Main 4

Object

Representation ID: 2891

Received: 20/09/2017

Respondent: Essex Chambers of Commerce

We object to the statement that "There are 3,142 publically available paid for car parking spaces to the south of the Central Area" and support Stockvale as to the correct number of parking spaces available which they set out in amended version of Appendix 9. We also agree that in considering parking provision free spaces should be included alongside paid for spaces.

We would also support the proposed amended wording submitted by Stockvale in respect of Para 135 and that there should be no net loss of key visitor car parking to the south of the Central Area.

Object

Representation ID: 2925

Received: 22/09/2017

Respondent: Stockvale Group

We object to the reference that: "There are 3,142 publicly available paid for car parking spaces to the south of the Central Area..." This does not reflect the current supply of paid for car parking spaces south of the railway line. The difference is based on an inaccurate survey of car parking
spaces, the use of significantly out of date figures for the Seaway Car Park, coupled with the exclusion of a number of paid for on street parking areas. The correct number is set out in our amended version of Appendix 9 (see our separate representations on that).

A meeting was held with the Council on 21st June. At this meeting, Stockvale explained the differences between the Stockvale and Southend Borough Council (SBC) figures. The Stockvale figures are based on a December 2016 survey. Stockvale stated that it was willing to meet with the Council on any of the sites where there was disagreement and agree figures, but the Council was not willing to agree to this. The Council has given no explanation for the discrepancies in its figures, so Stockvale cannot accept that the figures shown in the Schedule of Modifications are correct. We would suggest that the Stockvale figures are used in favour of the SBC figures. Alternatively, Stockvale remains willing to meet with the Council on site and agree these figures, which should be a relatively straightforward exercise as this is a statement of fact. We also see no reason for the reference to only paid-for spaces, when free spaces are also available and should be recognised. There are an additional 132 free on-street spaces available for visitors (based on the conservative assumption that 75% of the on-street spaces are used by residents).

The Proposed Modification also states: "2,562 of these spaces are located in publicly available key visitor car parks (Table 5)". This is based on the car parks that have been designated as such in Table 5. Stockvale strongly objects to the exclusion of a number of key visitor car parks from this list, for which there is absolutely no explanation given. This artificially reduces the number of key car parking spaces significantly, and given the severe capacity issues in the seafront area, to be sound the discrepancy in our representations to Main 7. If our amended version of Table 5 is accepted, then the figure of 2,562 should be replaced with 3,207.

We propose the following amended wording:
"135 There are 3,1423,536 publicly available paid for car parking spaces to the south of the central area within approximately 10 minutes' walk from the shoreline (Appendix 9), serving both the seafront and southern parts of the Southend Central Area, and an additional 132 free on-street spaces available for visitors. 3,1622,562 of these spaces are located in publicly available key visitor car parks (Table 5). As a result of the peak capacity issues, as identified by the Car Parking Study, and to support the vitality and viability of the central seafront area, it is expected that there will be no net loss of key visitor car parking to the south of the Central Area."

Linked to this, we also consider the following Modifications to Paragraph 135 are essential to ensure that the Council's approach to the protection of key parking spaces is clear:
"Given the constraints and limited land availability of the Central Area, opportunities to increase car parking to the south will be limited, however where viable and feasible, the Council will seek further provision in association with development to allow for planned growth in seafront businesses, and a proportion of these spaces will be reserved for that purpose (i.e. not used to accommodate parking demand from a specific development). One example of this is the New Southend Museum (Opportunity Site CS1.4), which has planning permission for approximately 220 public car parking spaces. In addition, the Council will require the provision of appropriate levels of car parking spaces associated with development of the key car park themselves. This will involve no net loss of the existing car parking spaces, and sufficient additional spaces to accommodate the
development, in line with the requirements of Policy DS5 below.