Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Comment

Representation ID: 449

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Our residents care deeply about their local area. They expect good quality design in new development, renovation schemes, streets and urban spaces whilst safeguarding and enhancing local character. Interesting buildings, quality streets, good relationships with existing development, and the use of public art and landscaping all help to develop local identity and places people are proud of. In the last few years Southend Council have constantly ignored such expectations of our residents which is in direct conflict with the above quotation, taken verbatim from Page 1 of the Council's own Design and Townscape Guide 2009. Clearly a change in fundamental attitude will be required if the latest DPD is to be worth the paper is written on - which may be difficult in the light of the Council entrenched position witnessed over the last decade.

Comment

Representation ID: 450

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Therein lies the conflict of expectation and reality which ensures that residents approach any document relating to design and planning with a jaundiced eye in the light of many years experience during which time Southend Council have widely and consistently ignored their own policies and guidelines. In other words we suggest that Southend Council have "form" and we fear that a change in attitude will be very difficult to implement. For this reason, the latest DPD will need to be carefully co-ordinated with the Design and Townscape Guide to avoid confusion,and eventually a lack of certainty.

Comment

Representation ID: 451

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

High quality design. DM8 contains many references to "high quality design standards" but the evidence to date is that bland references to high quality design is an ambition which has eluded the Council for many years. We therefore question whether the continuation of general "nice idea policies" based on all embracing phrases is a good idea. We strongly believe that it is the detail of any planning application that is important and hope that at last the Council may be willing to accept this argument.

Comment

Representation ID: 452

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Context. DM8 also contains many generalities under the heading "context" which sounds fine. But, as ever, the devil is in the detail. We are not hopeful in this regard.

Support

Representation ID: 453

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

The Council's stated approach in DM8 ["Our approach is"] contains a commitment to ensuring that site specific [e.g. Undercliff Gardens] design briefs and design codes are prepared - which is welcome, but hopefully this will cover all sites in the borough and not just major development sites as suggested. We suggest that all residents wish to live in an area of which they can be proud and not just those affected by major developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 454

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

A sense of place. Item 4 confirms a commitment to recognize a sense of place and to retain and protect from any development that would adversely affect their character, appearance and setting. TOO LATE! The approval of the latest planning application for 82 Undercliff Gardens shows a total disregard for this commitment and has wrecked any chance of that policy being implemented in spite of strong written protests by this Society.

Object

Representation ID: 455

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Finally we appose the suggested alternative option - which is not to have any policy regarding the seafront, but to rely on vague phrases such as "high quality environment". We can safely forecast that such a leaky policy would collapse under the onslaught of an appeal. We also suggest that there is little evidence that officers and elected members are capable of implementing a vague policy such as this.

Comment

Representation ID: 1254

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 21 June, and very much welcome the long overdue concept of detailed policies that planning applications can be assessed against.

Unfortunately the draft document contains many proposals for broad brush policies that are clearly in conflict with this concept and need "tightening up" if it is to succeed.