Design & Townscape Guide Questionnaire

1a No

1b Comments

All sections. The over-elaborate style, technical jargon and language makes the document difficult for the layman to understand. There is also a lot of repetition in the document which makes it unnecessarily bulky. Clearer statements on design and definitive planning guidelines would make the document easier to understand and half the size.

2a Yes

2b Comments

Throughout the document there is a complete lack of substance. There are no specific guidelines that can be used as a definitive checklist for evaluating applications. For example no definitions are shown for acceptable gaps between buildings, amenity areas, housing density, car parking, building height, landscaping etc.

The section on Affordable Housing lacks substance – figures must be given for the thresholds at which developers must provide specific numbers of affordable units. It is not sufficient that some small token payment is made in lieu of actual affordable housing.

Developer contributions (S106) need to be more clearly stated. It is important that any financial contributions made by developers are used for the benefit of the area in which the development takes place. These financial contributions must not just be small donations to the Council’s general fund, but must be real and substantial contributions to the immediate local community. These contributions must also be published so that residents can appreciate the benefits accruing to the area.

Section 2.8.2 Enabling Development is totally unacceptable. To enable, say, a development on the seashore to subsidise the repair to the cliffs slippage would lead to insidious influence and pressure being brought to the planning decision-making process. Funding for “heritage assets” must be met from sources other than building developers (who seek to exploit situations to their own financial advantage); funds for heritage projects should be secured from e.g. Thames Gateway, EEDA or Renaissance Southend.

There is insufficient provision for the protection of the natural environment. The importance of open spaces, vistas, landscaped areas, gardens, trees and shrubs must be more fully recognised and must be an absolute consideration for all planning applications.There is a complete lack of substance.

3. Yes

Topics

Detailed statement on how the local community is to be engaged on an on-going basis with developments in their area. Fuller involvment of resident groups and parish council(s)in the planning process needs to be expressly included.

4 Yes

5a Yes

5b No

6 Further comments

The document repeatedly states the obvious: that we want our town to be attractive, that we want good design and that we want the quality of life sustainable. Platitudes are not sufficient; substance is what is required.

The approach suggested in this document will lead to a reliance on subjective judgement and personal taste. It will lead to inconsistent decisions across applications and will leave planning refusals open to appeal. The document lacks teeth to protect neighbours and neighbourhoods from harmful developments.

There is an inherent danger that the future arbiters of “good design” will be council officers with their own personal or professional agendas. The local residents, who have to live with the consequences of the new structures, need to be more fully involved in the decision-making process.

The document states at the very beginning that “people care deeply about their local area” and says that civic pride must be encouraged. Large developments (like the casino, the Golden Mile regeneration project) should be subject to resident referendum.

Eddie Cornish (chairman)

West Leigh Residents Association

1578 London Road

Leigh-on-Sea

SS9 2QR