1.8

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Support

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1216

Received: 06/06/2011

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 1.8 and 1.9 - the principle that the policies within the Development Management DPD should read alongside other statutory policy documents, and with each other, is fully supported. However, the statements would benefit from additional highlighting within the text, perhaps by 'boxing' them and giving the title 'Relationship of Policies'. The paragraphs could also be usefully added for reference to the 'Policies' list in the contents section. The cross-referencing policies could be reinforced at appropriate points within the document, particularly the need for users to read and apply Policy DM16 alongside other Policies.

Full text:

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. The County Council considers that the Proposed Submission is 'sound' but that the future use and practical application of the document would benefit from further reflection on a limited number of matters, which are set out in the schedule.

Pargraph 1.8 and 1.9 - the prinicple that the policies within the Development Management DPD should read alongside other statutory policy documents, and with each other, is fully supported. However, the statements would benefit from additional highlighting within the text, perhpas by 'boxing' them and giving the title 'Relationship of Policies'. The paragraphs could also be usuefully added for reference to the 'Policies' list in the contents section. The cross-referencing policies could be reinforced at appropriate points within the document, particularly the need for users to read and apply Policy DM16 alongside other Policies.

Paragraph 2.19 - should read also reference the Parklands Vision (2008) as a key document.

Paragraph 3.13 - the reference to the Greengrid Strategy is welcome but reference should be made to delivery of the Strategic Thames Estuary Path (Survey 2008). Appropriate additional text would be 'An important strategic link is the Thames Estuary Path which runs from Central London to Shoeburyness . It is particularly important in Southend linking the Seafront to Chalkwell, Leigh on Sea and beyond to Hadleigh, the venue for the Olympic Mountain biking event in 2012'.

Paragraph 3.14 - the reference to National Biodiversity designations is welcome but particular reference to their local importance could be included by additional of the following text - ' These sites are significant attractions in their own right and the mudflats at Southend and Leigh contribute to the estuarine character of the place. Furthermore Two Tree Island and Leigh Marshes are important visitor attractions which could be further developed to boost green economy.

Policy DM6 (The Seafront) - the policy could more proactively support the natural areas by adding a third measure to the first paragraph of the Policy to read 'iii) contribute to the positive appreciation of the natural resources by increased information facilities and, where possible, physical access'.

Paragraph 4.14 and Policy DM8 (Residential Standards) Policy Table 4 (Residential Standards) - the text of paragraph 4014 and Policy Table 4 is inconsistenet in respect of minimum storage area 'for each additional occupant'. The paragraph refers to 0.5m2 whereas the Policy Table refers to 0.25m2. Either the values should be consistent or the document should explain the reasons for the variation.

Attachments:

Object

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1230

Received: 23/06/2011

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Saved policies emphasise the unique character of certain areas in the Borough, but they are to be superseded by this document. However, current reports to the Development Control Committees make full and frequent reference to saved policies - in other words they are not redundant or superfluous but are fully used on a day to day basis to support assessments of planning applications. They are also widely used by the Council when submitting evidence to Appeals Inspectors. By deleting these essential statements of policy we would expect them to be replaced by a stronger, direct, incontrovertible, policy document - which the proposed DPD is not. We suggest that more work is required to protect the areas previously covered by saved policies.

Full text:

This is our response to your letter dated 18 March 2011 regarding the proposed submission version of the above. We have already provided our observations on the previous draft - which have largely been ignored.

The Council's present proposals appear to be the greatest threat experienced since this Society was formed more than 60 years ago to protect the character of Undercliff Gardens. For this reason, our representations are considered to be of the highest importance.

To quote the introduction - this DPD will be used for positively managing development and will be used to assess and determine planning applications. It is a framework in which to manage the built environment and ensure successful place making. Its importance cannot therefore be overestimated.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATION BY SPUG
The proposed DPD reduces planning policy to principles rather than specifics, a broad brush approach providing maximum flexibility rather than specific detailed requirements. To implement this policy document will require a high level of assessment and consultation, but it is our experience that these essential qualities are rarely available. We have no confidence that this document will improve matters, and it may well prove to be a developers charter. We therefore suggest that more work is required to "tighten" up a well meaning document.

SAVED POLICIES.
Saved policies emphasise the unique character of certain areas in the Borough, but they are to be superseded by this document. However, current reports to the Development Control Committees make full and frequent reference to saved policies - in other words they are not redundant or superfluous but are fully used on a day to day basis to support assessments of planning applications. They are also widely used by the Council when submitting evidence to Appeals Inspectors. By deleting these essential statements of policy we would expect them to be replaced by a stronger, direct, incontrovertible, policy document - which the proposed DPD is not. We suggest that more work is required to protect the areas previously covered by saved policies.

SECTION 3 SEAFRONT CHARACTER ZONE.
This section acknowledges and "identifies several distinctive character zones and each has a different form and function" to quote the proposed DPD. So far so good.

On page 39, Policy Table 1 para 3 refers to one such zone. But the new principles which are to replace saved policy C12 for this zone are reduced to "development will only be acceptable where it will improve the design quality of Undercliff Gardens...and where it retains the characteristics and form of the area. Development that materially changes the existing character, appearance, and form of the area will be resisted".

Based on past experience, at best such intentions will either be unenforceable or are subjective. Who is to judge? Who is qualified to judge? Who will have the time, qualifications, or motivation to carefully consider the details of any application? This well intentioned broad brush approach is a dangerous concept in our view. We envisage endless arguments about whether an application is retaining the characteristics and form of an area, and whether the existing character, appearance, and form of the area will be changed. Who will argue on behalf of the public, the residents, and future generations? Developers are well able to argue for themselves that an application should be approved of course.

This DPD seems like a developers charter because it is possible to show that a single development does not materially change the character of an area [not a difficult argument to make] but if such a building is approved it will then become a precedent for other similar developments, often won on appeal, and the character of an area will then have been changed for ever. QED.

SUSTRANS.
Item 3iii still refers to this organisation which is no longer active. Obviously the name should be removed, and the sentence might be changed to "improve the public realm linked to improvement of the cinder path".

DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS.
Letters received by SPUG from our residents regarding this DPD may be summarised by quoting just 3 typical examples:

1. In reality, it will be its application and stewarding that we need to be concerned about.
Who will safeguard it, and will there be a body that ensures that proper monitoring
and reporting is provided? Hopefully there will be a local and national provision for this.


2. "Development that materially changes the existing character, appearance and form of the area or materially affects the benefits and amenity of neighbouring properties will be resisted."

3. "I fail to understand how planning permission was granted [for 82] allowing the property to be built further forward than the previous property. This restricts neighbours' views. The point is so blindingly obvious that I have no confidence in the planning officials responsible to put it at its mildest. Are they mad or what? It's a very large, single dwelling, isn't it?"

Many questions spring to mind regarding what is not included in a document that will be used to consider the detail of any planning application. Some may be answered by reference to the Design and Townscape Guide, but this document can, we presume, be comfortably ignored.

The same questions continually arise whenever SPUG is asked to comment on an application.

For example:
* Why is a proposed building allowed to project in front of the line of building?
* Why are balconies allowed to project in front of adjoining buildings?
* Why is development on Grand Parade frontage being allowed?
* Why is overlooking not dealt with?
* Why are the benefits and amenities of neighbouring properties not protected?
* Why are there no levels on the drawings?
* Why are the materials proposed not in accordance with the Design and Townscape Guide?
* Why is landscaping not shown?

Until such questions are answered, we remain highly concerned that this DPD is not fit for purpose

Attachments: