Southend Central Area Action Plan
Search representations
Results for Burges Estate Residents Association search
New search
New search
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Are there further opportunities which could be explored and developed through this Area Action Plan?
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Have we correctly identified the key challenges to be addressed by the Area Action Plan?
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Are there further opportunities which could be explored and developed through this Area Action Plan?
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Are there further opportunities which could be explored and developed through this Area Action Plan?
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Do you agree that the Evaluation Criteria set out above are the right ones to test the overarching Spatial Options?
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Have we correctly identified the key challenges to be addressed by the Area Action Plan?
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Will the above Strategy for development, urban design and built form deliver the concept of the City by the Sea?
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
7a Allow the amount of office space to significantly reduce, in favour of a more residential community
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
9a Concentrate retail activity in the northern/southern sections of High Street (in & around The Victorias & The Royals shopping centres) with cafes,bars,restaurants,banks & building societies & smaller scale retail uses in the central part of High Street
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
Southend Central Area Action Plan
Alternative options were considered during the preparation of both the Central Area Masterplan and the development brief described above. Given the status of the development brief it is no longer appropriate to consider alternative options.
Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association
Representation Summary:
Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Full text:
Key Challenges
1. Page 14/15. It is difficult to envisage Southend town centre as a major retail centre. The advent of Lakeside and Blue Water has sealed Southend's fate as a retail centre of choice for durable goods. This is unlikely to be reversed with Southend's anti-car transport policy, the cheap end shops catering for day trippers and the failure of the multi nationals to expand their ranges upwards. Perhaps it is only as a niche type shopping environment as the document suggests that the centre can survive. But the addition as proposed of more bulky food shops is not my idea of how the centre should perform nor in my opinion will it "enhance the town centre's appeal to the catchment population or visitors further afield".
2. Page 17. Para 3.24 makes passing reference to a new library. Where is this to be? What is wrong with the existing one? Is this a serious proposition?
3. Page 19. The summary of opportunities and constraints misses one major constraint and challenge and that is the inability or lack of resources to maintain that which exists. In the context of opportunities to enhance the High Street, improve landscaping, indeed a whole range of public infrastructure works, Southend is incapable of basic maintenance. Have a look at the new works to the seafront from the pier to the Kursaal. Already the new paving is stained, dirty and unattractive. The base of the pier bridge has weeds growing. Even the High Street paving is scruffy. There is no point in pursuing these opportunities for improvement unless and until the Council is able to demonstrate it has the resources and inclination to fund the whole life costs of projects.
Vision
4. Page 22 para 1. Whereas we need a wider range of shops to sustain Southend as a regional centre, I do not equate that with requiring more shopping floor space overall. The internet is taking its toll on High Streets and Southend is struggling to fill what is currently available.
5. para 8 seeks to make town centre living more appealing to families. That is always going to be difficult on a variety of levels. The noise, the lack of parking, the likely absence of homes with adequate private amenity space. This against a backdrop of wishing to increase the centre's vibrancy (i.e., noise).
Spatial Options
6. Page 25 et al. The three options as set out are not mutually exclusive but can be seen, especially in the current economic situation, as short, medium and long terms options and are therefore supportable.
City by the Sea
7. Page 35. Although in many respects the concept can be supported, there seems an obsession in trying to achieve links between the town centre and the seafront. Aside from day trippers it would useful to know whether you have survey information that large numbers of residents actually combine activities that feature both locations in a single trip. My experience is they do not.
The Victorias
8. Page 39. The leading land use identified is workspace. This expression is used to indicate small scale activities of a craft nature for example. I cannot believe it is intended not to retain or at least encourage some office development to remain albeit in a form which is sustainable in terms of its potential uses. I do not think this point is made sufficiently clear.
The High Street
9. Page 43.The High Street paving is not heavily patterned. What it is, is a disgrace! Poorly executed (not reasonably well) and poorly maintained subsequently. The materials used for the paving have lives of up to 30 years. It cannot be justified in spending money after just 7 years. Get the joints done between the granite setts, get a jet spray to clean the paving, rip out the weeds growing under the seats and continue with a proper maintenance schedule. It is noticeable that the new paving laid in front of the amusement arcades along the seafront is already heavily stained with food and drink and heaven knows what else. The High Street is a retail centre. People are concerned about the quality of the shops. Yes they care about the shopping environment and preferably an all weather experience but otherwise provided the paving under foot is level, even and clean, I don't think it is a major issue in peoples minds especially after five minutes it looks a mess! As for the proposal to increase the presence of motor vehicles the document does not make clear why this should occur. The idea of providing passive surveillance seems somewhat specious. So far as the options are concerned, the first of concentrating the retail activity in the two extremes is broadly the situation which is prevailing today. The danger is of the centre splitting in two.
Elmer Square
10. Page 49. It makes sense to see this area become the focus for education especially with the loss of half the multi-storey car park. However I am a little surprised to see mention of a library. Can it be? the current library in Victoria Ave. is outmoded, no longer viable? Surely it cannot be considered for replacement only on the basis of being a few hundred yards up the road? No justification is given for the replacement and on that basis it cannot be supported and in the context of severe restraint on public expenditure this issue needs to be rethought even in the longer term.
Warrior Square
11. Page 51. I get no pleasure from reminding you that the square is within a conservation area and yet has been allowed to deteriorate to the degree it has. It is not acceptable to spend public money and then not look after what has been constructed. It leaves one sceptical of all the fine words in this and other documents about improving the appearance of Southend. If you do not have the money to maintain it don't do it! As to any new facilities I understood the swimming pool was very popular, centrally located, convenient for bus routes and for day trippers if the seaside weather is not so hot. A logical choice to enhance the areas vitality and viability.
St Johns & Central Seafront
12. Page 57. Reference is made to "new provision for buses". What precisely does this mean? It is only within the past few years that new facilities were created. The regeneration of the Golden Mile should be achieved with minimal intervention. The continuity of the Golden Mile is a key component of its vitality, vibrancy and attraction and should be retained.
Development Management
13. Page 63 et al. The Development Management DPD should contain Policies covering all development together with the Core Strategy, SPD and Building Regs. should be adequate. The tendency to encourage mixed uses particularly in the central area must be exercised with care. We need to remind ourselves as to why zoning was introduced in the first place and avoid potential problems of incompatibility. On the question of sustainability and energy production little is said about the visual impact of local generation schemes. Conservation areas apart this is a significant visual factor and a fast increasing one. You cannot maximise travel choice (option box 20) by restricting parking spaces for residents and visitors. This will prove counter productive. Besides it is fundamentally wrong to discourage car usage by discouraging car ownership. Adopt option 20c. The development strategy on housing (option box 23) should aim to provide for sustainable communities by a mix of housing types. However the emphasis in the centre should be away from family housing which would be better provided in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Moreover that is likely to be the market orientated option. Sustainable communities are about providing a range of housing types and tenure within a neighbourhood. Raising thresholds, changing foci may have the effect of creating ghettoes. On balance option 25c is to be supported.
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
