1. Has the Council identified all the key development management issues that are relevant to Southend-on-Sea?

Comment

Representation ID: 465

Received: 02/08/2010

Respondent: Anglian Water

On this occasion, I have no comment to make.

Support

Representation ID: 466

Received: 02/08/2010

Respondent: Essex County Council

Essex County Council fully supports the preparation of the Development Management DPD. It will provide more detailed guidance which should greatly assist the process of securing high quality sustainable development in support of the strategic vision of the Core Strategy and meeting the needs of the community. The emphasis on a positive and proactive approach in pursuit of achieving better development outcomes through the whole Development Management process is welcomed.

Object

Representation ID: 607

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

No the Council has not!
The main point missed was the need to plan for the different types of people who use Southend, Residents, Visitors and Workers.
The currently adopted Council plans mix late night revellers from the night clubs and pubs through newly created residential arrears such as the St. John's Quarter and the proposed road layout mixes the movement of Workers in and out of Southend with Residents the moving in the opposite direction at the same time. Many new crossing points have been created where traffic will compete for road space and parking.

Comment

Representation ID: 911

Received: 18/10/2010

Respondent: Cllr Alan Crystall

No mention of life long learning

Support

Representation ID: 967

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The text on the approach to handling applications - pre-application discussions and detail of information to be provided during pre-application stage (page 8, paras 2 and 3) - should be drafted as a policy.
This policy on pre-application discussion could be an important Key Performance Indicator for the Annual Monitoring Report.
Insert new policy

Comment

Representation ID: 968

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The role and purpose of including the references to the Saved Policies of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan under each of the subject chapters has not been explained and is unclear. We have therefore not made any comments on which, if any, should be retained in modified form in the DMP

Comment

Representation ID: 969

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Generally we would comment that there are no sustainability criteria for assessing whether sites are suitable for various types of residential and other uses either during the LDF process or as part of planning proposals. The criteria in DM26 should be explicitly used to justify site allocations in the CAAP and other location specific allocations in the DMDPD (e.g. DM21 and DM22) and in future LDDs. Sustainable transport management issues should also be required to be addressed in development proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 1234

Received: 18/10/2010

Respondent: Cllr Alan Crystall

SO5 and SO6, numbers will need to be reviewed and reduced.. SO12. and education.

Comment

Representation ID: 1235

Received: 18/10/2010

Respondent: Cllr Alan Crystall

Lower Thames Rowing Club and SMAC scheme will provide physical, recreational and educational facilities at two tree, as well as Seafront existing.

Comment

Representation ID: 1236

Received: 18/10/2010

Respondent: Cllr Alan Crystall

Strategic objectives . "Park and Ride" All other major towns in East of England have Park and Ride as an essential part of their infrastructure. Leigh station Park and ride to to East beach park and ride along seafront would be a good start .Only one lot of buses needed, terminal at each end.

Comment

Representation ID: 1237

Received: 18/10/2010

Respondent: Cllr Alan Crystall

Development management issues needs an overall embrace of "Sustainability", which relates to all six bullet points.

Comment

Representation ID: 1244

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

Iceni Projects Ltd (Iceni) has been instructed by Cordea Savills on behalf of Colonnade Land LLP (Colonnade) to submit representations to the Development Management Document (DMD) and Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) Development Plan Documents (DPDs). Colonnade represents the interests of landowners to the north of Southend.
Colonnade considers Southend to be one of the most important locations in the Thames Gateway for improving both the local and regional economy. This is based on the potential that exists for Southend to function as a regional city for Essex Thames Gateway and the potential of Southend Airport to develop into a successful regional airport for the sub-region and an economic pole in its own right.

Comment

Representation ID: 1245

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

The advent of localism and the changes to the planning system being brought into place by the Government provide an opportunity for the Council to drastically enhance the quality of life of its residents, enhance the individuality and unique character of Southend and provides the optimum framework to deliver on the long-standing objectives of the Council to deliver improvements to the strategic transport infrastructure network.

Comment

Representation ID: 1246

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

Colonnade recognises that the potential of Southend cannot be fully realised without extensive new highway and public transport infrastructure and accordingly, Colonnade is promoting an extension of Southend to enable the delivery of significant improvements to the strategic transport infrastructure network that will realise the long-standing objectives of the Council arising from the original Local Transport Plan. Plans for the expansion of the airport are taking shape and must be supported by improvements to the remainder of the strategic transport network.

Comment

Representation ID: 1247

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

The new Government has announced a series of significant changes to the planning system that are material to the Core Strategy and its daughter documents, including the DMD and SCAAP. Whilst the intention of the changes is not to derail or stop the LDF production process, it is inevitable that the implications of the changes will need to be considered by the Council. In the absence of clarification from the Council as to its intended path - principally the choice between continuing with the Core Strategy as adopted (and continuing the production of its daughter documents based on an unaltered strategy), or opting to alter the Core Strategy to take account of the changes. Either way, the Council is expected to: ".quickly signal their intention to undertake an early review so that communities and land owners know where they stand." [guidance issued on 6 July 2010 by the Department for Communities and Local Government].We await the response from the Council as to its intentions regarding housing targets and reserve the right to comment further on the clarification of its position. If the Council decides the appropriate path is to undertake an early review of the Core Strategy, which for the avoidance of doubt Colonnade considers is the appropriate approach in light of the changes to PPS3 in particular (the reasons for this being clarified below), then the consultation on the DMD and SCAAP should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the review.

With regard to the housing targets set out in the now revoked East of England Plan, Colonnade would welcome the swift clarification of the intended approach to the housing provision targets in accordance with Government advice.

Comment

Representation ID: 1248

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

It is also significant that neighbouring authorities are understood to be considering reducing their housing targets with the expectation that Southend will absorb the resultant surplus and it is clear that the Government has confirmed the expectation that authorities will work together to address these, and other, issues. The confirmation of the shortfall in the housing land supply in Rochford, approximately 2.5 years, by the Inspector and the Secretary of State at the recent recovered appeal (ref. APP/B1550/A/09/2118433/NWF), provides a clear indication of the extent of the issues being faced by a neighbouring authority.

Comment

Representation ID: 1249

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

As to the changes to PPS3, these are considered to be a material change that could fundamentally affect the principal aims of the housing strategy set out in the Core Strategy. As such, Colonnade considers that the Council will need to consider a review of the Core Strategy as a result of these changes as a minimum. The change in classification of backlands/gardens and the abandonment of the minimum housing density targets will act to further enhance the need to identify additional housing sites through the planning process. Quite simply, the Council will not be able to rely to any extent on the delivery of windfall sites, the level of development within the Town Centre and Central Area or further intensification of the urban areas to the extent envisaged in the Core Strategy. As such, wholesale changes will be required to the housing strategy to maintain a five and fifteen year supply of suitable, available and viable housing sites. It is significant that there has been growing concern amongst Council Members over town cramming and the provision of a large predominance of flatted developments. The changes to PPS3 do allow the Council to apply greater freedoms in the types and standards of housing (size and densities) sought, provided there is sufficient additional land supply identified to address these improved standards.

Comment

Representation ID: 1250

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

As such, wholesale changes will be required to the housing strategy to maintain a five and fifteen year supply of suitable, available and viable housing sites. It is significant that there has been growing concern amongst Council Members over town cramming and the provision of a large predominance of flatted developments. The changes to PPS3 do allow the Council to apply greater freedoms in the types and standards of housing (size and densities) sought, provided there is sufficient additional land supply identified to address these improved standards.

Comment

Representation ID: 1251

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

As clarified below, the current market demand, in Southend and the wider area, is now predominantly for family sized homes. Therefore, the logical conclusion arising from both of the changes to PPS3 is the need to identify further reservoirs of housing land to allow for sufficient housing growth of the dwelling type/s demanded without the comfort of delivery on windfall sites or minimum targets on those areas identified.

Comment

Representation ID: 1252

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

With the recent changes to PPS3 in mind, it is relevant to note the findings of the Inspector and Secretary of State in relation to the evidence presented by the appellant regarding the likelihood of high density flatted development schemes being delivered in the current economic climate, specifically in relation to the south Essex sub-region, at the recent appeal by Colonnade for the development of approximately 300 dwellings in East Tilbury (ref. APP/M9565/A/09/2114804/NWF). Evidence was presented by a former Managing Director of a national housebuilder with a significant property portfolio in south Essex, which confirmed that, amongst other issues: * Delivery of new housing in South Essex in recent years has, as a result of buoyant market conditions, limited supply, and vendor expectations, been focussed on flatted development as this was seen by investors as the way to maximise the value of their land; * Following the downturn in the economy, there has been a realisation that high density schemes, unless of a scale and location that are highly sustainable and desirable, are not economically deliverable in the short or medium term; * Planning supply of flatted product suddenly became the opposite of what little end user demand existed for traditional family housing; * In some cases the financial viability of high density schemes that also had high planning gain tariffs, sustainability codes and contemporary design costs was in question even at the height of the market. Due to the financial difficulty being experienced by all house builders at present, the emphasis is on securing land that has the ability to generate turnover with low working capital expenditure. In order to achieve this, the focus is on securing relatively 'clean' land for building and selling family housing product rather than flats, which are less dependent on off-market sales and the buy-to-let investor market.The Inspector's Report confirmed that the above evidence was accepted in making his recommendation that the appeal be allowed. In addition, the Inspector acknowledged the "delivery problems arising in the current economic climate, and from the heavy reliance on the delivery of high density urban development on complex brownfield sites" [IR334] and noted that: "More recently, the additional cost associated with major brownfield schemes has in some cases seen the proportion of affordable housing renegotiated downwards. An example is the Fiddler's Reach scheme at West Thurrock, where viability considerations have restricted the proportion of affordable housing to 11%." [IR308]. It is quite clear from the above, that a heavy reliance on the delivery of housing development on high density brownfield sites brings with it a number of significant complexities, not least the issues of attractiveness to the market and viability, but also the potential to restrict affordable housing delivery, both in real and proportional terms. In accepting the recommendation of the Inspector and allowing the appeal, the Secretary of State verified position adopted by the Inspector and should be taken into account by the Council in the formulation of the policies of the DMD and SCAAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 1253

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Iceni Projects

The proposed approach to a number of the issues contained within the DMD will need to be reconsidered in light of the announcements by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Minister for Decentralisation. Specifically, the following issues will need to be considered:

Comment

Representation ID: 1254

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 21 June, and very much welcome the long overdue concept of detailed policies that planning applications can be assessed against.

Unfortunately the draft document contains many proposals for broad brush policies that are clearly in conflict with this concept and need "tightening up" if it is to succeed.