Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Comment

Representation ID: 771

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 51. The proportion of different dwelling sizes in the suggested option does not appear to relate to the analysis of need. As the document has previously made clear Southend has a very high proportion of 1 and 2 bed properties already and an acute demand for 3 and 4 bed accommodations. Surely the proportion of 3 and 4 bed should be higher at say 30 and 40% and consequently lower for 1 and 2 bed, say 15 and 15%. The concept of a mix of housing types within a specific development to achieve a sustainable community is flawed. No evidence is available to demonstrate the concept works. They are not even achievable within developments of similar housing size let alone mixed dwelling size/types.

Comment

Representation ID: 772

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 53. The document makes no mention of the current financial situation and that is understandable. However the financial restraints which will impact on social housing providers are going to make social housing provision very difficult in the short/medium term to the extent that affordable housing tenure is almost an irrelevance. There is no mention otherwise of the whole question of affordable housing and I would have expected some discussion on the matter of on site versus off site provision. In addition the Council will now have to deal very carefully with developers pleading poverty in relation to affordable housing, s106 requirements, etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 773

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 56. The suggested option for protecting single storey dwellings could be strengthened by an Article 4 direction as put forward elsewhere for the sea front. The deletion of "deemed necessary" in the option would also help. It is doubtful whether further protection could be given to family accommodation as that is too broad a definition.

Comment

Representation ID: 774

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 90. Mobility management policies are not about reducing reliance on the car but reducing the attractiveness of the car. Consequently the suggested option 3 makes no mention of parking provision in development proposals and is short sighted as a long term strategy. The management policy is at odds with the requirement to make Southend more attractive to tourists (day trippers or longer term) and shoppers when there are so many more accessible choices.

Comment

Representation ID: 775

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 93. The parking standards being put forward will inevitably add to the parking stress in a number of locations especially those residential areas close to the town centre where proposed parking standards are lower.

Comment

Representation ID: 1257

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

This also should be some protection as to permitted development, in particular utilising roof space, where the extensions are more dominate and are out of keeping with the integrity of the original roof. (i.e. hipped to gable, or a flatted dormer that fits uncomfortably with the existing roof line)

Comment

Representation ID: 1263

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 56. The suggested option for protecting single storey dwellings could be strengthened by an Article 4 direction as put forward elsewhere for the sea front. The deletion of "deemed necessary" in the option would also help. It is doubtful whether further protection could be given to family accommodation as that is too broad a definition.