highlight the need to understand the significance of heritage assets within the plan area. In the context of the Southend Central Area Action Plan we hope that assessment of the historic environment will be a central element of the evidence base.

Other points from PPS5 worth noting at this stage:
- The term 'heritage asset' is now the appropriate term to refer to those parts of the historic environment that have significance, both designated and un-designated. Paragraph 5 provides the definition.
- Paragraph 7 of the PPS recognises the positive contribution of heritage assets to local character and sense of place
- The historic environment should be integrated into planning policies promoting place-shaping (paragraph 7)
- Policy HE5 refers to the need for monitoring indicators. We recommend that heritage at risk, including grade II buildings at risk, should form part of the LDF monitoring framework.

SOUTHEND CENTRAL AREA ACTION PLAN
SECTION 3 KEY CHALLENGES
Paras 3.26 to 3.29 refer to the town being a hub for natural and built heritage. English Heritage feels strongly that in order to fully understand and address change in this area more investigative work needs to be carried out. Our Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance emphasises (para 62 onwards) the need to understand the fabric and evolution of a place and to identify who values the place and why they do so. Paragraph 89 underlines the value of specific investigation into understanding the impacts, or consequences, of proposed change.

Historically Southend has prospered by attracting visitors. We feel this role has had a profound influence on its character and that this should be taken into account when making future decisions. Policy HE2 of PPS5 advises local planning authorities to ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area to adequately inform the plan-making process.

Reference is made in the Plan's paragraph 3.28 to the existing conservation areas and historic buildings and we are aware that appraisals of some of the areas have been carried out recently. However, we feel that this would be the right time to consider further the extent of these areas, especially those which may be affected by the Area Action Plan, notably the Clifftown and Eastern Esplanade areas. It is also apparent that a number of the heritage assets in Southend are undesignated; in the context of PPS5 advice we suggest these should be evaluated.

The seafront is an area where layers of growth, often laid one on another, sometimes masks historic fabric. These none the less, in combination, present a townscape that gives Southend much of its distinctiveness. We agree that the linking of spaces may be important, but apart from on the waterfront itself these spaces are contained mainly by buildings. Their existing scale, form and alignment should be considered along with smaller details such as roof forms, materials, fenestration and signage.

The statement in paragraph 3.28 that tall buildings may "create new iconic buildings and spaces" has not been justified. An urban characterisation process could identify existing iconic buildings and spaces (e.g. the Pier, Royal Terrace, Palace Hotel and The Cliffs) and assess their existing contributions, and whether there is capacity for additional large structures or interventions.

SECTION 4 THE VISION
In para 4.3, linked to our comments above, English Heritage suggests that under (2) the objectives should be to conserve those buildings and public realm that already contribute. A detailed Public Realm survey would be helpful to inform the final strategy or spatial option.

SECTION 5 SPATIAL OPTIONS
The preferred "City by the Sea" option appears to embody many of the aspirations that the other two options in this section incorporate. We would urge, however, that the concept of producing alternative "circuits" to the High Street is fully evaluated. Option 1 focuses on the street as the heart of Southend. We feel that the street contains, or connects, a number of historic landmarks and spaces, and that its vitality should not be threatened (as has happened in other towns in the region) by well intentioned proposals to form alternative quarters, or circuits. The continued demand for physical expansion of the retail and restaurant industries may not be as assured in the future.

SECTION 6 CITY BY THE SEA
This section explains the preferred option further. Whilst reiterating the comments made above, we support the aims to improve connections and permeability, and to improve the qualities of townscapes, spaces and frontages as well as repairing buildings. However, here again we would question the need for further new landmarks, especially tall buildings, without justification. The world famous landmark of the Pier, which is in your council's ownership, is in desperate need of regeneration and yet is only briefly touched upon.

The advices contained in PPS5, policy HE3.4 is relevant here, in particular, that plans at a local level should include investment and enhancement of historic places, including the public realm.

SECTION 7 THE QUARTERS AND KEY SITES
English Heritage does not wish to comment in detail on these individual areas, which your council will be in the best position to assess in detail. We would, however, highlight the following considerations.

In the "Victorias" we agree that the civic complex, including the Library, has significance, and we urge that proposals recognise their status and incorporate them as a key component.

In High Street, we do not agree that this street lacks landmarks and consider that a thorough detailed assessment will highlight various late Victorian, Art Deco and other frontages, including the former Keddie's store, which have local resonance. The length of the High Street might be seen as an integral part of the grain of the Victorian town. It could be reinforced by boulevard planting and high quality public realm treatment that would endure longer than the rather poorly conceived, yet reasonably recent, paving scheme.

English Heritage notes that the council has commissioned a new retail study. We suggest that its conclusions should be awaited before proposals are made to expand the commercial core eastward.

We support your aim to make High Street a priority area for pedestrians, but again urge you to adopt a public realm strategy for the whole town centre. You refer to the closure of the York Road Market. English Heritage was made aware of this by representations by local residents who saw the removal of this feature as a loss of local distinctiveness. We hope that you will acknowledge the importance of human scale interventions in any alternatives.

Whilst welcoming the option to remodel the existing inimical seaward frontage of The Royals shopping centre, we must express our concern about a proposed "radical landmark redevelopment" in the area adjoining the Pier, especially as it could compromise the settings of the existing listed landmarks of the Palace Hotel and Royal Terrace and the Clifftown conservation area.

In Clifftown we support your aspirations including the creation of a new square in front of Central Station and the recognition that the fine grain historic street form should lead any regeneration proposals.

Under part 7.8 (St. John's eastwards) English Heritage urges that you give more prominence to the role that the existing conservation areas at Kursaal and Eastern Esplanade have in contributing to local distinctiveness and legibility. Kursaal is of course already a landmark, and the seafront terrace of listed fishermen's' cottages along the Esplanade are the only reminder of pre-railway old Southend. This area would benefit from appraisal, and possibly extension. The area around St. John's Churchyard certainly requires special attention and we are pleased that a brief has been commissioned for this area.

The adjoining seafront could, as stated, be said to represent a significant defining feature of the Southend identity that should be celebrated. It includes some listed buildings as well as others of local significance, with the overlying layer of later twentieth century commercialism. All of these elements need to be properly understood before any decisions are made as to future actions.

GENERAL COMMENTS AND PPS5
PPS5 builds on the earlier national guidance for the historic environment and brings it up-to-date based on the principles of heritage protection reform. Policy HE3 of PPS5 relates to local planning approaches to the historic environment. The following parts are of particular relevance:

Policy HE2.1 '...local planning authorities should ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area and that this is publicly documented. The level of detail of the evidence should be proportionate and sufficient to inform adequately the plan-making process.'

Policy HE3.1: '...local development frameworks should set out a positive, proactive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in their area, taking into account the variations in type and distribution of heritage asset, as well as the contribution made by the historic environment by virtue of (inter alia) its influence on the character of the environment and an area's sense of place.'

Policy HE3.2 advises that the level of detail contained in a LDF 'should reflect the scale of the area covered and the significance of the heritage assets within it'.

Policy HE3.4 states that 'At a local level, plans should consider the qualities and local distinctiveness of the historic environment and how these contribute to the spatial vision in the local development framework core strategy. Heritage assets can be used to ensure continued sustainability of an area and promote a sense of place. Plans at local level are likely to consider investment in and enhancement of historic places including the public realm, in more detail. They should include consideration of how best to conserve individual, groups or types of heritage assets that are most at risk of loss through neglect, decay or other threats'.

The emphasis on a positive, proactive approach to the historic environment in plans is especially noteworthy. We would also highlight the need to understand the significance of heritage assets within the plan area. In the context of the Southend Central Area Action Plan we hope that assessment of the historic environment will be a central element of the evidence base.

Other points from PPS5 worth noting at this stage:
- The term 'heritage asset' is now the appropriate term to refer to those parts of the historic environment that have significance, both designated and un-designated. Paragraph 5 provides the definition.
- Paragraph 7 of the PPS recognises the positive contribution of heritage assets to local character and sense of place
- The historic environment should be integrated into planning policies promoting place-shaping (paragraph 7)
- Policy HE5 refers to the need for monitoring indicators. We recommend that heritage at risk, including grade II buildings at risk, should form part of the LDF monitoring framework.

SOUTHEND CENTRAL AREA ACTION PLAN
SECTION 3 KEY CHALLENGES
Paras 3.26 to 3.29 refer to the town being a hub for natural and built heritage. English Heritage feels strongly that in order to fully understand and address change in this area more investigative work needs to be carried out. Our Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance emphasises (para 62 onwards) the need to understand the fabric and evolution of a place and to identify who values the place and why they do so. Paragraph 89 underlines the value of specific investigation into understanding the impacts, or consequences, of proposed change.

Historically Southend has prospered by attracting visitors. We feel this role has had a profound influence on its character and that this should be taken into account when making future decisions. Policy HE2 of PPS5 advises local planning authorities to ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area to adequately inform the plan-making process.

Reference is made in the Plan's paragraph 3.28 to the existing conservation areas and historic buildings and we are aware that appraisals of some of the areas have been carried out recently. However, we feel that this would be the right time to consider further the extent of these areas, especially those which may be affected by the Area Action Plan, notably the Clifftown and Eastern Esplanade areas. It is also apparent that a number of the heritage assets in Southend are undesignated; in the context of PPS5 advice we suggest these should be evaluated.

The seafront is an area where layers of growth, often laid one on another, sometimes masks historic fabric. These none the less, in combination, present a townscape that gives Southend much of its distinctiveness. We agree that the linking of spaces may be important, but apart from on the waterfront itself these spaces are contained mainly by buildings. Their existing scale, form and alignment should be considered along with smaller details such as roof forms, materials, fenestration and signage.

The statement in paragraph 3.28 that tall buildings may "create new iconic buildings and spaces" has not been justified. An urban characterisation process could identify existing iconic buildings and spaces (e.g. the Pier, Royal Terrace, Palace Hotel and The Cliffs) and assess their existing contributions, and whether there is capacity for additional large structures or interventions.

SECTION 4 THE VISION
In para 4.3, linked to our comments above, English Heritage suggests that under (2) the objectives should be to conserve those buildings and public realm that already contribute. A detailed Public Realm survey would be helpful to inform the final strategy or spatial option.

SECTION 5 SPATIAL OPTIONS
The preferred "City by the Sea" option appears to embody many of the aspirations that the other two options in this section incorporate. We would urge, however, that the concept of producing alternative "circuits" to the High Street is fully evaluated. Option 1 focuses on the street as the heart of Southend. We feel that the street contains, or connects, a number of historic landmarks and spaces, and that its vitality should not be threatened (as has happened in other towns in the region) by well intentioned proposals to form alternative quarters, or circuits. The continued demand for physical expansion of the retail and restaurant industries may not be as assured in the future.

SECTION 6 CITY BY THE SEA
This section explains the preferred option further. Whilst reiterating the comments made above, we support the aims to improve connections and permeability, and to improve the qualities of townscapes, spaces and frontages as well as repairing buildings. However, here again we would question the need for further new landmarks, especially tall buildings, without justification. The world famous landmark of the Pier, which is in your council's ownership, is in desperate need of regeneration and yet is only briefly touched upon.

The advices contained in PPS5, policy HE3.4 is relevant here, in particular, that plans at a local level should include investment and enhancement of historic places, including the public realm.

SECTION 7 THE QUARTERS AND KEY SITES
English Heritage does not wish to comment in detail on these individual areas, which your council will be in the best position to assess in detail. We would, however, highlight the following considerations.

In the "Victorias" we agree that the civic complex, including the Library, has significance, and we urge that proposals recognise their status and incorporate them as a key component.

In High Street, we do not agree that this street lacks landmarks and consider that a thorough detailed assessment will highlight various late Victorian, Art Deco and other frontages, including the former Keddie's store, which have local resonance. The length of the High Street might be seen as an integral part of the grain of the Victorian town. It could be reinforced by boulevard planting and high quality public realm treatment that would endure longer than the rather poorly conceived, yet reasonably recent, paving scheme.

English Heritage notes that the council has commissioned a new retail study. We suggest that its conclusions should be awaited before proposals are made to expand the commercial core eastward.

We support your aim to make High Street a priority area for pedestrians, but again urge you to adopt a public realm strategy for the whole town centre. You refer to the closure of the York Road Market. English Heritage was made aware of this by representations by local residents who saw the removal of this feature as a loss of local distinctiveness. We hope that you will acknowledge the importance of human scale interventions in any alternatives.

Whilst welcoming the option to remodel the existing inimical seaward frontage of The Royals shopping centre, we must express our concern about a proposed "radical landmark redevelopment" in the area adjoining the Pier, especially as it could compromise the settings of the existing listed landmarks of the Palace Hotel and Royal Terrace and the Clifftown conservation area.

In Clifftown we support your aspirations including the creation of a new square in front of Central Station and the recognition that the fine grain historic street form should lead any regeneration proposals.

Under part 7.8 (St. John's eastwards) English Heritage urges that you give more prominence to the role that the existing conservation areas at Kursaal and Eastern Esplanade have in contributing to local distinctiveness and legibility. Kursaal is of course already a landmark, and the seafront terrace of listed fishermen's' cottages along the Esplanade are the only reminder of pre-railway old Southend. This area would benefit from appraisal, and possibly extension. The area around St. John's Churchyard certainly requires special attention and we are pleased that a brief has been commissioned for this area.

The adjoining seafront could, as stated, be said to represent a significant defining feature of the Southend identity that should be celebrated. It includes some listed buildings as well as others of local significance, with the overlying layer of later twentieth century commercialism. All of these elements need to be properly understood before any decisions are made as to future actions.

EEDA's principal role is to improve the East of England region's economic performance. Our main concern with the Development Plan documents is therefore that they will help deliver, and provide the spatial framework for sustainable economic development and regeneration in the East of England.

It is within this context that EEDA makes its response.

Comments

The primary focus of regeneration and growth within Southend as stated in the core strategy will be to regenerate the existing town centre, as a fully competitive regional centre, led by the development of the University Campus, and securing a full range of quality sub-regional services to provide for 6,500 new jobs and providing for at least 2,000 additional homes in conjunction with the upgrading of strategic and local passenger transport accessibility, including development of Southend Central and Southend Victoria Stations as strategic transport interchanges and related travel centres.

The continued regeneration of Southend town centre is a regional and sub regional priority, the achievement of which requires support and intervention across a variety of projects and programmes. In broad terms, the Area Action Plan promotes and clarifies the spatial elements of these objectives and includes relevant references to the Regional Economic Strategy.

The key challenges are broadly addressed in the consultation document together with a summary of opportunities and constraints. EEDA would suggest that the objectives in the Action Plan could restate the key targets and outcomes identified in the core strategy.

The Employment Land Review (May 2010) comments that the primary location for existing employment is the town centre, which contains 40% of all employment within the Southend-on-Sea Borough. The area is and will continue to be a significant location for future employment provision. Whilst some office buildings within the centre are of poor quality there is evidence of refurbishment. The report notes that it maybe the case that reasonable office buildings will need to be redeveloped as part of wider proposals for the regeneration of the town.

In developing the action plan further, the Council will no doubt consider the ELR recommendations and particularly that sites should be protected for employment uses as part of a comprehensive regeneration strategy to provide for modern employment floorspace as part of mixed use redevelopment schemes. The ELR suggests that the following business accommodation is protected at:

* Victoria Avenue office quarter
* Elmer Square
* Clarence Road/Alexandra Street
* St John's Quarter
* Warrior Square
* London Road

The AAP acknowledges the difficulty in integrating the land use of St Johns with the seafront area due in part to the diverse nature of the spatial land use and the topography. The AAP should look to identify interactions between the quarters and key sites identified in the AAP. In particular there should be ease of movement between the St Johns quarter, seafront, university and Victoria Road.

It is not clear from each of the individual assessment of quarters and key sites in section 7 of the report what the cumulative impact might be and the impact upon the broader objectives to improve the economic viability, viability and diversity of the town centre. EEDA would encourage more explicit analysis in this respect.

EEDA, with partners, has made significant investments into the town centre to secure economic growth and regeneration objectives. As identified in the plan EEDA welcomes the commitment to identify the key interventions required to deliver the action plan and to secure the long term economic success of the town in the light of the changing regional and sub national architecture.

By addressing these key elements the Central Area Action Plan will provide the context needed to maintain the prosperity of the East of England, enhancing its regional competitiveness and giving support to business growth.

Key Challenges

1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".

2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?

3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.


Vision

4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.

5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).

Spatial Options

6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.


City by the Sea

7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.

The Victorias

8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.

The High Street

9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.



Elmer Square

10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.

Warrior Square

11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.

St Johns & Central Seafront

12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.

Development Management

13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.

Key Challenges

1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".

2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?

3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.


Vision

4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.

5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).

Spatial Options

6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.


City by the Sea

7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.

The Victorias

8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.

The High Street

9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.



Elmer Square

10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.

Warrior Square

11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.

St Johns & Central Seafront

12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.

Development Management

13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.

Key Challenges

1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".

2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?

3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.


Vision

4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.

5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).

Spatial Options

6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.


City by the Sea

7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.

The Victorias

8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.

The High Street

9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.



Elmer Square

10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.

Warrior Square

11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.

St Johns & Central Seafront

12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.

Development Management

13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.

Iceni Projects Ltd (Iceni) has been instructed by Cordea Savills on behalf of Colonnade Land LLP (Colonnade) to submit representations to the Development Management Document (DMD) and Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) Development Plan Documents (DPDs). Colonnade represents the interests of landowners to the north of Southend.

Overview
Colonnade has sought to engage in the development of the Local Development Framework (LDF) for Southend and has submitted a number of representations to this end.

Colonnade considers Southend to be one of the most important locations in the Thames Gateway for improving both the local and regional economy. This is based on the potential that exists for Southend to function as a regional city for Essex Thames Gateway and the potential of Southend Airport to develop into a successful regional airport for the sub-region and an economic pole in its own right.

The advent of localism and the changes to the planning system being brought into place by the Government provide an opportunity for the Council to drastically enhance the quality of life of its residents, enhance the individuality and unique character of Southend and provides the optimum framework to deliver on the long-standing objectives of the Council to deliver improvements to the strategic transport infrastructure network. This is the first time in a planning generation that the Council will be truly able to take control of its own planning destiny without being driven by targets and should be embraced.

Colonnade recognises that the potential of Southend cannot be fully realised without extensive new highway and public transport infrastructure and accordingly, Colonnade is promoting an extension of Southend to enable the delivery of significant improvements to the strategic transport infrastructure network that will realise the long-standing objectives of the Council arising from the original Local Transport Plan. Plans for the expansion of the airport are taking shape and must be supported by improvements to the remainder of the strategic transport network.

The extension of Southend provides an opportunity to plan comprehensively for improvements to infrastructure, including the potential to contribute to improvements to Garon Park. Indeed, Garon Park could be served by a new link road and associated development could be designed around an expanded park that would form the focus of growth and provide a green lung for both Southend and Rochford.

It is in the context of the above that these representations are submitted. However, it is also significant that the consultation period for both documents commenced prior to the changes to the planning system and policies announced by the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Minister for Decentralisation. The implications of the changes are considered below.

Changes to the Planning System
The new Government has announced a series of significant changes to the planning system that are material to the Core Strategy and its daughter documents, including the DMD and SCAAP.

Whilst the intention of the changes is not to derail or stop the LDF production process, it is inevitable that the implications of the changes will need to be considered by the Council. In the absence of clarification from the Council as to its intended path - principally the choice between continuing with the Core Strategy as adopted (and continuing the production of its daughter documents based on an unaltered strategy), or opting to alter the Core Strategy to take account of the changes.

Either way, the Council is expected to:
"...quickly signal their intention to undertake an early review so that communities and land owners know where they stand." [guidance issued on 6 July 2010 by the Department for Communities and Local Government]

We await the response from the Council as to its intentions regarding housing targets and reserve the right to comment further on the clarification of its position.

If the Council decides the appropriate path is to undertake an early review of the Core Strategy, which for the avoidance of doubt Colonnade considers is the appropriate approach in light of the changes to PPS3 in particular (the reasons for this being clarified below), then the consultation on the DMD and SCAAP should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the review.

With regard to the housing targets set out in the now revoked East of England Plan, should the Council wish to propose a revised housing target for the Borough, then the revocation of the Regional Strategies provides the freedom for the Council to devise its own objectives without fear of intervention from the Regional Assembly. Colonnade would welcome the swift clarification of the intended approach to the housing provision targets in accordance with Government advice.

It is also significant that neighbouring authorities are understood to be considering reducing their housing targets with the expectation that Southend will absorb the resultant surplus and it is clear that the Government has confirmed the expectation that authorities will work together to address these, and other, issues. The confirmation of the shortfall in the housing land supply in Rochford, approximately 2.5 years, by the Inspector and the Secretary of State at the recent recovered appeal (ref. APP/B1550/A/09/2118433/NWF), provides a clear indication of the extent of the issues being faced by a neighbouring authority.

As to the changes to PPS3, these are considered to be a material change that could fundamentally affect the principal aims of the housing strategy set out in the Core Strategy. As such, Colonnade considers that the Council will need to consider a review of the Core Strategy as a result of these changes as a minimum.

The change in classification of backlands/gardens and the abandonment of the minimum housing density targets will act to further enhance the need to identify additional housing sites through the planning process. Quite simply, the Council will not be able to rely to any extent on the delivery of windfall sites, the level of development within the Town Centre and Central Area or further intensification of the urban areas to the extent envisaged in the Core Strategy. As such, wholesale changes will be required to the housing strategy to maintain a five and fifteen year supply of suitable, available and viable housing sites.

It is significant that there has been growing concern amongst Council Members over town cramming and the provision of a large predominance of flatted developments. The changes to PPS3 do allow the Council to apply greater freedoms in the types and standards of housing (size and densities) sought, provided there is sufficient additional land supply identified to address these improved standards. As clarified below, the current market demand, in Southend and the wider area, is now predominantly for family sized homes.

Therefore, the logical conclusion arising from both of the changes to PPS3 is the need to identify further reservoirs of housing land to allow for sufficient housing growth of the dwelling type/s demanded without the comfort of delivery on windfall sites or minimum targets on those areas identified.

Finally, and with the recent changes to PPS3 in mind, it is relevant to note the findings of the Inspector and Secretary of State in relation to the evidence presented by the appellant regarding the likelihood of high density flatted development schemes being delivered in the current economic climate, specifically in relation to the south Essex sub-region, at the recent appeal by Colonnade for the development of approximately 300 dwellings in East Tilbury (ref. APP/M9565/A/09/2114804/NWF).

Evidence was presented by a former Managing Director of a national housebuilder with a significant property portfolio in south Essex, which confirmed that, amongst other issues:

* Delivery of new housing in South Essex in recent years has, as a result of buoyant market conditions, limited supply, and vendor expectations, been focussed on flatted development as this was seen by investors as the way to maximise the value of their land;
* Following the downturn in the economy, there has been a realisation that high density schemes, unless of a scale and location that are highly sustainable and desirable, are not economically deliverable in the short or medium term;
* Planning supply of flatted product suddenly became the opposite of what little end user demand existed for traditional family housing;
* In some cases the financial viability of high density schemes that also had high planning gain tariffs, sustainability codes and contemporary design costs was in question even at the height of the market; and
* Due to the financial difficulty being experienced by all house builders at present, the emphasis is on securing land that has the ability to generate turnover with low working capital expenditure. In order to achieve this, the focus is on securing relatively 'clean' land for building and selling family housing product rather than flats, which are less dependent on off‐market sales and the buy‐to‐let investor market.

The Inspector's Report confirmed that the above evidence was accepted in making his recommendation that the appeal be allowed. In addition, the Inspector acknowledged the "delivery problems arising in the current economic climate, and from the heavy reliance on the delivery of high density urban development on complex brownfield sites" [IR334] and noted that:

"More recently, the additional cost associated with major brownfield schemes has in some cases seen the proportion of affordable housing renegotiated downwards. An example is the Fiddler's Reach scheme at West Thurrock, where viability considerations have restricted the proportion of affordable housing to 11%." [IR308]

It is quite clear from the above, that a heavy reliance on the delivery of housing development on high density brownfield sites brings with it a number of significant complexities, not least the issues of attractiveness to the market and viability, but also the potential to restrict affordable housing delivery, both in real and proportional terms.

In accepting the recommendation of the Inspector and allowing the appeal, the Secretary of State verified position adopted by the Inspector and should be taken into account by the Council in the formulation of the policies of the DMD and SCAAP.

Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP)
Paragraph 1.14 reaffirms the spatial strategy of making provision for a large share of the Borough's new growth and regeneration to be focussed in the central area of the borough. Whilst the general principle of regeneration of the central area is accepted by Colonnade, it considers the strategy requires reconsideration in light of the implications the strategy could have on the delivery of growth.

Put simply, the reliance on the development of central brownfield sites for high density development will not deliver what the market, or residents (both current and future) of Southend require in many instances is not economically viable and in particular will put the delivery of affordable housing at risk.

Colonnade considers the intention to deliver "true sustainability" [para 2.16] through this strategy are at risk. The failure to plan and provide for the needs of residents and take account of the economic considerations of delivery mean that development, and the associated regeneration and improvements to infrastructure that accompanies it, will not come forward. The potential here for greater gain will be undermined as a result of the unintended consequences of the SCAAP if it is allowed to proceed unaltered.

The concerns of Colonnade are set in context by the confirmation in the document of the following issues:

* Paragraph 8.12: Capacity estimates in the central area are based on high-density flatted development, which has been the trend in the town;
* Paragraph 8.12: There is increasing concern about the quality and size of dwelling provision in the town;
* Paragraph 8.14: The average split between houses and flats has been 25%/75%
* Paragraph 8.14: It is apparent that living space is not sufficient to meet family needs;
* Paragraph 8.16: Since 2001 the provision of affordable housing has been consistently low, both in terms of meeting housing needs and the regional targets; and
* Paragraph 8.16: Development of the central area will be critical to the provision of future affordable housing.

Accordingly, Colonnade considers that the only realistic means of addressing both the market and affordable housing needs of the borough in the short, medium and longer term is to consider a revision to the strategy of focussing growth in the central area to the exclusion of growth in housing to the north of the borough. Previous representations from Colonnade have made clear the benefits of a balanced apportionment of growth to the north of the borough, which will address housing need and provide for desperately needed improvements to the strategic transport infrastructure network.

If the Council maintains the strategy of focussing growth in the central area, none of the options set out within Options Boxes 23 - 25 will be deliverable.

Conclusions
In formulating its policies contained within the DMD and SCAAP, the Council should take account of the findings of the Secretary of State in the recent appeal for the development of approximately 300 dwellings in East Tilbury relating to the provision of high density flatted development on brownfield sites.

Furthermore, the Council should look to reflect the changes to the planning system arising from the recent announcements by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Minister for Decentralisation.

The implications of the above mean that the Council will need to reconsider the wider spatial strategy of focussing development within the central area at the expense of development to the north of the borough, and make a number of changes to the specific policy approaches in the DMD and SCAAP.

Furthermore, Colonnade wishes to take this opportunity to formally register a request to appear at all stages of the Examinations relating to the DPDs, including the pre-hearing meeting and any planned hearing sessions whereby issues raised in the context of this letter are to be discussed. Please confirm this request has by return.

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b