2.7 Do you have any other issues/comments you would like to raise

The vital importance of housing to family stability, community cohesion and health and well-being of individuals needs to be clearly recognized and taken fully into account at all levels of our housing strategy and planning policies.

The suggestion of providing garden communities is a sensible one. Southend is heavily biased towards 1 & 2 bed flats & more 2, 3 & 4 bed houses are badly needed for young families. Town houses (3 storey) can provide good housing densities & therefore are not necessarily too expensive to build, keeping resale costs affordable. They can make very efficient use of land.

Skills
with all the new developments in the borough we should ensure that the developers are required to re-invest in the Southend community in the same way as they are required to in different boroughs eg use of the 106 agreement to insist that they employ a proportion of people from the SS post codes also that they employ a proportion of apprenticeships for every £m spend. Also that they recruit via SECTA

Lack of local plans, Lack of support from Members, Not listening to Local Residents, Not believing residents when highlighting issues. Disconnect between SBC departments Planning and Transport and Highways.
Resulting in SBC being disengaged with residents, reactive in its behaviours and driven by developers greed, rather than in context of a plan for each area.
Action needs to reflect policy and be consistent - members need to engage - SBC needs to communicate with its residents and local communities

We need to take a more imaginative view on developing our town. New houses are not the answer. Our roads can’t cope and the rail service is already too busy at peak times. Perhaps the borough should focus on our strengths and help develop small, local seaside businesses. The focus on the airport, business parks etc does not provide the quality of opportunity we need. They tend to be poorly paid and short term.

RDC would suggest that a number of different options will need to be explored to help meet Southend’s identified housing needs. Southend Borough Council should consider the capacity of employment areas for accommodating housing needs where there are clear sustainable advantages and where the economic impacts for the wider community, including residents of Rochford District, are adequately considered and mitigated. Any such approach should prioritise underutilised sites or sites which due to their uses or location are of a lesser value. Southend Borough Council should not rule out building on land that is not currently developed unless there are clearly evidenced reasons why doing so would not be sustainable. In accordance with national policy, Southend Borough Council should plan for the housing needs of all in the community, including affordable and specialist housing needs, and accommodate these through its housing strategy. This should be supported by appropriate and proportionate evidence and informed by the Duty to Co-operate, including the emerging South Essex JSP.

In every option the impact of the electricity grid should be examined carefully. A waste to energy plant should be looked at as a priority to reuse waste, to minimise vehicle movements and to maximise local generation.

On shore wind should also be considered with solar on houses, car parks and other build environments

Budget for purchasing empty/unused properties for use as social housing

The local plan should also support the need to meet climate change objectives by having a housing standard that is carbon neutral and includes things such as solar panels, and ground heat pumps. Where this is not possible then carbon emissions for the life of that property should have carbon emissions offset arrangements in place.

The Southend Issues and Options document includes a dwelling need of 18,000 to 24,000 dwellings as representing the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing in Southend for 20 years. The revised Government NPPF and Planning Guidance of February 2019 regarding updates the approach to the use of the Government standard methodology. The Government approach to assessing need produces a Southend housing need figure (23,580 dwellings over 20 years) which is at the higher end of the housing need range as set out in the Southend Issues and Options document and also therefore at the higher end of the unmet need as measured against current capacity assessments from urban sites.

Southend Council will need to ensure that in preparing its New Local Plan, it has reviewed and updated its OAN assessment to reflect the approach as set out by the Government and also any further evidence and updated joint work by the South Essex authorities on Strategic Housing Market Assessments. It is considered the lower need figure down to 18,000 dwellings no longer represents a housing need that complies with Government policy.

We would like to reiterate our response from Question 1.4. 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.

The housing options selected should be based on delivering the needs that will arise from the population changes anticipated to occur over the next 30 years, so that the mix of housing that the Local Plan signals needs to be developed will meet the needs of the population change that will occur over that period.
It is also important that sustainability becomes a requirement of developers in the proposals they bring forward and that this is signalled as a key requirement by this Local Plan once it is in place.
The Local Plan should also signal the planned integrated infrastructure and public transport options that are being developed, so that these can be taken into account by developers when they are working up their proposals.
Andrew Barnes and Elizabeth Georgeou - Green City 2050 outcome leads

the text and slides attached, introduces the Metrotidal Lower Thames Orbital and forms the Metrotidal Limited submission and response to the Southend Local Plan consultations, to support the aims and objectives of the local plan while offering an alternative approach to deliverability with a view to generating greater benefits. Deliverability is likely to extend beyond the local plan period, so the proposals raise a question of safeguarding to enable delivery as part of the long term objectives of the Southend 2050 plan.
Set out below are some initial responses to the 12No. Local Plan section headings of the consultations:-
Our Vision
Metrotidal Limited supports the key messages in Box 1 of the Southend 2050 plan.
Spatial Strategy
1.4 – Metrotidal Limited supports Option 3, i.e. Option 2 + working with neighbouring authorities. The Metrotidal proposal would mitigate any local loss of greenbelt and greenfield land by providing much improved access to greenbelt and greenfield land on the routes of the rail orbital and Sustrans cycle networks across the Lower Thames and Medway estuaries. Furthermore, the new connectivity supports an integrated and co-ordinated approach to existing and new housing developments across the Lower Thames Estuary while providing the resilience of alternative routes across the estuary and into Central London.
Housing
2.1(b), 2.3, 2.4, 2.7. The Metrotidal proposal supports both increased housing supply at public transport and town centre locations including land released by redevelopment of the Southend Victoria terminus as well as the potential of the “Sector D “ Fossets Farm, Garon Park and Bournes Green Chase area, with access from Southend Airport Station.
Securing a Thriving Local Economy
3.7 The Metrotidal proposal creates an orbital line for the Lower Thames Estuary, bringing together new markets and opportunities for Southend in terms of outward connectivity and inward investment. The Medway Towns are currently up to 2-hours away but at a distance of only 20km. The Metrotidal Lower Thames Orbital brings South Essex and North Kent within a 30 minute journey, creating a single economy larger than Manchester.
Promoting Southend as a Major Resort
4. The Metrotidal proposal supports Southend as an exemplar coastal tourism destination within the UK. The sea defence system becomes itself a major tourist attraction. The proposals include a high-quality marina development with a cruise liner terminal and Thames Clipper ferry landings all served by a Thames Estuary Station, enhancing Southend as a gateway for national and international tourism. The marina, cruise liner terminal and ferry landings complement the original development of the pier as a tourist gateway to Southend. The integrated transport connections, including the rail links to Southend Airport, Ebbsfleet and Central London, provide an attractive tourist offer and radically improve access to the Southend conurbation.
Providing for Vibrant and Attractive Town Centres
5.6 The Metrotidal proposal supports the regeneration of the town centre for the 21st century with a new Southend Central underground station linking the existing lines while releasing the Southend Victoria terminus site for redevelopment.
Providing for a Sustainable Transport System
6.6 The Metrotidal proposals promote green-growth across the Lower Thames estuary by including a floating solar array and wind turbines to generate renewable energy for the railway orbital and tunnel M+E systems along with an efficient data storage and distribution system.
Facilitating Good Design and Healthy Living
7.5 The Metrotidal Lower Thames Orbital provides ready access to the wide open spaces of the Thames and Medway estuaries.
Providing Community Services and Infrastructure
8.4 The Metrotidal proposals contribute to improved broadband infrastructure and connectivity.

Enhancing our Natural Environment
9.3 As noted above The Metrotidal Lower Thames Orbital provides ready access to the wide open spaces of the Thames and Medway estuaries.
Planning for Climate Change
10.1 The Metrotidal proposal protects the full length of the Thames tideway upstream with a system that is only 8km long.
Ensuring that the Local Plan is Delivered
12.5 The Metrotidal proposal for integrated infrastructure enables overall costs to be reduced while increasing the net economic benefits. Municipal Railway Bonds and other innovative funding initiatives replace conventional public/private sector funding sources to restore the co-ordination of railway and land development that had contributed to the growth of Southend in the 19th and 20th centuries.

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.

As a Southend resident I wanted to add a few comments regarding planning going forward for the town.
One of the major concerns for people I work with and know is the lack of support for SEN pupils in schools-this includes a lot of school spaces all being in one secondary school-which is in special measures. There is a lack of specialist provision for pupil between Years 2 and 6, and schools don’t feel equipped to support the more complex needs we have in the community now.

New flats being built etc are causing congestion and a demand for local services such as health and social care. Also a demand on parking, which I feel impacts on tourism.

There are clearly huge issues with the gap between the high and low earning citizens, and a huge homelessness problem, which I know is national and a reflection of cuts etc.
In terms of existing housing, those of us who have bought our own properties in the 130-200k range are often buying extremely old houses. These need a high level of maintenance and attention, putting a financial strain on middle income earners. This then has an impact on those who should have income to spend in our local businesses and on services, as we are all spending money trying to combat damp etc in our old homes and keep them heated. I feel a fund or grant to improve older properties will help improve the lives of property owners and their general health. This also applies to those with rental properties. Currently this only applies to very low earners.

There is also a huge problem with private maintenance companies who have contracts with a lot of our local leasehold and rented properties. Meaning landlords and homeowners are paying huge monthly expenses for very sub standard maintenance support. This means payments are going out to these companies and the properties are falling into disrepair as homeowners cant afford to improve them. We sought out legal advice and got out of our maintenance contract, but some people do not know how to do this or cannot afford to.
There are no longer as many events to draw people in such as the air show, which was a great way to attract tourism etc.
The gap between low and high earners is becoming worse, which again is a sign of government change at a national level. I feel that the secondary school standards here are slipping due to a lack of investment in the education system and other support services. This has a knock on effect on our citizens and their ability to contribute to our town economically. I feel the grammar school system that we have means that mainstream secondaries will struggle as the top achievers are ‘creamed’ off and the ability to push the top students in mainstream schools is more difficult. The SEMH school (PLT) is not of a sufficient standard and therefore those who have the opportunity to find further education and employment who have emotional issues are not being given a fair chance to close the gap between low and middle earners. Mental health support is an enorour need in recent years, and the support we have is extremely stretched-those who do not meet the threshold for mental health NHS support are not being supported and this is resulting in poor outcomes for those who have mental health issues (again a national issue).
I do love my town and all the amenities it provides, but there needs to be an emphasis on services to support its residents, ensuring there are enough resources for those of us here. Older properties and their issues have been the most significant reason why I have felt frustrated as a citizen.

As a Southend resident I wanted to add a few comments regarding planning going forward for the town.
One of the major concerns for people I work with and know is the lack of support for SEN pupils in schools-this includes a lot of school spaces all being in one secondary school-which is in special measures. There is a lack of specialist provision for pupil between Years 2 and 6, and schools don’t feel equipped to support the more complex needs we have in the community now.

New flats being built etc are causing congestion and a demand for local services such as health and social care. Also a demand on parking, which I feel impacts on tourism.

There are clearly huge issues with the gap between the high and low earning citizens, and a huge homelessness problem, which I know is national and a reflection of cuts etc.
In terms of existing housing, those of us who have bought our own properties in the 130-200k range are often buying extremely old houses. These need a high level of maintenance and attention, putting a financial strain on middle income earners. This then has an impact on those who should have income to spend in our local businesses and on services, as we are all spending money trying to combat damp etc in our old homes and keep them heated. I feel a fund or grant to improve older properties will help improve the lives of property owners and their general health. This also applies to those with rental properties. Currently this only applies to very low earners.

There is also a huge problem with private maintenance companies who have contracts with a lot of our local leasehold and rented properties. Meaning landlords and homeowners are paying huge monthly expenses for very sub standard maintenance support. This means payments are going out to these companies and the properties are falling into disrepair as homeowners cant afford to improve them. We sought out legal advice and got out of our maintenance contract, but some people do not know how to do this or cannot afford to.
There are no longer as many events to draw people in such as the air show, which was a great way to attract tourism etc.
The gap between low and high earners is becoming worse, which again is a sign of government change at a national level. I feel that the secondary school standards here are slipping due to a lack of investment in the education system and other support services. This has a knock on effect on our citizens and their ability to contribute to our town economically. I feel the grammar school system that we have means that mainstream secondaries will struggle as the top achievers are ‘creamed’ off and the ability to push the top students in mainstream schools is more difficult. The SEMH school (PLT) is not of a sufficient standard and therefore those who have the opportunity to find further education and employment who have emotional issues are not being given a fair chance to close the gap between low and middle earners. Mental health support is an enorour need in recent years, and the support we have is extremely stretched-those who do not meet the threshold for mental health NHS support are not being supported and this is resulting in poor outcomes for those who have mental health issues (again a national issue).
I do love my town and all the amenities it provides, but there needs to be an emphasis on services to support its residents, ensuring there are enough resources for those of us here. Older properties and their issues have been the most significant reason why I have felt frustrated as a citizen.

As a Southend resident I wanted to add a few comments regarding planning going forward for the town.
One of the major concerns for people I work with and know is the lack of support for SEN pupils in schools-this includes a lot of school spaces all being in one secondary school-which is in special measures. There is a lack of specialist provision for pupil between Years 2 and 6, and schools don’t feel equipped to support the more complex needs we have in the community now.

New flats being built etc are causing congestion and a demand for local services such as health and social care. Also a demand on parking, which I feel impacts on tourism.

There are clearly huge issues with the gap between the high and low earning citizens, and a huge homelessness problem, which I know is national and a reflection of cuts etc.
In terms of existing housing, those of us who have bought our own properties in the 130-200k range are often buying extremely old houses. These need a high level of maintenance and attention, putting a financial strain on middle income earners. This then has an impact on those who should have income to spend in our local businesses and on services, as we are all spending money trying to combat damp etc in our old homes and keep them heated. I feel a fund or grant to improve older properties will help improve the lives of property owners and their general health. This also applies to those with rental properties. Currently this only applies to very low earners.

There is also a huge problem with private maintenance companies who have contracts with a lot of our local leasehold and rented properties. Meaning landlords and homeowners are paying huge monthly expenses for very sub standard maintenance support. This means payments are going out to these companies and the properties are falling into disrepair as homeowners cant afford to improve them. We sought out legal advice and got out of our maintenance contract, but some people do not know how to do this or cannot afford to.
There are no longer as many events to draw people in such as the air show, which was a great way to attract tourism etc.
The gap between low and high earners is becoming worse, which again is a sign of government change at a national level. I feel that the secondary school standards here are slipping due to a lack of investment in the education system and other support services. This has a knock on effect on our citizens and their ability to contribute to our town economically. I feel the grammar school system that we have means that mainstream secondaries will struggle as the top achievers are ‘creamed’ off and the ability to push the top students in mainstream schools is more difficult. The SEMH school (PLT) is not of a sufficient standard and therefore those who have the opportunity to find further education and employment who have emotional issues are not being given a fair chance to close the gap between low and middle earners. Mental health support is an enorour need in recent years, and the support we have is extremely stretched-those who do not meet the threshold for mental health NHS support are not being supported and this is resulting in poor outcomes for those who have mental health issues (again a national issue).
I do love my town and all the amenities it provides, but there needs to be an emphasis on services to support its residents, ensuring there are enough resources for those of us here. Older properties and their issues have been the most significant reason why I have felt frustrated as a citizen.

Firstly I do not believe that the Councillors in Southend have produced these documents, they appear to be similar to a previous town centre plan where the consultancy firm involved had public consultations, one of which I attended. They had a fixed agenda and the way the meeting was targeted any local concerns were conveniently ignored so that their conclusion was the one put forward. So having confidence in this latest effort is very low.

Firstly your maps show quite clearly how much open space there is left in the Borough, and constructing 24,000 houses on that land will wipe out that space. So if the intention is to keep that land open then the only way to construct so many homes is to fill in the few brown field spaces and go upwards in tower blocks of flats. The obvious questions that are referred to in the documentation are about infrastructure and high value employment so they can be afforded.

The maps also show quite clearly that the only way to travel out of the town is to the West there are rivers and water on the other sides, there is currently a pollution issue with those Westerly going roads, if there is not high value employment locally and the homes are built to the East / Northeast of the town centre then it is obvious that the density of traffic on those existing roads will increase as people travel to their places of work.

Having reviewed the ONS statistics on population density, Southend is the highest in the South Essex region already. From personal experience, I live in one of those areas most highly populated. Over various Council administrations through many years I have seen the impact of the decisions they have taken by allowing the family home conversions to flats. It is not pleasant and the area continues to deteriorate, concentrating more housing into the existing built up areas will not provide a good life style. By building on green field sites will reduce the potential carbon capturing abilities of those areas. Just cramming more people into the borough will not provide a life style that I feel most people want.

A question, are those 24,000 homes for the dependants of the existing residents into the future or are they to encourage more people to move into the area? I do not want more people to come to live in Southend, I would like the council to get the basics right for the existing residents with maintenance of the existing road network / footpaths and other infrastructure needs. They over many years have just been left to deteriorate, the effect being that some residents believe that the authorities do not care about them. The consequences being that pavement parking destroying footpaths and rubbish just being left where it is dropped. (Some new paving slabs were put in place a month ago along my street, they are now just as cracked as the ones that they replaced.) If there is an environment to respect then perhaps there will be a happier population.

One look at the local free papers and the housing for sale pages will show you how costly it is to buy a property in Southend. The adverts are for “Luxury apartments”, even the councils promotional material refers to Luxury, the homeless folks of Southend do not have employment that pays them enough to afford those properties, that means more people make their way to Southend who can afford them. They do not come here for work, so the commuter traffic be that trains or the road networks get even more saturated.

I understand that being able to own your own home or renting is a complex issue and the human nature of greed is one of the principle causes of why the whole country has these issues. Yes I am a NIMBY as far as the whole of Southend goes. There is no desire for the density of the local population to increase by encouraging new settlers, there is however a desire for the existing local issues to be resolved and those that abuse what is already there to be reminded forcefully of their role in returning the town to a pleasant place for the rest of the inhabitants.

Another question about the 24,000 homes, is this just an arbitrarily manufactured number by central government or some locally created quantity? Why shouldn’t other areas of Essex have their population densities brought up to the same level as Southend on Sea before there is a need to uplift the figures for Southend? I have included the figures so you can see the difference, assuming that you have not already looked.
A statement in amongst the documents talks about over reliance of the High Street and retail outlets here, this is another misnomer as since the mid 1990’s the variety and number of retail enterprises in the High street has reduced to just a couple of main stream shops, they cannot support the whole town financially. This has been impacted even more by the use of online buying. A by-product of which is the large volumes of delivery vans making use of the existing road network (creating more pollution).

Just thinking about the whole concept of a Town Plan and that civil servants would take over if we did not come up with our own plan brings into question who demanded this in the first place. Probably those self-same civil servants. It does of course provide high value business for the consultancy firms involved in manufacturing the plans who probably don’t actually live in the area and experience the existing issues and will not experience the consequences if those plans are adopted.

Perhaps I should just lie back and ignore the whole thing, especially as I won’t be alive in 2050, I just want someone to listen and take notice, the congestion is awful and will only get worse with more people moving into the town.

The plan should not be about homes and housing it should be about initially getting the town back to an environment that is pleasant to live in, encouraging businesses to create local Southend based employment that pays well and an education system that provides the skills and knowledge to the youth of the town so they can progress into those local businesses. The consequences of that would be no need to bring new people into the town and the local population would be able to afford to buy their own homes locally.
The offices in Victoria Avenue was at one time an opportunity for good employment it was created primarily because there were few prospects in Southend. Those mainly Government employers then decided that they needed to move those jobs elsewhere, the consequences being that once again Southend lost valuable employment opportunities. Those offices are being converted to Flats, initially for sale to the public, it now seems that investors have bought them and are renting them out at locally unaffordable rents. This has not resolved the issue of having a home of your own, developers creating 24,000 homes will only exacerbate the issue where investors will buy them to rent out, again excluding those from the low wage economy that is the majority of Southend.

I like many of the comments I have just seen on the Facebook post from the Council also believe that any views like mine will be put into the pot that says does not like change so let’s ignore them. Once again please get the basics right in the first place and then see what is needed for Southend on Sea not for the rest of the South East of the country.
Greed, Envy, Self Interest and Selfishness will prevail. How about considering the needs of the local residents first, Southend is now full thank you very much.
I do hope that I hear that you are listening to some of what I’ve said.

Firstly I do not believe that the Councillors in Southend have produced these documents, they appear to be similar to a previous town centre plan where the consultancy firm involved had public consultations, one of which I attended. They had a fixed agenda and the way the meeting was targeted any local concerns were conveniently ignored so that their conclusion was the one put forward. So having confidence in this latest effort is very low.

Firstly your maps show quite clearly how much open space there is left in the Borough, and constructing 24,000 houses on that land will wipe out that space. So if the intention is to keep that land open then the only way to construct so many homes is to fill in the few brown field spaces and go upwards in tower blocks of flats. The obvious questions that are referred to in the documentation are about infrastructure and high value employment so they can be afforded.

The maps also show quite clearly that the only way to travel out of the town is to the West there are rivers and water on the other sides, there is currently a pollution issue with those Westerly going roads, if there is not high value employment locally and the homes are built to the East / Northeast of the town centre then it is obvious that the density of traffic on those existing roads will increase as people travel to their places of work.

Having reviewed the ONS statistics on population density, Southend is the highest in the South Essex region already. From personal experience, I live in one of those areas most highly populated. Over various Council administrations through many years I have seen the impact of the decisions they have taken by allowing the family home conversions to flats. It is not pleasant and the area continues to deteriorate, concentrating more housing into the existing built up areas will not provide a good life style. By building on green field sites will reduce the potential carbon capturing abilities of those areas. Just cramming more people into the borough will not provide a life style that I feel most people want.

A question, are those 24,000 homes for the dependants of the existing residents into the future or are they to encourage more people to move into the area? I do not want more people to come to live in Southend, I would like the council to get the basics right for the existing residents with maintenance of the existing road network / footpaths and other infrastructure needs. They over many years have just been left to deteriorate, the effect being that some residents believe that the authorities do not care about them. The consequences being that pavement parking destroying footpaths and rubbish just being left where it is dropped. (Some new paving slabs were put in place a month ago along my street, they are now just as cracked as the ones that they replaced.) If there is an environment to respect then perhaps there will be a happier population.

One look at the local free papers and the housing for sale pages will show you how costly it is to buy a property in Southend. The adverts are for “Luxury apartments”, even the councils promotional material refers to Luxury, the homeless folks of Southend do not have employment that pays them enough to afford those properties, that means more people make their way to Southend who can afford them. They do not come here for work, so the commuter traffic be that trains or the road networks get even more saturated.

I understand that being able to own your own home or renting is a complex issue and the human nature of greed is one of the principle causes of why the whole country has these issues. Yes I am a NIMBY as far as the whole of Southend goes. There is no desire for the density of the local population to increase by encouraging new settlers, there is however a desire for the existing local issues to be resolved and those that abuse what is already there to be reminded forcefully of their role in returning the town to a pleasant place for the rest of the inhabitants.

Another question about the 24,000 homes, is this just an arbitrarily manufactured number by central government or some locally created quantity? Why shouldn’t other areas of Essex have their population densities brought up to the same level as Southend on Sea before there is a need to uplift the figures for Southend? I have included the figures so you can see the difference, assuming that you have not already looked.
A statement in amongst the documents talks about over reliance of the High Street and retail outlets here, this is another misnomer as since the mid 1990’s the variety and number of retail enterprises in the High street has reduced to just a couple of main stream shops, they cannot support the whole town financially. This has been impacted even more by the use of online buying. A by-product of which is the large volumes of delivery vans making use of the existing road network (creating more pollution).

Just thinking about the whole concept of a Town Plan and that civil servants would take over if we did not come up with our own plan brings into question who demanded this in the first place. Probably those self-same civil servants. It does of course provide high value business for the consultancy firms involved in manufacturing the plans who probably don’t actually live in the area and experience the existing issues and will not experience the consequences if those plans are adopted.

Perhaps I should just lie back and ignore the whole thing, especially as I won’t be alive in 2050, I just want someone to listen and take notice, the congestion is awful and will only get worse with more people moving into the town.

The plan should not be about homes and housing it should be about initially getting the town back to an environment that is pleasant to live in, encouraging businesses to create local Southend based employment that pays well and an education system that provides the skills and knowledge to the youth of the town so they can progress into those local businesses. The consequences of that would be no need to bring new people into the town and the local population would be able to afford to buy their own homes locally.
The offices in Victoria Avenue was at one time an opportunity for good employment it was created primarily because there were few prospects in Southend. Those mainly Government employers then decided that they needed to move those jobs elsewhere, the consequences being that once again Southend lost valuable employment opportunities. Those offices are being converted to Flats, initially for sale to the public, it now seems that investors have bought them and are renting them out at locally unaffordable rents. This has not resolved the issue of having a home of your own, developers creating 24,000 homes will only exacerbate the issue where investors will buy them to rent out, again excluding those from the low wage economy that is the majority of Southend.

I like many of the comments I have just seen on the Facebook post from the Council also believe that any views like mine will be put into the pot that says does not like change so let’s ignore them. Once again please get the basics right in the first place and then see what is needed for Southend on Sea not for the rest of the South East of the country.
Greed, Envy, Self Interest and Selfishness will prevail. How about considering the needs of the local residents first, Southend is now full thank you very much.
I do hope that I hear that you are listening to some of what I’ve said.

Firstly I do not believe that the Councillors in Southend have produced these documents, they appear to be similar to a previous town centre plan where the consultancy firm involved had public consultations, one of which I attended. They had a fixed agenda and the way the meeting was targeted any local concerns were conveniently ignored so that their conclusion was the one put forward. So having confidence in this latest effort is very low.

Firstly your maps show quite clearly how much open space there is left in the Borough, and constructing 24,000 houses on that land will wipe out that space. So if the intention is to keep that land open then the only way to construct so many homes is to fill in the few brown field spaces and go upwards in tower blocks of flats. The obvious questions that are referred to in the documentation are about infrastructure and high value employment so they can be afforded.

The maps also show quite clearly that the only way to travel out of the town is to the West there are rivers and water on the other sides, there is currently a pollution issue with those Westerly going roads, if there is not high value employment locally and the homes are built to the East / Northeast of the town centre then it is obvious that the density of traffic on those existing roads will increase as people travel to their places of work.

Having reviewed the ONS statistics on population density, Southend is the highest in the South Essex region already. From personal experience, I live in one of those areas most highly populated. Over various Council administrations through many years I have seen the impact of the decisions they have taken by allowing the family home conversions to flats. It is not pleasant and the area continues to deteriorate, concentrating more housing into the existing built up areas will not provide a good life style. By building on green field sites will reduce the potential carbon capturing abilities of those areas. Just cramming more people into the borough will not provide a life style that I feel most people want.

A question, are those 24,000 homes for the dependants of the existing residents into the future or are they to encourage more people to move into the area? I do not want more people to come to live in Southend, I would like the council to get the basics right for the existing residents with maintenance of the existing road network / footpaths and other infrastructure needs. They over many years have just been left to deteriorate, the effect being that some residents believe that the authorities do not care about them. The consequences being that pavement parking destroying footpaths and rubbish just being left where it is dropped. (Some new paving slabs were put in place a month ago along my street, they are now just as cracked as the ones that they replaced.) If there is an environment to respect then perhaps there will be a happier population.

One look at the local free papers and the housing for sale pages will show you how costly it is to buy a property in Southend. The adverts are for “Luxury apartments”, even the councils promotional material refers to Luxury, the homeless folks of Southend do not have employment that pays them enough to afford those properties, that means more people make their way to Southend who can afford them. They do not come here for work, so the commuter traffic be that trains or the road networks get even more saturated.

I understand that being able to own your own home or renting is a complex issue and the human nature of greed is one of the principle causes of why the whole country has these issues. Yes I am a NIMBY as far as the whole of Southend goes. There is no desire for the density of the local population to increase by encouraging new settlers, there is however a desire for the existing local issues to be resolved and those that abuse what is already there to be reminded forcefully of their role in returning the town to a pleasant place for the rest of the inhabitants.

Another question about the 24,000 homes, is this just an arbitrarily manufactured number by central government or some locally created quantity? Why shouldn’t other areas of Essex have their population densities brought up to the same level as Southend on Sea before there is a need to uplift the figures for Southend? I have included the figures so you can see the difference, assuming that you have not already looked.
A statement in amongst the documents talks about over reliance of the High Street and retail outlets here, this is another misnomer as since the mid 1990’s the variety and number of retail enterprises in the High street has reduced to just a couple of main stream shops, they cannot support the whole town financially. This has been impacted even more by the use of online buying. A by-product of which is the large volumes of delivery vans making use of the existing road network (creating more pollution).

Just thinking about the whole concept of a Town Plan and that civil servants would take over if we did not come up with our own plan brings into question who demanded this in the first place. Probably those self-same civil servants. It does of course provide high value business for the consultancy firms involved in manufacturing the plans who probably don’t actually live in the area and experience the existing issues and will not experience the consequences if those plans are adopted.

Perhaps I should just lie back and ignore the whole thing, especially as I won’t be alive in 2050, I just want someone to listen and take notice, the congestion is awful and will only get worse with more people moving into the town.

The plan should not be about homes and housing it should be about initially getting the town back to an environment that is pleasant to live in, encouraging businesses to create local Southend based employment that pays well and an education system that provides the skills and knowledge to the youth of the town so they can progress into those local businesses. The consequences of that would be no need to bring new people into the town and the local population would be able to afford to buy their own homes locally.
The offices in Victoria Avenue was at one time an opportunity for good employment it was created primarily because there were few prospects in Southend. Those mainly Government employers then decided that they needed to move those jobs elsewhere, the consequences being that once again Southend lost valuable employment opportunities. Those offices are being converted to Flats, initially for sale to the public, it now seems that investors have bought them and are renting them out at locally unaffordable rents. This has not resolved the issue of having a home of your own, developers creating 24,000 homes will only exacerbate the issue where investors will buy them to rent out, again excluding those from the low wage economy that is the majority of Southend.

I like many of the comments I have just seen on the Facebook post from the Council also believe that any views like mine will be put into the pot that says does not like change so let’s ignore them. Once again please get the basics right in the first place and then see what is needed for Southend on Sea not for the rest of the South East of the country.
Greed, Envy, Self Interest and Selfishness will prevail. How about considering the needs of the local residents first, Southend is now full thank you very much.
I do hope that I hear that you are listening to some of what I’ve said.

Spatial Development
Option 3 is the preferred solution for spatial development. Densifying areas can lead to the use of mechanical ventilation systems to protect residents from noise, rather than the ability for residents to control their own environment. This approach allows for the building of mixed housing types to meet different needs, sustainable developments and in the required infrastructure to support additional housing.

Housing
Where permitted development of office blocks, plus conversions and extensions are being built the opportunity should be taken to having design criteria which will mitigate ventilation issues and noise transmission.

With respect to Contaminated Land the Council’s contaminated land strategy will seek to set out how the Council will identify contaminated land in the borough in a rational, ordered and efficient manner. Where contaminated land is identified, the Council is required to ensure that any associated risks to human health and/or to the wider environment are addressed in an appropriate and cost effective manner. It is good practice to undertake investigation of any proposed Local Plan allocations as a priority within this contaminated land investigation strategy. This is to ensure that no development gives rise to or triggers unacceptable levels of pollution and land instability that could impact on human health, property and the wider environment including environmental designations. The Council will ensure that consideration is given to adopting environmental best practice measures in all cases.

The presence of contamination may affect or restrict the use of land, but equally development may address the issue for the benefit of the wider community, and bring the land back into beneficial use. The presence of instability in land can also be a major planning issue, and when new development is proposed it will be necessary to ensure that new buildings and their surroundings are safe for future users as well as ensure that their development does not have an effect on the immediate and surrounding area including neighbouring uses. In determining whether land contamination or instability is an issue when assessing a planning application, the Council will have regard to a range of information sources including its database of past industrial and commercial land uses, information provided by developers and third parties, statutory guidance and historic maps. In the case of development, where the use would be particularly vulnerable to contamination evidence should always be required to establish whether there is any concern about contamination which will need to be addressed.

Where the Council supports the redevelopment of the poorest quality employment sites for other uses such as Housing, consideration needs to be given to the environmental impact on residents of all socio-economic groups. See comments above under 2.7 with respect to noise, ventilation and contaminated land.

Improvements may be required to the sewer / drainage capacity for new developments, particularly those around the seafront, including dealing with misconnections. Ensuring the sufficient of sewer / drainage capacity for new developments and targeting and support agencies with responsibility for misconnections will improve the water quality and the objective of promoting Southend as a major resort.

Support the enhancement of tree planning and landscaping to both improve the public realm and providing a greener and cooler community.
Support the improvement of all transport systems serving Southend will help to improve air quality and social mobility. Where improvements to the main A127 and A13 increases the number of lanes consideration will need to be given to mitigation for existing residents and new developments to reduce the impact of noise and vibration and reduced air quality.

The introduction of Park and Ride Schemes would encourage the use of public transport.
Consideration to be given to green energy solutions, such as energy networks and solar panels to meet the energy needs of new developments, and the retrofitting of existing developments.
Agree that working in partnership will help to deliver the required outcomes, consideration should also be given to increasing the CIL charges, set out in the infrastructure delivery plan that supports local plans.

Spatial Development
Option 3 is the preferred solution for spatial development. Densifying areas can lead to the use of mechanical ventilation systems to protect residents from noise, rather than the ability for residents to control their own environment. This approach allows for the building of mixed housing types to meet different needs, sustainable developments and in the required infrastructure to support additional housing.

Housing
Where permitted development of office blocks, plus conversions and extensions are being built the opportunity should be taken to having design criteria which will mitigate ventilation issues and noise transmission.

With respect to Contaminated Land the Council’s contaminated land strategy will seek to set out how the Council will identify contaminated land in the borough in a rational, ordered and efficient manner. Where contaminated land is identified, the Council is required to ensure that any associated risks to human health and/or to the wider environment are addressed in an appropriate and cost effective manner. It is good practice to undertake investigation of any proposed Local Plan allocations as a priority within this contaminated land investigation strategy. This is to ensure that no development gives rise to or triggers unacceptable levels of pollution and land instability that could impact on human health, property and the wider environment including environmental designations. The Council will ensure that consideration is given to adopting environmental best practice measures in all cases.

The presence of contamination may affect or restrict the use of land, but equally development may address the issue for the benefit of the wider community, and bring the land back into beneficial use. The presence of instability in land can also be a major planning issue, and when new development is proposed it will be necessary to ensure that new buildings and their surroundings are safe for future users as well as ensure that their development does not have an effect on the immediate and surrounding area including neighbouring uses. In determining whether land contamination or instability is an issue when assessing a planning application, the Council will have regard to a range of information sources including its database of past industrial and commercial land uses, information provided by developers and third parties, statutory guidance and historic maps. In the case of development, where the use would be particularly vulnerable to contamination evidence should always be required to establish whether there is any concern about contamination which will need to be addressed.

Where the Council supports the redevelopment of the poorest quality employment sites for other uses such as Housing, consideration needs to be given to the environmental impact on residents of all socio-economic groups. See comments above under 2.7 with respect to noise, ventilation and contaminated land.

Improvements may be required to the sewer / drainage capacity for new developments, particularly those around the seafront, including dealing with misconnections. Ensuring the sufficient of sewer / drainage capacity for new developments and targeting and support agencies with responsibility for misconnections will improve the water quality and the objective of promoting Southend as a major resort.

Support the enhancement of tree planning and landscaping to both improve the public realm and providing a greener and cooler community.
Support the improvement of all transport systems serving Southend will help to improve air quality and social mobility. Where improvements to the main A127 and A13 increases the number of lanes consideration will need to be given to mitigation for existing residents and new developments to reduce the impact of noise and vibration and reduced air quality.

The introduction of Park and Ride Schemes would encourage the use of public transport.
Consideration to be given to green energy solutions, such as energy networks and solar panels to meet the energy needs of new developments, and the retrofitting of existing developments.
Agree that working in partnership will help to deliver the required outcomes, consideration should also be given to increasing the CIL charges, set out in the infrastructure delivery plan that supports local plans.

Spatial Development
Option 3 is the preferred solution for spatial development. Densifying areas can lead to the use of mechanical ventilation systems to protect residents from noise, rather than the ability for residents to control their own environment. This approach allows for the building of mixed housing types to meet different needs, sustainable developments and in the required infrastructure to support additional housing.

Housing
Where permitted development of office blocks, plus conversions and extensions are being built the opportunity should be taken to having design criteria which will mitigate ventilation issues and noise transmission.

With respect to Contaminated Land the Council’s contaminated land strategy will seek to set out how the Council will identify contaminated land in the borough in a rational, ordered and efficient manner. Where contaminated land is identified, the Council is required to ensure that any associated risks to human health and/or to the wider environment are addressed in an appropriate and cost effective manner. It is good practice to undertake investigation of any proposed Local Plan allocations as a priority within this contaminated land investigation strategy. This is to ensure that no development gives rise to or triggers unacceptable levels of pollution and land instability that could impact on human health, property and the wider environment including environmental designations. The Council will ensure that consideration is given to adopting environmental best practice measures in all cases.

The presence of contamination may affect or restrict the use of land, but equally development may address the issue for the benefit of the wider community, and bring the land back into beneficial use. The presence of instability in land can also be a major planning issue, and when new development is proposed it will be necessary to ensure that new buildings and their surroundings are safe for future users as well as ensure that their development does not have an effect on the immediate and surrounding area including neighbouring uses. In determining whether land contamination or instability is an issue when assessing a planning application, the Council will have regard to a range of information sources including its database of past industrial and commercial land uses, information provided by developers and third parties, statutory guidance and historic maps. In the case of development, where the use would be particularly vulnerable to contamination evidence should always be required to establish whether there is any concern about contamination which will need to be addressed.

Where the Council supports the redevelopment of the poorest quality employment sites for other uses such as Housing, consideration needs to be given to the environmental impact on residents of all socio-economic groups. See comments above under 2.7 with respect to noise, ventilation and contaminated land.

Improvements may be required to the sewer / drainage capacity for new developments, particularly those around the seafront, including dealing with misconnections. Ensuring the sufficient of sewer / drainage capacity for new developments and targeting and support agencies with responsibility for misconnections will improve the water quality and the objective of promoting Southend as a major resort.

Support the enhancement of tree planning and landscaping to both improve the public realm and providing a greener and cooler community.
Support the improvement of all transport systems serving Southend will help to improve air quality and social mobility. Where improvements to the main A127 and A13 increases the number of lanes consideration will need to be given to mitigation for existing residents and new developments to reduce the impact of noise and vibration and reduced air quality.

The introduction of Park and Ride Schemes would encourage the use of public transport.
Consideration to be given to green energy solutions, such as energy networks and solar panels to meet the energy needs of new developments, and the retrofitting of existing developments.
Agree that working in partnership will help to deliver the required outcomes, consideration should also be given to increasing the CIL charges, set out in the infrastructure delivery plan that supports local plans.

.