2.3.1.5 Tall Buildings

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Design and Townscape Guide - Refresh 2009 (Consultation Draft)

Representation ID: 24

Received: 17/04/2009

Respondent: Councillor Ian Gilbert

Representation Summary:

We should bring forward guidance that specifies that tall buildings in close proximity to established residential areas will not generally be acceptable, whether in the town centre or elsewhere, and that further high-rise residential accommodation will not be looked upon favourably in any part of the borough.

Full text:

Residents living in the vicinity of the town centre and seafront should be treated with the same respect as those living in Thorpe Bay or Leigh. Tall buildings can cause problems of loss of light (both directly to residential properties and by cutting down the amount of light to the street itself) overlooking, and can restrict views. They inevitably put extra pressure on local services.

Therefore we should bring forward guidance that specifies that tall buildings in close proximity to established residential areas will not generally be acceptable, whether in the town centre or elsewhere. Proposals for tall building would be expected to demonstrate exceptional benefits for existing residents of the borough.

High rise residential developments cause particular problems. There is not a desperate need in Southend for more flats. There is a need for larger accommodation for families. Tower blocks are inherently unsuitable places to bring up young children, and therefore cannot meet this need. Therefore we propose that tall buildings for residential use should not be encouraged for any location in the borough. A proposal for such a building would be expected to demonstrate both an overriding need for such a development, and that such a development would have negligible impact on existing residents.

Comment

Design and Townscape Guide - Refresh 2009 (Consultation Draft)

Representation ID: 129

Received: 05/06/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

Representation Summary:

2.3.4 If height etc is determined in each case, it depends too much on the opinions of individual officers. Developers will try to say that each development is a 'landmark' building (as is happening now). Landmark buildings should be few and far between, not just an excuse for something large.

Full text:

Section 1
1.1 How are the ambitions and aspirations of the local community to be assessed on an on-going basis?
1.1 Reviews should be frequent, easy to initiate, responsive to local comments and published in full.
1.1.1 The Document accepts that people care about their local area and therefore it should be made easier for them to comment and for their views to be taken into account. People will not have a pride in their local area unless they have more input.
The views of relevant parish and town councils and local organisations should be sought and also taken into account.
Development should add to local indentity, not uniformity; empirically the latter currently seems to be the case.
1.2 Who should decide what will 'adversley affect an area'?
Section 2
Council planning staff need to be well-trained to appreciate Southend's architectural history and the character of local areas.
A broad consensus is needed on what is good design for Southend; this must include residents and community architects who live in and understand the town. The arbiters of design and style must not be limited to official architects who may well not be local and may not empathise with the town.
2.2 It is very important that local character is considered. More weight must be given to opinions of people in the area.
2.2.2 The impact on skyline must be considered for all new developments. Some of the large new blocks already dominate the skyline from a distance.
2.2.3 Who decides if existing character is poor? By allowing 'a new characteristic which will provide an enhanced identity 'can mean that anything new will be permitted.
2.3.1 The contributions from major developers must benefit the local area (i.e not simply money in a Borough-wide pot) must be practical and, during time of financial constraint, not used for 'civic art'. These contributions must not be a simple option for developers.
2.3.4 If height etc is determined in each case, it depends too much on the opinions of individual officers. Developers will try to say that each development is a 'landmark' building (as is happening now). Landmark buildings should be few and far between, not just an excuse for something large.
2.3.4 Careful detailing can help but this is sadly lacking in most recent plans (the example shown in Prince Avenue illustrates a significant lack of detailing. This picture should be removed from the final document and replaced by one which shows the detailing)
2.3.5 This section is very important but needs more specific guidelines or it will be in danger of being ignored. These are the details that can seriously affect the quality of life for residents.
2.3.8 Building close up to a public highway should be avoided except for public buildings. In these cases, higher floors should be set back to avoid a dominating appearance and creating a 'canyon' effect.
2.5.1 It is important that there is no loss of existing open space and new open space should be created, as green as possible. People appreciate even small areas of local green space that they pass every day; it increases their sense of well-being and they may never get to larger, more organised green spaces.
Public open spaces should be designed for relaxed use by people and durability in the real world, not just to look attractive on the drawing board. They should have permeable surfaces and plenty of soft landscaping including grass.
2.5.4 New buildings should avoid blocking important distant views which give a sense of openess. Buildings on corner sites should be set back and not too high, to avoid blocking views; streets should lead into each other.
2.5.5 Form should follow function only if it also fits with the surroundings.
2.5.6 Whilst lighting is important, it should be energy efficient and effectively directed. There is too much unnecessary light in the town now with spillage into the sky and neighbours; this is pollution and a waste of energy.
2.6.3 In order to optimise natural resources, the use of solar panels and systems for the recycling of rainwater should be actively encouraged in new developments of all sizes. Energy and water conservation measures must be inlcuded.
2.6.5 This states the importance of tree's and vegetation but no mention is made of gardens, particularly front gardens. As required previously, these must not be given over entirely to car parking or hard-surfaced across the whole width.
2.6.6 Large commercial developments should provide transport or contribute to a subsidy for public transport, unless it is already plentiful.
2.7 The size of sites and the number of dwellings proposed for which provision must be made for affordable housing should be as small as possible, and the percentage of such dwellings should be high. Directives for these must be quantitatively defined and enforced; the alternative of commuted sums should be avoided. These are essential to achieve the mix of house types mentioned in PPG3 para 14. Southend should aim for the percentage levels of affordable housing required by Government.
2.8.2 We strongly disagree with the principle of 'enabling development'. The use of publicly owned land for development purposes must not be linked directly to another project. The decision to release publicly owned land must be taken on its own merits. The decision on the use of any released funds must be taken subsequently. The release of tracts of publicly owned land should only take place following direct consultation with residents.
2.8.5 Reviews of conservation areas should be publicised and comment welcomed and considered.
Section 3
3.1.3 The set-back of windows should be actively encouraged; many modern buildings would have been dramatically improved by this simple device.
3.1.6 All off street surface parking, on whatever scale, must be water permeable to avoid shedding water to the highway and burdening drainage system. This will help retain moisture in the soil.
The other guidelines for parking must be pursued and enforced.
3.1.8 Care should be taken to check existing trees and shrubs and ensure they remain as agreed. Graduitous removal must be penalised and replacements must survive.
3.1.9 Recycling facilities should go beyond current requirements. Southend should be a leader in the provision of both residential and commercial recycling.
3.2.1 Private amenity space is highly valued, and has a different quality from public amenity space. Quanitative requirements for private amenity space must be specified to ensure adequate provision and preserve the quality of life for residents.
3.2.3 Side extensions - Inclusion of the 1 metre rule is good but 'where necessary' may be removed from the document.
Limits on extension sizes should be specified to protect neighbours and aid determination of applications.
3.2.3 The restrictions on dormer size and style are good and needs reinforcing.
3.2.3 Additional Storeys - after 'street' add 'or a significant stretch of the street'.
3.2.4 There should be a presumption against backland development in private gardens.
3.2.6 Conversion to Flats - the onus should be on the applicant to show that there will be no additional strain on local amenities.
3.3.2 Illuminated signs should be switched off over night to avoid distraction, light pollution and energy waste.
3.3.3 Perimeter blocks should still have a band of soft landscape around them. Buildings directly on the highway are stark and reflect and amplify noise.
3.4 The current rules for shopfronts in conservation areas should be retained; this is not stated.
Section 4
4.2.1 The location plan must be large enough to identify the site easily and indicate the orientation accurately.
4.2.1 Additional Visual Information - A scale bar should also be given, by at least the main drawings and/or important dimensions given (to enable dimensions to be appreciated when viewing on the web later this year).
'Street Scene' elevations (which are theoretical views from infinity) should be accompanied by ground plans as the relative set back of buildings influences the human perception of the street scene.
Spurious vegetation should not be shown on plans to artificially soften the design.
Plans which are difficult to understand or lack information should not be accepted until they have been improved.
4.2.2 Travel plans must be realistic, not rely on theoretical buses, car share, cycling etc, which may never materialise.
4.2.2 There must be a presumption against building in flood risk areas; no assessments will stop flooding. Development in these areas should be commensurate with the degree of risk.
4.2.2 Ecological assessments must be realistic and concern for local ecology should be an important consideration in planning applications.
4.2.2 Recycing should 'look ahead' and exceed current requirements.
General
The document contains general ideas of development in an ideal world (with which few could disagree) but must also contain clear objective evaluation and provide the authority with the means to support good practice.
Without specific, quantitative definitions and criteria, decisions will be subjective, inconsistent and harder to support to residents and at appeal. The frequent use of 'should' implies a lack of enforcement; 'must' would give greater power.
Omissions
Examples of supposedly good design are shown; some of poor design (identified as such) could be equally helpful.
No public or school playing fields must be lost.
Optimum and maximum housing densities must be specified.
There should be no increase in housing unless the infrastructure of sewerage, water supply, medical services and local schooling are increased commensurately.
Account should be taken of other locally produced documents which affect design and townscape.

Comment

Design and Townscape Guide - Refresh 2009 (Consultation Draft)

Representation ID: 263

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Southend Borough Council

Representation Summary:

could maybe add a comment about what you said at the 22 the Leas meeting about have the odd building in strategic locations breaking though the general height of buildings, direct reference could be made to the tall building locations identified within the Central Area Master Plan

Full text:

Overall I would like to say that this is excellent document and the revisions that have been made add a lot of value however I have made a few suggested comments sorry for the delay in coming back to you:

Update of introduction in light of recently adopted policy and guidance - no comment
Cross links to the Core Strategy, East of England Regional Spatial Strategy and saved Borough Local Plan Policies - no comment
Improved guidance on
Scale, Height and Massing - could include a recognition that within streets there may be a character within individual street block ie chalkwell esplanade or a characteristic row of properties in a street ie where there is a run of bungalows in a street that is predominantly 2 storey semis.
Sustainable Development and Design - I could not see any where where it is emphasised that these options should be incorporated into the design and not left to be a condition, reference could be made to the local list and that this could be a reason to invalidate the application
The Historic Environment - no comments
Amenity Space - amenity decks and roof terraces - mention a common design solution to prevent overlooking from roof terraces is to set the boundary in from the edge of the roof which removes the need for unsightly obscure panels whilst retaining views of the townscape - the prevention of overlooking can effectively be shown using cross sections
Backland and Infill Development - no comments
Tall Buildings - could maybe add a comment about what you said at the 22 the Leas meeting about have the odd building in strategic locations breaking though the general height of buildings, direct reference could be made to the tall building locations identified within the Central Area Master Plan
Pavement Cafes - no comments
Space Standards including Lifetime Home Standards - this does not go so far as to state a standard for flat sizes (not room sizes) which I thought we were heading towards, maybe we could just adopt those as our standard, I know it is a common thought that the market should determine appropriate sizes however surely we could link the flat sizes to the delivery of a range of accommodation sizes which were identified in the background information that fed into the core strategy
How to Submit an Application - reference that the council's local lists provide further information as to when additional supporting documentation is required which can be found on the council's web site
2.3.2.1 Overshadowing - I think we need to make a commitment to a shadowing school of thought ie P J Littlefair's 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight a guide to good practice' as a method that the authority agrees to (this was the guy who came in to do the talk and is nationally renowned in this field)
2.3.4.5 Public Art - I think the word typically is not strong enough for the 1% contribution, it should be more like a 1% contribution will be required unless otherwise agreed with the Council
2.3.5.4 Conversions - houses into flats - Viv may want to look at strengthening this up as I think there is a general push to stop this outside of town centre areas, maybe can be achieved by referencing the Core Strategy
2.3.2.2 Overlooking and privacy - cross sections can be an effective tool to demonstrate overlooking is not possible the Council uses a height of 1.7 metres for eye lines
5.3.8 beach huts - roller shutters are not acceptable in any circumstance even where there is repeat vandalism. When I contacted a number of other authorities with beach huts they do not allow roller shutters as they look like garages. In speaking with colleges in building control they are satisfied that using better hinges and locks on the doors will be just as effective. Staining of beach huts is unacceptable and was accidently included in the first version of the design and townscape guide and should now be omitted. The colour of the beach huts must be vibrant pastels going further than just 'will be welcomed'. I know there are a lot of examples of pretty poor design including roller shutters and staining however over time as these are replaced (generally every 10-15 years) it will be possible to really improve there appearance.
4.5 conservation areas - I could not see it but did we mention about the window grants scheme the council offers - there should be a paragraph stating "Traditional windows are essential to the character of historic buildings and conservation areas. Many need repairing; others have been replaced by inappropriate designs. Window Grants are, therefore, available to help repair and reinstate traditional windows in Conservation Areas. Window Grants provide 40% of the cost of repairing and reinstating traditional windows in Conservation Areas. Grants are up to £500 per property and are restricted to traditional windows facing the street which contribute to the area's character. Grants are discretionary and will depend on funds being available when an application is made. Grant application forms are available from Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council telephone 01702 215004 or can be downloaded from this page. Estimates from two contractors based on the same specification must be enclosed with the application. The offer of a grant is discretionary and will be subject to acceptable estimates and to funds being available. A grant cannot be offered for work that has already been started or carried out. If a grant is offered, it will be in writing and will be subject to appropriate conditions. Subject to agreement, work may be deferred for up to a year following a grant offer. Payment of a grant will normally be made after the work has been completed satisfactorily and receipted invoices have been submitted. Interim payments for larger projects may be made in some instances. Consent under planning legislation and the Building Regulations may be needed before work starts. The Council will advise and help you make any necessary application."
2.3.1.3 - internal arrangements and space standards - all habitable rooms 'must' not 'should' have natural ventilation and daylight