Policy DM6 - The Seafront

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Comment

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1175

Received: 20/04/2011

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Disappointed that a more detailed policy, than Policy KP1 and KP2 of the Core Strategy, on issues such as fluvial and surface flood risk has not been included to address development in areas other than the seafront. However, We do not feel there is sufficient reason to raise this as a soundness issue.

Full text:

This policy addresses a number of environmental issues including flood risk, coastal change and biodiversity. Whilst we are generally supportive of the policies ambitions, including points 1 (i-ii) and 2 (i-iii), the policy only relates to the Seafront area of Southend. These environmental issues will however also need to be considered for development in other areas of the Borough. We have considered this concern and although there is not another policy in the Development Management DPD which will address these issues, policy KP1 and KP2 of the adopted Core Strategy does include general development principles on these issues. Therefore, whilst it is disappointing that a more detailed policy on issues such as fluvial and surface flood risk has not been included, we do not feel there is sufficient reason to raise this as a soundness issue.

We also note that the supporting text does provide some commentary which is applicable to elsewhere in the Borough, particularly with regards to managing flood risk and coastal change. With regards to this the council should be aware that any funding provided by us for flood defences is not guaranteed and future investment in flood defences will require greater contributions from communities and businesses. We are also disappointed to note that point 2(i) in Issues and Option policy DM7 has been removed. This required an emergency plan to be in place for developments and forms an part of managing flood risk and ensuring people remain safe. We assume this amendment has been discussed with and got agreement from your emergency planning department in accordance with PPS 25.

Comment

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1180

Received: 26/04/2011

Respondent: Mr. Harry Chandler

Representation Summary:

Shoebury Residents Association members wish to see the beach areas round Shoebury to be treated similarly to the other beach zones of Southend, for example DM6

Full text:

On behalf of the Shoebury Residents Association.

Members note that the Shoebury Sea Front is not specifically included in Policy DM6 as this stops at Maplin Way.

Members wish to see the following for the Shoebury sea fronts.

1. Maintain existing established built character and activities based around open parks and beach recreation.
2. Support measures to improve the quality of the beach huts.
3. Enhance Green grid through improvements to the parks and gardens.
4. Help maintain and promote existing leisure activities on East Beach and Shoebury Slipway including wind and kite surfing and picnicking.
5. No major development will be promoted or supported in this beach area. Flatted developments along the Seafronts will be resisted. Development that does take place must respect the open nature of the public and private open space and the grain and character of the residential area.
6. Shelters and cafes will be improved. Refurbishment and renewal works will not impact on the foreshore views and will not encroach onto the foreshore.

Support

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1190

Received: 17/05/2011

Respondent: English Heritage

Representation Summary:

We also welcome the character zone approach in policy DM6 relating to the Seafront, and the commitment to protecting Leigh Old Town.

Full text:

We are pleased to note that the historic environment is referred to in several policies and welcome in particular policy DM5. The recognition given to the importance of protecting the settings of heritage assets, including those of conservation areas, is useful. We also welcome the character zone approach in policy DM6 relating to the Seafront, and the commitment to protecting Leigh Old Town.

While we have expressed reservations in previous consultations in relation to the role of tall buildings, we note that part 2 of policy DM4 contains specific reference to protecting the setting of heritage assets and we welcome the inclusion of this safeguard in this particular policy.

Overall, we would like to express our support for the historic environment content and the manner in which the above policies reflect Planning Policy Statement 5.

Attachments:

Support

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1202

Received: 03/06/2011

Respondent: Castle Point Borough Council

Representation Summary:

Castle Point Borough Council welcomes the development principles identified for Character Zone 1: Two Tree Island, Leigh Marshes and Belton Hills in Table 1. The Council are of the view that the maintenance of the Green Belt in this location is very important and consistent with national policy set out in PPG2.

Full text:

I would like to advise you that the Council do not wish to object to the document proposed for submission.

The Council in particular welcomes the development principles identified for Character Zone 1: Two Tree Island, Leigh Marshes and Belton Hills in Table 1. The Council are of the view that the maintenance of the Green Belt in this location is very important and consistent with national policy set out in PPG2.

The Council also welcomes the approach to employment distribution set out in Policy DM10 and Table 6. The direction of jobs towards easily accessible locations including Southend Central Area, London Southend Airport and existing employment areas along the A127 Corridor is important for residents of Castle Point, as Southend-on-Sea is a key employment location in the Thames Gateway South Essex sub-region.

Further to the comments above, I would like to offer some suggestions in respect of this document that may prove useful to you in moving forward:

a) It is agreed that water efficiency should be a requirement for new development in south Essex. The Code for Sustainable Homes includes water efficiency as a mandatory requirement at each level. I would therefore query why policy DM2 part 2 requires water efficiency at part (iii) when Code for Sustainable Homes requirements have already been set out in part (ii).

b) It is agreed that an appropriate split between the different tenures of affordable housing should be sought. However, it may be prudent, given the recent changes in the definition of affordable housing, that part 2(ii) of policy DM7 is amended to provide the flexibility to enable Affordable Rented units to be sought also.

c) It is queried as to why external storage for bicycles is not sought in respect of non-self contained accommodation in Policy Table 5. It is considered that student and nurses' accommodation is most often provided within close proximity of the study/work place and other services and facilities, and therefore the provision of cycle storage will promote more sustainable transport movements by these occupants.

I trust these comments are of assistance to you in moving forward with the Development Management DPD. Should any queries in respect of these representations arise through the examination process, we would be happy to deal with them through written representations. Officers will however attend the examination, if required, in order to support any consideration of the sub-regional context.

Comment

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1219

Received: 06/06/2011

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation Summary:

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.

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: 1231

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:

The principles outlined in Policy Table 1 para 3 are to replace saved policy C12. Based on past experience, at best such intentions will either be unenforceable or are subjective. 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.

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.

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:

Comment

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1232

Received: 23/06/2011

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Representation Summary:

Table 1 Seafront Character Zones Item 3iii still refers to this organisation which is no longer active. Obviously the name should be removed.

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:

Comment

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1419

Received: 20/04/2011

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Disappointed to note that point 2(i) in Issues and Option policy DM7 has been removed. This required an emergency plan to be in place for developments and forms a part of managing flood risk and ensuring people remain safe. We assume this amendment has been discussed with and has agreement from your emergency planning department in accordance with PPS 25.

Full text:

This policy addresses a number of environmental issues including flood risk, coastal change and biodiversity. Whilst we are generally supportive of the policies ambitions, including points 1 (i-ii) and 2 (i-iii), the policy only relates to the Seafront area of Southend. These environmental issues will however also need to be considered for development in other areas of the Borough. We have considered this concern and although there is not another policy in the Development Management DPD which will address these issues, policy KP1 and KP2 of the adopted Core Strategy does include general development principles on these issues. Therefore, whilst it is disappointing that a more detailed policy on issues such as fluvial and surface flood risk has not been included, we do not feel there is sufficient reason to raise this as a soundness issue.

We also note that the supporting text does provide some commentary which is applicable to elsewhere in the Borough, particularly with regards to managing flood risk and coastal change. With regards to this the council should be aware that any funding provided by us for flood defences is not guaranteed and future investment in flood defences will require greater contributions from communities and businesses. We are also disappointed to note that point 2(i) in Issues and Option policy DM7 has been removed. This required an emergency plan to be in place for developments and forms an part of managing flood risk and ensuring people remain safe. We assume this amendment has been discussed with and got agreement from your emergency planning department in accordance with PPS 25.

Object

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1437

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:

Additional wording that seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties is suggested to strengthen the statement in Policy Table 1 3(ii).

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:

Object

Development Management - Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1438

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:

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.

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.

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: