Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Support

Representation ID: 1027

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Although we support the policy to resist the loss of A1 retail uses in primary shopping frontages, the appropriate level on non- retail frontage should not be a borough-wide figure in the DMDPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 1028

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The appropriate level of retail and non-retail use in each of the identified primary and secondary shopping frontages should also be informed the Southend-on-Sea Retail Study, which is yet to be completed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1029

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The primary and secondary frontages need to be identified on a map base in the Submission Draft CAAP and other relevant LDDs, including development briefs for individual sites. These documents should include appropriate levels of retail and non-retail use for each of the identified primary and secondary shopping frontages.

Comment

Representation ID: 1030

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The Council may wish to consider more detail shop frontage design guidance in the DMDPD of other LDD

Comment

Representation ID: 1031

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The plan states that "Growth in tourism and leisure has been relatively weak since 2001 however there are a number (of) tourism and leisure developments in the pipeline which could reverse this trend. In addition there is potential to launch Southend-on-Sea as a conference destination. "
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.

Object

Representation ID: 1032

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Preferred Option Table 3 suggests that retailing; hotels; restaurants; catering; Visitor Conference; other tourism related activities to be located as a preference in Central Southend-on-Sea and The Seafront. No site(s) have been identified in the CAAP for a Visitor Conference Centre, which would be a major land user and have significant transport implications.
This table contradicts the appropriate locations for a range of town centre uses contained in Table 2.
Further studies and assessments are required of potential alternative locations for Conference Facilities- i.e. at Southend Football Ground and / or at or near the airport.
Further assessments of options for the location of these uses need to be considered in both the DMDPD and CAAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 1033

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The DMDP does not consider the implications of the increasing trend to the needs of the self-employed working from home, especially those in the cultural and creative sectors. These may include additional space requirements and other facilities including fast fibre-optic broadband connections for appropriate new residential developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 1034

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The employment sector policies have been informed by supply led assessments, rather than informed growth-led strategies.
Further analysis is required to inform the policies of the DMDPD, CAAP and other LDDs

Support

Representation ID: 1035

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The plan states "land in employment uses or desirable locations for employment development in market and sustainable terms, needs to be safeguarded or allocated to facilitate economic growth."
We support this approach, which logically also includes only retaining industrial estates and employment land which are in desirable locations or which meet other sustainability criteria.
Further clarification is required.

Object

Representation ID: 1036

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

We dispute the findings of the Employment Land Review.
We object to the allocation of Grainger Road as a location for the "maintenance and supply of modern employment floorspace.....within a mixed-use context. A flexible managed approach will be sought at these locations through planning briefs". Given the quality of accommodation on Grainger Road, the impact on the amenity of the surrounding uses and vehicular access problems that have been a consequence of its location within a high density residential context, Grainger Road is not an appropriate location for retaining employment floorspace.
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?