Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016
Search representations
Results for Southend & District Pensioner's Campaign search
New searchObject
Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016
80
Representation ID: 2482
Received: 10/11/2016
Respondent: Southend & District Pensioner's Campaign
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Not going to be a Regional Capital of culture or tourism. Town is ideal for day-trippers. We cannot expect large numbers of visitors to stay overnight. We are surprised the tourism is not a bigger part of this document, given it's importance to the central area. Any planning inspector would be amazed we believe. This is embarrassing to our residents we feel. We should be bold and imaginative in developing our Pier's potential, with new trains/ monorail and something at the head to excite visitors. The Priory could attract many people if the Saxon remains were housed nearby.
We do not see Southend as having any chance of being recognised as a cultural or tourist capital of the East of England Region. We have excelled at attracting day-trippers, but cannot expect many visitors to stay overnight. The Prittlewell Priory and the Pier are our greatest attractions for tourists, and can be seen in a day. The beaches also appeal to large numbers for a day. We are like London-on- Sea, and need to develop the Priory site with the Saxon relics preserved near the grave site. This could encourage history and archaeological tourist who may stay over for a night. This Action Plan does not say enough about tourism in our view, as there are major challenges involved. The bus service is dreadful in the evening, and the High Street needs restaurants and a hotel. It is dead after the shops close. C2C is now Southend's greatest economic driver, and we remain a famous down-market seaside resort, ideal for day-trippers. The public toilet facilities are often appalling.
Object
Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016
136
Representation ID: 2484
Received: 11/11/2016
Respondent: Southend & District Pensioner's Campaign
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Car parking deserves to have more emphasis in this action plan. The situation now is difficult and produces major congestion.
Some local residents struggle to park near the centre of Southend. Disabled people often have no easy access to buses, and some cannot access a bus anyway. Our seafront businesses are already upset over the lack of car park provision near the coast, and most new trippers will arrive here by car.Already people are parking illegally on grass banks in Kursaal Ward in the summer. Essex Police have other priorities. This plan appears to be incomplete.
We regard the parking provision inadequate at present, and are alarmed at the lack of detail and emphasis on this issue within this plan. Surely, parking should have featured much more strongly in the document, as we have such limited land available, particularly close to the seafront. During peak times, the congestion is appalling in the town. It also backs-up traffic on the A127 and A13 for long distances, which frustrates visitors and encourages road-rage. The Council must understand that we need more multi-storey or underground car parking provision. Our older and disabled residents rely on their cars to visit the town centre. Some of them cannot manage to access a bus if their is one available.Seaside businesses are desperate now for more car parks near the coast, and to attract more trippers will require more spaces. The fact that you promise not to reduce south/central area, shews that you have not grasped the seriousness of the problem in our view.
Object
Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) - Revised Proposed Submission 2016
124
Representation ID: 2485
Received: 11/11/2016
Respondent: Southend & District Pensioner's Campaign
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
The plan talks of inclusive access for walking. It fails to mention safe access. As pensioners we feel that important routes around Victoria rail station and on the "Golden Mile" are not safe "Shared-Space" areas for the elderly, frail or disabled pedestrian.Or for the very young. Badly conceived in inappropriate sites, we think.
The plan talks of inclusive access for walking. It fails to mention safe access. As pensioners we feel that important routes around Victoria rail station and on the "Golden Mile" are not safe "Shared-Space" areas for the elderly, frail or disabled pedestrian.Or for the very young. Badly conceived in inappropriate sites, we think.
