Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Schedule of Modifications to the Revised Proposed Submission

Object to the deletion of the observations about the inward looking and isolated nature of Adventure Island. The wooden palisade of the perimeter to the west of the pier reinforces the fortress like nature of the area. No doubt security requirements are factor here but the observations are relevant and justified. It is very surprising that those initial views have been totally expunged.

Policy DS5 discriminates between the public parking sites calling those car parks south of the railway line" key visitor spaces" and other car park spaces "public". There is no clear explanation for this distinction indeed it is unclear whether we are talking about key visitors or key spaces. All car parks cater for visitors and there is no definition of what a key visitor is.

As to the intention of ensuring no net loss of key visitor spaces consequent upon any development proposals coming forward, this strait-jacketed policy is a recipe for preventing or inhibiting potential growth/redevelopment. Moreover the inherent inflexibility would seem to preclude the potential for other car parks to be key. Say the park and ride experiment had been successful, would that car park not qualify for key status? Other opportunities might be also be available and succeed making nonsense of designating and distinguishing between car parks in policy terms.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the sea front leisure and tourist industry is directing car park policy to the detriment of the town centre as a whole. There are good reasons to be supportive of that industry as an essential part of Southend's economy and employment but the fact that it is a low skill, low pay, seasonal business should not be lost sight of.

Object to the deletion of the observations about the inward looking and isolated nature of Adventure Island. The wooden palisade of the perimeter to the west of the pier reinforces the fortress like nature of the area. No doubt security requirements are factor here but the observations are relevant and justified. It is very surprising that those initial views have been totally expunged.

Policy DS5 discriminates between the public parking sites calling those car parks south of the railway line" key visitor spaces" and other car park spaces "public". There is no clear explanation for this distinction indeed it is unclear whether we are talking about key visitors or key spaces. All car parks cater for visitors and there is no definition of what a key visitor is.

As to the intention of ensuring no net loss of key visitor spaces consequent upon any development proposals coming forward, this strait-jacketed policy is a recipe for preventing or inhibiting potential growth/redevelopment. Moreover the inherent inflexibility would seem to preclude the potential for other car parks to be key. Say the park and ride experiment had been successful, would that car park not qualify for key status? Other opportunities might be also be available and succeed making nonsense of designating and distinguishing between car parks in policy terms.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the sea front leisure and tourist industry is directing car park policy to the detriment of the town centre as a whole. There are good reasons to be supportive of that industry as an essential part of Southend's economy and employment but the fact that it is a low skill, low pay, seasonal business should not be lost sight of.