Question 30:Do you agree with the proposed approach to managing development within the Victoria Avenue Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Area? Please explain your answer.

Support

Representation ID: 1957

Received: 08/02/2016

Respondent: Essex Chambers of Commerce

Agree with the proposed approach to managing development within the Victoria Avenue Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Area

Comment

Representation ID: 1976

Received: 21/01/2016

Respondent: Reverend Phyllis Owen

Whilst I agree these are good objectives, the reality is that people want to use cars. I am very concerned that the number of additional dwellings proposed in my area (OS11 and OS12 and Roots Hall) will lead to even more cars looking for places to park, increasing the problems that already exist in these area. I have raised this point when previous plans for Victoria Avenue have been raised and have never received an adequate or indeed any response. I feel very strongly that existing residents will be greatly disadvantaged.

Comment

Representation ID: 2007

Received: 22/01/2016

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

In the same way the Victoria Gateway policy principles contains reference to "promoting energy efficiency". Why is this policy area singled out? Why is that not one of a wide range of common policies applicable across the board?

Comment

Representation ID: 2008

Received: 22/01/2016

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

I have already mentioned that the church should be included in the area and that makes sense in the context of policy DP8: 7g.

Comment

Representation ID: 2025

Received: 05/02/2016

Respondent: Anglian Water

We would recommend within each Policy Area a requirement is stipulated that the necessary sewerage infrastructure is in place to serve the area before development progresses.

Comment

Representation ID: 2029

Received: 04/02/2016

Respondent: Capita Property and Infrastructure

Agent: Genesis Housing

The SCAAP preferred approach is supported. However, Capita P&I and Genesis consider that the OS11 site does not extend far enough, and that the adjacent Genesis site at Baxter Avenue should be incorporated within the OS11 site boundary. There are several reasons as to why, these are all explored in the supporting document. These considerations are:
* The overall shortfall in housing supply and how the development of the site can help deliver the target;
* The policy compliance of the proposal;
* The removal of low quality housing;
* Given the area of the site, a coherent regeneration masterplan approach should be adopted in accordance with OS11;
* The site is well positioned on an access vista and therefore well located for a housing led regeneration initiative.
The site is available, achievable and deliverable.
The redevelopment of the site would allow for the residential density of the site to be optimised, whilst also providing a quality mixed use development with active frontages.

Support

Representation ID: 2108

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Stockvale Group

Wholeheartedly support the improvement on Victoria Avenue as a gateway in to the Town. The STOCKVALE GROUP recognises that much of this work is already underway with the on-going

Object

Representation ID: 2147

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

The proposed redevelopment of Roots Hall and Roots Hall Stadium are predicated on the Football Club relocating to Fossetts Farm with a significant volume of retail use. Whilst the redevelopment of these sites is supported the retail use and volume at Fossetts Farm would see the end of the High Street as a retail offer. The BID most strongly opposes the Fossetts Farm proposals and any movement of retail away from the SCAAP area and Town Centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 2259

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Victoria Neighbourhood was scored by 22% of respondents as a top 10 priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 2262

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Whilst the BID do not object or have any particular concern regarding the moving of the Southend Football Club the move is predicted on the suggested development requirement to combine a significant number of retail outlets. This is being presented as a financial necessity to allow the Club to move to new premises, however, if this is supported many if not all the High Street chains are likely to follow.

Object

Representation ID: 2270

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Southend BID

Another major issue for the BID is the opportunity site (OS13) re-development of Roots Hall, and Roots Hall Stadium. There is extreme concern that the redevelopment of these sites is predicated on Southend Football Club moving out to Fossetts Farm and the supposed enabling development to allow this to happen, which consists of a large quantum of A1 retail units. As highlighted earlier in this representation the retail proposals at Fossetts Farm would be fatal to Southend's retail offer in the High Street and the aspirations for a vast improvement to the retail provision in the SCAAP area.

Comment

Representation ID: 2290

Received: 22/01/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Grubb

OS13 - As the parking situation in the ladder roads which connect Fairfax Drive with West Road/Westborough Road is chronic, if planning permission is granted for additional housing on the Roots Hall site, the parking provision on the site does need if possible to be increased by 15% above the normal requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 2291

Received: 22/01/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Grubb

OS13 - The site used by Prospects Collage located next to Roots Hall was to become part of the Sainsbury development. There is a strong possibility that if Sainsbury do not buy the site, the site will be used for additional housing development. Last year the company Lidi wanted to buy the Prospect site to build a Lidi store.
As the site also includes a car park, in my view this development would have been ideally suited for this location, providing employment and services to the local community which would also include the new housing development on the Roots Hall Site. Southend Council should re-engage with Lidi in order to reach a successful conclusion.

Comment

Representation ID: 2292

Received: 22/01/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Grubb

OS11 - With reference to the redevelopment of the old college site, located next to the Civic Centre, new homes proposed in Victoria Avenue old offices (Heath House and Carby House), parking of vehicles will be a problem unless the developers of large developments are forced to provide parking 15% in excess of the developments requirements. There is also a need for more Social Housing, Houses not Flats. I understand that additional housing in the High Street and possible Elmer Approach is also being contemplated.

Comment

Representation ID: 2293

Received: 22/01/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Grubb

While I accept the need for additional housing, there does need to be provision for additional school places and a location identified for a new primary school. To this effect I did suggest that serious consideration should be given to the building of a primary school on the old goods yard site at Prittlewell Rail Station. If a school is built on this site, the school would serve the population (children) who would be living in the new housing estates mentioned above and below and in close proximity to all of the proposed developments.
Any new school must be built at the same time as the new developments are converted or built.

Comment

Representation ID: 2356

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Belfairs Gardens Residents Association

Policy PA8.2 - Concerns that use of backland for 'lanes' type development might occupy car park areas needed for the redevelopment of the substantial buildings in this area into residential and business units forcing cars on to the nearby streets causing problems.

Comment

Representation ID: 2357

Received: 15/02/2016

Respondent: Belfairs Gardens Residents Association

Policy PA8.8g - This is a sensitive junction with an historic building and St, Mary's churchyard. While it will be the Council's intention to take care with any design and appointment of contractors some reassurance perhaps in the press would save questions from local people.

Comment

Representation ID: 2413

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Historic England

Paragraph 4 of Policy PA6 relates to energy efficiency and relates to existing development. We note that versions of this paragraph appear under other policy areas and opportunity sites, so the following comments also apply.
Listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled monuments are exempted from the need to comply with energy efficiency requirements of the Regulations where compliance would unacceptably alter their character and appearance. Special considerations under Part L are also given to locally listed buildings, buildings of architectural and historic interest within registered parks and gardens and the curtilages of scheduled monuments, and buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture. Any policy encouraging energy efficiency should note that the application will be different in relation to these classes of buildings. Further information can be found in the Historic England advice Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings -Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to historically and traditionally constructed buildings https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/energy-efficiency-historic-buildings-ptl/. This similarly applies to Policy PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4, PA5, PA7, CS1, PA8 and PA9.

Comment

Representation ID: 2418

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: Historic England

The Grade II museum building is within Opportunity Site 11 and reference should be made to conserving or enhancing its significance through the comprehensive redevelopment of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 2462

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

Victoria Avenue should be rebuilt with more safety features for pedestrians.
The cycle route built on the footway outside the Civic centre should be removed.
The road should be widened and the cycle track should be on the road, leaving the pavement clear for pedestrians.

Comment

Representation ID: 2463

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

Traffic lights at Victoria gateway and at the West Road, East Street junctions should have a red light phase to enable pedestrians to cross safely.

Comment

Representation ID: 2464

Received: 01/03/2016

Respondent: National Federation for the Blind

There is no mention of public toilets or parking for disabled people in the Victoria Gateway area, why not?