1.5 Please let us know if you believe there is another option on how Southend should develop in the future.

More innovative, greener, sustainable and affordable (in line with local average income) housing within current residential built environment areas. As low level as possible. Ditto for brownfield sites and other currently non-residential areas which have existing built development and infrastructure. No development whatsoever on green sites and Greenbelt land.

If need be utilise MOD land to east adjacent to Foulness with smart connected travel links

Stop demolishing old characterful buildings - renovate which is greener than demolishing & putting up cheap poorly built new builds.
Build attractions for example Ferris Wheel on Pier or sky deck as in Brighton rather than more empty shopping centres and restaurants - plenty of empty buildings already.
Use old Beechcroft Gallery for Saxon Hoard instead of letting it rot behind graffiti daubed hoarding. Use money wisely instead of millions of pounds on plans for new vanity project museum.

No, option 3 is the best option by far. Infrastructure needs improvement generally & CIL & S106 contributions provided by option 3 will help Southend achieve the improvements needed

Option 1 is most feasible and reserving our green areas for recreational activity is extremely important. Significant redevelopment has already started in built up areas of southend (e.g. Victoria Chase) but there are still more opportunities to utilise these areas.

Become a larger borough including rochford and castle point to enable holistic approach

Southend should recognise the importance of it's coastal area for wintering birdlife such as brent geese and waders, and ensure future protection of the feeding areas from all leisure activities that might upset this balance.

Southend should look at all unused commercial/retail sites and bring them back into use as housing if commercial/retail is not viable

Southend should develop policies that insist that owners of retail/commercial premises that are not in use for over 2 years are not allowed to leave them empty attracting flyposting etc which is not only unattractive to the area, but could be converted to good quality innovative housing to ease the housing shortage. The properties at the London Road entrance to Hamlet court road are an example of this.

The inclusion of well designed modern high rise buildings with a high level of sustainability, communal spaces, roof gardens and other facilities could be included in any of the options and could be a benefit to the borough.

We note the plan identifies the need for 18,000-24,000 new homes and 10,000-12,000 new jobs over a 20 year period, and a HELAA has been produced as part of the new evidence to support the local plan. Although we do not have an opinion on broad growth rates across the Borough, we will provide our opinion going forward relating to growth locations and our infrastructure provision. We recognise the local plan is in its infancy and has not yet begun to allocate sites, but we would like to offer our support to the council by conducting a high level assessment using shape files which will identify assets crossing sites. This information will also help inform our asset investment plans which will ensure we fulfil our duty as the statutory water undertaker in the Borough. We are happy for the council to contact our planning team directly to discuss the file types we would require for this assessment to take place, if the council would like strengthen the evidence base.

Section 1: Vision and strategy for the future
Southend needs to “Up its Game” if it is to prosper and grow in the future. It has assets which need to be further exploited and grown so that it can accommodate future population growth painlessly to the benefit of all of its people and businesses. It is unlikely that more of the same will work in the coming years. As there is no single group that can achieve this result, Southend council need to be leaders of this process. To achieve an optimum result, the council needs dynamic partnership with its people and businesses. Further, all its assets, people and location need to be exploited to achieve the best possible result. When unforeseen problems occur, as they undoubtedly will, they must be dealt with rapidly and in the short and long term interests of its entire people.
I suggest our objectives for the future should be:
Southend to be: prosperous, healthy, well educated in appropriate skills for the future, accessible from the rest of the UK and Europe, a major tourist destination, a safe environment for all, reduced atmospheric pollution and with no flooding risk from the sea and rainfall.
Southend has some excellent assets. It is a seaside location with about 7 miles of coastline. In addition to “bucket and spade tourism”, we need our beaches to be well advertised be fully exploited. Considering other tourism, the Cliffs Pavilion provides shows and concerts. Southend yacht clubs and Kite surfing are popular. Southend has a plethora of restaurants and entertainment.
Unfortunately it lacks world class road access and parking, although, uniquely for a town of its size, it has two main line railways, historically very popular with tourists. One section of the foreshore is out of bounds to residents and others as it is believed there is unexploded ordnance under the beach. The Ministry of Defence seems to be unwilling to confirm the level of risk or remove unexploded ordnance. This problem needs to be dealt with.
To achieve sustained success, for residents and visitors, our road access to the rest of the UK needs to be significantly improved. Southend, like many other towns and cities, is overwhelmed by road traffic. For the future, it is essential to discourage the use of cars and to ensure cars are replaced by minimum polluting alternatives giving a high public service. Currently, car and coach parking need to be sufficient to match current and future tourism until satisfactory alternative arrangements are available. Should high value businesses coupled with entrepreneurship be attracted to Southend, it seems likely that Southend could be very successful. Currently we have only one major business of this calibre
In addition to needing easy access from the UK and Europe, we need to improve our local public transport and create a bus station on the lines of the Preston (Lancashire) bus station, and Harrogate and Bath bus stations. A link is necessary between the pier and the local airport. A tramway, though expensive, running down the High Street will be beneficial for tourism and trade. The council and the rail and bus companies need to work together to encourage people to visit Southend from Leigh to Shoeburyness and to make East beach a premier destination.

Considering Shoebury (the wards of West Shoebury and Shoeburyness) national surveys indicate that Shoebury has a relatively low standard of health and income. Shoebury for years has been the poor relation of the rest of the borough. This needs to be changed. A raised standard of life, health, education and aspiration is essential for the future Shoebury to prosper in the future. Businesses tend to stay away from Shoebury because of access problems. Adequate high speed roads are needed to make Shoebury an attractive location. The ideal solution is a new motorway to the M25 which will potentially benefit the whole of Southend and the communities to the north of Southend, for example, Great Wakering.

As our major land asset is our beaches, we have the longest pleasure pier in the world and lots of eating places. We need to implement a plan to make Southend the best destination for tourists in South East England. We are close to a large population centre in east London.

New home delivery:
We understand that central government needs Southend to accommodate a further 80,000 houses.
Whilst Option 1 seems to be the ideal one, there is insufficient space within the current boundaries of Southend to match government’s requirement.
Option 3 seems to be the only one that could work. This is likely to change Southend, and to be unacceptable for current residents. It is unlikely that Essex County Council will agree make land available to Southend for 80,000 homes without the UK government compelling them to do so.
Employers are hesitant to locate in Southend because of its poor road links. This is likely to mean that Southend is likely to be a magnet for people with low incomes living in “affordable homes” should Southend be able to provide them.

The current infrastructure is challenged whenever there is very heavy rain and high tides. Additional homes will need more land that will be increasingly susceptible to flooding without significant raising of sea walls. The risk of flooding will be increased by isostatic readjustment.
It seems that Southend council will be in a trap if the UK Government insists on a further 80,000 homes in the current borders of Southend and will not be able to meet its current aspirations for its current people nor its future.

1. Thank you for inviting Brentwood Borough Council to provide comments as part of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council’s consultation on its New Local Plan Issues & Options document. Brentwood Borough Council forms part of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) along with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. South Essex shares several strategic issues, such as housing growth and infrastructure. It is important that such issues are addressed through collaborative working and meaningful discussions in accordance with legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance.
2. Please note that we have limited comments to high level strategic issues. Comments on the Southend Issues & Options are limited given the early stage of the plan-making process and regular engagement through the duty to cooperate and joint working of ASELA.
Regional Context: South Essex Strategic Housing Market Area
3. The Council notes the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Area, comprising the local authorities of Thurrock, Basildon, Castle Point, Southend-on-Sea, and Rochford. Brentwood Borough Council is in general support of this approach. It is acknowledged that Brentwood is a signatory to the ASELA memorandum of understanding but does not form part of the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Area.
Development Requirements: Meeting Housing Needs
4. The Southend-on-Sea New Local Plan Issues & Options consultation document identifies a housing need of 18,000-24,000 (2018-2038). Two of the three development options focus development within the Southend Borough boundary. However, it is recognised that Southend would not be able to meet its full objectively assessed housing need within its own boundary by approximately 10,200 dwellings due to a physical shortfall of land. Brentwood Borough Council encourages Southend Borough Council to make every reasonable effort to meet as much of the borough’s own housing need before relying on duty to cooperate and the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan to meet unmet need.
5. Joint working within ASELA has been set-up to discuss cross-boundary issues such as unmet housing needs. Further joint working is required through the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan to identify the feasibility of meeting unmet needs in the wider sub-region from several plans that are not fully meeting local needs (to date, Basildon, Castle Point, and Southend).
Duty to Cooperate
6. The Council acknowledges receipt of a letter from Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (4 March 2019) regarding duty to cooperate unmet housing need and will be replying in due course.
7. Brentwood Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council in progressing the plan-making process of both local areas on an ongoing basis, specifically as part of joint work on strategic planning in South Essex, and in line with the requirements of the duty to cooperate.

I write on behalf of Taylor Wimpey in response to the current Southend-on-Sea New Local Plan Issues & Options consultation (April 2019).
Taylor Wimpey is one of the UK’s largest housebuilders and will be an important partner in the delivery of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council’s (SBC) spatial and strategic objectives as set out within the emerging Local Plan. Taylor Wimpey is keen to work closely with SBC and the wider South Essex Sub-Region to deliver much needed new housing and infrastructure and to contribute towards the objectives of the emerging New Local Plan and South Essex Joint Spatial Plan.
The following representation seeks to respond to the questions raised by the current New Local Plan Issues & Options consultation, particularly in respect of the amount of growth required and the distribution of development over the next Plan period. In particular, these representations are written in respect of Taylor Wimpey’s interests at Land South of Great Wakering, on the north-eastern edge of SBC but located within
neighbouring Rochford District Council, as identified in Figure 1 below, and which represents a viable opportunity to deliver a high-quality development of approximately 1,100 much needed new homes.
See Figure 1: Land South of Great Wakering in hardcopy
A copy of Taylor Wimpey’s representations submitted to Rochford District Council’s Issues & Options consultation (March 2018) are also enclosed at Appendix 1 for SBC’s consideration. The following representations are structured as follows:
• SBC’s Objectively Assessed Housing Needs and Anticipated Housing Supply;
• Consideration of the Proposed Spatial Options; and
• Summary and Conclusions
SBC’s Objectively Assessed Housing Needs and Anticipated Housing Supply
Housing Need
As acknowledged by the Government’s Housing White Paper (2017), the Government recognises that the housing market in England is “broken and the cause is very simple: for too long, we haven’t built enough homes”. Accordingly, the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) highlights that in order to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay (NPPF, paragraph 59). To determine the minimum number of homes needed, the NPPF requires that strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the ‘Standard Method’ in national planning guidance, unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach, which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market
signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for (NPPF, paragraph 60).
Accordingly, LPAs should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period (NPPF, paragraph 65). According to the Government’s ‘standard methodology’ for calculating housing need, SBC has an identified need of between 909-1,176 new homes per annum, which over the proposed 20-year plan period equates to between approximately 18,000-24,000 new homes. The identified objectively assessed housing need for SBC correlates to the findings of the South Essex Housing Needs Assessment (SHMA, 2016) which identified an annual objectively assessed need of 1,072 dwellings per annum (total of approximately 21,500 new homes over the next plan period). With SBC’s historic rate of development since 2001 being 340 dwellings per annum, the standardised methodology represents a significant uplift in annual housing completion rates, requiring over three times past historic rates of development to achieve the objectively assessed higher range need. Moreover, the NPPF continues that in order to maintain the supply of housing, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should monitor progress in building out sites which haveplanning permission. Where the ‘Housing Delivery Test’ indicates that delivery has fallen below 95% of the LPAs housing requirement over the previous three years, the authority should prepare an action plan in line with national guidance, to assess the causes of under delivery and identify actions to increase delivery in future years (NPPF, paragraph 75). As such, it is important to note that the Government’s 2018 Housing Delivery Test, published in February 2019, highlights that SBC has delivered just 49% against adopted housing targets in the last 3 years. Therefore, in line with national planning guidance, it is
appropriate to apply a 20% buffer to SBC’s 5-year housing land supply requirements also. Meeting objectively assessed housing needs therefore represents a significant challenge for SBC.
Housing Supply
As highlighted in SBC’s Housing Topic Paper (2019), land resources in SBC are already at a premium with the existing urban area having one of the highest urban densities in the UK outside London1 and the majority of surrounding open land being designated as Metropolitan Green Belt, extending from East London across the South Essex Sub-Region. SBC’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA, 2018) indicates that it
will not be possible to meet the objectively assessed local housing need within the existing urban area or on land at the edge of the existing built-up area. It will therefore be essential for SBC to work closely with its South Essex neighbouring authorities to identify potential strategic scale development sites.
The HELAA indicates that there is land available for around 5,200 new homes within the existing built-up area of Southend-on-Sea. This figure rises to approximately 10,000 new homes when also considering land at the edge of the built-up area, although as these additional sites are on open space, Green Belt, agricultural and employment land, they would be subject to further review. An analysis of past windfall sites further suggests that
around 3,800 new homes may also become available over the next 20 years. Accordingly, it is evident that SBC will need to look beyond its existing boundaries in order to meet its statutory requirements to meet its significant identified housing needs.
Consideration of the Proposed Spatial Options
As set out above, the scale of the housing challenge needs to be considered in the context of the clear shift at the national level to significantly increase the delivery of new homes necessary in order to ‘fix our broken housing market’. The Issues & Options consultation therefore suggests three Spatial Options for meeting identified housing needs in SBC and the following summarises these options against the anticipated housing supply and demand as highlighted above.
See Table 1: SBC Spatial Options vs Identified Supply/Demand in hardcopy
As highlighted above, only Option 3 comes close to meeting SBC’s legal obligations to meeting minimum objectively assessed needs in the Borough over the next 20 years. However, these figures should also be treated with caution and as a ‘best case scenario’ on the basis that the (approximately) 4,200 homes located on sites on the edge of the built-up area, and as identified within HELAA (2018) as being available, in fact represents an ‘unconstrained’ figure. These sites are located on land subject to Green Belt, Open Space, Agricultural and Employment land designations and will require further review through the Local Plan process to determine if and how many of these sites should be taken forward. The current inclusion of all 4,200 homes on these ‘edge of settlement’ sites within SBC’s anticipated housing supply pipeline is therefore considered to be highly optimistic.
As highlighted in Table 1 above, Option 3 also fails to plan for sufficient new homes to meet objectively assessed housing needs at the upper end of the scale (i.e. 1,176 dwellings per annum). This, in combination with the optimistic anticipated supply identified above, indicates that SBC are currently planning for a significant shortfall in housing delivery against identified needs.
The NPPF recognises that the supply of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements and ‘significant extensions to existing villages and towns’, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. But, in so doing, Local Authorities should make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation.
The Issues & Options consultation provides no indication with regards to anticipated timescales for the delivery of the New Settlement proposed by Spatial Option 3, however it can reasonably be anticipated that any such proposal for a New Settlement of between 6,000 – 8,000 new homes will necessitate a significant lead-in time before it starts to deliver new homes ‘on the ground’ (i.e. 10-15+ years after adoption of the New Local Plan
and not before 2032 based on the current Local Plan timetable). Moreover, it can further be anticipated that any such New Settlement will likely deliver the majority of its housing requirement towards the end of the next plan period and even into the following plan period beyond 2038.
There is therefore a pressing need to identify how objectively assessed housing needs can be met and whilst the South Essex Authorities Joint Spatial Plan will go some way to help facilitate the delivery of the proposed New Settlement, there remains a need to deliver an increased number of new homes in the interim. As SBC cannot identify a sufficient supply of new homes on land within its own boundaries and the delivery of the New Settlement is likely to extend beyond the next plan period to 2038, it is considered that a Fourth Spatial Option is therefore required to address the unmet housing needs arising in the interim period. As such, a fourth Spatial Option should include the implementation of all of the proposed Options (1, 2 & 3) in addition to working closely with SBC’s neighbours through the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ to consider all suitable and deliverable/developable sites beyond its boundaries, including Land South of Great Wakering, in order to help meet SBC’s unmet housing needs.
Such an approach would help to ensure a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward for development at the right time and in a location close to Southend-on-Sea where it is most needed, to contribute towards SBC’s and neighbouring Rochford District Council’s (RDCs) significant identified housing needs.
Summary and Conclusions
The above representations, submitted on behalf of Taylor Wimpey, seeks to respond to the questions raised by SBC’s New Local Plan Issues & Options consultation (April 2019), particularly in respect of the amount of growth required and the distribution of development over the next plan period to 2038. In particular, these representations are written in respect of Taylor Wimpey’s interests at Land South of Great Wakering, on the north-eastern edge of SBC and located within neighbouring Rochford District Council, which represents a viable opportunity to deliver a
high-quality development of approximately 1,100 much needed new homes.
In light of the above findings in respect of significant identified housing need, the insufficient availability of land within SBC’s boundaries to accommodate required growth and the significant lead-in times associated with the delivery of the proposed New Settlement, it is concluded that a further Spatial Option is required whereby SBC should work closely with its neighbours, including RDC to consider all suitable and deliverable/developable sites beyond its boundaries, including Land South of Great Wakering.
Taylor Wimpey wishes to reaffirm its commitment to working closely with SBC in the preparation of the emerging Local Plan and wider South Essex Joint Spatial Strategy to ensure a positive planning policy position for their land interests is taken forward to deliver real benefits for the local communities of both SBC and RBC. I trust the above is of assistance and that SBC will take these representations into account
in preparing the New Local Plan.us

.