9b - Extend major retail activity into the St John's Quarter including the central seafront

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Object

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 389

Received: 26/07/2010

Respondent: A thomas

Representation Summary:

retail should be concentrated in the High Street Chichester and side streets, seafront retail could be increased with more seaside related like beachware, sports, sunglasses etc.

Full text:

retail should be concentrated in the High Street Chichester and side streets, seafront retail could be increased with more seaside related like beachware, sports, sunglasses etc.

Support

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 557

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Representation Summary:

The retail area of the town centre is physically constrained. Whilst current demand for new retail, other than convenience stores, in the town centre appears limited, it will be important to identify scope for future expansion. Tylers Car Park offers one option. However, to extend this to the seafront may risk diluting the town centre offer and confusing it with commercial seafront. This would need comprehensive planning and testing and be developer led to be successful.

Full text:

The retail area of the town centre is physically constrained. Whilst current demand for new retail, other than convenience stores, in the town centre appears limited, it will be important to identify scope for future expansion. Tylers Car Park offers one option. However, to extend this to the seafront may risk diluting the town centre offer and confusing it with commercial seafront. This would need comprehensive planning and testing and be developer led to be successful.

Object

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 600

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

Representation Summary:

There is a case for extending retail into St John's Quarter, however it should be based around the Lucy Road area and not in an additional corridor from the middle of the High Street and destroying all the local parking. Additional Green Space could be created by putting the Seaway Carpark on the same level as the seafront and greening over the roof to provide a picnic or other amenity area.

Full text:

There is a case for extending retail into St John's Quarter, however it should be based around the Lucy Road area and not in an additional corridor from the middle of the High Street and destroying all the local parking. Additional Green Space could be created by putting the Seaway Carpark on the same level as the seafront and greening over the roof to provide a picnic or other amenity area.

Comment

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 692

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

Representation Summary:

In High Street, we do not agree that this street lacks landmarks and consider that a thorough detailed assessment will highlight various late Victorian, Art Deco and other frontages, including the former Keddie's store, which have local resonance. The length of the High Street might be seen as an integral part of the grain of the Victorian town. It could be reinforced by boulevard planting and high quality public realm treatment that would endure longer than the rather poorly conceived, yet reasonably recent, paving scheme.
English Heritage notes that the council has commissioned a new retail study. We suggest that its conclusions should be awaited before proposals are made to expand the commercial core eastward.

Full text:

GENERAL COMMENTS AND PPS5
PPS5 builds on the earlier national guidance for the historic environment and brings it up-to-date based on the principles of heritage protection reform. Policy HE3 of PPS5 relates to local planning approaches to the historic environment. The following parts are of particular relevance:

Policy HE2.1 '...local planning authorities should ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area and that this is publicly documented. The level of detail of the evidence should be proportionate and sufficient to inform adequately the plan-making process.'

Policy HE3.1: '...local development frameworks should set out a positive, proactive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in their area, taking into account the variations in type and distribution of heritage asset, as well as the contribution made by the historic environment by virtue of (inter alia) its influence on the character of the environment and an area's sense of place.'

Policy HE3.2 advises that the level of detail contained in a LDF 'should reflect the scale of the area covered and the significance of the heritage assets within it'.

Policy HE3.4 states that 'At a local level, plans should consider the qualities and local distinctiveness of the historic environment and how these contribute to the spatial vision in the local development framework core strategy. Heritage assets can be used to ensure continued sustainability of an area and promote a sense of place. Plans at local level are likely to consider investment in and enhancement of historic places including the public realm, in more detail. They should include consideration of how best to conserve individual, groups or types of heritage assets that are most at risk of loss through neglect, decay or other threats'.

The emphasis on a positive, proactive approach to the historic environment in plans is especially noteworthy. We would also highlight the need to understand the significance of heritage assets within the plan area. In the context of the Southend Central Area Action Plan we hope that assessment of the historic environment will be a central element of the evidence base.

Other points from PPS5 worth noting at this stage:
- The term 'heritage asset' is now the appropriate term to refer to those parts of the historic environment that have significance, both designated and un-designated. Paragraph 5 provides the definition.
- Paragraph 7 of the PPS recognises the positive contribution of heritage assets to local character and sense of place
- The historic environment should be integrated into planning policies promoting place-shaping (paragraph 7)
- Policy HE5 refers to the need for monitoring indicators. We recommend that heritage at risk, including grade II buildings at risk, should form part of the LDF monitoring framework.

SOUTHEND CENTRAL AREA ACTION PLAN
SECTION 3 KEY CHALLENGES
Paras 3.26 to 3.29 refer to the town being a hub for natural and built heritage. English Heritage feels strongly that in order to fully understand and address change in this area more investigative work needs to be carried out. Our Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance emphasises (para 62 onwards) the need to understand the fabric and evolution of a place and to identify who values the place and why they do so. Paragraph 89 underlines the value of specific investigation into understanding the impacts, or consequences, of proposed change.

Historically Southend has prospered by attracting visitors. We feel this role has had a profound influence on its character and that this should be taken into account when making future decisions. Policy HE2 of PPS5 advises local planning authorities to ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area to adequately inform the plan-making process.

Reference is made in the Plan's paragraph 3.28 to the existing conservation areas and historic buildings and we are aware that appraisals of some of the areas have been carried out recently. However, we feel that this would be the right time to consider further the extent of these areas, especially those which may be affected by the Area Action Plan, notably the Clifftown and Eastern Esplanade areas. It is also apparent that a number of the heritage assets in Southend are undesignated; in the context of PPS5 advice we suggest these should be evaluated.

The seafront is an area where layers of growth, often laid one on another, sometimes masks historic fabric. These none the less, in combination, present a townscape that gives Southend much of its distinctiveness. We agree that the linking of spaces may be important, but apart from on the waterfront itself these spaces are contained mainly by buildings. Their existing scale, form and alignment should be considered along with smaller details such as roof forms, materials, fenestration and signage.

The statement in paragraph 3.28 that tall buildings may "create new iconic buildings and spaces" has not been justified. An urban characterisation process could identify existing iconic buildings and spaces (e.g. the Pier, Royal Terrace, Palace Hotel and The Cliffs) and assess their existing contributions, and whether there is capacity for additional large structures or interventions.

SECTION 4 THE VISION
In para 4.3, linked to our comments above, English Heritage suggests that under (2) the objectives should be to conserve those buildings and public realm that already contribute. A detailed Public Realm survey would be helpful to inform the final strategy or spatial option.

SECTION 5 SPATIAL OPTIONS
The preferred "City by the Sea" option appears to embody many of the aspirations that the other two options in this section incorporate. We would urge, however, that the concept of producing alternative "circuits" to the High Street is fully evaluated. Option 1 focuses on the street as the heart of Southend. We feel that the street contains, or connects, a number of historic landmarks and spaces, and that its vitality should not be threatened (as has happened in other towns in the region) by well intentioned proposals to form alternative quarters, or circuits. The continued demand for physical expansion of the retail and restaurant industries may not be as assured in the future.

SECTION 6 CITY BY THE SEA
This section explains the preferred option further. Whilst reiterating the comments made above, we support the aims to improve connections and permeability, and to improve the qualities of townscapes, spaces and frontages as well as repairing buildings. However, here again we would question the need for further new landmarks, especially tall buildings, without justification. The world famous landmark of the Pier, which is in your council's ownership, is in desperate need of regeneration and yet is only briefly touched upon.

The advices contained in PPS5, policy HE3.4 is relevant here, in particular, that plans at a local level should include investment and enhancement of historic places, including the public realm.

SECTION 7 THE QUARTERS AND KEY SITES
English Heritage does not wish to comment in detail on these individual areas, which your council will be in the best position to assess in detail. We would, however, highlight the following considerations.

In the "Victorias" we agree that the civic complex, including the Library, has significance, and we urge that proposals recognise their status and incorporate them as a key component.

In High Street, we do not agree that this street lacks landmarks and consider that a thorough detailed assessment will highlight various late Victorian, Art Deco and other frontages, including the former Keddie's store, which have local resonance. The length of the High Street might be seen as an integral part of the grain of the Victorian town. It could be reinforced by boulevard planting and high quality public realm treatment that would endure longer than the rather poorly conceived, yet reasonably recent, paving scheme.

English Heritage notes that the council has commissioned a new retail study. We suggest that its conclusions should be awaited before proposals are made to expand the commercial core eastward.

We support your aim to make High Street a priority area for pedestrians, but again urge you to adopt a public realm strategy for the whole town centre. You refer to the closure of the York Road Market. English Heritage was made aware of this by representations by local residents who saw the removal of this feature as a loss of local distinctiveness. We hope that you will acknowledge the importance of human scale interventions in any alternatives.

Whilst welcoming the option to remodel the existing inimical seaward frontage of The Royals shopping centre, we must express our concern about a proposed "radical landmark redevelopment" in the area adjoining the Pier, especially as it could compromise the settings of the existing listed landmarks of the Palace Hotel and Royal Terrace and the Clifftown conservation area.

In Clifftown we support your aspirations including the creation of a new square in front of Central Station and the recognition that the fine grain historic street form should lead any regeneration proposals.

Under part 7.8 (St. John's eastwards) English Heritage urges that you give more prominence to the role that the existing conservation areas at Kursaal and Eastern Esplanade have in contributing to local distinctiveness and legibility. Kursaal is of course already a landmark, and the seafront terrace of listed fishermen's' cottages along the Esplanade are the only reminder of pre-railway old Southend. This area would benefit from appraisal, and possibly extension. The area around St. John's Churchyard certainly requires special attention and we are pleased that a brief has been commissioned for this area.

The adjoining seafront could, as stated, be said to represent a significant defining feature of the Southend identity that should be celebrated. It includes some listed buildings as well as others of local significance, with the overlying layer of later twentieth century commercialism. All of these elements need to be properly understood before any decisions are made as to future actions.

Support

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 808

Received: 13/08/2010

Respondent: Conservation Association Westcliff Seaboard (CAWS)

Representation Summary:

9b

Full text:

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

Support

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 858

Received: 13/08/2010

Respondent: South Westcliff Community Group (SWCG)

Representation Summary:

9b

Full text:

General Comments
A1) Unique Victorian and Edwardian streetscape and vistas - Need to be very carefully preserved - Both short views and long views - In the High Street, there are still some key well designed upper stories with features we will not see again.

A2) We believe that our 'lost community spirit in our towns and cities today is caused by a lack of identification with an area. Everything runs into everything else, except from wholly identifiable areas (e.g. Leigh-on-Sea, Milton). Identifying current 'community areas' and new ones and building their identities will, we believe lead individuals toward a closer community feeling and more mutual co-operation and interest.

A3) We do need to focus on the small design and 'bottom-up thinking', as well as on the 'grand designs'. It will be the availability of smaller, specialist shops and the uniqueness of their setting, which will distinguish Southend as a 'special shopping' centre, instead of just, another town centre.

A4) 'Tall' buildings are not necessarily the right approach to an iconic town centre. Visitors will not come to Southend to view the tall buildings, they will come to see 'something different' that they cannot find in Chelmsford, or Basildon, or Bluewater, etc. It's creating that 'special buzz' - Like the lanes in Brighton, or for new build - Gehry's unique buildings. The bland square-box glass designs just won't do it - Although excellent buildings with sea vistas just might.

Specific Comments
2.11 We believe that there is a great opportunity to revive Hamlet Court Road as a special shopping centre again. It has the character, but it is presently over-burdened with restaurants. A mixed use would enhance the whole Westcliff area.
2.14 We believe that this has been missing recently. Building which involve people inter-action (covered walkways, shops at street level) are vastly preferable to blank glass walls. Building like this - just fill the space - They don't offer new interesting space.
3.4 (See A1-A4 general comments above) Tall is not necessarily good - 'smart' is better.
3.10 'Bulky food outlets sounds like a recipe for disaster - Opportunities for smaller, distinct, specialist restaurants give us 'differentiation' - Otherwise we are in danger of creating 'Basildon-on-Sea'.
3.11 Southend should perhaps consider taking a development route which is focused on new high-tech opportunities (Nano technology, Green technology) linked into our educational future focus. This could act as a magnet for incoming investment, which can start on a small-scale and be housed in a new 'nursery' units in and around Southend Airport (and possibly on ex-military sites at Shoeburyness). It could also magnify the educational focus greatly.

(Obviously 3.15 supports this).

Option Box 1: 'Yes', although there is a great danger of buildings for buildings sake - Bulk outlets', Tall buildings, are a big red danger area.
Option Box 2: 'Yes', identification of micro-sites e.g: High Street opposite the Royals on the North to Alexander Road - This is a unique site forming a 'min-lanes' area - similar to Brighton. Another option is development of the Kursal as a 'Covent Garden type' mini centre, but it would need good strong links back to the High Street, or development of the 'Golden Mile' as retail/restaurants area. A diagonal road would also help if it stretched to the Kursal and opened up that vista, perhaps as a wide, stepped pedestrian avenue, with shops.
Option Box 3: 'Yes', bearing in mind 'micro planning' for people's enjoyment and 'bottom-up thinking' which meets 'top down thinking'.
Option Box 4: 'Yes', except I would add options under Employment and Offices to promote: Small combined shops, with workshop space behind the shops to encourage artisans to create, train and sell unique designs in Southend. Plus, also the creation of small design development workshops to enable small-scale advanced technology prototyping.
Option Box 5: No. This looks like the best option, provided it doesn't lead to 'meaningless' over-development. If a key focus is on 'new quarters' and centres of interest, without the 'soulless' blank walls (Glass or brick). The balance between 'city' and 'town' is 'interesting' and worrying - Expanding the feel of Southend, without losing its heart and integrity would seem to be a strong challenge.
6.15 We are against tall landmarks on the water's edge. This destroys the 'horizontal nature' of the coast and suggests a Costa- Del-Sol - type approach. A really awful example is the 'Nirvanha' building on the Western Esplanade, which has significantly downgraded the whole area and the long coastal views too.
Option Box 6: Maybe, or it could deliver 'Basildon-on-Sea' unless it is very well thought through as a quality, pedestrian experience.
Option Box 7: 7a
Option Box 8: 8a, 8b, 8d
Option Box 9: 9b
Option Box 10: 10a
Option Box 12: The car Park tends to be a 'dead area', but the gardens are uplifting, perhaps a similar 'look' for the street on the other side (s), would transform that street. At the moment it is a car park, 'concrete' area. Certainly a green swathe with trees would make a difference.
Option Box 13: The ideas here are good so long as a 'village' feel can be created with 'pedestrian scaled' buildings and squares - Sounds very good, as this area does have a 'down energy'.
Option Box 14: 14b
Option Box 15: This area requires great care in order to retain the best of its Victorian/Edwardian, even Georgian feel. Further development could possibly destroy its unique feel.
Option Box 16: 16a (i0, 16a (iv), 16e (Combination)
Option Box 17: 17a & 17b & 17c
Option Box 18: 18a, 18c, 18e
Option Box 19: 19b
Option Box 20: 20c, 20d, 20e
Option Box 21: 21a, 21b, 21c(iii)
Option Box 22: Yes
Option Box 23: 23a, 23b (Mixed Approach)
Option Box 24: 24b & 24c
Option 25: 25c
Option 26: Locally evaluated per area, as required
Option 27: 27b

Support

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 1060

Received: 26/10/2010

Respondent: BNP Paribas Real Estate

Representation Summary:

Option 9 (The High Street)
We support both Option 2 (Reinforcing Urban Circuits) & Option 3 (City by the Sea) of the Spatial Options, on the basis that they include residential within a mix of uses -specifically in the broadened High Street area where:
. Victoria Avenue retains a civic and cultural role but takes on a new character as a mixed use Quarter with workspace, local retail and residential uses
. New housing is brought forward where opportunities allow increasing the vibrancy and vitality of the town centre.

However we are of the view that the High Street should not have a predominant use at the northern extent and should provide mixed uses including residential.

Full text:

We act on behalf of Stargass Nominees as Trustees to the National Grid UK Pension Scheme in respect of the Central Area Action Plan (AAP) Development Plan Document. We understand that the purpose of the Plan is to give more detailed consideration to how and where employment-led regeneration and growth can be sustainability accommodated in the town centre and surrounding neighbourhoods. Eventually, the submission strategy will contain detailed policies and site specific proposals to strengthen the town centre and create "a successful retail and commercial destination, cultural hub, educational centre of excellence, leisure and tourist attraction". We have also been informed that the information gathered from this consultation will be used in preparing the preferred options document and set our representations below. Before we do so, we provide a background to our clients site.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Representation to the Strategic Housing Availability Assessment
On 29 July 2008 we submitted representations to the Southend-on-Sea LDF Call for Sites in relation to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Chartwell House as a significant development opportunity for residential redevelopment.
1.2 The Site - Chartwell House
The site is located on the southern side of Queensway (A13) within the town centre and adjacent to commercial, retail and residential uses. Southend -On-Sea Victoria station is located a few metres to the north of the site.
Chartwell House is situated in the Victoria Plaza Shopping Centre and contains an 11 storey building that provides approximately 6,368.30 sq m of net internal floor space. The basement is used for storage; the ground floor as a reception area; the second floor is used as a banqueting suite (in use sporadically); the third floor is used for training; and the fourth floor to the eleventh floor primarily for office accommodation.
The lease expires on 21 December 2013 and therefore the site will come forward within the Plan period.
2. REPRESENTATIONS
We remain of the opinion that Chartwell House is suited to a residential led mixed-use development.
Opportunities for more efficient and effective use of the site exist - in residential, mixed use and also commercial use, however, without an allocation, the opportunity to secure the alternative uses identified are reduced.
We consider that our clients site is has significant potential for redevelopment. In this regard, we are promoting the site (as shown on the enclosed plan) for a high-density residential and/or residential-led mixed use redevelopment.
We set out below the relevant National and Local Policies which support and allocation and demonstrate why the site is suitable for development.
2.1 Relevant Planning Policy
2.2 National Policy
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) sets out the Government's vision for planning and the key policies and principles that should underpin the planning system. The document asserts the Government's commitment to creating sustainable communities that meet not just our existing needs but also those of future generations. It is noted that this specifically states that sustainable communities:
"need sufficient, quality housing to meet the needs of the community, a flourishing local economy supported by adequate infrastructure, a high quality, safe and healthy local environment, and the amenities and sense of space and place to support a diverse and vibrant local culture."
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS 3) advocates the re-use of previously developed land and promotes the development of new homes in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (PPS 3) sets out at paragraph 40 that a key objective is that local planning authority to continue to make effective use of land by using land that has been previously developed, 'including considering where the sites are currently allocated for industrial or commercial use or be more appropriately relocated for housing development'.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of PPS 3, and in our view, the site meets the following tests:
â–  Suitable: The site offers a suitable location for development and would contribute to the creation of sustainable mixed communities on previously developed land;
â–  Available: The site is fully expected to become available for development in the foreseeable future ; and
â–  Achievable: Development could be delivered on the site within the plan period (2021)
Therefore it is considered that national policy supports the re-use of this site for high density residential and/or mixed use redevelopment.
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG 13) contains the Government's objectives with regards to the integration of planning and transport to secure sustainable development with ensuring they make the fullest use of public transport, locate everyday facilities where they can be reached conveniently by foot and cycle and give priority to people over ease of traffic movement.
The site is located within the boundary of Southend-On-Sea Town centre, therefore Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS 4): Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth is relevant. PPS 4 identifies that Local Planning Authorities should plan positively and proactively to promote competitive town centre environments to ".... be flexible enough to ... allow a quick response to changes in economic circumstances" and "seek to make the most efficient and effective use of land, prioritising previously developed land which is suitable for re-use".
2.3 Core Strategy (2007)
The adopted Core Strategy makes reference to 'Sustainable communities: building for the future' (2003) which states that a 'step-change' in housing supply will be needed to tackle serious shortages that exist, particularly in the London and the South East. The Core Strategy also acknowledges that there should be higher densities, as well as expressing a preference for the use of previously developed land over greenfield land for new developments. The Council have recognised that housing targets will be achieved through regeneration throughout the borough, particularly in the town centre.

The Core Strategy identifies seven 'ambitions' outlined in the Community Plan for Southend, and of these, housing is considered to aid several, both direct and indirectly.

Further, the Core Strategy states that within Southend, the nature and scale of development sites that are likely to contribute to housing provision during the period 2001-2021, will derive from high density development on small sites on previously developed land.

3. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS IN THE SOUTHEND-ON-SEA AREA ACTION PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT.
We set out our representations below in a format that corresponds to this document. In accordance with the OS and Southend Centre Area Action Plan Boundary, our site lies to the north of the High Street area which is coloured in blue.
Option Box 1 (General)
In our view, the Council have correctly identified the key challenges to re-addressing the Area Action Plan in particular 'a residential place that people want to live-in, work and visit' in accordance with PPS3 and PPS1.
Option Box 2 (General)
We do not consider there are any further explicit opportunities that should be explored in the AAP. However, we do consider that there should be a focus on the provision of residential accommodation in the Town centre and housing standards, design, massing and amenity standards that would be required. We would however require flexibility within the standards, to accommodate site specific circumstances.
Option 9 (The High Street)
We support both Option 2 (Reinforcing Urban Circuits) & Option 3 (City by the Sea) of the Spatial Options, on the basis that they include residential within a mix of uses -specifically in the broadened High Street area where:
* Victoria Avenue retains a civic and cultural role but takes on a new character as a mixed use Quarter with workspace, local retail and residential uses
* New housing is brought forward where opportunities allow increasing the vibrancy and vitality of the town centre.

However we are of the view that the High Street should not have a predominant use at the northern extent and should provide mixed uses including residential.
Option Box 17 (development management policies)
We consider that the AAP should contain detailed development management policies for all development, including the central area, however s stated in Option Box 2, there should be flexibility taking into account the range of sites, each with their associated site constraints, within the town centre.


Option Box 18 (Carbon Emissions)
With regards to resource minimisation and carbon emissions we are of the view that major developments (10 or more units), should provide an element of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS), where feasible and viable. We agree that in such circumstances, SUDS should be sought in areas of flood risk to manage runoff from buildings and hardstandings.
Option Box 19 (Renewable Energy)
The plan should include policies that encourage the provision of more local energy generation and distribution systems, however, would argue that this should only be applicable to major developments (10 or more units, or 1000 sq m); it should be subject to viability; and there should not be an additional requirement to provide on site renewable energy.
Option Box 21 (Biodiversity)
We consider that in order to address biodiversity, green space provision and the green grid, new developments should recognise the ecological importance of wildlife in their design. However, there should not be a requirement to further enhance or provide opportunities for nature conservation unless developments are of a large scale (i.e. major developments). There should be flexibility for sites, such as ours, located within the heart of the town centre, which may be able to provide green roofs, roof gardens and/or bird boxes.
Further, we do not consider that developments should be restricted in particular areas, unless the areas in question are specifically designated protected areas for nature conservation purposes.
Option Box 24 (Housing Mix)
In order to deliver the type of homes required in the central area, we agree with 24c in that there should be a different approach to sites which provide dwellings in the town centre and sites that provide dwellings in surrounding neighbourhoods. Larger units and family homes should be re-focused to be provided within the Gateway neighbourhoods and apartments primarily in the town centre. In this regard, housing in Gateway neighbourhoods could accommodate, low density, larger units and family housing with amenity space; whereas residential accommodation within the town centre would easily provide high density housing in close proximity to varying amenities and would also provide natural surveillance ('eyes on the street'), vitality and vibrancy with the Town Centre.
Option Box 24 (Housing Standards)
In order to deliver the type of homes the 'community' requires in the Central Area, the Plan should set out specific standards for different types of dwellings with minimum room sizes and requirements for storage to meet the particular objectives for the area. In principle, we support the need for a mix of residential unit sizes. However, there should be flexibility for conversions which may be restricted due to the built form.
Option Box 25 (Affordable Housing)
4 CONCLUSION
We agree that in order to provide for future affordable housing needs, the Plan should set an overall numerical target for affordable homes to be accommodated within the Plan area and that this should be proportioned between the different development areas according to their role and function. However, affordable housing should only be required on sites of 15 or more units, subject to flexibility and viability.
Overall, there should be an appropriate and sustainable balance between jobs, infrastructure and housing, especially in the town centre. In this regard, we wish to promote our clients site for residential led mixed use redevelopment. The site would be ideal for retail/commercial uses at the ground floor with residential use on the upper floors, which would provide a mixed use development in keeping with local and national policies.

We reserve the right to amend or supplement these representations at a later date if necessary.

Comment

Southend Central Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 1154

Received: 03/11/2010

Respondent: Montagu Evans

Representation Summary:

Option 9b is supported which states:
-Extend major retail activity into the St John's Quarter inclUding the central seafront.
As outlined above this will enable the establishment of a second anchor in the southern section of the High Street, further strengthening the High Street. Once the findings of the Retail Study are known it will be possible to ensure that sufficient sites are identified in an on the edge of the town centre to accommodate additional retail development. In the first instance, the creation of additional retail anchors will increase the attraction of the centre.

Full text:

REPRESENTATIONS TO CENTRAL AREA ACTION PLAN -ISSUES AND OPTIONS

These representations are submitted on behalf of Delamere Estates Ltd and the National Grid Pension Fund, the owners of The Victoria Shopping Centre at the northern end of the High Street, in relation to the recently published Central Area Action Plan - Issues and Options consultation, The shopping centre has recently been the subject of significant investment resulting in enhancing and refurbishing the existing retail f1oorspace.

Introduction
The Council is currently in the process of preparing a Retail Study, which we understand is expected to be
published shortly. The AAP states that the contents of the Retail Study will inform the submission version of
the document The findings of the Retail Study will be an important consideration when deciding how much
additional floorspace can be supported in order to ensure that adequate sites are identified.

In these circumstances we consider that the current consultation is premature prior to the publication of the
Retail Study. The soundness tests of PPS12 require that in order for an LDF document to be justified it should be founded on a robust and credible evidence base. As the Central Area Action Plan currently stands it is not founded on such an evidence base because the Retail Study is the only independent assessment which can determine the appropriate retail strategy. This is particularly important in Southend where there are competing out of centre schemes to consider.

The Council should reconsult on the Issues and Options Central Area Action Plan once the Retail Study has
been published in order to enable representations to be submitted in full knowledge of the contents of this
document.

Option 5 - Are there any significant sustainability or viability reasons why the Borough Council
should reject at this stage the City by the Sea option?
The City by the Sea option is based on a holistic and comprehensive approach which sees the development
of a series of urban Quarters. It incorporates a strengthened retail spine with the retail circuit being optimised through a more comprehensive approach to the Seaway site and Chichester Road. The evaluation of this option states (page 32);
*Creates a circuit with a strong third anchor, large enough to make a significant claw back of lost
spending which also relates well to the boutique area, small Office, more diverse evening economy
market, creating conditions for stimulating further business growth. The link between Chichester
Road and Seaway is a strong design feature.*


The AAP recognises at paragraph 3.7 that
~The focus for retail activity should continue to be the established town centre; however there is an
opportunity to achieve critical mass by delivering a strong retail circuit and new units to the east of the
High Street focusing on the Tylers Avenue site. This would add a fresh component to the retail offer.
In order to reinforce the primary of the High Street it is important that The Victoria and The Royals
continue to improve as anchors...

The development of the Seaway site and the Queensway and Southchurch site (see Option10) will increase
the number of anchors at each end of the High Street. This will serve to strengthen and enhance the existing retail circuit.

The City by the Sea approach will create a number of developments which will be attractive to investors and
provide the ability to respond to an increased demand for additional retail floorspace and develop new
anchors.

Option 8 - London Road Broadway
This site currently includes the Sainsbury's store and a number of development options are considered should the Sainsbury's store close. None of the considered options include the retention of the site within a retail use. This should be considered, given the constrained nature of the High Street area. This site presents one of the few sites in close proximity to the town centre where additional retail development could be developed once all in-centre options have been developed. The site should be considered as comprising a site which is still suitable for retail development and this should be included within the AAP.

Option 9 - The High Street
The current anchors in the High Street are The Victoria (north) and The Royals (south) shopping centres.
Retail development should be encouraged in and around the High Street. Extending the retail activity into the St John's Quarter will further strengthen the retail offer at the southern end of the High Street which will
balance the proposed supermarket development at the northern end of the High Street. These two developments will serve to strengthen the two anchor locations within the town centre creating a strong retail circuit between the two areas. The link between these two anchor locations should be retained, although the exact distribution of uses between these two points should not be tightly controlled. Cafes, bars, restaurants, banks and building societies and smaller retailers all have an important role to play in the diversity of the High Street and represent part of the nature of the town centre which will serve to attract customers.

There are currently a number of vacant units in and around the High Street (see attached Goad plan).
Consideration should be given to how these units can be brought back into an active use and that any further retail development in the town centre complements the existing retail offer and type of units available. Further retail development in the town centre should seek to attract new occupiers to the town centre rather than lead to the relocation of existing retailers.

Option 9b is supported which states:
-Extend major retail activity into the St John's Quarter inclUding the central seafront.*
As outlined above this will enable the establishment of a second anchor in the southern section of the High Street, further strengthening the High Street. Once the findings of the Retail Study are known it will be possible to ensure that sufficient sites are identified in an on the edge of the town centre to accommodate additional retail development. In the first instance, the creation of additional retail anchors will increase the attraction of the centre.

Option 10 - Queensway and Southchurch
Paragraph 3.10 of the Central Area Action Plan recognises that

"The need for additional bUlky food outlets is acknowledged because of the expanded role for the
central area and the accompanying planned increases in new homes and jobs. Such outlets have a
key role as part of a wider expanded retailing offer in the central parl of Southend though contrary
views are acknowledged. "

The identification of this site for a large foodstore is therefore in accordance with an identified need. Without
the finalised Retail Study it is not possible to comment on the appropriate scale of the proposed foodstore.
However, there is general policy support for such a development based on the changing role of Southend.
Given the constrained nature of the High Street this offers one of the few opportunities available for the
establishment of this form of retail development which will support the High Street as well as clawback
expenditure lost to existing and proposed foodstores. The proposed foodstore will provide a second anchor at the northern end of the High Street to balance the creation of a second anchor at the southern end of the High Street. The creation of additional anchor attractions will selVe to enhance the overall role of Southend and create and increase in the number of people passing between the anchor points to enhance the existing retail circuit.

Option 10a is seeking to bring forward the comprehensive regeneration of the area whilst Option 10b is
seeking partial redevelopment of the area. In order to ensure that the proposed foodstore is brought forward
in a timely fashion Option 10b is supported. This will enable the new foodstore to be brought forward to the
benefit of local residents and businesses. The requirement to bring forward a comprehensive redevelopment of the area will require a comprehensive masterpran and land assembly. Undertaking this work will delay the provision of the foodstore. It would be necessary to ensure that the proposed foodstore was well integrated with the existing High Street in order to encourage linked trips between the two.

Option 14 - St John's, Central Seafront and the Eastern Esplande
The text in relation to this option makes reference to the potential for the creation of a new retail circuit
providing a high quality retail offer to complement the High Street and states that Seaways has the potential to become a new retail. residential and leisure mixed use hub.

In terms of providing a linkage between any new and proposed retail circuits an approach should be adopted which ensures sufficient linkages between the two are provided which will encourage pedestrian circulation. Any additional retail circuit should complement and enhance the existing retail circuit.

Option 11- Development Management
With regard to meeting the challenge of climate change and in order to bring about a significant reduction in
carbon emissions there should be recognition that there are fewer viable options for reducing carbon
emissions where existing buildings are being refurbished. The particular challenges and opportunities for the existing buildings within the town centre should be recognised and where owners are looking to enhance the existing building stock there should be recognition of the sustainability and affordability of introducing carbon reduction technologies into these schemes.

Options 18 and 19 - Addressing resource minimisation and carbon emissions
Where existing buildings are refurbished within the town centre recognition should be given to the additional
costs associated with accommodating these technologies into existing buildings. In some instances it is not
always practical to introduce these technologies and there should be recognition that it this is not always
possible.

Option 20 - Travel
Recognition should be given to the role that centrally located and well managed car parks can play in creating the opportunity for linked trips. These provide an important role in the functioning of the town centre and should be supported.

Options 23, 24 and 25 - Addressing housing growth, need and affordable housing
Whilst the provision of housing is recognised as being important and has an important role to play in the creation of a diverse and active mixed community it is important to ensure that the specific characteristics of
individual locations are considered carefully. There should be an explicit recognition of where, in allocating sites, the retail use is the primary reason for that aHocation because of the site's location in relation to the town centre's boundary, as well as the limited availability of sites. In this way, while mixed use development (incorporating residential for example) may be preferable, it should not be at the expense of risking the delivery of the primary retail use. If this happens, the inadvertent effect is that it can increase the likelihood of out of centre retail development being brought fOlVlard successfully because town centre sites have had to be discounted because of the difficulties of their viable delivery.

Careful consideration needs to be given to whether residential accommodation above retail and leisure uses is the most appropriate solution. A cautious approach should be adopted which ensures that the existing and proposed retail floorspace is able to function in order to enhance the role of the town centre and is not restricted due to the presence of residential development.

Summary
The Central Area Action Plan has been prepared in advance of the Council's Retail StUdy. The Retail Study
comprises an important part of the evidence base when considering an AAP which addresses the town centre and its future development. The preparation of the AAP is therefore considered to be premature relative to the publication of the Retail Study. The Council's experience when the retail elements of the Fossett's Farm and Roots Hall developments were being considered should reinforce the need to ensure that policy is produced in a robust way.

The AAP recognises that the existing town centre should be the focus for further retail development. The
existing Sainsbury's site should still be considered as a suitable retail location even if the unit closes subject to the normal PPS4 tests being satisfied. This site would represent an opportunity for other retail formats to be located within a short distance of the town centre as an alternative to out of centre sites. The key issue in this AAP is ensuring the town centre continues to operate as a whole and that the proposed developments enhance this function of the centre. Links along the High Street should be maintained, the AAP contains plans to create a new focus at each end of the High Street which will serve to enhance the number of trips along the High Street.

Careful consideration should be given to the role that the existing built fabric can play in the future
regeneration of the centre, and there should be recognition that the refurbishment of existing buildings cannot always reduce carbon emissions to the same extent that can be achieved in new builds. Residential development needs to be sensitively located in order to ensure that there are no conflicts between the land uses. Housing is recognised as being a sensitive land use, and therefore caution needs to be exercised whether mixed use development is appropriate on every identified site.