Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Comment

Representation ID: 1057

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Car clubs, and financial disincentives should be part of an acceptable solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 1243

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

These DM policy sections should be removed from DMP4 and CAAP and redrafted as one policy in Design and Townscape SPD, or as an interim measure, in the DMDPD

Comment

Representation ID: 1258

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

There is a potential policy conflict arising from the interaction between these policies on residential intensification and other policies, in particular those on Tall Buildings

Comment

Representation ID: 1261

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

All public realm works should also include consideration of flood risk (point 3)
The detailed proposal to enhance Cliff Gardens may be more appropriately included in the CAAP

Comment

Representation ID: 1262

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Seaside Character Zones should be identified in policy text and on plan in both the Submission Draft of the DMDPD and CAAP

Comment

Representation ID: 1267

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

We understand that many of the permissions for tourism and leisure development in Southend town centre have lapsed due to lack of operator interest. Further studies are required to ascertain the likely future level of demand for such tourism and leisure developments, including Conference Facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 1268

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The design criteria do not read across to DM1.

Comment

Representation ID: 1270

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The stock of floorspace ageing, the quality of buildings and facilities are poor and there is a lack on modern planning controls over its use. There is little prospect of employment or employment-led redevelopment on feasibility, including access or viability grounds. There is also some potential discrepancy between this proposed policy and the preferred option for Grainger Road in the CAAP which envisages employment - led mixed use development at Grainger Road. Further clarification is required in the Submission Draft DMDPD on the interaction between this policy and the requirement of DM22 in particular the requirement to reprovided equivalent jobs under DM22 1(ii) (see below). Does that requirement relate to any redevelopments of the List 2 and List 3 sites? We propose that Grainger Road should be redeveloped for residential use - with a high proportion of family accommodation and affordable housing. It is preferable to see the site brought back to active use and to meet an identifiable need rather than hope that employment will flourish
Grainger Road should be reclassified as one of the List 3 sites - those where appropriate non-employment uses will be allowed.