Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) Preferred Approach 2015

Support

Representation ID: 1977

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Milton Conservation Society

The broad intentions, including statutory obligations, are supported.

Object

Representation ID: 1978

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Milton Conservation Society

Far too little importance is given to our historic past, both designated and un-designated and instead it is seen as something of the past, to be preserved rather than part of our aggregated and improved future.

Object

Representation ID: 1979

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Milton Conservation Society

The document seems to place landmarks and landmark buildings (section 4.9) above the best quality aggregated urban design. Question 15 relates. This attitude of landmark (or 'iconic' building to use the popular language) is becoming discredited so it seems rather odd that it so strongly features in our forward looking planning. As an example, the Sainsbury site was, not many years ago, hailed by the planners of our town as an important and focal town centre development. Not many years passed before the folly of this development was then realised so that the site has been proposed for re-development, should Sainsbury's relocate, and this is included in the document. Your document feels like it will lead to similar, repeated mistakes in future. The student housing building, now proposed as nothing less than a new potential landmark building demonstrates exactly what we are claiming. This building is largely disliked and ridiculed because it was built as an iconic or landmark building that paid virtually no relation to its urban surroundings. This type of arrogant 'look at me' building should not be the focus of future urban development in the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 1980

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Milton Conservation Society

In particular we would like to see far more recognition given to historic Southend, including the non-designated building frontages 'of townscape merit' in the High Street. This 'townscape merit' should not just be a 'material consideration' in future planning decisions but should be woven into the future planning of our town centre. This is not because of some sort of nostalgic affection for these buildings (although this does strongly exist) but because these are amongst the best buildings in our town and future construction should aggregate from these with the best of human scaled, modern or traditional 'living' architecture.

Comment

Representation ID: 1981

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Milton Conservation Society

Town centre planning in Southend (as in many other towns it has to be acknowledged) has been little short of disastrous since the war with only odd examples of good buildings. The last people to build to a consistently high quality were the Edwardians, saying very little for modern town planning. If we can adopt the right, aggregated approach with genuinely good quality architecture we might start again to build a long term high quality, human town centre where the best retailers want to participate, mixed uses can succeed and the town might earn the thriving city status it so wants.