West Leigh Residents’ Association
1578 London Road
Leigh-on-Sea
Essex
SS9 2QR
01 December 2006
Head of Planning and Transportation
Department of Enterprise, Tourism and the Environment
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
Civic Centre
Victoria Avenue
Southend-on-Sea
Essex SS2 6ER
Dear Sir,
On behalf of my Association I am writing to register our strong objections to the proposed development on the Clements Hall site. Our reasons for objection are as follows:-
1)
The design of the building is detrimental to the street scene
The design of the block displays
no respect or sympathy for the neighbouring properties and is completely out of
character for this part of Leigh. Its square windows, bland façades, stark
white side panelling and its ridiculous “fly-away” crown render the building
particularly unattractive and incongruous. The existing buildings in the area
provide a more or less old-style village-like atmosphere that would be ruined
by this massive block of flats. The proposal fails to comply with the Southend
Core Strategy (particularly SO14, S016) and the Essex & Southend
Replacement Structure Plan (BE1, HC1, H3 and CS2).
2)
The block is far too high and dominating
The 10 storey block occupies a
prominent position from all directions and especially when looking west along
Broadway West and east along Marine Parade/Rectory Grove. Such a high
uncompromising block will dominate the area to the detriment of neighbouring
properties and of the townscape in general. Being on the south side of Rectory
Grove the block will cast shadow over a very wide area blocking sunshine to
shoppers and passers-by. When viewed from the Old Town this high modernistic
tower block will loom over the Leigh Conservation Area seriously damaging this
historic aspect of our town and its skyline. When combined with its
inappropriate design, this dominance will be particularly invasive.
3)
Loss of openness between buildings
As the block is at an angle to
the neighbouring St Clements Court the amount of sky visible between these two
buildings will be negligible and will present a more-or-less continuous façade
to passers-by. The architect’s drawings show the frontage of the buildings
along the kerb of Rectory Grove (the widest side of the wedge) and do not show
the affect that the tapering gap between the two buildings will have on the
townscape.
4)
Loss of amenity to neighbouring properties
The proposed 10-storey block will
overshadow the windows and balconies of the residents in St Clements Court and
the front rooms of the residents on the other side of Rectory Grove. The height
and position of the tower will similarly block the sunlight to these residents
and also cause them loss of privacy. The new building will be cynically
marketed as having sea views but this will only be at the expense of the sea
views of existing residents.
5)
Undermining the sustainability of the local community
As the site was not previously residential there will be a significant additional load on the infrastructure and services of the neighbourhood. This is in complete contradiction of both the Government’s and the Council’s policies for sustainable communities.
6)
Inadequate parking provision
As the public car parking spaces are sited in the underground car park, it is very unlikely that these will be used by visitors to the public facilities. The parking for the offices is also clearly inadequate. This lack of parking provision will cause even more hardship to local residents already suffering from a severe shortage of parking space.
7)
No allowance for affordable housing
Under the new Council policies a development of this magnitude should include a number of affordable dwellings. No provision is made on this application.
8)
Inadequate waste collection facilities.
Insufficient off-road provision is made for the collection of household and business waste from the site. This will mean that collection vehicles will wait on the highway thus causing increased risk to other road users at a junction that is already quite dangerous.
9)
Increased risks at a busy road junction.
The entrance to the site is
located at an already difficult road junction and pedestrian crossing. The
additional vehicles leaving and entering the block and its offices will
increase the risks to other road users and pedestrians.
I ask that you please take our objections
into account when considering this application.
I would also be grateful if you would inform the Development Control Committee of our objections to this scheme.
Yours sincerely,
E. G. Cornish (Eddie)
Chairman, West Leigh Residents’ Association