ref on type 20/01479/bc4m applicati borough council

Better Queensway - 20/01479/BC4M

Ref 20/01479/BC4MApplication Type

Borough Council Regulation 4-Major

Wards Victoria and MiltonProposal Hybrid application for:

1. Outline consent for the phased demolition of existing residential and commercial units, pedestrian footbridge, and associated structures and redevelopment to provide up to 1,760 dwellings, including provision of affordable housing (up to 177,650 sqm) in buildings of up to 87.17m AOD (approximately 18 storeys); up to 10,000 sqm of commercial uses comprising (a) up to 5,000 sqm of retail and cafes (Use Class E, F.2, Sui Generis) (with a maximum of 1,500 sqm outside the Primary Shopping Area); (b) up to 5,000 sqm of Employment space consisting of Workshops/Artistic Studios/Recording Studios/Brewery/Bakery (Use Class E, B2 and Sui Generis); and Office Space (Use Class E, capped at 2,500 sqm); (c) up to 1,500 sqm of Community & Creche/Nursery (Use Class E/F.1), (d) up to 1,000 sqm of Leisure (Use Class E); and (e) up to 500 sqm of Event Space (Use Class E/Sui Generis); new public open space; associated landscaping; car parking; public realm enhancements; access arrangements and associated infrastructure.

2. Detailed (full) application for phased engineering works to remove roundabout at Queensway/Sutton Road/Southchurch Road and associated underpass, with re-grading of the Queensway, to provide a new 4 lane carriageway at grade with footpath; cycle lane, bus facilities, public realm, landscaping and associated structures as well as a new roundabout at grade, linking Southchurch Road and Queensway, and closure/stopping up of Sutton Road.

Address Queensway Development, Queensway Slip Road, SW, Southend-On-Sea, Essex

Applicant Porters Place Southend-On-Sea LLPAgent Mr Lyndon Gill of Barton WillmoreKey Dates

Consultation Expiry:16 October 2020 Expiry Date: 31 March 2021

Case Officer

Patrick Keyes

Plan Numbers/Application Documents

Plans

BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00001 Rev 03 Planning Application Boundary Location Plan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00002 Rev 05 Blue Line Boundary Location Plan (1 of 2) BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00003 Rev 05 Blue Line Boundary Location Plan (2 of 2) BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00004 Rev 08 Land Use Parameter Plan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00005 Rev 06 Maximum Building Height


Parameter Plan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00006 Rev 08 Basement Parameter Plan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00007 Rev 04 Building & Bridges Demolition Parameter Plan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00008 Rev 06 Queensway Detailed Planning Application Boundary Location Plan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00009 Rev 06 Access Parameter Plan BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-10001 Rev 01 Illustrative Masterplan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00100 Rev 05 Indicative Phasing Plan BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00101 Rev 03 Indicative Phasing Plan of Existing Buildings & Bridges Demolition BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00300 Rev 02 Maximum Building Height Parameter Plan Development Envelope Elevations BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00011 Temporary Parking Areas Location Plan 1042-01-CIV-XX-GA-001-P04 Rev P07 General Alignment Location Plan Match to Existing1042-01-CIV-XX-GA-002-P06 Rev P07 General Alignment Short Street Junction Match to Existing1042-01-CIV-XX-GA-003-P06 Rev P07 General Alignment Queensway North Match to Existing1042-01-CIV-XX-GA-004-P6 Rev P07 General Alignment Queensway Central Match to Existing1042-01-CIV-XX-GA-005-P06 Rev P07 General Alignment Queensway South Match to Existing1042-01-CIV-XX-GA-006-P06 Rev P07 General Alignment Southchurch Roundabout Match to Existing1042-01-CIV-XX-GA-007-P06 Rev P07 General Alignment Sutton Road Match to ExistingBEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00100 Rev 04 Public Realm and Landscape BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00101 Rev 04 Queensway – General Hardworks Plan BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00102 Rev 04 Queensway – General Softworks Plan BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00103 Rev 04 Queensway – General Edging BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XXL-XX-00104 Rev 04 Queensway – Furnishing Plan BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00150 Rev 03 Landscape GA Plan: Sheet 1 of 7 BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00151 Rev 03 Landscape GA Plan: Sheet 2 of 7 BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00152 Rev 03 Landscape GA Plan: Sheet 3 of 7 BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00153 Rev 04 Landscape GA Plan: Sheet 4 of 7 BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00154 Rev 03 Landscape GA Plan: Sheet 5 of 7BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00155 Rev 04 Landscape GA Plan: Sheet 6 of 7


BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00156 Rev 03 Landscape GA Plan: Sheet 7 of 7 BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00300 Rev 03 Section A – Queensway at Victoria Shopping Centre BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00301 Rev 02 Section B – Queensway at Chemist BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00302 Rev 01 Section C - Queensway at Porter's Place BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00303 Rev 02 Section D - Queensway within the Neighbourhood BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00304 Rev 02 Section E - Queensway at Porter's Civic House BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00305 Rev 01 Section F - Queensway South BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00306 Rev 01 Section G - Queensway at Railway Underpass BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00307 Rev 02 Section H – Southchurch Road BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00308 Rev 01 Section I – Sutton Road at All Saints Church BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-DR-L-XX-00310 Rev 02 Typical Section 1 – Queensway verge with SuDs

Supporting Information Arboricultural Impact Assessment WIE16796-100-R-2-1-5-AIA dated

July 2020 BREEAM Pre-assessment 416096-BQ1-MMD-XX-XX-XX-RP-M-ST-

00001-01 Rev B dated 17 July 2020 Consultation Statement dated July 2020 Cover Letter dated 7 September Daylight & Sunlight Assessment & Design Guide dated 20 July 2020 Design and Access Statement – Part 1 (Outline Element) BEQ-LDA-

XX-XX-XX-RP-N-ST-00002 Rev 03 dated January 2021 Design and Access Statement – Part 2 (Detailed Planning Elements)

BEQ-CIV-XX-XX-XX-RP-J-ST-00001 Rev 02 dated July 2020 with amended pages 48-49 submitted 11 February 2021

Design Code BEQ-LDA-XX-XX-XX-RP-N-ST-00001 Rev P04 dated February 2021

Environmental Statement (ES) and associated technical reports by Barton Willmore, Ireland Albrecht, CSA Environmental, Civic Engineering, Spectrum Acoustics, Mott MacDonald, GIA and RWDI 29188/A5/2020 dated July 2020, including: Appendix 3.1 Lighting Strategy Report BQW-CDL-XX-XX-RP-LG-63201 dated 17 August 2020; Appendix 5.1 Construction Logistics Plan 1042-01 dated 31 July 2020; Appendix 6.1 Health Impact Assessment 29188/A5/HIA dated July 2020; Appendix 8.1 Maps Plans and Verified Views; Appendix 13.1 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Report BEQ-CIV-XX-XX-XX-RP-D-ST-00001 dated 31 July 2020; Appendix 14.1 Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Desk Study 416096-MMD-00-XX-RP-YG-0001 dated July 2020; Appendix 16.1 Wind Technical Report RWDI #2001902 Rev


C dated June 29 2020. ES Volume 3: Transport Assessment and Travel Plan dated 31 July 2020.

Existing Utilities and Proposed Diversions Report 41096-BEQ-MMD-XX-XX-XX-RP-C-ST-00010 Rev P04 dated 31 July 2020

Financial Viability Assessment Version 1.1 dated September 2020 Heritage Impact Assessment 29188/A5/P3/LK/SO dated July 2020, as

amended 12 January 2021 Lighting Assessment BQW-CDL-XX-XX-RP-LG-63201 Rev P05 dated

17 August 2020 Outline Car Parking Management Strategy dated 31 July 2020 Planning Statement 29188/A5/P2/CW/SO Rev 01 dated August 2020 Recycling / Waste Management Strategy dated July 2020 Structural Survey 15047 Rev A dated 25 May 2015 Sustainability Statement 416096-BEQ-MMD-XX-XX-XX-RP-M-ST-

00001-01 Rev 04 dated 17 July 2020

Recommendation

Members are recommended to:

(a) DELEGATE to the Interim Director of Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions and following the completion of unilateral undertaking (pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)) by the Council as landowner which secures a PLANNING AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to be entered into to secure the provision of:

• 17.7% units of affordable housing on site (312 units) – with 300 social/ affordable rented units and 12 units as shared equity (with the ability for additional affordable housing subject to the viability review mechanisms).

• Viability review mechanisms. • £718,119.05 contribution towards secondary education (with the

ability for additional deferred contributions subject to the viability review mechanisms).

• Highway Works, Travel Strategy Group and (if required) up to £90,000 towards additional off site mitigation and sustainable travel initiatives.

• Traffic Regulation Orders. • Stopping up Orders. • Travel Plans and monitoring fees of £5,000 per year for a 10-year

period. • Travel Packs. • Car Club. • Open Space and Play Space provision and maintenance. • Public Art. • Cultural Provision. • Essex RAMS payment of £125.58 per dwelling to mitigate the

potential disturbance to European designated sites. • Employment and training.


• CCTV. • Monitoring fee £10,000.

(as further detailed in Appendix 6)

(b) That the Interim Director of Planning be DELEGATED to APPROVE the application reference 20/01479/BC4M subject to the completion of the unilateral undertaking securing the SECTION 106 planning agreement referred to above and to conditions substantially in the form contained in Appendix 5 and below, with such detailed minor amendments to the conditions as the Interim Director of Planning may consider to be reasonable and necessary, so long as these changes do not alter the objectives and purposes of the conditions detailed in Appendix 5 of this Report.

(c) In the event that the unilateral undertaking referred to in part (a) above has not been completed before 30 June 2021 or an extension of this time as may be agreed by the Interim Director of Planning to refuse planning permission for the application on grounds that the development will not secure the necessary contributions as in part (a) above and further detailed in Appendix 6. As such, the proposal would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and policies CP3, CP6, CP7 and CP8 of the Core Strategy (2007) DM7, DM8 and DM15 of the Development Management Document (2015) and policies DS5 and PA4 of the SCAAP (2018).


Contents

1.0 Site and Surroundings 1Site Description 1

Site Surroundings 6

2.0 The Proposal 9Summary of Submission and Application 9

Description of the proposed development 11

Illustrative Masterplan 19

3.0 Consultation 22Applicant Consultation 22

Council Consultation 22

Statutory Consultee Responses 24

Council Responses 30

4.0 Relevant Planning History 40

5.0 Planning Policy Summary and Material Considerations 41


Development Plan 41

Other Material Considerations 45

6.0 Planning Considerations 531) Principle of Development 53

2) Housing mix, type and standards 58

3) Transport and accessibility 64

4) Parking 70

5) Design 72

6) Landscaping 78

7) Townscape and Visual Impact 81

8) Heritage 90

9) Residential Amenity 97

10) Socio-economic impacts 106

11) Ecology and Biodiversity 107

12) Sustainability 109

13) Other environmental matters 112

14 Overall compliance with Key Policy PA4 114

7.0 Other Issues 123Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CIL) (2015) 123

8.0 Planning Obligations and Conditions 124Planning Obligations 124

Heads of Terms of Required Section 106 Agreement 124

Planning Conditions 128

Unilateral Undertaking 128

9.0 Conclusions and Recommendation 130Application Proposal 130

Recommendation 135


Pg 1

1.0 Site and Surroundings

Site Description

1) Site Boundary1.1 The site comprises 10.08ha. It includes a section of the Queensway dual

carriageway which runs through the site from north-west to south-west. This was built in the 1960’s forming part of a conceived urban ring road which was never completed. Its purpose was to prioritise vehicular traffic movement with associated physical segregation and design speed in line with prevailing urban planning solutions of the 1960s. Existing areas of residential, commercial and community uses and surrounding roads adjoin Queensway to the north and south side of the carriageway.

1.2 Within the application boundary there are also two exclusion zones which do not form part of the site. These are All Saints Church and its curtilage and the pedestrian bridge over Queensway between Southend Victoria Station and Victoria Shopping Centre.

1.3 The site can be broadly split into three parcels of land adjacent to Queensway: a triangular shaped parcel to the south of Queensway bound by Southchurch Road and Chichester Road; a triangular shaped parcel to the north of Queensway bound by Coleman Street and Sutton Road; and a rectangular shaped parcel to the east of Southend Victoria train station bounded by Short Street.

1.4 The site is irregular in shape. To the north, the site boundary includes The Range homeware store and associated surface level car parking to the south, as well as Short Street Car Park located to the east. Moving clockwise from The Range, the site boundary joins Queensway and extends to the east to include the south side and carriageway of Coleman Street. The eastern boundary incorporates Sutton Road from the junction with Wimborne Road to the south where it meets Southchurch Road. Along the southern boundary of the site, the boundary extends to include the junction of Southchurch Road/Lancaster Gardens/Southchurch Road/Tyrrel Drive and the Queensway to just north of the railway bridge. The southern boundary of the side then runs along Southchurch Road to the west of the junction with Queensway and includes the properties to the north of this Road. It includes part of Chichester Road to the junction with Warrior Square. The western boundary extends to include Southchurch Road to the east of Chichester Road as far as the pedestrianised part of the town centre and continues north along Chichester Road to the Queensway junction, bordering the Victoria Shopping Centre.

1.5 In the north eastern triangular parcel of land, the site includes three 17-storey residential towers of Chiltern, Malvern and Pennine Houses, the Storehouse community centre and 24 two-storey maisonettes. In the southern triangular parcel is a fourth 17 storey residential tower (Quantock House), the Essex Street Car Park and mix of mainly commercial units (some with residential accommodation on upper storeys) along the northern side of Southchurch Road, wrapping around its junction with Chichester Road.


Pg 2

1.6 Beyond the main areas of the site, the site boundaries extend along Sutton Road and Prittlewell Street to the north, Southchurch Road to the east and west, Queensway to the south and west, Chichester Road to the south-west and part of Warrior Square North to the south east.

1.7 The application site extends slightly beyond the boundaries of the Better Queensway Opportunity Site, as defined by the Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP, 2018). The Opportunity Site comprises the central part of the application site bound by Coleman Street to the north (and including Short Street Surface Car Park), Sutton Road to the east, Southchurch Road to the south and Chichester Road to the west. The Range store and associated car park, and the surrounding roads as listed above all fall outside the SCAAP Opportunity Site designation.

1.8 Several larger trees are located to the north and south of Queensway, along Chichester Road and Coleman Street. One tree, a London Plane tree to the east of Queensway Surgery, is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO ref. 100/299/54). Within and adjacent to the site, a total of 85 individual trees, groups of trees and hedgerows were recorded as part of the tree survey. Of these, 26 were awarded a moderate Category B grade, 58 were awarded a low Category C grade and the remaining tree was awarded a very low Category U grade.

1.9 Relevant policy allocations applying directly to this application site are:

Table 1.1 Relevant Policy Allocations

Policy Designation LocationSCAAP PA4

Opportunity Site Queensway

CS CP2SCAAP DS1

Town Centre Primary Shopping Area Southend town centre

CS CP3SCAAP DS5, PA4

Proposed Strategic Junction Improvement

Queensway/Southchurch Road/Sutton Road junction

SCAAP DS5, PA4

Improved Gateway Access for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Public Transport

Queensway/Southchurch Road/Sutton Road junction

SCAAP DS3

Existing Landmark Building All Saints Church

SCAAP PA4

New/improved pedestrian/cycle links Queensway and Southchurch Road

KeyCS: Core Strategy (2007)

SCAAP: Southend Central Area Action Plan (2018)


Pg 3

1.10 A full account of the implications arising from these policies is provided within Section 6.0 of this report whilst Appendix 3 provides a review of the application proposals against relevant development plan policy.

2) Land Use1.11 The area to the north of Queensway comprises a triangular piece of land bound

by Coleman Street (to the north), Queensway (to the west and south) and Sutton Road (to the east). It contains three residential towers of 17-storeys (16 storeys of residential dwellings, with a storey for the parapet/plant/lift overrun) (Chiltern, Malvern and Pennine Houses), 24 two-storey maisonettes, associated car parking, a single storey community centre (The Storehouse), garages, two play spaces, a dilapidated multi-use games area (without play equipment), hardstanding and soft landscaping. The community centre and play spaces are located at a podium level between the towers and above garages. The eastern play space is equipped with child’s play equipment and the western play space is not equipped.

1.12 Pedestrian routes are limited to the periphery of this part of the site, adjacent to surrounding roads, and access within the estate is via the podium level, ramps and steps. The towers are accessed from ground and podium level and a bridge across the Queensway provides pedestrian access from the podium to the Essex Street Car Park.

1.13 All of the buildings, with the exception of All Saints Church, are from the 1960’s/1970’s and are considered to have no architectural merit. Like much of the site, the northern triangular parcel is extensively hard landscaped and dominated by vehicular access and parking. No soft landscaping is provided at podium level between the three residential towers. The limited soft landscaping either side of the maisonettes and along the Queensway provides buffering between car parking and the surrounding road network and is of limited amenity value. A small area of amenity space, including benches, is provided to the west of Chiltern House beneath the pedestrian footbridge over Queensway. The estate is gated along the southern boundary with Queensway and Coleman Street.

1.14 Further to the south-east of the residential estate lies All Saints Church, bound by Sutton Road, Southchurch Road and the Queensway roundabout. The Church is locally listed and includes adjoining residential accommodation to the north east. Although the Church and its curtilage is not included within the application site boundary, the roads that border it are within the site.

1.15 The rectangular piece of land to the west of this part of the site, and also located to the north of Queensway, comprises The Range homeware store and associated car park and the Short Street surface level car park. The store is set back from Queensway by approximately 60m. The parcel frontages to Queensway and Short Street are dominated by surface level car parking, hard landscaping and roads. This creates a poor sense of arrival when exiting Southend Victoria Station and walking east along Queensway.

1.16 The triangular parcel of land to the south of Queensway comprises the Essex Street surface level car park, a fourth 17-storey residential tower (Quantock


Pg 4

House), two- and three-storey commercial properties fronting onto Southchurch Road and Chichester Road. A small area of open space is located between Southchurch Road and Essex Street. The gated boundary of Quantock House comprises car parking to the south, west and north. A soft landscaped residential amenity space is provided to the east.

1.17 In total, the four residential towers provide 417 residential dwellings. A further 24 one-bed flats are located in the maisonettes and 51 residential apartments are located above the commercial units fronting onto the north side of Southchurch Road. Residents of the 1960s residential towers do not have any private external amenity space including any balconies. The mix of existing residential units is included in the table below:

Table 1.2 Existing residential mix

Number of bedrooms Number of units % of all unitsBedsit 57 12%1 bedroom 145 29%2 bedrooms 290 59%Total 492 100%

1.18 The tenure of the existing residential dwellings across the four residential towers and 24 maisonette apartments is provided in the table below. The tenure of the residential dwellings above the commercial units on Southchurch Road is unknown.

Table 1.3 Existing tenure split within residental towers and maisonettes

Tenure basis Chiltern Malvern Pennine Quantock Maisonettes Total Leaseholder 12 13 11 17 1 54Secure (affordable) 61 56 60 51 12 240Temporary Letting 21 25 22 18 8 94Void 10 10 11 19 3 53Total 104 104 104 105 24 441

1.19 There are a variety of small retail, café and leisure uses located along Southchurch Road and its junction with Chichester Road, which are defined as secondary shopping frontages within the Southend Town Centre Primary Shopping Area. The Range falls within Southend Town Centre outside of the Primary Shopping Area.

1.20 The table below provides a breakdown of the existing commercial floorspace on the site:

Table 1.4 Existing commercial floorspace

Total floorspace (sqm)Floorspace / Use Class GIA NIASmaller Scale Retail including bars/pubs (E/Sui Generis) 4,356 3,703Retail comprising The Range (E) 3,375 2,869


Pg 5

Floorspace / Use Class Total floorspace (sqm)Employment workshops (E) 217 184Office (E) 127 108Community Centre (E) 215 183Leisure (F2/Sui Generis) 163 139Total 8,453 7,185

KeyGIA: Gross Internal Area

NIA: Net Internal Area

1.21 Queensway is a heavily engineered four-lane road with traffic running in both directions with a speed limit of 40mph. Guard railings line the road on both sides to prevent pedestrian access, with the pedestrian footpath set back from these railings. The Queensway physically and perceptually severs the two parcels of land which straddle the highway and acts as a significant barrier to movement between the town centre and surrounding areas.

1.22 A central reservation along part of Queensway comprises grass and some small and medium trees. Several larger trees are located to the north and south of Queensway alongside the footpaths, one of which (a London Plane tree adjacent to Queensway Surgery) is protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO ref. 100/299/54).At the centre of the site Queensway broadens to eight lanes of traffic with the dual carriageway sinking below ground level with two dual carriageway slip roads remaining at ground level to meet the junction with Southchurch Road and Sutton Road. This creates a road corridor circa 30 metres wide. The Queensway dual carriageway continues to the south via an underpass beneath the roundabout, before rising again to ground level just north of Whitegate Road.

3) Site Access1.23 In terms of vehicle access, the northern part of the site, comprising The Range

and its car park, are accessed via Short Street. The remainder of the northern part of the site is accessed via one access point on Sutton Road (between the maisonettes and Malvern Tower) and two access points on Coleman Street. On the southern part of the site, properties fronting onto Southchurch Road benefit from vehicle access to the rear from Essex Street. Essex Street car park is also accessed from this road, via Chichester Road. Quantock House is accessed via Chichester Road.

1.24 Pedestrian access to the site is possible via the same access points as set out above. In addition, due to the open and in some cases public nature of much of the site (for example the two Council-owned car parks), pedestrian access across the site is unrestricted. This includes pedestrian routes bordering Queensway to the north and south as well as adjoining all vehicular access routes.

1.25 At three locations around the Queensway roundabout, there are steps from the pavement which lead to underground passages that provide pedestrian access under the roundabout via a bridge that crosses over the lower section of


Pg 6

Queensway. As noted above, a second footbridge provides a pedestrian crossing from the podium level of the residential towers to the north of Queensway to the eastern edge of Essex Street car park. Owing to the podium arrangement, steps, ramps and fencing surrounding the residential estate and perception and risk of crime pedestrian routes are convoluted, difficult to navigate and unwelcoming. They consequentially provide a poor physical and sensory perception of pedestrian connectivity to the town centre.

1.26 There are currently two access points to the site from the Victoria Shopping Centre. This includes one access via stairs and a bridge from Essex Street Car Park, within the application site boundary. A second pedestrian access is provided from Southend Victoria Station, over the Queensway to the shopping centre. This access is located outside the application boundary.

4) Levels and Flooding1.27 The site slopes gently from the north to the south, with the north-west corner at

approximately 26.5m AOD and the southern end at approximately 20.5m AOD. The underpass element of Queensway decreases from 21.0m AOD at either side of the underpass, to 16.8m AOD, before rising to re-join the ground level 300m further to the south.

1.28 The site sits within Flood Risk Zone 1 of the Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning (i.e. land within the lowest probability of flooding – less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of flooding).

Site Surroundings

1) Land Use1.29 To the north and east of the site, along Sutton Road, Coleman Street and

Southchurch Road, the prevailing land use is residential, with some ground floor retail and takeaway uses on Sutton Road.

1.30 To the south of the site along Southchurch Road are mainly commercial units, some with residential accommodation above (similar to that on the northern side of Southchurch Road). Non-residential uses along Southchurch Road include a mix of small comparison and convenience retail, restaurant, takeaway, offices and health related uses.

1.31 Victoria Shopping Centre is located to the west including a number of shops, cafes and restaurants, along with associated multi-storey car parking abutting the application site boundary.

2) Heritage1.32 The application site does not include any listed buildings, however the site is in

close proximity to a number of heritage assets, including the Grade I listed Porters Civic House and the locally listed All Saints Church, both adjoining the Queensway underpass to the east. A description of these assets is provided in Table 1.5 below.


Pg 7

1.33 The Warrior Square Conservation Area is located to the south of the site and a small part of Warrior Square North (within the application site boundary) falls within the Conservation Area. The Conservation Area comprises Warrior Square, a residential street (Warrior Square North) and residential properties to the north. The Conservation Area is considered to be a late example of a Victorian Square of which the northern and eastern edges around the square remain today.

Table 1.5 Description of Nearby Heritage Assets

Heritage Asset

Description

Porters Grade I listed building, with the oldest parts dating back to the 15th century and extensive rebuilding in the 16th century. A red brick manor house with cross wings at the east and west ends and gables on the north and south fronts. Includes a number of notable features including original windows at first storey level on the exterior.

All Saints Church

Locally listed building completed in 1888. Constructed in the simply early Gothic style by Victorian architect James Brooks, in local red brick with stone window surrounds and steeply pitched clay tile roof. Further extensions made to the building in 1924/5 and 1934 in the ‘Arts and Crafts’ style, believed to be designed by Charles Nicholson.

Warrior Square Conservation Area

An example of late residential Victorian Square – plot developments laid out around central garden. Good example of late Victorian terraced architecture with transitional Edwardian influences.

Co-op Frontage, Sutton Road

Locally listed building – former cooperative bakery and biscuit factory opened in 1921. Imposing red brick frontage which bears the emblem of the London Cooperative Society which played a large part in the national cooperative movement.

Brethren Church, Coleman Street

Locally listed building – built in 1900 as a Gospel Hall for the Brethren. Modest red brick chapel with stone dressings.

3) Public Transport1.34 There are two train stations within proximity of the application site. Southend

Victoria Station is immediately to the north-west of the site, adjacent to The Range. The station provides direct access to London Liverpool Street. Southend Central Station is located approximately 500m to the south-west of the site (approximately a 6-minute walk) at its closest point at the junction of Southchurch Road and Chichester Road.

1.35 There are several bus stops and interchanges located within the site and also in close proximity. These include the Victoria Station Interchange on the south side of Queensway and The Travel Centre on Chichester Road. In addition, bus stops are located at Whitegate Road, Southchurch Road, Nicholson House, Tyrell


Pg 8

Drive, Boscombe Road and Coleman Street. These stops service routes across Southend-on-Sea with other towns including Basildon, Canvey, Shoebury, Chelmsford, Leigh and Hullbridge.

4) Town Centre1.36 The majority of the site is located in Southend Town Centre, including all land to

the south of Queensway and The Range. The site as a whole has good links to the central shopping area, in particular Victoria Shopping Centre which adjoins the site to the west. The seafront and esplanade are located approximately 1km walking distance to the south of the site. However, as described above, the severance caused by Queensway and the design of the residential estate results in poor physical and perceptual pedestrian connectivity to the town centre.


Pg 9

2.0 The Proposal

Summary of Submission and Application 2.1 A hybrid (part outline and part detailed) application was submitted by Porters

Place Southend on Sea LLP and received by the Council on 10 September 2020. The original submission comprised: Planning Statement; Design and Access Statement for Queensway (detailed element); Design and Access Statement for Outline Element; Design Code; Detailed Plans for construction of Queensway; Parameter Plans for outline element comprising land use, maximum building

heights, extent of basement, access and demolition plan; Arboricultural Assessment; Car Parking Management Strategy; Daylight and Sunlight Assessment; Environmental Statement (ES); Heritage Impact Assessment; Lighting Assessment; Recycling/Waste Management Strategy; Statement of Community Involvement; Structural Survey; Sustainability Statement/BREEAM Pre-Assessment; Utilities Appraisal; and Viability Assessment.

2.2 Upon receipt of this material, the application was validated on 22 September 2020.

2.3 Whilst the application documents refer to former Use Classes relevant prior to the Use Classes Amendment Order (2020) coming into effect on 1 September 2020 (such as A1-A5/B1/D1 and D2 uses), the application must be determined with reference to the new Use Classes as it was submitted after 1 September 2020. The application cover letter confirms the relevant Use Classes and a letter from the applicant (submitted on 11 February 2021) explains how the former Use Classes relate to the current Use Classes Order.

2.4 The application includes detailed proposals to improve Queensway, including replacing the roundabout, regrading Queensway so that it is all at grade (i.e. ground surface level), together with public realm, landscaping and highway to works to surrounding streets and land within the detailed application boundary.


Pg 10

2.5 The outline element of the proposals comprises the demolition of all existing buildings, structures and car parks on the site. In their place, it is proposed to deliver up to 1,760 dwellings in buildings up to +87.17mm AOD (approximately 18 storeys) in height and up to 10,000sqm of commercial floorspace including retail and cafes, employment space (including workshops, artist studios, recording studios, brewery and bakery), office space, community space and a creche/nursery, leisure uses and event space. The development is proposed to be delivered across three character areas: 1 Porter’s Place to the south of Queensway; 2 All Saint’s Church to the north-east of Queensway; and 3 Victoria Station in the north-west of the site.

2.6 Consultation with statutory consultees, interest groups and local residents was undertaken immediately after validation. A number of representations from various parties and individuals were received as a result of this process (detailed in Section 3.0 of this report). In response to this, and following discussions between Council Officers and the applicant, a supplementary submission to the application was made on 11 February 2021. This submission amended and clarified the detail of the planning application. In detail, this submission included: Updated drawings pack (see Summary for drawing references); Updated Parameter Plans for outline element comprising land use, maximum

building heights and extent of basement; Updated Design Code; Updated Design and Access Statement for Outline Element; Updated Appendix 9.1 of the Cultural Heritage Chapter of the ES; Updated conclusions of Heritage Impact Assessment; Updated Shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment (ES Appendix); and Updated draft Master Travel Plan (ES Appendix).

2.7 This material, along with the retained material from the original submission provides the necessary information for the Local Planning Authority to assess the proposals.

2.8 Whilst the amendments to the scheme are minor, the supplementary submission detailed the following amendments and clarifications to the application: Maximum building heights – reduced from 89.43m AOD to 87.17m AOD; Basement car parking and use – clarification that the basement will only be

used for secure car parking to serve the development and confirm that the floorspace required for car parking is not included within the floorspace schedule detailed on the Land Use Parameter Plan;

Basement depth – clarification that the basement is limited to one level with a maximum depth of 4.24m below finished floor level;

Revised indicative phasing – to reflect the updated phasing of the scheme; Temporary car parking area – expanded.


Pg 11

Queensway – minor updates to the proposed highways drawings, including an additional loading bay and road markings;

Detailed landscaping – minor updates, including an additional loading bay, revised cycle parking and cycle lanes.

2.9 This commentary below provides a description of the scheme, as amended incorporating the latest amendments described above.

Description of the proposed development2.10 The application seeks planning permission for:

“Hybrid application for:

1. Outline consent for the phased demolition of existing residential and commercial units, pedestrian footbridge, and associated structures and redevelopment to provide up to 1,760 dwellings, including provision of affordable housing (up to 177,650 sqm) in buildings of up to 87.17m AOD (approximately 18 storeys); up to 10,000 sqm of commercial uses comprising (a) up to 5,000 sqm of retail and cafes (Use Class E, F.2, Sui Generis) (with a maximum of 1,500 sqm outside the Primary Shopping Area); (b) up to 5,000 sqm of Employment space consisting of Workshops/Artistic Studios/Recording Studios/Brewery/Bakery (Use Class E, B2 and Sui Generis); and Office Space (Use Class E, capped at 2,500 sqm); (c) up to 1,500 sqm of Community & Creche/Nursery (Use Class E/F.1), (d) up to 1,000 sqm of Leisure (Use Class E); and (e) up to 500 sqm of Event Space (Use Class E/Sui Generis); new public open space; associated landscaping; car parking; public realm enhancements; access arrangements and associated infrastructure.

2. Detailed (full) application for phased engineering works to remove roundabout at Queensway/Sutton Road/Southchurch Road and associated underpass, with re-grading of the Queensway, to provide a new 4 lane carriageway at grade with footpath; cycle lane, bus facilities, public realm, landscaping and associated structures as well as a new roundabout at grade, linking Southchurch Road and Queensway, and closure/stopping up of Sutton Road.”

Detailed Element

Road Amendments2.11 The proposals involve phased engineering works to remove the roundabout at

Queensway/Sutton Road/Southchurch Road along with the associated underpass. This includes the removal of the on-off slip arms as well as the roundabout bridges, subways and associated footbridges.

2.12 A new roundabout will be brought up to ground level (otherwise known as at grade) by infilling the underpass, linking Southchurch Road and Queensway. It comprises four arms, removing the arm to Sutton Road compared to the existing five arm roundabout. Queensway is proposed to be regraded and realigned over a section of approximately 540m. It will remain at four lanes and will maintain the main north-south connectivity through the site.


Pg 12

2.13 To improve connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, vehicular speeds are proposed to be lowered to 30mph and pedestrian crossings will be raised. This seeks to encourage footfall and cycle movements between the residential areas to the north and east and the town centre, enhancing permeability and connectivity. Three types of crossing are proposed: signalised crossings; zebra crossings; and informal non-pedestrian priority crossings. A main puffin crossing linking the areas to the north and south of Queensway across a wider public plaza (see outline element below) is proposed. In addition, crossings are proposed from Southend Victoria Station to the south side of Queensway and over the roundabout junctions.

2.14 The proposed design of Queensway incorporates new segregated cycling routes, linking Southend Victoria station to the seafront. These are proposed to be created by land reclaimed from the realigned Queensway.

2.15 The road amendments include the closure of Sutton Road where it currently meets Queensway. As provided for via the outline element of the proposal, it is anticipated that this area will become a key area of significant new public realm adjacent to All Saints Church.

2.16 The detailed proposals also include the provision of landscaping and drainage for the road network. It is proposed that the new Queensway will be lined with trees and include a central reservation also incorporating new shrubs and trees. The road will also be bound by green verges, creating a buffer between the road and pedestrian/cycle routes.

2.17 Within the green verges there will also be a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) for the areas of hardstanding to drain into which will then feed into the highway sewer system.

2.18 The road is proposed to be delivered in the following phases:1 Infilling of the underpass and removal of existing highway structures such as

pedestrian overpasses, retaining wall caps and roundabout bridges and relocation of utilities.

2 Existing drainage system removed and attenuation tank constructed within the re-filled underpass void, with new surface water drainage infrastructure installed as new Queensway road is developed.

3 Construction of the new Queensway including laying and forming of kerbs, pavements and pavement blocks. Two proposed roundabouts (at junction of Southchurch Road/Sutton Road and Southchurch Road/Queensway) constructed. Utilities installed.

4 Landscaping of new road and testing of traffic signals, lighting and equipment relating to attenuation tank.

Outline Elements2.19 This part of the application has been submitted in outline with all matters reserved

for future consideration (layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping).


Pg 13

2.20 A series of Parameter Plans have been submitted with the application for approval. These plans set out the development parameters within which the detailed development will come forward at a later date. Development of the outline element will be controlled by the Design Code, which builds upon the detail provided on the Parameter Plans and establishes the key principles to establish and secure design standards and quality.

2.21 The Parameter Plans and Design Code are for formal approval and will fix the land use, maximum quantum, maximum building heights, access and circulation routes incorporating specified maximum variances and areas of public realm for the outline part of this application. The outline consent would be subject to conditions requiring all detailed submissions for the proposed development to be in compliance with the Parameter Plans and Design Code.

2.22 In addition, an Illustrative Masterplan, Indicative Phasing Plan and an Indicative Phasing Plan for Demolition have been submitted to assist with the assessment of the application. The Illustrative Masterplan and indicative phasing plans are wholly illustrative and not for approval. The illustrative/indicative plans show one way in which the Parameter Plans and Design Code could be interpreted and are intended for information purposes only.

Parameter Plans 2.23 These plans define the site, general layout, circulation, maximum building heights

and land use of the development. The following Parameter Plans have been submitted for approval and elements further clarified in revised versions updated in February 2021 in response to queries raised during the assessment of the application: 1 Planning Application Boundary Location Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-

N-ST-00001)2 Blue Line Boundary Location Plan (1 of 2) (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-

ST-00002)3 Blue Line Boundary Location Plan (2 of 2) (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-

ST-00003)4 Land Use Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00004)5 Maximum Building Height Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-

ST-00005)6 Basement Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00006)7 Building & Bridges Demolition Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-

00007)8 Queensway Detailed Planning Application Boundary (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-

XX-DR-N-ST-00008)9 Access Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00009)


Pg 14

Design Code 2.24 The Design Code establishes the overarching urban design principles that will

guide the development. Full details of the design and external appearance of the buildings have been reserved at this stage and will be submitted for approval through the subsequent Reserved Matters Applications (RMAs). The Design Code defines design principles that respectively “must”, “should” and “aspire” or are “encouraged to” be met through the RMAs. These terms outline the varying degree of how prescriptive the guidance is and the distinction between each of the words is very important for understanding the intentions behind the Design Code. Each of these words or phrases definitions will be a fundamental basis for assessing future RMAs in relationship to their compliance with the Design Code.

2.25 The Design Code is informed by a landscape-led approach and vision which aims to create “a place for people to live healthily, to thrive, to belong and feel safe”. The Design Code identifies four themes underpinning the vision: 1 Better Place – transforming the Queensway as a living street; providing a

sensitive response to surrounding urban fabric; promotion of walking and cycling through design; and a demand-based approach for parking provision.

2 Better Living – through public realm which supports physical and mental wellbeing; design which promotes social interaction and a sense of community; and a safe environment for current and future residents.

3 Better Housing – by providing affordable housing; social rented homes; and family-friendly accommodation.

4 Better Delivery – through a phasing strategy which is sensitive to the needs of the local community

2.26 The Design Code is organised into four main sections. The first establishes the site wide principles and the latter sections providing detailed design guidance and requirements for each of the three proposed character areas.

Amount and Land Use 2.27 The Land Use Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00004)

defines the land uses and quantum of development within the outline element of the application. It sets out that planning permission is sought for a maximum of 187,650sq.m (GIA) of floorspace across a wide range of uses. The maximum quantum of development is set out below:

Table 2.1 Maximum floorspace and residential units

Use Class Maximum Area (GIA)Residential Residential (Use Class C3) Up to 177,650sqm and 1,760 units

Non-Residential Floorspace Retail (Use Class E/Sui Generis) Up to 5,000sqm (of which a maximum of

1,500sqm to be located outside the Primary


Pg 15

Use Class Maximum Area (GIA)Shopping Area)

Employment space: workshops/recording studios/brewery/bakery (Use Class E/B2)Office space (Use Class E) (capped at 2,500sqm)Artistic Studios (Use Class E)

Up to 5,000sqm

Community and creche/nursery (Use Class E)

Up to 1,500sqm

Leisure (Use Class E) Up to 1,000sqmEvent space (Use Class E/Sui Generis)

Up to 500sqm

Total Non-Residential Floorspace

Up to 10,000sq.m

Total Floorspace Up to 187,650sq.m 2.28 The Land Use Parameter Plan commits to the minimum provision of 0.70ha of

public open space, including town squares, parks, play provision, buffers to heritage assets and structural landscape.

2.29 The flexibility provided by the Land Use Parameter Plan allows for subsequent Reserved Matters Applications to be submitted for individual buildings or development parcels within the site subject to the floorspace and locational limitations set out above and detailed in full on the Land Use Parameter Plan. This allows flexibility for the proposed development to respond to market conditions at different stages of the development programme.

2.30 The Land Use Parameter Plan identifies five development zones, one adjacent to Victoria Station, one north of Queensway and three south of Queensway. These zones broadly align with the three proposed character areas.

2.31 The character areas relate to the characteristics of the proposed development but do not directly relate to phasing. Multiple future phases of development may take place within a single character area.

Key Components 2.32 For the purpose of this report and reflecting the key components of the outline

element of the application, the proposals are described under the following headings:1 Demolition and Phasing: All buildings and car parks within the red line

boundary.2 Residential Development: Up to 1,760 dwellings, including market and

affordable housing across the site.3 Commercial Uses: Up to 10,000sqm of commercial floorspace including

retail and café uses, employment space (including workshops, artist studios,


Pg 16

recording studios, brewery and bakery), office space, community use and creche/nursery, leisure uses and event space.

4 Car and Cycle Parking: Podium and on street car parking across the site together with a multi-storey car park and basement parking. Cycle parking on plot in secure facilities for occupants and visitor cycle parking within the public realm.

5 Access: Secondary and Tertiary vehicle routes together with pedestrian and cycle routes.

6 Landscaping and Public Open Space: a network of linked public spaces across the site (minimum of 0.7ha) comprising formal and informal public open space, town squares, parks, play space and structural landscaping.

Demolition and Phasing2.33 The outline proposals involve the demolition of all buildings and car parks on site,

including: the residential towers of Quantock House, Chiltern House, Malvern House and Pennine House; the residential maisonettes fronting Sutton Road; The Range retail unit; The Storehouse community centre; and the row of residential/commercial properties fronting the north side of Southchurch Road, which turns the corner to Chichester Road; and all other structures within the boundary of the red line. All Saints Church and the pedestrian bridge from the north side of Queensway to Victoria Shopping Centre (both excluded from the application site) are retained. In total, 492 residential units and 8,453sqm of non-residential floorspace are proposed to be demolished.

2.34 The submitted Indicative Phasing Plan sets out the anticipated approach to phasing and timescales for the development. All phases include provision for a mix of residential and commercial floorspace. The Indicative Phasing Plan identifies four phases which are anticipated to be constructed over a 12 year build period as follows: Phase 1A – demolition of the bridge crossing Queensway, demolition of

Quantock House and the redevelopment of the Essex Street Car Park and areas to the north and west for new development and proposed public open space (Porter’s Park).

Phases 3A and 3B – anticipated to be delivered before Phase 2. This phase comprises the demolition of The Range and its replacement with new development. Phase 3A consists of the area of land adjacent to the railway and fronting Queensway, while Phase 3B will be the area to the east, adjacent to Short Street.

Phase 2A – demolition of Chiltern House and maisonettes fronting onto Sutton Road and replacement with new development.

Phases 2B and 2C – demolition of the remaining two flatted blocks (Malvern and Pennine) and other hardstanding structures, including the Storehouse Community Centre, and replacement with new development.


Pg 17

Phase 4 – this is the final phase of development and will comprise the demolition of the buildings fronting onto Southchurch Road from the north, with new development in its place.

Residential Development2.35 The proposed development seeks to deliver up to 1,760 dwellings (up to

177,650sqm GIA) including 312 affordable units within the development zones defined on the Land Use Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00004). Whilst the precise layout of the dwellings is to be determined through reserved matters applications in accordance with the Design Code and Parameter Plans, the Design and Access Statement confirms that dwellings will be a mixture of apartments and maisonettes or terraced homes.

2.36 The maximum building heights within which the residential accommodation will be provided is set out in the Building Heights Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00005). This shows that the tallest building heights are located adjacent to Southend Victoria Station and in the centre of the site adjacent to Queensway (up to 87.17m AOD / approximately 18 storeys).

2.37 Proposed buildings heights in the area between Queensway and Sutton Road are proposed to decrease in height from up to 79.98m AOD (approximately 14 storeys) down to a maximum of up to 42.03m/51.63m/54.78m AOD (approximately 3-6 storeys) adjacent to Coleman Street, Sutton Road and close to All Saints Church and Porters beyond this. The maximum height of development zones between Queensway, Southchurch Road and Chichester Road decrease in height from north to south from a maximum of 87.17m AOD (approximately 18 storeys) adjacent to Queensway to up to 51.63m/61.08 AOD (approximately 5-8 storeys) adjacent to Southchurch Road. It should be noted that the new development would be constructed to modern space and internal room height standards meaning that modern buildings will, by their nature, be taller per storey than the existing tower blocks on the site.

2.38 The Design Code commits to the following unit mix range:

Table 2.2 Proposed Unit Mix Range

Housing Type Provision (%) 1 bedroom 40-50%2 bedroom 40-50% 3 bedroom Minimum 10%

2.39 The proposal includes provision of 300 social/affordable rented units and 12 shared ownership units, equating to 17.7% against the maximum number of residential units. This provision is proposed to be secured via Section 106 agreement. The Design Code establishes that all homes must meet or exceed the Nationally Described Space Standards and be provided with a minimum of 5sqm of private amenity space. The Design Code stipulates that 10% of all new dwellings must be built as adaptable standard for wheelchair users to meet Building Regulation M4(3) and the remaining 90% to meet the M4(2) accessibility standard.


Pg 18

Commercial Uses2.40 The maximum amount of commercial floorspace proposed across the site is

limited to 10,000sqm as noted above and detailed on the Land Use Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00004).

2.41 Workplace/employment uses are anticipated to include office space, employment space (comprising workshops, recording studios, brewery, bakery) and artist studios. Light industrial employment space is restricted to the area of the site adjoining the railway station within the Victoria Station character area. Other non-residential floorspace can be provided throughout development zones subject to a maximum of 1,500sq.m of retail space being located outside of the Primary Shopping Area. Accordingly, the majority of retail floorspace is envisaged to be provided on Southchurch Road where the site sits within the designated Secondary Shopping Frontage (and part of the Primary Shopping Area).

2.42 The community uses are proposed to include a creche/nursery and leisure and event space is proposed.

Car and Cycle Parking2.43 The applicant has committed to providing an average ratio of 0.7 car parking

spaces per dwelling across the totality of the scheme. Based on a maximum provision of 1,760 dwellings across the site, this equates to a maximum of 1,232 car parking spaces. Across each phase of development, the parking provision is proposed to range from 0.5 spaces to one space per dwelling. The detail of car parking provision will be determined through the future reserved matters submissions, however the Design Code outlines how car parking can be accommodated in a variety of ways, including through: the potential provision of a centralised multi-storey car park within the Victoria Station character area; within podiums located beneath and behind buildings and beneath communal amenity spaces; as on-street parking; and within the extent of the basement areas highlighted on the Basement Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00006).

2.44 The Access Parameter Plan (ref. EQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00009) identifies maximum extents of temporary parking areas which may be necessary to accommodate parking for residents during the course of construction.

2.45 Cycle parking for residential dwellings is proposed to be provided at a ratio of one space per residential dwelling through secure storage areas within the buildings, and some facilities within the public realm.

Access 2.46 Access is a reserved matter. The Access Parameter Plan (ref. EQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-

XX-DR-N-ST-00009) identifies proposed Secondary Vehicle Routes, existing vehicle routes to be retained and Tertiary Vehicle Routes. The Tertiary Vehicle Routes bisect development zones necessitating that new streets and smaller development parcels are created north and south of Queensway.

2.47 Coleman Street, Sutton Road, Chichester Road, Short Street and Southchurch Road will provide direct access to residential and commercial properties. The


Pg 19

exact access routes across the site will be determined through the relevant Reserved Matters applications in accordance with the Design Code and 15m variance shown on the Access Parameter Plan.

2.48 The Design Code describes further requirements for pedestrian and cycle routes through the outline element of the proposal.

Landscaping and Public Open Space2.49 Significant improvements to the public realm are committed to via the Parameter

Plans and Design Code. The proposed locations for open space are shown on the Land Use Parameter Plan (ref. BEQ-LDA-ZZ-XX-XX-DR-N-ST-00004 Rev 05). This includes a minimum commitment to the provision of 0.7ha of public open space.

2.50 The Design Code identifies a network of six public open spaces connecting across the site and to the surrounding areas. The areas of open space and the minimum sizes committed to via the Design Code are as follows:1 Porter’s Park (minimum 2,000sq.m) – a central public open space located to

the south of Queensway and including an equipped play area. 2 Coleman Gardens (minimum 1,200sq.m) – a local greenspace situated to

the north of Queensway and including an equipped play or youth oriented play area.

3 Victoria Station Plaza (minimum 600sq.m) – a gateway open space located adjacent to Southend Victoria Station providing a link to Southend Victoria train station animated by spill out spaces from adjacent active frontages.

4 All Saints Civic Square (minimum 2,000sq.m) – an open space required to enhance the setting of All Saints Church and Porters and provide a social space for the public.

5 Coleman Street Landscape Passage – areas of retained trees and informal soft landscaping including ‘play on the way’ elements.

6 Southchurch Landscape Link– landscaped area to encourage connectivity between the Porter’s Park, Southchurch Road and Warrior Square Gardens.

2.51 The proposals seek to deliver an increased number of trees across the site, with most Category B trees (including the TPO tree) being retained. The Design Code states that a two for one re-provision of trees in the public realm should be provided.

Illustrative Masterplan 2.52 The Illustrative Masterplan shows one way in which the Parameter Plans and

Design Code could be interpreted to deliver the outline element of the planning application. The Illustrative Masterplan shows what the outline part of the development could look like and is not for approval.

2.53 The Illustrative Masterplan is described at Section 5 of the Design and Access Statement for the outline application. The predominant buildings block typology


Pg 20

is residential apartments arranged around a central podium car park and perimeter of varied active uses at ground floor.

2.54 The ground floor active uses may include commercial and community uses in key locations, but also includes two storey maisonette homes and townhouses accessed from ground floor. The Illustrative Masterplan shows townhouses fronting All Saints Church and Coleman Street.

2.55 The proposed podium car park solution reduces car dominance and the resultant extensive hard landscaped spaces associated with the existing surface level car parks and garages. This is achieved by wrapping parking areas with residential and active frontages and creating communal amenity areas above and between the residential blocks.

2.56 The placement and massing of tall buildings within the Illustrative Masterplan has been designed to mitigate potential adverse effects. The heights of mid-rise buildings across the masterplan has been considered to respond to views through the masterplan and to create a human scale to the development. Tall buildings (up to 18 storeys) are strategically placed either centrally as townscape markers or in proximity to Victoria Station as a key landmark.

2.57 The Illustrative Masterplan provides for 1,760 dwellings with a unit mix of 39.5% one bedroom units, 50.5% two bedroom units and 10% three bedroom or larger family units across nine Plots (Plots A to K). The illustrative distribution of affordable housing shows affordable housing within each of the character areas, including fronting All Saints Church and Southchurch Road. The Design and Access Statement confirms that the Illustrative Masterplan seeks to maximise the provision of three-bedroom (or larger) family homes as maisonettes and terrace-type homes. This approach results in fewer units (1,669) than proposed via the maximum parameters (1,760).

2.58 The Landscape Masterplan demonstrates a high quality landscaping approach with public realm and the spaces between buildings being transformed from spaces dominated by cars to places which give a physical and sensory priority for pedestrians and cyclists. The Landscape Masterplan contains 0.83 hectares of open space split across the six public open spaces. This exceeds the minimum area of 0.70 hectares by 18.6% and demonstrates potential for substantial uplift through the Reserved Matters.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)2.59 The development can be considered to fall within Parts 10 (b) ‘Urban

Development Projects’ and (f) ‘Construction of Roads’ of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’)) Regulations 2017 (as updated by the Town and Country Planning and Infrastructure Planning (EIA) (‘the 2017 EIA Regulations’), as confirmed by a Scoping Opinion issued under reference 20/00703/RSO on 27 July 2020 (Appendix 8).

2.60 Due to the size and nature of the development it is considered likely to have significant effects on the environment and an EIA is required. Accordingly, the application was supported by an Environmental Statement. The Environmental Statement assesses all topics requested in the Council’s Scoping Opinion with


Pg 21

the exception of Major Accidents and Disasters. Major Accidents and Disasters is scoped out of the Environmental Statement and Table 2.1 of the Environmental Statement provides justification for the exclusion of this topic.

2.61 This Environmental Statement was peer reviewed by a consultant instructed by the Local Planning Authority and was found to be compliant with the Regulations subject to some clarifications. It is considered that the Environmental Statement submitted adequately addresses the topics scoped in by the Council under reference 20/00703/RSO and justifies why Major Accidents and Disaster has not been considered in further detail as part of the Environmental Statement. The content of the Environmental Statement has been discussed in the relevant sections of this report.


Pg 22

3.0 Consultation

Applicant Consultation3.1 To supplement the Council’s own consultation on the proposals, the applicant

carried out a pre-application consultation on the emerging scheme.

3.2 Two rounds of formal consultation took place. The first was held across October and November 2019, with invitations sent out to 8,529 residential and 784 business addresses. This included all properties within the application red line. A second round of consultation was then held across February and March 2020. Key stakeholders including All Saints Church, businesses in Southend-on-Sea and traders on the seafront, the Southend-on-Sea BID and Council and ward members were also invited to the two events.

3.3 A consultation website, www.betterqueensway.co.uk, was set up by the applicant to provide information about the proposals and to create mechanisms for providing feedback. In addition, a dedicated telephone number, email address and freepost address were provided through the consultation invitations and at the consultation events themselves to allow feedback to be provided.

3.4 The feedback received prior to submission highlighted concerns around provision of affordable housing, mix of building heights, parking, provision of safe spaces and new park and green spaces, safe pedestrian crossings and traffic. However, there were many other comments in support of the scheme referencing a desire to see this site developed; the potential for the site to be a gateway to Southend and the opportunity to provide new community and leisure uses as part of the redevelopment.

3.5 The consultation website was maintained and updated following submission of the application and further comments on the proposals were invited. A petition of support with 58 signatories from residents of the Queensway were registered by 17 February 2021. The petition states that the signatory supports “the regeneration scheme” and details the benefits of high-quality homes, mixed tenure, CCTV, open space, business space and sustainability. Some of the pledges also include additional comments. These express general support for the proposed development and specific support for: the design; new housing; need for regeneration; need for green space; and note existing problems within the estate associated with crime and perception of safety.

Council Consultation3.6 There has been one period of public consultation on the planning application. The

consultation was undertaken following the validation of the application in September 2020.

3.7 Consultees were notified on 25 September 2020, 40 site notices were displayed at locations around the site on 7 October, and a press advertisement was published on 22 September. The application was advertised as a departure from the policies in the Development Plan with press advertisement and site notices, as appropriate.


Pg 23

3.8 In response to the consultation, 20 representations have been received. All responses are summarised in Appendix 1. Of these, 12 comprise objections, four request further information and four support the application. These representations have been taken into account fully and carefully in assessing the proposal.

3.9 Comments received were wide-ranging and a detailed review of comments made, along with a consideration of the implications of these comments can be found in Appendix 1. However, it is possible to identify several common themes to comments received and these are summarised below:

Objections 1 Resultant traffic concerns – from proposed changes to the highway (notably

removal of the underpass) and additional residents and businesses. 2 Parking – concerns with the level of proposed car parking (including electrical

vehicle charging facilities). 3 Highway safety 4 Pollution – including noise and air quality concerns from construction and

increased traffic/congestions. 5 Pedestrian and cycle routes – concerns with removal of the underpass and

perceived inadequate pedestrian and cycle routes across the site. 6 Scale and massing – concerns with the height, scale and massing of

proposed buildings. 7 Residential density – higher density development not considered to be

necessary or appropriate. 8 Residential quality – cramped living conditions. 9 Residential amenity implications – including from construction implications

and increased pressure on health and education services. 10 Service charges 11 Crime and adverse social and health impacts – linked to higher density

housing and re-provision of affordable housing. 12 Non-Residential uses – concerns that that additional retail and community

space is not required. 13 Adverse economic impacts and impacts on Southend Town Centre – linked

to the above, concerns were raised in relation to adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of Southend Town Centre. Support

1 Safety – reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. 2 Housing provision. 3 Employment provision – new employment opportunities. 4 Regeneration.


Pg 24

3.10 A statement of support from the Better Queensway Steering Group was received on 17 March 2021. The statement notes that the physical condition of the existing tower blocks and the public spaces between them are extremely poor and welcomes improvement. It states that the overpass across Queensway is inconvenient and dangerous, the underpass is unpleasant and notes that people cross the roundabout by walking in the road. The statement supports new pedestrian crossings and improved connectivity. It also supports the consultation and collaborative design approach undertaken by the applicant.

3.11 A number of queries were also raised in relation to the scale of proposed buildings and how building heights were expressed within the application documents (AOD heights). All of the points of representation have been taken carefully into account in the assessment of the application and in determining whether the application be granted planning permission.

3.12 Councillor Walker formally requested that the application be called in to Development Control Committee although this was required in any event under the Council’s Constitution due to the application’s nature and scale.

Statutory Consultee Responses

Environment Agency 3.13 The response confirms that the EA has no comments to make on the application

as it falls outside of the EA’s remit.

Natural England 3.14 The initial response (dated 25 November 2020) notes that Natural England has

not been able to fully assess the potential impacts or opportunities of the proposal on statutory nature conservation sites or protected landscapes.

3.15 The response notes that the development site falls within the ‘Zone of Influence’ (ZoI) of one or more of the European designated sites scoped into the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS). It highlights that “deficiency of open space available in the district, and that residential projects that are likely to have a significant effect ‘alone’ should be required to provide additional open space to address this”. The response raises concerns about the rationale within the submitted Habitat Regulations Assessment given no substantial additional off-site open space provision is referenced within the report.

3.16 The response concludes that Natural England tends to agree that the context of the proposed development indicates that it is reasonable to argue that the project can avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. However, Natural England note a preference for “more detailed justification which explored the relationship between the SPA interest features and local residents.” The response recommends that the Council should progress an approach to strategic planning which proactively seeks to identify open space deficits and remedy shortfalls through an approach to green infrastructure which includes provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).


Pg 25

3.17 Natural England reviewed the Shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment (SHRA) submitted in January 2021. Following this the Natural England advised that they agree with the overall conclusions reached in the report, “that although the project is likely to have a significant effect in-combination with other plans and projects, it can however avoid an adverse effect on European site integrity if the mitigation measures proposed are secured (notably the Essex Coast RAMS tariff contribution as outlined in the report) in an enforceable way (such as via Section 106 agreement).”

Historic England 3.18 Confirm that there are no direct impacts on designated heritage assets and that

there are opportunities for enhancing the setting of Porters Civic House. Confirm that Historic England does not wish to offer any further comments to those provided at the pre-application stage in 2018 and 2020.

Milton Conservation Society 3.19 State that the application is one of the largest and most significant planning

applications that Southend Town has ever seen. Caution that if the development is not very well done the town will be seriously damaged and could create an urban ghetto for the future if the development becomes the updated version of what it seeks to replace now.

3.20 Raise concerns with the amount of social space given over to the inhabiting community and question where community spaces such as the community hall, school, sports/play ground, creches and doctors’ clinics are.

3.21 Noting that the architecture is only represented at outline design stage, Milton Conservation Society state that “the architecture is generic, simplistic and unlikely to make a place that has any authenticity and real connection for those that live and work in this place”. Suggest that engagement of multiple, nationally recognised architects could be explored as a strategy for developing the individual sites. State that there needs to be a variety of architecture and it needs to belong to Southend-on-Sea. Raise concerns with the CGIs produced and question whether the proposed development will achieve the environments illustrate in the CGIs.

3.22 Milton Conservation Society recognise the professional effort that has gone into the proposal but raise concern with consultation not being widespread and raise concerns with local traffic concerns and impacts on infrastructure (including hospitals and schools).

3.23 Milton Conservation Society request that “the highest standards of assessment rigour and request for improvements to the application so that the scheme can evolve positively over the coming months and eventually become something that will genuinely improve our town centre.”

Southend Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)3.24 The initial response from the CCG (in November 2020) identifies that the

proposed development “is likely to have an impact on the services of 10 main GP


Pg 26

practices and 1 branch surgeries operating within the vicinity of the application site” and that the four closest GP Practices to the development do “do not have capacity for the additional growth resulting from this development and cumulative development in the area”. The request goes on to state that the impacts should be fully addressed and mitigated as part of the proposed development.

3.25 The response notes the strategy of NHS England is to promote Healthcare Hubs with co-ordinated mixed professionals. It notes that “development would give rise to a need for improvements to capacity for the benefit of the local community by relocating and increasing services currently delivered from Warrior House to more suitable fit for purpose accommodation in line with emerging STP Estates strategy; a proportion of the cost of which would need to be met by the developer.”

3.26 Warrior House is located outside of the planning application boundary on the south side of Southchurch Road. Financial contributions via Section 106 Agreement are requested to improve the capacity of existing GP practices and create additional health service floorspace are requested on the basis of anticipated additional demand generated by new residents.

3.27 The CCG also note that the planning application does not include any provision for Healthcare Worker Housing as part of the affordable element and requests that discussions are undertaken to understand the possibilities for such provision.

3.28 In respect of design, the CCG comment that it is “encouraged to see that the application refers to the Essex Design Guide. However, there does not appear to be a particular reference to communities having access to land and opportunities to grow their own food. It may be that this will be explored at a later stage of development, the CCG would support this as well as the introduction of community gardens that could provide opportunities for support and therapy outside of a healthcare environment.”

3.29 The subsequent response from the CCG (in February 2021) reports that a Healthcare Impact Assessment has been prepared by the CCG to provide the basis of a contribution that may be sought from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) associated with the development towards capital funding to increase healthcare capacity within the GP catchment area of the site.

3.30 In respect of CIL, the CCG state that “The CCG would suggest that healthcare contributions should be sought to contribute to the provision of sustainable primary care services in the area, particularly for the additional residents generated by development growth.” The CCG provide a capital cost calculation of £460,000 to create additional floorspace to serve the net increase in dwellings. The CCG confirm that the capital contribution is likely to be sought via the Local Authority CIL process and conclude that the CCG does not wish to raise an objection to the proposed development providing their comments are considered in conjunction with the current application process.

Essex Police 3.31 The response from Essex Police (dated 20 October 2020) requests the

opportunity to review each site separately once the proposals have been progressed to ensure a consistent approach. Essex Police recognise the


Pg 27

complexity and challenges the existing town centre offers and view this as an opportunity for Southend-on-Sea to thrive and become a vibrant location for people to visit, achieving an ambitious long-term vision that delivers high quality and sustainable development.

3.32 Essex Police note the economic benefits from construction and occupation of new homes along with employment opportunities for new and existing businesses. They also note that it is important to create a sense of place, build communities with the provision of accessible services and facilities and encourage walking and cycling. Design should seek to avoid anti-social behaviour.

3.33 If approved, the development should be designed incorporating maximum achievable benefit of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for which Secured by Design (SBD) is the preferred enabler. The developer is encouraged to achieve Secured by Design Commercial Developments 2015 Version 2 for the commercial aspects of the development and Secured by Design Homes 2019 Version 2, March 2019 for the residential elements. Park SmartTM accreditation for new car parking areas.

3.34 A planning obligation to mitigate additional demands on policing is requested.

Essex County Fire & Rescue Service 3.35 Make the following relevant observations:

1 Access: it is not possible to comment on access for Fire Service Appliances given the plans do not provide sufficient detail. This will be considered at the detailed design stage.

2 Water supplies: Additional water supplies for firefighting may be necessary for the development and the applicant should liaise with ECF&RS in this regard.

3 Sprinkler systems: Urges the developer to consider the installation of Automatic Water Suppressions Systems.

Network Rail 3.36 Network Rail note that the proposed development has potential to affect Network

Rail infrastructure at Southend Victoria Station and require that an Asset Protection Agreement is agreed. Network Rail make a number of detailed comments in relation to ensuring the proposal does not adversely affect Network Rail infrastructure. These comments relate to: future maintenance; plant and materials; scaffolding; fencing; noise and vibration; and landscaping.

Southend Airport 3.37 Southend Airport initially commented (on 6 October 2020) to confirm that it was

working with the developer to obtain additional information necessary to consider impacts on the operation of the airport. Subsequent correspondence (on 8 October) noted that Southend Airport had requested information related to existing buildings in the area and the location of proposed new buildings. This information was requested to enable the airport to consider whether they could


Pg 28

apply a shadowing/shielding principle to assess the proposed development in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). It also confirmed that the development would need to be assessed against the Instrument Flight Procedures to ensure that the development does not cause an impact.

3.38 Comments dated 9 November 2020 requesting that a shadowing/shielding assessment and an Instrument Flight Procedures assessment be undertaken in respect of the proposed building heights and cranes to be used during the construction of the development. It noted Southend Airport would object to the proposed development unless the assessments and any resultant necessary changes to building and crane heights could be secured via planning.

3.39 Following this consultation response and applicant undertook the requested assessments and the maximum height of buildings were reduced. A further response from Southend Airport was received (dated 5 March 2021). This response confirms that the proposed development would not conflict with safeguarding criteria providing that any planning permission granted is subject to the following conditions:

“Any changes to the proposed development may require further assessments to be conducted prior to construction. Any changes must be notified to The Airport Authority for review.

Cranes have been assessed against specific locations, any changes to those locations must be notified to the Airport Authority and further assessments may be required.

Any cranes required for construction must be limited to operate no taller than 114.2m AOD.

Any cranes associated with the development (including those under 114.2m AOD) must follow the relevant process for approval from the aerodrome authority prior to their operation.

Any cranes requiring to operate above 114.2m AOD must be notified to the Airport Authority, individually for review. Further assessments will be required, depending on the height and location of the crane, to understand any impacts and whether the crane can be permitted. The developer should ensure plenty of time is allowed for the Airport Authority to review each crane. The Airport Authority would suggest no less than 10 weeks prior to the planned lift. Please note assessments are carried out by third party consultants, they may attract a cost for the developer and The Airport Authority is not in control of their timescales for completion of assessments.

Given the intended programme for the construction of the development, regulatory changes may be introduced between now and the project completion. Any changes that are introduced may require further assessments to be undertaken, this may include cranes that have already been permitted to operate.


Pg 29

A number of Instrument Flight Procedures are currently with the CAA for review and approval, any changes requested by the CAA may require further assessments to be completed.”

Anglian Water 3.40 Anglian Water has responded to the consultation indicating that there is foul and

waste water capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Anglian Water confirm that the “surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable” and request that “the agreed strategy is reflected in the planning approval”. Anglian Water recommended the following condition if planning permission is to be granted:

“Hard-standing areas to be constructed until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.

3.41 In addition, Anglian Water also request that five informatives are included on the Decision Notice.

Cadent Gas (Gas Utilities) and National Grid 3.42 The response from Cadent confirms that an assessment has been carried out

with respect to Cadent Gas Limited, National Grid Electricity Transmission plc's and National Grid Gas Transmission plc's apparatus. The assessment identifies that there are gas utilities apparatus in the vicinity of the application site which may be affected by the proposed development. The response states that the contractor should contact Cadent before any works are carried out to ensure the apparatus is not affected by any proposed works. No planning conditions were suggested.

Essex Badger Protection Group 3.43 The Essex Badger Protection Group have no recent records of badger activity in

the area. Whilst the group do not have any formal comment to make on the development, they comment that the development must be subject to a full environmental habitat survey and that it will be essential to ensure that badgers have not migrated into the site prior to construction.

Essex Wildlife Trust 3.44 The response confirms that Essex Wildlife Trust have no comments to make on

this application.

Castle Point Borough Council 3.45 The response confirms that Castle Point does not wish to comment on the

proposal.


Pg 30

Council Responses

Highways3.46 Vectos reviewed the planning application on behalf of the Council (as Highways

Authority). The response confirms that officers have considered the applicants information, contained within the planning application, and “a balanced view has been taken of the impacts of the development on the local highway network, including those which are of a negative nature. It is considered overall that the progressive nature of this application, which responds positively to strategic objectives for sustainable development, would not have a severe impact on the highway network.”

3.47 Vectos conclude that the development “is likely to lead to a step-change in the sustainable transport environment of the area, and its residents and visitors are more likely to use sustainable transport as a means of travelling.”

3.48 The response notes the focus of the application to improve pedestrian permeability within the town centre, which has been facilitated by the aim of reducing traffic speeds on Queensway, redesigning the road and junctions to add a sense of place and encourage lower speeds through street design. In respect of pedestrians and cyclists, the response concludes that “the development has potential to significantly improve the street environment for walking and cycling, making walking and cycling a substantially more attractive proposition for people travelling to and from the development.”

3.49 The site is noted to be well served by public transport. The sustainable location of the site, together with Census data showing low levels of car ownership within the area (41% of households in the area did not own a car in 2011, compared to 20% of households in all of Southend) is considered by the Highways Authority to justify the proposed car parking provision (0.7 spaces per dwelling). The response recommends that parking be monitored as part of the Travel Plan and that a CPZ is created to control on street parking.

3.50 In respect of impacts on the traffic and highway network, the response confirms that the Highway Authority “would require the establishment of a Highway Strategy Group to consider the traffic impact of the scheme and how it could be mitigated, including consideration of travel plan monitoring, how to allocate the travel plan fund, and a contribution. To pay, if required and on request by the Council, a contribution, to be negotiated, towards additional mitigation to be provided by the Council in the form of upgrades to the following junctions, and periodic surveys: Western arm of Queensway/Southchurch Road Roundabout – conversion to

signal crossings Sutton Road/Southchurch Road northern arm – conversion to signal crossing Bournemouth Park Road/ Southchurch Road – conversion to MOVA The contribution to also cover periodic travel surveys of the VISSM modelled

area, in line with the Travel Plan monitoring, and any subsequent behavioural change intervention that is required”


Pg 31

3.51 The response notes that should development proceed, a number of planning conditions and obligations should be used to mitigate the impacts of development. These relate to: Detailed designs for speed cushions and junctions being produced and

agreed with SBC; Stage 2 Road Safety Audit being carried out and the recommendations

incorporated into the designs; Provision of the north, south and east arms of the Queensway/Southchurch

Road roundabout to be served by signalised (toucan) crossings rather than zebra crossings;

Provision of a Car Parking Management Strategy; Delivery of a Car Parking Zone; Detailed Travel Plans for each phase of development (monitoring to be

secured via Section 106 Agreement); Provision of Travel Packs to the first occupier of each residential unit,

including details of local bus and rail operators, taxi companies, community transport, school transport operators, free travel tickets for bus, train and also free car club driving hours;

Provision of at least two car club parking spaces; Agreement of a Construction Management Plan.

Travel Plans 3.52 Comments from the Council’s Travel Plans team conclude that the Travel Plan

provided by the applicant will be acceptable when minor comments outlined in the response (related to legibility of images and making travel information available to residents and businesses prior to occupancy) have been addressed. New Travel Plans related to any future Reserved Matters Applications are requested given the phased nature of the development.

3.53 The scope of a Travel Pack to be provided to residents and business prior to occupation is confirmed in the response and the Travel Pack and a monitoring fee of £5,000 per year is requested to form part of the Section 106 Agreement.

Viability 3.54 BNP Paribas carried out an independent assessment of, and provided a review

(dated February 2021) of, the submitted Affordable Housing Viability Assessment submitted by the applicant. The review provides a current day appraisal and a growth appraisal. They conclude: Current Day Appraisal: “our proposed scheme appraisal generates a negative

residual land value of c. £36.12m and when benchmarked against a site value of £18.49m, the proposed scheme generates a deficit of c. £54.61m.”

Growth Appraisal: “our proposed scheme appraisal generates a residual land value of c. £0.84m and when benchmarked against a site value of £18.49m, the proposed scheme generates a deficit of c. £17.65m.”


Pg 32

3.55 Overall, the response concludes that the appraisal scenarios demonstrate “the proposed scheme cannot support more than 17.70% affordable housing via the scheme’s Section 106 agreement.”

Housing 3.56 The Council’s Strategic Housing Team provided interim responses prior to receipt

of the BNP Paribas’s review of the Financial Viability Assessment (see above). The final response notes the affordable units proposed on site (300 social/affordable rent units and 12 shared equity units) and the additional affordable units (300) proposed to be subject to separate arrangements between the applicant and the council. It states that the 300 additional units are not considered for the purpose of affordable housing, and the proposed development represents a provision of 17.7% affordable housing (falling short of the 30% policy requirement).

3.57 With regard to the amount of affordable housing proposed, the response notes that:

“The applicant has submitted a viability assessment which has been independently reviewed which concludes the site generates a significant deficit when assessed on current day values and a growth analysis.

It is noted that a review mechanism is currently being negotiated within the Sn 106 which will seek an increase in the affordable housing provision from the 17.7 % should the viability status of the scheme improve. Therefore, the Strategic Housing Team is supportive of the 17.7% affordable housing which has been proposed.”

3.58 In respect of housing mix, the final response notes that the applicant has proposed a dwelling mix of predominantly 1 and 2-bed properties for the affordable element which reflects the existing 1 and 2-bed units on site. This focus on 1 and 2-bed units is considered suitable given the “nature of flatted blocks combined with the location of the development in close proximity to the town centre, amenities, and transport hubs”.

3.59 The Strategic Housing Team confirms that the “the offer [of] 10 x 3 bedroom units represents an increase on what is currently built” and conclude in relation to housing mix that:

“The Strategic Housing Team is supportive of the proposed dwelling mix on the basis that the 1 & 2 bedroom units are better suited to this type of accommodation and location, combined with the overall increase of 3+ bedroom units within the proposed development compared to the existing scheme.”

3.60 The Strategic Housing Team note that the proposed affordable housing does not meet the policy requirement (60:40 rented:intermediate) and conclude that the variation from policy DM7 is justified and supported in order to re-provide the rented accommodation which is currently on site.

3.61 The Strategic Housing Team require that each affordable housing unit meets the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard”.


Pg 33

Strategic Planning 3.62 With regard to principle, the Council’s Strategic Planning team note the principle

of wholesale regeneration of the site was considered during the production of the Southend Central Area Action Plan (2018). “This is detailed in Policy PA4: Queensway Policy Area Development Principles and Opportunity Site PA4.1 Better Queensway. This allocation in the Council’s adopted development plan, recognises the potential of the site for comprehensive redevelopment, to transform it into a modern social-housing led development with supporting community and secondary town centre uses. It also recognises the potential of the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to create an enhanced local environment, PA4.3.i (a-f) setting out some key principles that the redevelopment could incorporate to enhance the local area, including (b) ‘fully integrate with the surrounding area through the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes to improve access and linkages’, and (d) ‘provide for comprehensive landscaping through the creation of linked public green space…’. These are elements that are also picked up within Policy PA4 more generally, (1a) promoting residential and supporting uses that deliver the aims for the Policy Area, (1e) promoting the provision of new social and community infrastructure…, as well as promoting access and public realm improvements including, (2b) improve connectivity and legibility to aid way finding and create a high quality pedestrian and cycle environment, enhancing links with the High Street, Elmer Square, Warrior Square, Victoria Station, Victoria and Sutton Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Areas.”

3.63 The open space strategy is noted to have given consideration to connections through the site and recognised to be an important element of the scheme when the detailed design is finalised. The existing and numerous barriers to pedestrian and cycle movement are noted and the Officer notes that “the wholesale regeneration of the area offers significant potential to addresses this, improving the quality of the local environment for residents both within the development and in neighbouring areas. This should continue to be a key element of proposals, through to detailed design stage. Improving connections to the High Street, Victoria Railway Station and bus interchange, and providing legible links to the Warrior Square public open space to provide a network of green spaces in the central area of the town are important elements of this, together with the connections to surrounding residential development.”

3.64 The proposed development is noted to be residential-led with a substantial uplift in homes. The development is noted to provide potential for good quality residential accommodation in a highly sustainable location, in the Central Area of the Borough and adjacent to the High Street.

3.65 The response notes that the Core Strategy (2007), in setting out the spatial strategy for the Borough (Policy KP1: Spatial Strategy), also supports Southend Town Centre and Central Area as the primary focus of regeneration and growth within the Borough, recognising the potential of this area for residential growth.


Pg 34

Economic Development 3.66 Planning obligations requested in relation to: employment and skills;

apprenticeships; local labour; and supply chains. Request a Section 106 clause requiring the applicant / their suppliers and sub-contractors to use SECTA and/or other Southend Council and partnership schemes for recruitment associated with the development.

Education 3.67 The Council’s education team provided two consultation responses. The first

notes the application falls within the catchment areas of Porters Grange Primary and Southchurch High School. Both schools have little capacity and would require expansion to accommodate the development. As this development would add to the number being planned for, a Section 106 contribution of £1,285,761.14 is requested towards primary and secondary education. The request is calculated based on net additional housing. The second consultation response confirms that the only contribution that will be sought for education is for secondary school provision (£718,118.05 based on the current formula).

Parks and Open Spaces3.68 The Council’s Parks and Open Spaces team provided three consultation

responses. The first (dated 9 October 2020) queried the suitability of the proposed Scots Pines within the central reservation and questioned the merits of tree planting within the central reservation due to ongoing maintenance costs.

3.69 It requested that details related to the following are agreed at a later date: shrub planting in the central reservation; amenity tree planting; herbaceous planting areas; and play areas. No planning conditions were suggested.

3.70 The second response (dated 12 February 2021) provided further detail to the team’s first consultation response. The responses notes that if tree planting within the central reservation is considered “central to the design of the scheme then there should be allowance to cover the ongoing TM [Traffic Management] costs. This is estimated at £5,000 per occasion.” This is included within the Section 106 Heads of Terms.

3.71 Shrub planting within the central reservation is noted to be acceptable and the detail of the planting (including species) should be reserved. The selection of trees and herbaceous planting is also requested to be reserved for later determination.

3.72 In respect of park areas, the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces team note that all equipment should be robust and durable with a reasonable life expectancy and should factor in the possibility of damage by vandalism. Park areas are required to be subject to a management and maintenance plan, details of which “could be agreed at a later time but would be expected to include horticultural operations to be carried out, frequency of work, litter/waste management, environmental sustainability, positive contribution to pollinators/biodiversity.”


Pg 35

3.73 The third response (dated 17 March 2021) confirms the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces team has no objection to the proposed development.

Design and Conservation Officer 3.74 In respect of the outline element of the application, the Design and Conservation

Officer considers that the maximum heights Parameter Plan and Design Code will provide an appropriate scale and form of development for this town centre site.

3.75 The Design and Conservation Officer notes that maximum building heights have been significantly refined during the design process to ensure that the tallest elements are localised and building heights are stepped to provide a positive transition to the surrounding context. The location of the tallest buildings adjacent to Victoria Railway Station and in the western/central part of the site is considered to be an appropriate response to the context of the site, where the buildings can act as markers for the town centre and station. The taller elements are noted to terminate key views and support legibility and navigation of the site.

3.76 The Design and Conservation Officer notes the significant increase in density and recognises that this is achieved through more efficient use of the site, more extensive footprints and range of building heights is conducive to the town centre environment.

3.77 The reduction in maximum building heights towards the eastern, north and southern boundaries is considered to provide a positive transition to the finer grain and densities of neighbouring residential streets in these locations. The Design and Conservation Officer considers this to be an appropriate response to the wider context of the site which will reduce the impact on views out of the Warrior Square Conservation Area.

3.78 The Design and Conservation Officer confirms that the scheme generally maintains an appropriate balance of height and massing and therefore does not appear over bulky in the streetscene. Recognised design solutions for achieving this include through the Design Code include “restricting frontage lengths depending on number of storeys, minimum offsets between buildings, requiring a range of building heights including low rise elements and gaps to provide definition to the taller blocks”.

3.79 The proposed mix of uses is considered suitable for a town centre location and capable of creating a balanced and vibrant new community. The Design and Conservation Officer recognises the location of the site outside of the core of Southend Town Centre and questions whether it would be beneficial to have a commitment to a minimum level of non-residential uses, such as community uses and local facilities necessary to ensure that a balanced community is created.

3.80 The location of commercial uses on primary frontages is considered entirely appropriate and noted to ensure these areas are animated and safe routes for pedestrians.

3.81 The arrangement and proposed public space is considered to be appropriate. The Design and Conservation Officer considers that the areas of new public open


Pg 36

space appear to provide an acceptable proportion and arrangement of public space in relation to the scale of development. The officer notes that it will be essential to maintain a convenient and attractive and safe crossing point for pedestrians and cyclists between the two open spaces north and south of the Queensway.

3.82 The tertiary routes shown on the Access Parameter Plan are considered to enable access into the centres of the development areas and to break up the scale of the built form. The alignment of one of the proposed routes with Warrior Square East (to the south) is considered to reinforce the historic pattern of development which was lost through the current 1960s development. The access and design detail set out within the Design Code is considered to positively reinforce the hierarchy of streets and to provide safe routes across the site for pedestrians and cyclists.

3.83 The Design and Conservation Officer confirms that the Design Code is key in ensuring the development overall is of a high standard and that it results in the positive regeneration of the area. The key elements and commitments are noted by the Design and Conservation Officer. Queries in relation to the width of defensible space and whether all podiums should be required to provide soft landscaping have been responded to by the applicant and the Design Code has been revised to confirm that all podiums “should” be soft landscaped. The Design and Conservation Officer also note that it would be beneficial if the hard landscaping to station plaza is positively linked with the Victoria’s scheme to the west.

3.84 In respect of heritage, the Design and Conservation Officer notes that Queensway, the underpass and in particular the visual clutter of the associated structures and barriers have a significant and detrimental impact on the setting of the historic buildings adjacent to the site. The existing tower blocks, which are considered to be of a poor design and deteriorating condition, are isolated point blocks and the only tall buildings in the vicinity of the heritage assets. These monolithic buildings are therefore very prominent features in the skyline and have a negative impact on the setting of historic buildings. The officer confirms that design of the highways and new buildings has the potential for significant improvement to the setting of the historic buildings in and close to the site. This is due to a combination of factors including the reduced barrier and improved visual impact of the highway including public realm works, the requirement for high quality design and materials for all the new buildings, ensuring the tallest elements of the proposal are limited in footprint, recessive in form and more remote from the key heritage assets. It is also noted that overall, the variety of scales and heights across the site will provide a more contextual backdrop for the tallest elements of the scheme and these will no longer be seen as isolated features within a low density environment. Therefore, whilst the development will still form part of the setting of the historic buildings, the reduced impact of the highway and the improvements in design and form will provide them with a significantly enhanced context as compared to the existing situation.

3.85 The officer notes a number of heritage impacts of the proposal. The removal and replacement of highways infrastructure and replacement landscaped at grade


Pg 37

routes is considered to have a significant positive effect on heritage assets by reducing the impact of highway infrastructure on the setting of heritage assets. The proposed creation of public space in front of All Saints Church is considered to dramatically improve the setting of the All Saints Church and Porters, allowing these buildings to be better appreciated in the street scene and reinforce their roles as local landmarks.

3.86 The proposed introduction of a new public open space (Porter’s Park) next to Colman Street Church is considered to improve the setting of this locally listed building.

3.87 Increased linkages across the site are welcomed, particularly where they align with the historic street pattern including Warrior Square East. The proposal is considered to benefit Warrior Square Conservation Area through the removal of the existing poor quality towers which cause harm to views out of the conservation area. The reduction in heights in the areas closest to Warrior Square is supported and the officer notes that ensuring high quality design of new buildings visible from Warrior Square Conservation Area will be important.

3.88 Overall, the officer considers that the proposal has a number of significant benefits for the heritage assets within and near to the site.

Environmental Health 3.89 Observations:

1 The Air Quality Assessment Report by Barton Willmore dated July 2020 has been reviewed and is acceptable with negligible impact. A Construction Management Plan will be required to mitigate and minimise risk from dust during all Construction phases.

2 The Noise Impact Assessment Report by Spectrum Acoustics dated July 2020 has been reviewed and is acceptable. It meets BS 8233;2014 internal levels only. Noise Impact from Construction Methods and Mitigation is required. Adequate Vibration mitigation methods should be considered to mitigate Noise/Vibration impacts on residential amenity adjacent to the Railway. A Demolition and Construction Management Plan is required for all phases.

3 The Phase 1 Geo- Environmental Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment by Mott Mcdonald Ltd (MML) dated July 2020 has been reviewed. The report does not provide all the information as the site may be contaminated in relation to the intended use of the land due to contaminants in made ground and gas movement, so that the site will not qualify as contaminated under Part 2A Environmental Protection Act 1990. A Phase 2 Assessment will be required.

4 The Lighting Strategy by Cundall dated 17/08/2020 includes Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) guidance for reduction of obstructive light to demonstrate that there is no adverse impact.

5 The Waste Management Plan by Barton Willmore has been reviewed and more information is required via planning condition.


Pg 38

6 The site is in Flood Zone 1 and at a low risk of flooding.

3.90 Conditions are recommended relating to: air quality; noise and odour impact; land contamination; light pollution; waste, refuse and recycling; flood risk; and Construction Method Statement (including: control of dust nuisance during construction works; no waste to be burnt on site; Dust Management Plan; and hours of work).

Waste Management 3.91 The Council's Waste Management Team provided two sets of responses. The

first response noted that the applicant needs to demonstrate how the anticipated volume of waste being produced will be managed in accordance with SBC guidelines and highlighted that the council needs to be satisfied that there will be sufficient bin provision and collection arrangements. The response requests that bulky waste disposal and management is addressed and that mechanisms to monitor onsite facilities management are clarified. No conditions were suggested and the second response confirmed the Council's Waste Management Team has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions and controls that will be dealt with through the Reserved Matters Applications.

Council’s SuDS Engineers and Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) 3.92 On behalf of the Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority) AECOM reviewed the

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (dated 31 July 2020). The initial comments (dated 6 November 2020) requested additional information and clarifications from the applicant and concluded that it had no objections to the application, subject to planning conditions related to the detailed design of a surface water drainage scheme being attached to any planning permission.

3.93 The detailed design of a surface water drainage scheme is requested to include: evidence of infiltration testing in accordance with BRE 365; information related to the potential ground instability or deterioration in ground water quality as a result of infiltration (if infiltration is found to be viable); provide evidence of formal agreement from Southend Borough Council to adopt relevant parts of the proposed drainage; provide evidence of consent from Anglian Water for the proposed discharge rates and connection points; provide confirmation of the party or parties responsible for maintenance of the SuDS system; and provide details of how surface water will be maintained during construction.

3.94 The second consultee response (dated 23 February 2021) confirms that the LLFA does not object to the planning application in terms of local flood risk or drainage subject to the following conditions being attached:

“Prior to commencement of construction (with the exception of demolition), in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Civic Engineers, 31st July 2020, Document Ref: BEQ-CIV-XX-XX-XX RP- D-ST-00001) detailed design of a surface water drainage scheme incorporating the following measures shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority.


Pg 39

The approved scheme will be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development. The scheme shall address the following matters:

• Provide evidence of infiltration testing in accordance with BRE 365. If infiltration is found to be viable provide information in relation to the potential for ground instability or deterioration in groundwater quality as a result of infiltration.

• Provide evidence of a formal agreement from Southend Borough Council to adopt the relevant parts of the proposed drainage.

• Provide evidence of consent from Anglian Water for the proposed discharge rates and connection points for the proposed drainage.

• Provide confirmation of the party or parties responsible for maintenance of the SuDS system.

• Provide details of how surface water will be managed during construction.

• Provide an updated drainage layout plan which corresponds with the supporting calculations.”

3.95 Funding towards maintenance of the attenuation tank, swales and SuDS features and flow devices are requested. Commuted maintenance sums will be secured via Section 106 Agreement.

Culture and Tourism 3.96 The Council’s Head of Arts and Cultural Wellbeing notes that there is an agreed

plan between the Council and applicant to provide affordable artist workspace within the development. This should be included in the Section 106 Agreement as Affordable Artists’ Workspace in order to protect this element around affordability for artists and creative practitioners. “The workspaces would be constructed in accordance with an agreed artists’ workspace specification and retained for this use. Artists’ workspaces would be managed by an Arts Workspace Operator. Community and arts event space should be constructed in accordance with an agreed specification and retained for this use.” Public art is noted to be provided within the development in addition to public realm improvements. Public art will be secured via Section 106 Agreement.

3.97 No planning conditions are suggested.

Archaeology 3.98 Feedback from the Council's Archaeology Officer concludes that whilst the

archaeological potential across the site is low, there is a small chance that there will be some ground archaeology uncovered. A watching brief for those parts of the development where digging vertically or laterally into the ground is required is recommended to be undertaken as part of the construction works.

Asset Management 3.99 Feedback from the council’s Asset Management team confirms no objection to

the proposed development.


Pg 40

4.0 Relevant Planning History

4.1 The site has extensive planning history. The most relevant planning history comprises: 20/00703/RSO – EIA Scoping Opinion related to the current proposal (27 July

2020) 14/01746/PA3CO – The Southchurch Centre, 93-99 Southchurch Road:

Change of use of first and second floors of existing office use (Class B1) to 16 self-contained flats (Class C3) under Prior Notification of Class J (Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (As Amended) Class, J, Part 3, Schedule 2) – Prior Approval Granted (16 December 2014)

13/00008/DEM – Queensway House: Demolish Queensway House and multi-storey car park (Application for Prior Approval for Demolition) – Prior Approval Granted (5 February 2013)

4.2 Full details of planning history for the site are provided at Appendix 2.


Pg 41

5.0 Planning Policy Summary and Material Considerations

Development Plan5.1 This hybrid application is assessed in accordance with Section 38(6) of the

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) which requires that development proposals must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant development plans for Southend comprise the Core Strategy (2007), the Development Management Document (2015), and Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP, 2018) noting that relevant saved policies in the Borough Local Plan (1994) have been superseded by policies within these documents.

5.2 The Core Strategy is dated 2007 and was adopted prior to the current NPPF (2019) and previous versions (2012 and 2018). The NPPF (Para. 73) confirms that Local Planning Authorities should identify a 5 year Housing Land Supply using the standard methodology set out in national guidance. Accordingly, policies relating to housing contained within the Core Strategy, particularly relating to the quantum and distribution of housing are considered to be out of date. Similarly, policies relating to housing as set out in the Development Management Document are also considered to be out of date.

5.3 Similarly, the Development Management Document (2015) was adopted more than five years ago pursuant to the Core Strategy and pursuant to the two previous latest iterations of the NPPF (2018 and 2019). Accordingly, the policies related to housing development are considered to be out of date.

5.4 The SCAAP was adopted within the last five years (in 2018) and is not considered out of date.

5.5 The Essex Waste Plan (2017) also forms part of Southend’s development plan but this includes no relevant policies for the consideration of this application.

Emerging Plans5.6 A New Southend-on-Sea Local Plan - Planning for Growth and Change, is in

preparation with an Issues and Options paper the subject of consultation in April 2019. The next stage of plan preparation is Refining Options, expected in Q3 of 2021, whilst the publication of a Preferred Approach consultation document is due to follow in Q1 2022. These timescales are subject to approval and may change. The proposed submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Examination is estimated for 2023.

5.7 However, the very early nature of this document is noted and given this (in particular, its pre-examination status), and in accordance with the guidance in the NPPF (paragraph 48), no weight is given to this emerging Plan in the consideration of this application.

5.8 The Council, along with Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Rochford, Thurrock and Essex County Council, are preparing a South Essex Joint Strategic Framework, but to date no formal consultation has been carried out. Again, no weight is given to this emerging document in the consideration of this application.


Pg 42

Material Considerations5.9 Several other strategic and local documents are material to this application. The

National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) and National Design Guide (2019) documents set out Government policies and explain how they should be applied. The Council’s Design and Townscape (2009); its Streetscape Manual (2015); and its Planning Obligations, A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions (2015), are relevant material considerations. In addition, the Council’s Southend Car Parking Strategy (2018) provides relevant guidance, also material to the determination of this application.

Development Plan Policy5.10 A full schedule of development plan policies relevant to the application proposals

is provided at Appendix 3. This includes an appraisal of the proposals against each policy objective. The policies inform the key planning considerations that are identified and assessed in Section 6.0 of this report, where the outcome of this appraisal is referenced. The full schedule of policies is not repeated here, and reference should be made to Appendix 3 for this information. The exception to this approach is regarding Policy PA4 of the SCAAP (2018) that provides a specific policy in respect of the development of the application site. This policy is considered to be critical to the assessment of the application and identifies the majority of the site as an Opportunity Site.

5.11 The ability of the application proposals to satisfy the detailed requirements of this policy will help inform an appraisal of the scheme’s contribution towards satisfying other wider policy objectives in the Plan. The Council’s Spatial Strategy and Development Principles (Policy KP1 and KP2 of the Core Strategy) are also considered to be particularly relevant. For ease of reference, an account of Policy PA4 is reported in full, below.

Core Strategy (2007)5.12 Relevant policies:

1 Policy KP1 – Spatial Strategy2 Policy KP2 – Development Principles3 Policy KP3 – Implementation and Resources4 Policy CP1 – Employment Generating Development5 Policy CP2 – Town Centre and Retail Development6 Policy CP3 – Transport and Accessibility7 Policy CP4 – The Environment and Urban Renaissance8 Policy CP6 – Community Infrastructure9 Policy CP7 – Sport, Recreational and Green Space10 Policy CP8 – Dwelling Provision

Development Management Document (2015)5.13 Relevant policies:


Pg 43

1 Policy DM1 – Design Quality2 Policy DM2 – Low Carbon development and Efficient use of Resources3 Policy DM3 – The efficient and effective use of land4 Policy DM4 – Tall and Large buildings5 Policy DM5 – Southend-on-Sea’s Historic Environment6 Policy DM7 – Dwelling mix, size and type7 Policy DM8 – Residential standards8 Policy DM10 – Employment Sectors 9 Policy DM11 – Employment areas10 Policy DM13 – Shopping Frontage Management outside the Town Centre11 Policy DM14 – Environmental Protection12 Policy DM15 – Sustainable Transport Management

Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP) (2018)5.14 Relevant policies:

1 Policy DS1 – A Prosperous Retail Centre2 Policy DS2 – Key Views3 Policy DS3 – Landmarks and Landmark Buildings4 Policy DS4 – Flood Risk management and sustainable Drainage5 Policy DS5 – Transport Access and Public Realm6 Policy PA1 – High Street Policy Area Development Principles7 Policy PA2 – London Road Policy Area Development Area Principles8 Policy PA4 – Queensway Policy Area Development Principles9 Policy PA9 – Sutton Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Area Development

Principles

5.15 Small areas of the site are within the High Street, London Road and Sutton Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Areas. However, the vast majority of the site is located within the Queensway policy area. Policy PA4, which is the site-specific policy for the Queensway policy area, states:

“1. The Council, through its role in determining planning applications, masterplanning, and other initiatives, will:

a. promote residential and supporting uses that deliver the aims for the Policy Area;

b. support well-designed, sustainable buildings appropriate to the location in terms of use, scale, massing and detailed design and contribute positively to successful place making;


Pg 44

c. ensure that development will not result in a net loss of affordable housing provision, which includes the re-provision of social housing, as part of the regeneration of the area;

d. support proposals for well-designed refurbishment or redevelopment of retail and commercial frontages to Southchurch Road, that are compatible with the Secondary Shopping Frontage designations;

e. promote the provision of new social and community infrastructure, which may include facilities such as community centres and clubs, doctor and dental surgeries, and nurseries and childcare provision;

f. support new commercial development and community uses that provide activity to ground floor including offices to upper floors, along Essex Street and Chichester Road where they contribute to the aims for the policy area;

g. promote energy efficiency as appropriate, including opportunity for decentralised energy supply, and the retrofit of existing development in line with local policy;

h. ensure that new development respects the views, setting and character of all designated and non-designated heritage assets, including listed and locally listed buildings in line with Policy DM5 of the Development Management Document, and landmark buildings located near to the Policy Area, in line with Policy DS2: Key Views and Policy DS3: Landmarks and Landmark Buildings.

2. The Council will promote the following access and public realm improvements, addressing the principles of the Streetscape Manual where applicable:

a. improvements to the streetscape at Chichester Road opposite Victoria Shopping Centre to enhance the setting of new and existing buildings and improve the pedestrian experience, including improved pedestrian crossing points;

b. improve connectivity and legibility to aid way finding and create a high quality pedestrian and cycling environment, enhancing links with the High Street, Elmer Square, Warrior Square, Victoria Station, Victoria and Sutton Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Areas;

c. provision of public art to enhance the urban environment, particularly to the Queensway carriageway frontage and at the junction with Sutton Road;

d. provision for new/ improved pedestrian/ cycle priority link as identified on the Policies Map, together with improved crossings and gateway improvements at the Queensway/Sutton Road Junction, Queensway/Short Street/Chichester Road junction in association with capacity requirements for development on the Better Queensway Opportunity Site (PA4.1);

e. Urban Greening, including improved landscaping, green walls and roofs, and tree planting and establish the Queensway Urban Park, which sensitively addresses and enhances the setting of Porters and All Saints Church, and links well with Warrior Square Policy Area;”

5.16 For the opportunity site, the policy includes the following requirements:


Pg 45

“Within Opportunity Site (PA4.1): ‘Better Queensway’ Project, planning permission will be granted for comprehensive redevelopment of this site to transform it into a modern social housing-led development with supporting community and secondary town centre uses set within an enhanced local environment. The development will:

a. re-establish the historic urban grain of the area;

b. fully integrate with the surrounding area through the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes to improve access and linkages;

c. incorporate climate change mitigation and sustainability measures;

d. provide for comprehensive landscaping through the creation of linked public green space and the Queensway Urban Park;

e. provide for new/improved open space fronting Chichester Road and at Coleman Street;

f. provide for a comprehensive drainage system.”

5.17 As above, the tables at Appendix 3 set out the relevant policies in more detail and provide a commentary to assess how the proposed development relates to the policy objectives.

Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy5.18 The National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) sets out the

Government’s planning policies and explains how they should be applied. It states that the purpose of the planning system is “to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development” (paragraph. 7). Paragraph 8 sets out the three dimensions of sustainable development; ‘economic’ in helping to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, ‘social’ in supporting strong communities and providing the supply of housing required for present and future generations, and ‘environmental’ in protecting and enhancing the environment.

5.19 Fundamental to the assessment of this application the NPPF identifies a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 10). Plans and local decisions should apply this presumption in favour of sustainable development, and where development proposals accord with an up-to-date-plan, they should be approved without delay (paragraph 11c). Where policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date (including where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below the housing requirement over the previous three years – as is the case for Southend Borough Council), paragraph 11d goes on to state that planning permission should be granted unless “i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”


Pg 46

5.20 Also fundamental to the assessment of this application, Paragraph 59 states that to support the Government’s objective of “significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.” Paragraph 63 goes on to support the re-use of brownfield land.

5.21 Under the economic dimension of sustainable development, paragraph 80 confirms that significant weight should be placed on supporting applications for economic growth and productivity, considering local business needs and the wider opportunities for development. Linked to this, paragraph 85 relates to the vitality of town centres, confirming “planning policies and decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities, by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation”.

5.22 Under Paragraph 118 the NPPF requires decision makers to “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs…”.

5.23 Design is highlighted as an important aspect of planning decision-making, with Paragraph 124 of the NPPF confirming that “the creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities”. Planning decisions should ensure developments function well over the lifetime of the development; are visually attractive; sympathetic to local character and history; establish or maintain a strong sense of place; optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development; and create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible.

5.24 The NPPF states under Paragraph 155 that “inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.

5.25 Section 9 of the NPPF entitled, ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’, highlights a need for developments to encourage walking, cycling and public transport use. Proposals should create places that are safe, secure and attractive; should take into account the delivery of goods and access from emergency services; and, incorporate charging of plug-in and low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations. Paragraph 107 refers to parking standards and confirm, “maximum parking standards for residential or non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development in the city and town centres and other locations well served by public transport”.

5.26 With regard to traffic impact, Paragraph 109 makes it clear that “Development should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable


Pg 47

impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.

5.27 Paragraph 170 emphasises the need to conserve and protect the natural environment. Planning decisions should “prevent new and existing development from contributing to, and being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…”. In paragraph 174 of the NPPF, it states that LPAs should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity when determining applications. Paragraph 175 sets out several principles that should be applied. One of the principles is that ‘opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged’.

5.28 With reference to heritage assets, the NPPF continues at Paragraph 184, that “these assets are an irreplaceable source, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.” In determining proposals, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected. “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise…to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

5.29 Paragraph 145 confirms that “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to …. a designated heritage asset, local authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm …. is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm”.

5.30 Paragraph 196 confirms that where harm is less than ‘substantial’, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Effects on non-designated heritage assets also should be considered (Paragraph 197) in the overall balance. Case law established that considerable weight and importance should be given to any harm to designated heritage assets no matter the extent.

National Planning Practice Guidance 5.31 The online Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), originally introduced in March

2014, sets out guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the policies within the NPPF. This includes further detail on topics including town centre and retail, flood risk, waste and noise, among others.

National Design Guide (2019)5.32 The National Design Guide forms part of the Government’s collection of planning

practice guidance, and details what the Government considers ‘good design’ means in practice. As such it represents a relevant material consideration for the planning application. The Design Guide identifies ten characteristics that contribute to well-designed and well-built places. Paragraph 35 of the Guide states that “well-designed places have individual characteristics which work


Pg 48

together to create its physical character. The ten characteristics help to nurture and sustain a sense of Community. They work to positively address environmental issues affecting Climate. They all contribute towards the cross-cutting themes for good design set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

5.33 The ten characteristics are:1 Context: Well-designed places should enhance the surroundings;2 Identity: Proposals should be attractive and distinctive;3 Built Form: Schemes should adopt a coherent pattern of development with

compact permeable layouts;4 Movement: Schemes should be accessible and easy to move around;5 Nature: Opportunities to enhance and optimise natural assets should be

grasped;6 Public spaces: Spaces should be safe, social and inclusive;7 Uses: Proposed land uses should be mixed and integrated;8 Homes and buildings: Development should be functional, healthy and

sustainable;9 Resources: Well-designed spaces should be efficient and resilient reducing

their resource requirements (including land, energy and water); and,10 Lifespan: Well-designed spaces should be made to last.

Technical Housing Standards – nationally described space standard (2015) and Technical Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement (2015)

5.34 These documents set out the internal space standards that developments are required to meet where new dwellings are being provided and the transitional processes for implementing these standards.

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation) Act 19905.35 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990

states that special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. Section 60 (1) of this Act states for development which affects a Listed Building or its setting that special regard shall be had to the desirability and preserving the building or its setting or any feature of special architectural interest that it possesses.

Design and Townscape Guide (2009)5.36 The Council’s Design and Townscape Guide is a relevant material consideration

for the consideration of this planning application.

5.37 The overarching principle of the Guide is for new developments, renovations, streets and urban spaces to be of a high-quality design and of a sustainable nature, whilst safeguarding and enhancing local character. New developments should be designed to allow access for all; conserve and enhance built heritage


Pg 49

and natural resources; whilst not increasing the risk from climate change and flooding.

5.38 Development in Southend should create a quality, sustainable urban environment, where there is a diversity of activity. Creative design should be used to achieve sustainable development, whilst making the best use of previously developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential and commercial areas.

5.39 The Guide recognises that through development, there can be opportunities to improve pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access. By creating new links and improving existing links, the use of sustainable modes of transport can become more attractive.

5.40 Another key aspect in the Design Guide is the recognition of the importance of protecting and enhancing existing local landmarks and the setting of historic buildings. Views contribute to the character of an area and new developments should open views where possible to increase legibility and help integrate the scheme with the surroundings. Conservation Areas should also be preserved or enhanced, with the Guide recognising the importance of the layout, density and scale of buildings within any new proposal, as well as the relationship of open space, gardens and trees to buildings and streets. Views into and out of an area, focal points, roads, building alignments and landscape features are other aspects that can contribute to an area’s character and it is important these aspects are maintained in proposals.

5.41 Large mixed-use development schemes will be expected to include as part of masterplans, an area of public open space that can be used by the wider community. The document recognises that a well-designed open space which is well designed and landscaped and has a clear function can play a significant role in the creation of a sustainable community. There is a general presumption against developments which lead to the loss of existing open space. The contribution of open spaces to biodiversity is another key area for consideration, achieved through careful landscaping.

5.42 With regards to car parking, the Guide advises that developers should be able to demonstrate that the level of parking provision proposed is adequate and does not visually dominate the scheme. In all types of development, cycle parking should be provided that is safe, secure and weatherproof.

Streetscape (2015)5.43 The Guide aims to reinforce the identity of the Borough by providing a consistent

and high quality approach to the design of new and existing streets in the Borough. It applies the “remove, relocate, rethink” principles to all new and existing schemes to provide a clutter-free environment, make the Borough’s streets and public realm safe and accessible for all. It recognises the needs of vulnerable road users and encourages walking, cycling and other sustainable modes of transport; it seeks to improve the street environment for residents helping to attract visitors to the town and promote the regeneration of the Central Area, whilst also enhancing the Borough’s Green Infrastructure.


Pg 50

5.44 The SPD provides guidance to encourage development proposals to “strike a balance between reducing unnecessary street clutter and hazards, encouraging personal responsibility and community interaction, whilst maintaining the necessary movement of people in and out of vehicles. Where appropriate, the mixing of modes should be encouraged, giving priority to the most vulnerable road users, promoting accessibility to all areas in Southend in a safe, easily navigable way.”

Planning Obligations: A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions (2015)

5.45 This Guide sets out the Council’s approach and priorities in regards to planning obligations and how Section 106 obligations, CIL, planning conditions and Section 278 agreements work together to help achieve sustainable development. The document also provides clarity on what infrastructure will be secured through these mechanisms.

5.46 The document notes that for commercial schemes improvements to transport networks and the wider public realm are likely to be required to serve both employees and other users, while for residential schemes this could include provision to meet increased demands for education and training, health facilities, arts and culture, open space and leisure. A Section 106 Agreement can also secure the provision of affordable housing.

Southend Car Parking Strategy (2018)5.47 The Council commissioned consultants to produce a Borough-wide Parking and

Access Strategy for Southend. The document, published in April 2018, sought to identify how Southend could provide the best experience for residents and visitors to the Borough, with regard to embracing new technologies and car park management techniques.

5.48 As part of its appreciation of prevailing conditions, it confirmed that Southend Central Area has 2,562 spaces in key visitor car parks, serving the Central Seafront and Town Centre. In addition, an additional 580 paid for spaces on street or in private car parks to the south of Southend Central Area were identified. Reference is made to the Gas Works site on the Eastern Esplanade that the Council acquired and has converted to a car park, to provide approximately 200 additional spaces. The Report acknowledges the presence of 2,800 spaces to the north of the Central Area that had the potential to be used by visitors; but in a less convenient location. It concludes that car parking provisions within and around Southend is relatively high, with visitors likely to be able to find a space except for busy peak days when there is a shortage of capacity close to seafront tourist attractions.

5.49 The strategy both acknowledges the allocation of Queensway in the SCAAP for development, and the potential for the proposed improvements to the road to reduce traffic on roads within the core town centre by providing direct access from Queensway to the Warrior Square, Tylers Avenue and York Road car parks (paragraph 3.7).


Pg 51

5.50 With this background established, the Strategy presents a series of Objectives for the Borough, to be incorporated with a Visitor Access and Parking Management Plan.

5.51 Objective 1 of the strategy places its focus on reducing demand for parking by residents in key visitor car parks on peak days and congestion hot spots, encouraging walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives. Objective 2 seeks to improve Communications with travellers before they leave for Southend providing visitors with an online parking map, improved information on the Council’s parking page, improved information and links to journey planners and car parks. Objective 3, the Council aims to improve travel information for visitors during their trip with improved signage at car park entrances, VMS, local area maps for pedestrians at exit points and payment machines. Objective 4 aims to provide a designated traffic management response crew on busy visitor days to manage the circulation of traffic at key junctions. Objective 5 proposes better collection of data of visitor behaviours to allow for a better understanding of the flows of visitors to Southend. Objective 6 considers improved access options such as bike shared docking stations, seafront bus route, seafront pedestrian/cycle route, cycle route signage, highways work such as Queensway improvement works, and improved walking routes. Finally, the Strategy proposes to increase its seasonal park and ride offer (Objective 7).

5.52 The Strategy also proposes a detailed signage strategy, to improve better direct drivers to the most appropriate car parks, especially on days of high demand.

Vehicle Crossing Policy & Application Guidance (2014)5.53 This document sets out the policy and approach to providing vehicle crossings in

development proposals.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule (2015)5.54 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge on new development to help

fund infrastructure such as transport schemes and schools, which the Council, local community and neighbourhoods require to support growth from development. CIL is governed by the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). The Charging Schedule was adopted on 27 July 2015.

Waste Storage, Collection and Management Guide for New Developments (2019)

5.55 The purpose of this Guide is to provide an outline of the waste storage, collection and management criteria that developers should be applying to new developments in Southend.

Historic England: GPA3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) 5.56 This document sets out guidance, against the background of the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the related guidance given in the Planning Practice Guide (PPG), on managing change within the settings of heritage assets, including archaeological remains and historic buildings, sites, areas, and landscapes.


Pg 52

5.57 It gives general advice on understanding setting, and how it may contribute to the significance of heritage assets and allow that significance to be appreciated, as well as advice on how views contribute to setting.

Essex Coast Recreational Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2020)

5.58 The SPD considers the impact of development on Designated Habitats Sites with a potential to have an impact on the birds. All new homes within the Zone of Influence are required to pay a tariff per dwelling to contribute to the Essex Coast RAMS and mitigate likely significant effects from recreational disturbance.


Pg 53

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.1 Within the context of prevailing Development Plan policy and with due regard to other material considerations, that include additional Policy Guidance, planning history and consultee comments, the following key planning considerations relevant to this planning application have been identified.1 Principle of development2 Housing, mix, type and standards3 Transport and accessibility4 Parking5 Design6 Landscaping 7 Townscape and Visual Impact8 Heritage 9 Residential amenity 10 Socio-economic impacts 11 Ecology12 Sustainability13 Other environmental matters 14 within the context of the above, overall compliance with Key Policy PA4.

6.2 Each is addressed in turn.

1) Principle of Development6.3 The site is subject to range of planning policies including the Queensway Policy

Area (Policy PA.4). The overarching aim within the policy areas is to deliver long term regeneration via residential-led mixed use development which creates a vibrant, sustainable neighbourhood with a distinctive character. Central to this is the transformation of the Queensway from an unattractive, overengineered and dominant road which severs this part of Southend to a road which re-connects Central Southend, prioritises vulnerable road uses and promotes walking and cycling. The planning application directly addresses these aspirations. It unlocks the potential of the site in a way that makes the most out of its highly accessible location and delivers multiple benefits for all stakeholders.

6.4 The hybrid nature of the planning application responds directly to the Queensway Policy Area. It provides certainty on the design and delivery of the detailed highway works and provides an appropriate level of flexibility for buildings to be delivered over the anticipated 12-year phased build period.

6.5 The following sections of this assessment consider the principle of the proposed uses.


Pg 54

Residential, including Loss of Existing Residential 6.6 The principle of residential-led redevelopment at the application site is strongly

supported by planning policy at all levels and should carry significant weight in the assessment of the application.

6.7 Paragraph 117 of the NPPF states “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.”

6.8 Paragraph 119 of the NPPF states “Local planning authorities, and other plan-making bodies, should take a proactive role in identifying and helping to bring forward land that may be suitable for meeting development needs, including suitable sites on brownfield registers or held in public ownership, using the full range of powers available to them.”

6.9 The site falls within Southend Central Area and partly within Southend Town Centre. Within the Core Strategy, Policy KP1 identifies Southend Central Area and Southend Town Centre as the primary focus for regeneration and growth within Southend, including for the provision of “at least 2,000 additional homes.” Making the best use of previously developed land is promoted via Policy KP2 and Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy, the latter confirming that “Provision is made for 3,350 net additional dwellings between 2001 and 2011 and for 3,150 net additional dwellings between 2011 and 2021.”

6.10 Within Southend Central Area, the SCAAP outlines the Council’s Vision and Strategic Objectives for the Area. The Strategic Objectives include (No.3) to “increase the number and diversity of people living within Southend Central Area and its Gateway Neighbourhoods by building more homes, and ensure that living in the area becomes appealing to more families with children, supported by social and community infrastructure that contribute to reducing inequalities in health and wellbeing and support all ages to lead independent lives and live healthy lifestyles”.

6.11 This support is carried over in the specific policy for the site (SCAAP Policy PA4). The SCAAP identifies the majority of the application site as falling within the Queensway Policy Area (Policy PA4). The Policy confirms that the Council will “promote residential and supporting uses that deliver the aims for the Policy Area”. It identifies the ‘Better Queensway’ Opportunity Site (ref. PA4.1) as being “suitable primarily for residential development, supported by social and community uses and residential provision” and identifies an indicative number of 1,200 dwellings within it. It goes on to note that within the Opportunity Site planning permission will be granted for comprehensive redevelopment to “transform it into a modern social housing-led development with supporting community and secondary town centre uses set within an enhanced local environment”.

6.12 Given the Core Strategy is more than five years old, pre-dating the NPPF, policy related to the number of homes required to be delivered is out-of-date. Accordingly, the Standard Method (December 2020) applies. This increases the annual housing need of the Borough to 1,181 homes from the level of 325


Pg 55

dwellings per annum stated in Core Strategy Policy CP8, representing a 263% increase and highlighting the pressing need for housing within the Borough. The Government’s latest Housing Delivery Test Results (January 2021) also show that Southend-on-Sea delivered 36% of its total housing requirement between 2017-2020, thereby triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development under the NPPF (Para. 11). Only two Local Planning Authorities in England have a lower Housing Delivery Test Result – Eastbourne (29%) and Epsom and Ewell (34%). Together, this demonstrates a pressing need for housing delivery within the Borough.

6.13 The outline element of the application includes up to 177,650sq.m of new residential floorspace (up to 1,760 new dwellings) and up to 10,000sq.m of non-residential uses. This residential component exceeds the indicative number of dwellings identified in Policy PA4. This is wholly justified given the acute housing need of the Borough and will make a substantial contribution towards providing additional homes. The maximum quantum of new dwellings represents a significant 5.42 years housing supply based on the annual housing requirement stated in the Core Strategy. The proposed development makes effective use of land and will redevelop a previously developed site in a highly accessible and sustainable location. The principle of redeveloping the site for a residential-led mixed use development of this residential quantum is therefore fully acceptable and strongly supported.

6.14 In terms of the loss of existing housing, Policy KP8 states that the Council will “resist development proposals that involve the loss of existing valuable residential resources, having regard to the limited land resources in the Borough, the need to safeguard an adequate stock of single family dwellinghouses, and to protect the character of residential areas”.

6.15 Development Principles for the Queensway Policy Area go on to state that the Council will “ensure that development will not result in a net loss of affordable housing provision, which includes the re-provision of social housing, as part of the regeneration of the area”.

6.16 The existing dwellings on site have a limited mix (100% one- and two-bedroom homes only) and are of poor quality when judged against contemporary standards. Residents of dwellings within the towers have no access to private amenity space and a number of properties along Southchurch Road have been created through ad hoc conversions and extensions.

6.17 The proposed development of the site will result in the loss of 492 dwellings, of which 49% (240 dwellings) provide affordable housing. The affordable dwellings are located within the four residential towers and along Sutton Road.

6.18 The loss of the existing dwellings is required to better utilise the site and optimise the delivery of new dwellings, non-residential floorspace and open space in a sustainable way which meets modern standards and makes this part of Central Southend and the Town Centre a much more attractive place to live, shop and visit.

6.19 The application proposes a net uplift of up to 1,268 dwellings, of which 17.7% will be affordable. This represents a net gain in affordable housing provision (+up to


Pg 56

72 units) when assessed against the maximum parameters and re-provides existing affordable housing on site as required by Policy PA4.1. The loss of existing residential properties is essential to deliver a comprehensive proposal which achieves the objectives of the Queensway Policy Area (Policy PA4). Loss of existing residential properties for the above purpose is therefore fully acceptable in principle.

Employment, Leisure and Event Space 6.20 6,500 jobs are promoted in Southend Town Centre and Central Area between

2001-2021 (Policy KP1).

6.21 Southend Central Area is identified as “the primary location for major economic growth particularly for Class B1 office uses” (Policy DM10). SCAAP Strategic Objective N0. 4 aims to “encourage the establishment and expansion of businesses in Southend Central Area by identifying, promoting or actively bringing forward suitable sites for development to meet modern user and investor requirements.”

6.22 New employment provision is supported in principle within the Queensway Policy Area. Policy PA4 supports “new commercial development and community uses that provide activity to ground floor including offices to upper floors, along Essex Street and Chichester Road where they contribute to the aims for the policy area”.

6.23 The outline parameters allow for up to 5,000sq.m of employment space to be provided. The Land Use Parameter Plan specifies this employment space will comprise workshops, recording studios, brewery, bakery (Use Classes E and B2), office space (Use Class E) and artistic studios (Use Class E).

6.24 The Land Use Parameter Plan caps office space provision to 2,500sq.m GIA and limits the location of light industrial or manufacturing uses (including workshops, recording studios, the brewery and the bakery) to the railway within the north west of the site. This restriction will help to create high-quality and appropriate commercial frontages throughout the development and assist in protecting residential amenity.

6.25 The Land Use Parameter Plan defines that office space and artist studios can be provided throughout the site within the developable areas. This is appropriate and will provide a vibrant mix of non-residential uses and associated activity throughout the site. The provision of artist studios, together with appropriate marketing to support occupancy by artists (to be promoted through the Section 106), will support artists in finding suitable accommodation within Southend and has potential to create an exciting new creative cluster in Central Southend.

6.26 Up to 1,000sq.m of leisure floorspace (Use Class E) and up to 500sq.m of event space (Use Classes E and/or Sui Generis) is also allowed for via the Land Use Parameter Plan throughout the defined developable areas of the site.

6.27 Overall, a wide range of employment, leisure and event spaces are capable of being brought forward via the Reserved Matters. This will significantly support regeneration of the site and create a number of new jobs, contributing towards the Policy objective to provide up to 6,500 new jobs within Southend Town Centre


Pg 57

and Central Area. The principle of new employment, leisure and event space is fully supported.

Retail Space 6.28 Southend Town Centre is identified as the “first preference for all forms of retail

development and for other town centre uses attracting large numbers of people” (Policy CP2).

6.29 Policy CP8 includes the requirement that residential development schemes within the Borough’s town, district and local centres “include replacement and/or new retail and commercial uses, in order to safeguard, maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of these shopping and commercial areas.”

6.30 SCAAP Strategic Objective N0. 6 seeks to “support the viability and vitality of the town centre, so that it remains the first preference for all forms of retail development and for other town centre uses attracting large numbers of people and creates an environment that encourages investment in the Central Area.”

6.31 The Queensway Policy Area Development Principles (Policy PA4) support “proposals for well-designed refurbishment or redevelopment of retail and commercial frontages to Southchurch Road, that are compatible with the Secondary Shopping Frontage designations.” The Better Queensway Opportunity Site specifically identifies shops (Use Class A1 / E) and restaurants/cafes (Use Class A3 / E) as “potential” other uses classes and confirms that the Opportunity Site is considered suitable for supporting retail provision alongside residential.

6.32 The majority of the site is located outside of Southend Town Centre, within 500m (10 minutes) walking distance of the town centre at its furthest point. The majority of existing buildings to the north of Southchurch Road are located within a defined secondary shopping frontage of Southend Town Centre. Within such frontages, Development Management Policy DM13 requires development to maintain or provide for active frontages with a display function for goods and services and that proposed uses provide a direct service to visiting members of the general public.

6.33 The outline element of the application proposes up to 10,000sqm of commercial floorspace, of which up to 5,000sqm could provide retail floorspace within use class E or be Sui Generis. The Land Use Parameter Plan requires that no more than 1,500sqm (GIA) of this floorspace is located outside of the Primary Shopping Area (PSA). This limitation ensures compliance with the sequential approach outlined at Policy CP2 and avoids the need for a retail impact assessment to be carried out and is consistent with this 2020 restructuring of the Use Class Order. The Planning Statement further limits provision of retail floorspace outside of the PSA by confirming that no retail unit outside of the PSA will exceed 500sq.m. These commitments to support the vitality and viability of Southend Town Centre are to be secured via planning conditions.

6.34 The development is considered acceptable and policy compliant in respect of the principle of retail provision.


Pg 58

Community Space, including Loss of Existing 6.35 The Land Use Parameter Plan allows for up to 1,500sq.m of community and

creche/nursery floorspace (Use Class E) to be provided for across the site. At this outline design stage, it is envisaged that the space will provide a nursery, creche or pre-school. The parameters also allow for community floorspace to be provided adjacent to All Saints Church, thereby providing potential to strengthen the civic character of this part of the site.

6.36 The Storehouse Community Centre is located in the north eastern parcel of land between the three residential towers. It provides a range of community services operated by Southend Vineyard Church, including a food bank, family support and worship. The Storehouse is subject to a fixed term lease. Whilst it is anticipated that the occupier will relocate to alternative premises within the local area, the proposed quantum of community floorspace within the proposed development provides an opportunity for a new facility to be provided on the site.

6.37 Policy PA4 promotes provision of new social and community infrastructure, which may include facilities such as community centres, health centres and nurseries and childcare provision. The provision of new community space, and specifically a new nursery, creche or pre-school, is therefore supported. The proposal is therefore acceptable and policy compliant in these regards.

2) Housing mix, type and standards

Housing Mix 6.38 Policy DM7 of the Development Management Document states “all major

residential development is expected to provide a dwelling mix that incorporates a range of dwelling types and bedroom sizes, including family housing, where feasible, to reflect the Borough’s housing need and housing demand.” Policy DM7 sets out the preferred dwelling mix for developments within the Borough, as follows:

Table 6.1 Market Housing

Dwelling size: No. of bedrooms 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bedProportion of dwellings 9% 22% 49% 20%

Table 6.2 Affordable Housing

Dwelling size: No. of bedrooms 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bedProportion of dwellings 16% 43% 37% 4%

6.39 The preferred dwelling mix reflects the recommendations set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2013) and reflects the preferred mix across the entirety of the Borough (i.e. not just Central Southend). Policy DM7 requires that reasons for significant deviation from this mix are justified and demonstrated to the council.


Pg 59

6.40 The proposal seeks to provide the following dwelling mix, as committed to via the Design Code:

Table 6.3 Proposed Unit Mix Range

Housing Type Provision (%) 1 bedroom 40-50%2 bedroom 40-50% 3 bedroom Minimum 10%

6.41 The proposed mix range varies from that specified at Policy DM7 by providing a higher ratio of 1 and 2-bed dwellings. Also of relevance is the SHMA Addendum for the South Essex Authorities (2017), which provides a more up-to-date analysis of the housing need for the Borough. The SHMA Addendum demonstrates a higher need for 1 (18%) and 2 (30%) bed dwellings and a lower need for 3 (35%) and 4+ (17%) bed dwellings in the Borough compared to the preferred dwelling mix of DM7. The Council’s Housing Officer acknowledges that the SHMA Addendum provides a revised forecast of the housing required within the Borough for 2014-2037 comprising 48% 1 and 2-bed dwellings. Whilst these housing size figures are presented on a Borough-wide basis, the SHMA Addendum notes that the “individual mix of housing provided on a site-by-site-basis will need to take account of local market evidence and viability considerations, which will have an important influence on the appropriate mix”.

6.42 In this case, the proposed development will regenerate a highly accessible site within Southend Central Area which includes almost 500 existing homes. The existing site includes 492 residential dwellings which are geared towards smaller bedsit/1-bed (41%) and 2-bed dwellings (59%). There are no 3-bed+ homes suitable for families on site within the Council controlled housing stock. Given the requirement of Policy PA4 to re-provide social housing, and the commitment by the applicant to accommodate existing residents within the new dwellings, a housing mix with a higher ratio of 1 and 2-bed dwellings is considered to respond satisfactorily to the specific circumstances of the site.

Table 6.4 Existing Housing Mix

Number of bedrooms Number of units % of all unitsBedsit 57 12%1 bedroom 145 29%2 bedrooms 290 59%Total 492 100%

6.43 The SHMA identifies borough-wide housing needs. It does not specifically consider housing need within Southend Town Centre or Central Area. The proximity of the site to local services, shops and facilities, including commuter train stations makes the site more suitable for young professionals and the elderly. Marketing analysis provided by the applicant also indicates that demand for family housing (comprising 3+ bedrooms) is likely to be limited at the site due to the availability of family housing with gardens in the surrounding areas. These


Pg 60

findings and the justification for providing a higher proportion of smaller dwellings are agreed.

6.44 It is also relevant to note the high levels of office to residential development carried out under permitted development in the Borough which has resulted in the growth of non-purpose-built residential dwellings, particularly within Central Southend and the Town Centre. This indicates high demand for high-quality smaller dwellings within Central Southend.

6.45 The Council’s Housing Officer confirms that the current residential units on site “are comprised of 1 & 2 bedroom units, and therefore the offer 10 x 3 bedroom [affordable] units represents an increase on what is currently built. The nature of [the existing] flatted blocks combined with the location of the development in close proximity to the town centre, amenities, and transport hubs demonstrates as suitability for 1 & 2 bedroom units.…The Strategic Housing Team is supportive of the proposed dwelling mix on the basis that the 1 & 2 bedroom units are better suited to this type of accommodation and location, combined with the overall increase of 3+ bedroom units within the proposed development compared to the existing scheme.”

6.46 The proposed development will accommodate a wide range of dwellings on the site, including flats, maisonettes and townhouses. This, together with the provision of a minimum of 10% 3-bed dwellings, will broaden the housing mix within the site and Central Southend and improve housing choices for local people.

6.47 Overall, taking into account the above, the proposed housing mix is considered to be suitably responsive and appropriate in the nature and circumstances of this case. The proposal is therefore acceptable and policy compliant in these regards.

Affordable Housing 6.48 In terms of affordable housing, Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy states that

residential development proposals will be expected to contribute to local housing needs, including affordable and that the “Borough Council will… enter into negotiations with developers to ensure that… all residential proposals of 50 dwellings or 2 hectares or more make an affordable housing or key worker provision of not less than 30% of the total number of units on site.”

6.49 Where affordable housing is provided, Policy DM7 of the Development Management Document identifies that an “indicative tenure mix” of 60:40 between social and/or affordable rented and intermediate housing is sought. The target mix is set out in Table 6.2 above. The Policy recognises that applications may depart from the stated mix and tenure mix and notes that where an alternative is considered appropriate applicants “will be required to justify to the satisfaction of the Council, a more appropriate mix. The Council will take into consideration factors such as the latest available affordable housing evidence, the site context and viability amongst other things”.

6.50 Acknowledging the high quantum of affordable housing within the Queensway estate, the Queensway Policy Area Development Principles (Policy PA4) requires that “development will not result in a net loss of affordable provision, which


Pg 61

includes the re-provision of social housing, as part of the regeneration of the area.”

6.51 The Local Planning Authority needs to adopt a reasonable and balanced approach to affordable housing provision, which takes into account financial viability and how planning obligations affect the delivery of a development. This is reiterated in the supporting text at paragraph 10.17 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 2.7 of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

6.52 The application proposes up to 1,760 new dwellings. Therefore, and as confirmed by the Council’s Housing Officer, a tenure mix aligning with the mix indicated at Policy DM7 would require provision of up to 528 affordable dwellings, 317 of which should be for social/affordable rent and 211 for intermediate housing.

6.53 The proposed development includes on site provision of 300 social/affordable rented units and 12 shared ownership units. This represents a minimum provision of 17.7% when assessed against the maximum quantum of housing, therefore below the 30% target. The tenure mix also differs from the indicative tenure mix established by policy and represents a 96:4 ratio between social and/or affordable rented and intermediate housing.

6.54 The affordable housing tenure mix has been developed and agreed by the joint applicants (Swan Housing Group and Southend on Sea Borough Council). Whilst the tenure mix does not match the tenure mix established by policy, the higher proportion of social and/or affordable rented corresponds with the prevailing provision of affordable housing on site (100% social housing). It also reflects the policy requirement of Policy PA4 by ensuring no net loss of social housing.

6.55 The Housing Officer has confirmed support for the proposed affordable housing mix noting that it does not meet the 60:40 tenure split outlined at Policy DM7. The Officer confirms that “…variation from Policy on tenure is justified in order to re-provide the rented accommodation which is currently on site”. The focus on social/affordable rented units is considered appropriate due to the high proportion of social/affordable rented homes on the site and requirement of Policy PA4 to re-provide social housing and ensure no net loss.

6.56 At this stage, the mix and distribution of affordable housing has not been confirmed. This will be determined via the Reserved Matters Applications in accordance with the decant strategy for existing residents. Affordable Housing Phase Strategies to be submitted with each Reserved Matters Application. These will be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

6.57 The affordable housing strategy states a single decant, meaning only one move for existing residents moving into new dwellings within the site. Ahead of each phase of development as part of the Reserved Matters Applications, an Affordable Housing Phasing Strategy will be undertaken to ensure the new housing to be provided suits the needs of the existing residents in terms of the correct unit size being provided for each household. Accordingly, the proposed housing mix allows flexibility for 103-bed affordable dwellings to be provided should existing residents within 2-bed dwellings require additional space to suite their housing needs. This is supported by the Housing Officer, who notes that “the


Pg 62

offer 10 x 3 bedroom [affordable] units represents an increase on what is currently built.”

6.58 Whilst the Illustrative Masterplan Framework provides one way in which the Parameter Plans and Design Code could be interpreted, it confirms the intention to provide a mix of tenures across the various plots and phases of the site and shows affordable housing delivery within each Character Area. The illustrative affordable housing mix provides for 40% 1-bed, 50% 2-bed and 10% 3-bed dwellings (but with final mix determined by each Affordable Housing Strategy) and the Design Code requires that all homes must be delivered as tenure-blind. It stipulates that “there must be no discernible difference between the architectural treatment, fenestration, general appearance or entrance arrangements of the various tenures”. This approach will assist in creating a mixed and balanced community in accordance with policy objectives.

6.59 The application is supported by a Financial Viability Statement. The Statement identifies significant development costs associated with infrastructure requirements to be delivered including rerouted highways which has made the viability of proposed development challenging. It also identifies that the Better Queensway project has been identified for £15m Marginal Viability Funding through the Government Housing Infrastructure Funding (HIF). The funding is designed to deliver new infrastructure to support the delivery of housing and will assist in unlocking the redevelopment potential of the site.

6.60 The Financial Viability Statement concludes that the development is unviable with the proposed level of affordable housing. Notwithstanding the viability position, the Statement confirms that the applicant has taken a view on growth and inflation and is willing to proceed with the scheme. It notes that the applicant will seek to improve and refine the financing arrangements of the scheme to improve viability and ensure certainty of delivery of the project.

6.61 The Council has had the Financial Viability Statement independently reviewed this included an assessment of the reasonableness of the developer's profit, the evidence and assumptions supporting the benchmark land value and an assessment of costs by a specialist costs expert. The independent review concludes that “the proposed scheme cannot support more than 17.70% affordable housing via the scheme’s Section 106 agreement.” Officers are therefore satisfied that the financial viability of the scheme has been tested and accept the level of affordable housing proposed.

6.62 Should planning permission be granted, the requirements for appropriate regular mid-stage and late stage reviews are to be secured via Section 106 Agreement.

6.63 Whilst the proposal does not provide a quantum and mix of affordable housing required by policy, it incorporates a good range of dwelling types and tenures and an appropriate mix of housing that has been viability tested and justified. It responds to the prevailing mix of affordable housing on site and will provide a net uplift in affordable housing on site, in line with Policy PA4.

6.64 Subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement in respect of affordable housing provision, the quantum and mix of affordable housing provision is acceptable and policy compliant.


Pg 63

Housing Standards and Amenity Space 6.65 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning decision should ensure that

developments “create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users…”. The Nationally Described Space Standards establish internal space standards.

6.66 Policy DM8 states that developments should meet the Lifetime Homes Standards unless it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not viable and feasible to do so. Lifetime Homes Standards have been dissolved, but their content has been incorporated into Part M of the Building Regulations and it is considered that these standards should now provide the basis for the determination of this application. Policy DM8 also requires that 10% of dwellings should be built to be wheelchair accessible.

6.67 Policy DM8 of the Development Management Document states new dwellings should “make provision for usable private outdoor amenity space for the enjoyment of intended occupiers; for flatted schemes this could take the form of a balcony or easily accessible semi-private communal amenity space. Residential schemes with no amenity space will only be considered acceptable in exceptional circumstances, the reason for which will need to be fully justified and clearly demonstrated.”

6.68 Given the outline nature of the application, limited details have been submitted at this stage. However, the Design Code will provide control and expressly requires that all homes will meet or exceed the Nationally Described Space Standards, including the requirements for built in storage. Similarly, control through the Design Code requires that 90% of homes must meet the M4(2) wheelchair adaptable standard; 10% of homes are required to meet the M4(3) standards to be wheelchair accessible; homes must facilitate working from home; and each dwelling must provide at least 5sqm private amenity space in the form of a garden, balcony, roof terrace or winter garden. These commitments will ensure a substantial improvement to residential quality within the site. Planning conditions are recommended to reinforce that these obligatory requirements of the Design Code must be incorporated as the detailed phases of the development come forward through the Reserved Matters Application submissions.

6.69 The Design Code states that where feasible, communal amenity space should also be provided within each plot for the use of residents across all tenures. The principal communal amenity spaces are anticipated to be provided at podium level with some spaces also provided at roof level. Whilst the Illustrative Masterplan Framework set out in the Design and Access Statement provides one interpretation of how the Parameter Plans and Design Code could be interpreted, it shows that communal amenity space can be provided at podium level between all plots apart from the building adjacent to Porter’s Park. This demonstrates that a good level of appropriately located communal amenity space can be provided. In addition to private and communal amenity space, residents will also benefit from new open spaces created within the development.


Pg 64

6.70 Accordingly, it is considered that the development will satisfy all the minimum requirements of the Nationally Described Space Standards, meet the requirements of Policy DM8 and deliver a substantial improvement in residential quality for residents. The proposal is therefore acceptable and policy compliant in these regards.

3) Transport and accessibility6.71 Re-configuring the Queensway, which is currently a vehicle dominated, over-

engineered and socially hostile highway designed some 60 years ago as part of a wider urban ring road project, is a central component of the development and Policy PA4. It is also critical to unlocking the full development potential of the site, overcoming significant physical, visual and perceptual severance caused by existing highways infrastructure, and enabling a high quality, permeable and well-connected, sustainable and modern new neighbourhood to be created either side of the Queensway in what is a highly accessible location. Accordingly, the detailed proposals for the Queensway have been subject to extensive pre-application consultation with Highways Officers at SBC.

6.72 Policy PA4 calls for improved crossings and gateway improvements at the Queensway/Sutton Road Junction, and Queensway/Short Street/Chichester Road Junctions in association with capacity requirements for development on the Better Queensway Opportunity Site. The policy also promotes improved connectivity and legibility to aid way finding and to create a high quality pedestrian and cycle environment, enhancing links with the High Street, Warrior Square, surrounding roads and the Victoria and Sutton Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Areas.

6.73 Policy DM15 of the Development Management Document establishes that development will be allowed where there is, or it can be demonstrated that there will be, physical and environmental capacity on the local highway network to accommodate the type and amount of traffic generated in a safe and sustainable manner. The policy also requires that access and any traffic generated by the proposed development must not unreasonably harm the surroundings, including the amenity of neighbouring properties and/or the public rights of way, whilst development proposals must prioritise the needs of pedestrians, including disabled persons and those with impaired mobility, and cyclists.

6.74 The policy further requires all major development proposals to include provision for appropriate access to public transport, provide Travel Plans (which incorporate sustainable transport measures) and cater for servicing and emergency vehicles. Proposals should also take account of the Council’s Car Parking standards.

6.75 Careful regard has been had to the NPPF (Para. 109) which provides clear guidance in respect of traffic impacts, advising that “development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.


Pg 65

6.76 Whilst relatively few objections to the application have been received, some observations have been made in relation to: fear of increased traffic caused by proposed changes to the highway (including removal of the underpass) and additional traffic arising from the development; parking; highways safety; and the suitability of pedestrian and cycle routes.

Road Network and Traffic Impacts 6.77 The Transport Assessment (TA) considers traffic impacts of the proposed

development. It takes into account the central, accessible location of the site and notes that many vehicle trips associated with the proposed non-residential uses are already accounted for on the network by vehicle trips to existing retail, leisure and employment uses which will be redeveloped as part of these proposals. The assessment of the residential component of the development is based on an upper limit of 1,800 dwellings. This exceeds the maximum quantum of dwellings proposed (up to 1,760) and provides a sensible and robust basis for the assessment of traffic impacts generated by new residents.

6.78 The TA has been subject to detailed discussions with the Highways Officers since submission. Trip rates were agreed with Highway Officers prior to submission and trip generation has been assessed using the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) database. The TA includes a transport model that predicts future traffic levels on the surrounding highway network, once the development is operational. The transport modelling includes pedestrian modelling to calculate the anticipated level of pedestrian flows using pedestrian crossings within the proposed development. VISSIM transport modelling assesses traffic impacts at 2023 (completion of 272 homes) and 2033 (completion of 1,800 homes). The Assessment concludes that the development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the public transport or highway transport networks.

6.79 The Council’s appointed Highways Consultant has considered the application and taken a “balanced view of the impacts of the development on the local highway network, including those elements which are of a negative nature”. It concludes that overall, “the progressive nature of this application, which responds positively to strategic objectives for sustainable development, would not have a severe impact on the highway network.”

6.80 The Highway Consultant’s response notes that modelling underpinning the Transport Assessment is subject to a number of assumptions about vehicle trips. Given this modelling is based on predicted changes in behaviour and a shift towards more sustainable modes of travel, the response suggests that a process is introduced and secured to periodically review and evaluate the actual changes in behaviour and compare this with the modelling results.

6.81 To help review and consider the impacts of the scheme, the Council’s appointed Highways Consultant suggests an obligation to require the establishment of a strategy group to regularly review any unforeseen traffic impacts and ongoing or altered mitigation which may be appropriate, including consideration of travel plan monitoring and to the best allocation of the travel plan funds to be contributed. The obligation suggested would also require payment, if concluded necessary and on request by the Council, of a contribution towards additional mitigation to


Pg 66

be provided by the Council in the form of upgrades to the following junctions and periodic surveys: “Western arm of Queensway/Southchurch Road Roundabout – conversion to

signal crossings Sutton Road/Southchurch Road northern arm – conversion to signal crossing Bournemouth Park Road/ Southchurch Road – conversion to MOVA”

6.82 The establishment of a Travel Strategy Group (TSG) together with a series of on-site and off-site highways works will be secured via the Section 106. The draft Section 106 Heads of Terms include a financial contribution associated with the TSG towards the above additional mitigation measures and a Sustainable Travel Plan Fund which will fund the costs of periodic travel surveys and implementation of the measures recommended by the TSG. This approach is considered to provide a robust and comprehensive mitigation strategy for the development.

6.83 Taking account of application proposals and the obligations proposed, it is considered that there will be capacity on the local highway network to accommodate the type and amount of traffic generated, in a safe and sustainable manner, in accordance with planning policy. The application is progressive in nature, responds positively to the Council’s strategic planning objectives for sustainable travel and will not have a severe impact on the highway network. Accordingly, the application is considered acceptable and policy compliant in respect of road network and traffic impacts.

Highway Safety 6.84 The existing highway arrangement in and around Queensway is detrimental to

the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, particularly those who choose to walk around the restricting guardrails and cross on the roundabout because of safety concerns in using the underpass. In other respects too, the overengineered highway raises risk levels through its design such as the width of crossing points across the highway lanes and speed of traffic.

6.85 The speed limit of Queensway is proposed to be reduced from 40mph to 30mph. This will be consistent with speed limits on other urban roads within Southend Central Area and will enhance road safety, particularly for pedestrians and more vulnerable uses (such as children, and people reliant on wheelchairs or mobility scooters) by reducing the risk for severity of accidents. The Section 106 will require the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders to be implemented prior to completion of the revised Queensway.

6.86 The detailed element of the proposal removes the Queensway/Sutton Road/Southchurch Road roundabout and re-grades to provide a new four lane carriageway at grade as well as a new roundabout at grade linking Southchurch Road and Queensway. To compensate for the proposed removal of the Sutton Road approach to the Queensway roundabout, a new roundabout is proposed on Southchurch Road at the intersection with Sutton Road and Tyrell Drive.

6.87 The applicant has provided a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA), which identified a series of safety matters to be resolved, including in relation to driver and cyclist


Pg 67

visibility, detailed junction design, detailed signal control specification, location of traffic signals and cyclist safety. The Stage 1 RSA also identifies the need for a consistent sign and road marking strategy. The applicant has responded to points raised in the RSA and updated drawings to address the points raised have been submitted during the course of the application.

6.88 Associated with the findings of the Stage 1 RSA, the Council’s appointed Highways Consultant has highlighted that toucan crossings provide for a more consistent traffic flow compared to zebra crossings. The Highway Consultant’s response suggests the requirement for a planning condition to be added to any planning permission, to require the north, south and east arms of the Queensway / Southchurch Road roundabout to be served by signalised crossings. Subject to this requirement, the Highways Authority considers this would “mitigate the issues in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, such that the highway safety implications are acceptable”. These are required to be reviewed during the Stage 2 RSA process along with any other road safety issues.

6.89 Proposed detailed highway designs for works within the detailed element of the planning application (subject to planning conditions) and outline element of the application (subject to Reserved Matters and planning conditions), including street lighting, will need to be reviewed and formally approved by the Council at the relevant detailed design stage. All the works on the public highway will be carried out under a S278 agreement. The proposed closure/stopping-up of the highway (i.e. part of Sutton Road) would be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport only if and after planning consent has been granted. The adoption of public highway will need to be carried out under Section 38 of the Highways Act. With these controls in place, it is considered that the proposed highway works will not harmfully impact upon highway safety, with the traffic generated from the development able to be successfully accommodated on the highway network. Moreover, the detailed proposals for re-engineering of the Queensway will vastly improve safety, connectivity and convenience for pedestrians, particularly those vulnerable road users noted above. Accordingly, the application is considered acceptable and policy compliant in respect of highway safety.

Servicing 6.90 Given all proposed buildings are part of the outline element of the application, the

precise servicing and delivery requirements of the proposed residential dwellings and non-residential uses have not been determined at this stage.

6.91 The TA describes the broad principles that have been considered in determining the Illustrative Masterplan’s internal arrangement and the block layout showing an option for how delivery and servicing could be accommodated. These include the provision of multi-use drop-off points that combine commercial, waste and residential drop-off. Most waste and recycling collection points are proposed to be combined with commercial drop-off points.

6.92 The Design Code commits to residential refuse stores being adequately sized and each phase of development including a bulky waste store. The Code requires that refuse stores “must not located immediately adjacent to residential accommodation” and, where possible, loading bays and loading pads being


Pg 68

shared between deliveries, residential drop-offs, refuse and other services. This approach will result in an efficient servicing strategy that optimises public realm provision.

6.93 The indicative refuse strategy outlined within the Design Code identifies locations for refuse collection from within the carriageway and streets requiring refuse collection from loading bays or loading pads (Queensway, Southchurch Road, Chichester Road and Short Street). It identifies that a 15m distance between waste collection vehicles and waste and recycling collections points should be maintained wherever possible and states that bin storage along the highway should be avoided. It commits to a specific recycling and waste management strategy being prepared for each phase of development as part of Reserved Matters Applications.

6.94 Subject to the imposition of conditions, the application proposals are capable of according with relevant development plan policy (i.e. the requirements of Policy DM15 of the Development Management Document) and are therefore considered to be acceptable and policy compliant.

Travel Plan and Sustainable Transport 6.95 The site is in a highly sustainable central location. It is within a short walk of

Southend High Street. The nearby travel centre for buses and the proximity of two main railway stations, one right next to the site, add to the high accessibility of the site. Despite its central location however, the existing Queensway acts as a significant barrier to movement across the site and beyond the site to and from residential and commercial areas to the north and east of the town centre. The existing pedestrian and cycle connections throughout the site are both physically poor in themselves and may be contributory factors for other problems associated with the current estate configuration and environment. The revised Queensway will enable a step change in sustainable travel opportunities substantially improving pedestrian and cycle movement within, through and beyond the site and will re-balance the historic dominance of the over-engineered and hostile Queensway and its associated environment in favour of contemporary and sustainable modes of travel. In taking this opportunity, the application is strongly supported.

6.96 In terms of pedestrian and cycle routes within the detailed element of the application, continuous pedestrian routes and segregated cycle lanes are proposed along the length of the Queensway. This accords with Policy CP3, which seeks to increase the number of cycleways within the Borough. New controlled pedestrian and cycle crossings are proposed along the length of the Queensway and the re-graded Queensway roundabout will facilitate safe pedestrian and cycle movements in place of the current arrangement of socially hostile underpasses. Improved areas of public realm along Chichester Road, Southchurch Road and other new routes within the site will also significantly improve streetscape and encourage walking and cycling.

6.97 In addition to overcoming severance and supporting more sustainable modes of travel, the re-grading of Queensway will provide safer routes across the road overcoming current perceptions of crime associated with use of the underpass


Pg 69

and reducing risks of pedestrians and cyclists crossing Queensway at non-designated crossing points. The provision of clear and legible pedestrian routes, together the network of high quality public open spaces, also strongly accords with the objectives of the NPPF (Para. 91) to create inclusive places which are safe and accessible.

6.98 Landscaping within the central reservation, between cycle lanes and the carriageway and alongside new pedestrian routes will reinforce the character of Queensway as a boulevard. Coupled with the reduction in speed limit from 40mph to 30mph, the revised Queensway will create safer, pleasant and welcoming new pedestrian and cycle routes along the Queensway.

6.99 Policy for the site (PA4) calls for the development to improve connectivity and legibility to aid wayfinding and create a high quality pedestrian and cycle environment. Within the Opportunity Site (PA4.1), the policy requires development to fully integrate with the surrounding area through the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes to improve access and linkages. The application responds strongly to these requirements including through the Access Parameter Plan and the Design Code, by providing for a network of pedestrian and cycle routes across and throughout the site which will knit the site with its surroundings and provide substantially improved permeability through the site and from the surrounding area.

6.100 The Design Code requires that wayfinding signage is provided by the developer to enable pedestrians and cyclists to easily navigate across the site and to/from the high street and nearby bus and railway stations. A planning condition requiring details of wayfinding signage for each Reserved Matters Applications is proposed.

6.101 To enhance the sustainable transport options available as a result of the site’s central location, a Master Travel Plan has been provided with the planning application. The Master Travel Plan includes measures to increase use of sustainable travel modes and monitoring actions to report performance. It includes a range of measures, including: the issuing of a Travel Pack to all new households; encouraging businesses to offer the cycle to work scheme and season ticket loans; free transport tickets within the Travel Plan Offer; car club provision; cycle training; and provision of a cycle hire scheme. The Master Travel Plan also provides an overarching framework for the development to which Reserved Matters Applications for each phase of development will need to adhere and provide specific details about funding, access and measures which area appropriate for the particular phase. Planning conditions require that detailed Travel Plans are submitted for each Reserved Matters Application for a phase or sub-phase. A Travel Plan Fund of up to £100 per household (up to £176,000 from 1,760 homes) for investment in sustainable transport measures such as travel tickets and car club driving hours is to be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

6.102 The Council’s appointed Highways Consultant supports the Travel Plan Fund and the provision of detailed Travel Plans for different phases of the development (to be secured by planning condition). The Highways Consultant concludes that the proposals will encourage sustainable travel, make the area safer and is likely to


Pg 70

lead to a “step-change in the sustainable transport environment of the area, and its residents and visitors are more likely to use sustainable transport as a means of travelling.”

6.103 Travel Plan monitoring will need to be undertaken annually for a ten-year period following first occupation of a residential dwelling and thereafter and then once a year for a ten year period. The Travel Plan including the targets must be updated yearly with SBC agreement to include the latest travel survey results for all visitors and staff who use the site. Council costs in respect of monitoring the Travel Plan will also need to be met.

6.104 With the Travel Plans in place, it is considered that the application proposals will ensure the site takes benefit from its sustainable location, encouraging the use of attractive sustainable transport options, significantly addressing the perception and fear of crime and satisfying both national and local policy in these regards.

4) Parking6.105 Policy DM15 states that all development should accord with the car and cycle

parking standards set out within the Development Management Document. The policy acknowledges that residential vehicle parking standards may be applied flexibly where it can be demonstrated that the development is proposed in more sustainable locations with frequent and extensive links to public transport and/or where the rigid application of these standards would have a clear detrimental impact on the local character and context.

6.106 As outlined above, the site is in a highly sustainable location located immediately adjacent to Victoria Railway Station, 10-minutes walk from Southend Central Railway Station and benefits from a number of bus links in the immediate vicinity and the numerous connections available at the Travel Centre, which is also within a short walking distance. The proposed segregated cycle lanes along the Queensway and access and public realm improvements throughout the site will further increase permeability through the site and improve access to public transport on by foot and bike. Accordingly, it is appropriate to apply the car parking standards established by Policy DM15 flexibly.

6.107 Noting the highly sustainable location of the site and the progressive nature of the scheme to encourage sustainable travel, the applicant has committed to providing 0.7 car parking spaces per dwelling, equating to a maximum number of 1,232 car parking spaces. This is lower than the ‘baseline’ residential car parking standard of 1 space per dwelling within Southend Central Area set out in the Development Management Document, noting also the context of changing patterns of car ownership and travel to work data based on the site’s town centre location, which form part of the evidence set out by the applicant in its Outline Parking Management Plan. Noting the measures set out in the Outline Parking Management Plan the proposed parking provision is considered appropriate and sufficient to serve the needs of the development The measures set out in the Outline Parking Management Plan will be secured via planning condition.

6.108 Disabled persons’ parking for residents is proposed to be determined via the future Reserved Matters Applications based on the percentage of blue badge


Pg 71

holders and the number of wheelchair adaptable homes proposed as part of each of those phases of development. This approach is appropriate in the current absence of an SBC planning policy or guidance related to disabled persons parking.

6.109 Given the outline nature of the residential component of the development, the Design Code and Parameter Plans include flexibility for residential car parking spaces to be provided through a range of possible means, including basement car parks (within Porter’s Place and All Saint’s Church Character Areas), a multi-storey car park (within Victoria Station Character Area), below podium level and on-street (throughout the site). This approach will safeguard the public realm and character of the site by concealing the vast majority of car parking within the envelope of the residential buildings. The nature and provision for car parking is to be provided in detail as Reserved Matters for each future phase of development and is to be controlled by planning conditions.

6.110 Cycle parking for new residents is committed to at a ratio of 1 secure covered space per dwelling, in line with Policy DM15. The Design Code requires that all homes have access to secure cycle storage and states that, where applicable, entrance to cycle stores should be discreetly located in the building façade. Provision of cycle parking is to be controlled by planning condition.

6.111 No car parking is proposed for the non-residential uses in the outline element of the planning application. This complies with Policy DM15 and reflects the highly accessible location of the site, and the proximity of public car parks. Cycle parking for visitors is proposed in the form of strategically placed Sheffield stands in the public realm. The location and quantum of cycle parking will be considered as part of Reserved Matters Applications and assessed against minimum cycle parking requirements when the detailed quantum and use of non-residential uses is known. Appropriate provision is to be secured via planning condition.

6.112 The applicant has also committed to providing car club spaces and charging points for electric vehicles. The detailed provision is to be determined via the Reserved Matters applications, in line with the Master Travel Plan (outlined in Section 3 above) and Outline Parking Management Plan. The initial phase of residential development will provide 20% of spaces with active charging points and the remaining 80% with passive provision to allow installation of active charging points in the future. Two car club spaces are proposed to be located on the site by 2023 with further vehicles added for subsequent phases of development based on demand. Car club and electric vehicle provision is to be secured via planning condition and car club facilities are to be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

6.113 The Council’s appointed Highways Consultant notes that Census (2011) data shows that within the wards of Victoria, Milton and Kursaal an average of 45% of households have no car or van, which also supports the lower parking numbers. It notes that the current strategy of providing 0.7 spaces is appropriate at this stage, although parking provision could be reduced further, mindful of Census car ownership data and highly sustainable location of the site. Given the long multi-phase build period of the development, an element of flexibility to respond to prevailing demand for car parking is recommended by the Highways Consultant.


Pg 72

The Consultant requires that parking is monitored as part of the Travel Plan and that any reduction in parking levels from 0.70 spaces per unit is considered through future reserved matters applications.

6.114 The Highways Consultant notes that the car parking management strategy provides an opportunity to deliver a sustainable development and confirms that there is an opportunity to integrate a CPZ for the development into CPZs in the surrounding residential areas. The car parking management strategy is subject to a pre-commencement condition and a CPZ could be established as an intervention measure following any recommendation of the Travel Strategy Group, which will be established and secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

6.115 Subject to the imposition of conditions, the application proposals are capable of according with Policy DM15 and are therefore considered acceptable and policy compliant.

5) Design6.116 Good design is a fundamental requirement of new development to achieve high

quality living environments. Its importance is reflected in the NPPF, in Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy and also in Policy DM1 of the Development Management Document. The Design and Townscape Guide also states that “the Borough Council is committed to good design and will seek to create attractive, high-quality living environments”.

6.117 The National Planning Policy Framework (Para. 124) states that “the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.”

6.118 In the Council’s Development Management Document Policy DM1 confirms that development should “add to the overall quality of the area and respect the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in terms of its architectural approach, height, size, scale, form, massing, density, layout, proportions, materials, townscape and/or landscape setting, use, and detailed design features.”

6.119 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy requires that new development should “respect the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood where appropriate”. Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy requires that development proposals should “maintain and enhance the amenities, appeal and character of residential areas, securing good relationships with development, and respecting the scale and nature of that development”.

6.120 Specific local design policy in respect of the Queensway Policy Area is provided by Policy PA4 of the Southend Central Area Action Plan. It calls for well-designed, sustainable buildings appropriate to the location in terms of use, scale, massing and design detail that contribute positively to successful placemaking. The Policy includes wide ranging design objectives for; well-designed redevelopment of retail and commercial frontages along Southchurch Road; streetscape improvements; improvements to the pedestrian experience; improved


Pg 73

connectivity and legibility; and enhanced urban greening. Within the Opportunity Site (PA4.1) Part 3 of the policy notes that development will: “a. re-establish the historic urban grain of the area; b. fully integrate with the surrounding area through the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes to improve access and linkages;... d. provide for comprehensive landscaping through the creation of linked public green space and the Queensway Urban Park; e. provide for new/improved open space fronting Chichester Road and at Coleman Street;...”.

6.121 Further policy advice is provided in Policy DS3 that (with cross reference to Table 3), identifies the Opportunity Site as a potential location for landmark buildings. The policy confirms that the Council will support and encourage the creation of new landmarks at the application site where development proposals demonstrate a design, detailing and use of materials of exceptional quality and interest and where it helps to reinforce local character and distinctiveness. Proposals are required to provide a focal point for an existing vista/sight line or generate a new one, whilst not adversely affecting the amenity of local residents or harming nearby heritage assets.

6.122 The issue of townscape and visual impacts arising from the development is referenced in the assessment section below and is not repeated here, other than to highlight that the proposed design, which whilst involving tall buildings, does not give rise to significant adverse impacts. Equally, the impact on heritage assets is detailed below. Conclusions in this regard are not repeated other than to highlight that the design measures proposed positively respond to nearby heritage assets.

6.123 This application includes detailed and outline elements. The outline element includes all new buildings. The layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping are reserved for future determination at the reserved matters stage. Accordingly, the below assessment of the outline element is based on the submitted Parameter Plans and Design Code (which will establish the framework for future reserved matters applications) and is informed by the Design and Access Statement.

6.124 The Design and Access Statement for the outline element of the application explains the objectives of the proposal to deliver a successful and inspiring regeneration of the Queensway estate, creating a vibrant and enjoyable new place with its own sense of community and character. It explains that the design aims to transform the perception of the site tackling concerns around crime and antisocial behaviour whilst improving pedestrian and cycle connectivity across the site, strengthening connections to the town centre and seafront, and realising the potential of the site as a key gateway to Southend.

6.125 The Design and Access Statement assesses the key constraints and opportunities of the site and identifies six ‘key design moves’ to: transform the Queensway; re-stitch the urban fabric; enhance connections between the High Street and its surrounding neighbourhoods; create a network of public open spaces; activate ground floors and create natural surveillance; and provide for a scale that respects the context. These objectives flow from a detailed analysis of the site and overlap with the policy objectives of Policy PA4.


Pg 74

6.126 The design framework established by the Parameter Plans and Design Code divides the site into three Character Areas (Porter’s Place, All Saint’s Church and Short Street) and seeks to deliver on the objectives identified in the Design and Access Statement through the establishment of bespoke design codes for each Character Area as well as an overarching site wide design code to ensure consistency across each part of the site.

6.127 Overall, the Design Code and Parameter Plans have been formulated from a clear understanding of the site and surrounding area. They set an appropriate balance between establishing clear rules that must be followed at the reserved matters stage whilst allowing an appropriate amount of flexibility to enable the detail design to evolve over time. An assessment of the design approach is provided below.

Massing and Scale 6.128 Whilst scale is a reserved matter, the Parameter Plans establish maximum

heights and building envelopes with which the detailed design of buildings must accord.

6.129 The four existing residential towers on the site (at 17 storeys including parapet/plant/lift overruns / up to 71.18m AOD to parapet level) are of similar heights to those proposed (approximately 18 storeys / up to 87.17m AOD). The Maximum Building Height Parameter Plan has been informed by the surrounding built context and heritage assets and has been adjusted during the course of the application in response to consultee comments from London Southend Airport. Maximum building heights are lower adjacent to the locally listed All Saints Church (approximately 3 storeys / up to 42.03m AOD) and proposed buildings are set back from the Grade I listed Porters on the opposite side of the regraded Queensway.

6.130 The Land Use Parameter Plan includes suitable buffers adjacent to All Saints Church to allow for improvements to the public realm in this area and to open up views to the historic landmarks of the Church and Porters and frame views to the south. Tallest building heights (approximately 18 storeys / up to 87.17m AOD) are proposed in the centre of the site (adjacent to the Queensway) and adjacent to Southend Victoria Station. Tall buildings (approximately 16 storeys / 86.28m AOD) are also located at the junction of Chichester Road and Queensway adjacent to Victoria Shopping Centre and Porter’s Park. Provision of taller buildings in these parts of the site will assist in defining the station as a key gateway and the station and Porter’s Park as key townscape nodes within central Southend. The tall buildings are appropriately located to provide landmarks, assist way finding to Southend Victoria Station and Porter’s Park and better identify the site as forming part of Southend Town Centre and Central Area. They will significantly improve way finding across Queensway and legibility within Southend.

6.131 Location of taller buildings adjacent to Queensway responds appropriately to the scale of the surrounding built context by requiring building heights to step down from these taller elements towards Coleman Street (approximately 3-5 storeys), All Saints Church (approximately 3 storeys), Southchurch Road (approximately


Pg 75

5-8 storeys, with a taller element up to 10 storeys adjacent to the Queensway roundabout) and Milton Street (approximately 10 storeys).

6.132 The Design and Conservation Officer considers that the maximum heights Parameter Plan and Design Code will enable an appropriate scale and form of development. The Design and Conservation Officer confirms that the Maximum Building Heights Parameter Plans have been subject to significant refinement during the design process to ensure that the tallest elements are localised and building heights are stepped to provide a positive transition to the surrounding context.

6.133 The Design Code includes design requirements for building form and scale to ensure that “the overall townscape composition must replace the existing towers with a finer-grain low, medium and tall buildings that are arranged to emphasise the key public realm improvements and connections while respecting the existing scale of surrounding neighbourhoods”. Central to this requirement, the Design Code establishes a series of detailing design measures and commitments relating to scale and massing. These include: providing varied heights and set-backs to taller buildings; creating breaks in building lines and massing; avoiding long frontages; ensuring building heights and street frontages are carefully considered; and differentiating tall buildings though changes in materiality, fenestration and articulation.

6.134 Whilst the Illustrative Masterplan provides one way in which the Parameter Plans and Design Code could be interpreted at the detailed design stage, it demonstrates how a finer-grained townscape can be achieved through a composition of building heights. It shows the location of low and medium rise buildings to the perimeter of the site with taller buildings strategically located either adjacent to Queensway (11, 12, 16 and 18 storeys) or adjacent to Southend Victoria Train Station (10, 16 and 18 storeys). It also shows how lower building heights and reduced massing could be provided along the Southchurch Road frontage, including on the corner of Southchurch Road/Chichester Road where the Illustrative Masterplan includes a building of seven storeys (i.e. one storey lower than the maximum parameter) to respond to the existing scale of Southchurch Road (south side) and protect views from the adjacent Warrior Square Conservation Area. The Illustrative Masterplan demonstrates opportunities for enhanced scale and massing which responds to the surrounding context.

6.135 The height of the tallest buildings has been developed in consultation with London Southend Airport and the Civil Aviation Authority. The Airport’s final consultation response confirms the proposed development would not conflict with safeguarding criteria subject to planning conditions. Subject to conditions, the proposed development therefore complies with Part 2 (iii) of Policy DM4 and will not adversely impact upon London Southend Airport.

6.136 The massing and scale of the development are considered acceptable and policy complaint.


Pg 76

Layout 6.137 The Parameter Plans establish that developable parcels within the Porter’s Place

and All Saint’s Church Character Areas are broken up through the provision of Tertiary Vehicle Routes which provide permeability east-west and north-south through the site. The new routes and permeability meet objectives of Policy PA4 to improve connectivity, way finding and create enhanced links with surrounding roads and Neighbourhood Policy Areas. The layout will knit the site with its surroundings and restore its historic urban grain.

6.138 Public Open Space spaces are appropriately located at key nodes of the proposed layout of streets and spaces. Their carefully arranged locations seek to create a sense of arrival adjacent to Southend Victoria Train Station, improved relationship with All Saints Church and improved connections across the Queensway. Together, the public open spaces form a distinct east-west and north-south network of attractive linked green routes through the site which, compared with the currently severed and indistinct routing will considerably reinforce way finding, significantly improve permeability and provide a convergence at the heart of the masterplan (Porter’s Park). The provision of built frontage to Southchurch Road re-establishes an active retail frontage. The Design Code and Parameter Plans commit to a high level of permeability throughout the site.

6.139 The Illustrative Masterplan shows how the layout of the detailed design could be interspersed with a network of new vehicle and pedestrian routes around perimeter blocks. It demonstrates how the layout could achieve a strong sense of place and identity through the creation of high quality areas of public realm and open space between buildings.

6.140 Whilst a reserved matter for future detailed consideration, the overall site layout and siting of proposed buildings as defined by the Parameter Plans and Design Code is considered acceptable.

Appearance and Materials 6.141 Appearance is a reserved matter for later consideration so limited details of

external materials have been provided at this stage given the outline nature of the proposed buildings. The Design Code establishes site wide criteria for appearance and materials that will be adhered to at the reserved matters stage. These criteria include: creating a street presence; minimising blank frontages; ensuring an interesting material treatment and articulation where blank frontages cannot be avoided; articulation of building frontages; differentiation of residential and commercial frontages; and ensuring the appearance of buildings located at the periphery of the masterplan respond to the existing context. The Design Code establishes shopfront criteria that will inform the appearance of retail and commercial. The criteria ensure that the appearance of non-residential frontages will be consistent and of appropriate quality design.

6.142 In respect of materials, the Design Code confirms that “buildings fronting the Queensway should embrace colour in the façade material and other architectural treatments to characterise the dynamic and vibrant nature of this area.” The main


Pg 77

façade materials for these buildings are required to be high quality and durable and any colour should be integral to the materials, not applied (e.g. brick, terracotta, coloured concrete).

6.143 Further criteria for the architectural appearance of each of the three Character Areas are set out within the Design Code. The criteria establish appropriate design responses for each Character Area according to their contexts and provide additional guidance on the materials that should be used. For example, within the Porter’s Place Character Area the Design Code identifies that brick facing material is encouraged to the low and medium rise buildings, so as to provide an urban street setting that ties in with existing local building stock in the area. Similarly, the Design Code states that predominantly brick facades should be provided within the All Saints Character Area and the architectural treatment of terrace or maisonettes immediately opposite All Saints Church should clearly represent the vertical separation of the homes.

6.144 The Design Code confirms that tall buildings should be differentiated from adjoining low-rise elements and notes that this can be achieved through a change in alignment, materiality, fenestration and articulation.

6.145 Material samples are sought via planning condition to ensure materials are of a high quality.

6.146 Overall, the submitted Parameter Plans and Design Code provide requisite control over the development of the outline element of the scheme to result in a successful design of the final scheme. Both are the product of a collaborative, iterative and careful design process which was initiated in 2015 through public consultation by SBC and has since evolved through a series of public consultation events and pre-application meetings between the applicant and key stakeholders, including Historic England and the local community. This process represents best practice and has resulted in a thorough and a well-conceived Design Code and set of Parameter Plans which provide a clear framework of control as the scheme evolves into its detailed design stages through the reserved matters process.

6.147 It is considered that the application successfully addresses key design requirements of policy, respecting the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood and providing a scale, massing and design that contributes positively to placemaking through provision of new landmark buildings. The Parameter Plans and Design Code establish a framework which will ensure subsequent reserved matters applications transform the site from a disjointed and disconnected part of Southend to one that puts increased permeability, placemaking and high quality design at its core. They set an appropriate design framework for the detailed proposals and will re-establish the historic urban grain of the area, integrate the site with the surrounding area and provide a suitable scale of development for the site’s central location within Central Southend. The application meets the expectation of Core Strategy, Development Management Document and SCAAP policy with a high-quality design that will transform this area and create a new, distinctive and vibrantly regenerated piece of Southend.


Pg 78

6) Landscaping6.148 In addition to the design policies outlined above, Policy PA4 Part 2 (e) requires

that urban greening improvements are made. These include “improved landscaping, green walls and roofs, and tree planting and establish the Queensway Urban Park, which sensitively addresses and enhances the setting of Porters and All Saints Church, and links well with Warrior Square Policy Area”. Improvements to streetscape and the pedestrian environment are also required.

6.149 Within the Opportunity Site (PA4.1) Part 3 of Policy PA4 requires that development “...d. provide for comprehensive landscaping through the creation of linked public green space and the Queensway Urban Park” and “e. provide for new/improved open space fronting Chichester Road and at Coleman Street;…”. Policy DM2 similarly requires that new development should include urban greening measures, including but not limited to the provision of soft landscaped open space, tree planting, green roofs and living walls.

6.150 Policy DM4 seeks to ensure that public realm includes landscape features to be integrated with their surroundings.

6.151 In respect of the outline element of the application, the Land Use Parameter Plan identifies six areas of public open space which must have a combined minimum area of at least 0.7ha. The Land Use Parameter Plan confirms that the areas of public open space are subject to a 15 metre tolerance and will include “informal and formal public open space, town squares, parks, play provision, necessary buffers to heritage assets, and structural landscape”. The Design Code defines the landscaping strategies for each of the six public open spaces and establishes minimum areas for Porter’s Park; Coleman Gardens; Victoria Station Plaza; and All Saints Civic Square.

6.152 The location of the proposed areas of public open space support placemaking strategies to provide: a gateway open space and sense of arrival adjacent to Southend Victoria Station (Victoria Station Plaza); an enhanced setting to All Saints Church (All Saint Square); new play areas and landscaped links spanning the Queensway (Porter’s Park and Coleman Gardens); an improved relationship with residential properties to the north of Coleman Street (Coleman Street Landscape Passage); and improved connectivity between Porter’s Park, Southchurch Road and Warrior Square (Southchurch Landscape Link).

6.153 A central north-south spine of three public open spaces (Southchurch Landscape Link, Porter’s Park and Coleman Gardens) will connect Southchurch Road in the south to Coleman Street in the North. Coupled with the detailed re-grading of Queensway, the network of open spaces will substantially improve north-south permeability across the site and provide much needed new pedestrian connections between Southend Town Centre and areas north of Queensway. The three public open spaces of Victoria Station Plaza, Coleman Gardens and Coleman Street Landscape Passage will also provide a substantially improved east-west link through the site linking Southend Victoria Station with Sutton Road. The new areas of public open space will substantially improve access and legibility across the site tackling current issues of severance.


Pg 79

6.154 The Design Code provides further details on the overarching landscaping strategies for the site and establishes criteria to inform the detailed design of the six public open spaces and other landscaped areas within the three Character Areas. The Design Code describes that Coleman Gardens and Porter’s Park (together know as Porter’s Place) will create a social hub within the masterplan in the form of a local park (Porter’s Park) and a complementary local green space with equipped play or youth orientated activity space (Coleman Gardens). Whilst separated by the Queensway, the spaces are required to be connected via clear pathways and should be unified by a common palette of hard landscape materials and site furnishings with the two parks sharing a common design language which will reinforce a shared sense of place. Given the proximity to Queensway, the Design Code encourages the hard landscape design of Queensway to inform the material selection at Porter’s Park and Coleman Gardens. This shared design, coupled with the wide pedestrian crossing over Queensway, including complementary surfacing materials for the crossing itself, will improve connectivity and assist in removing severance. Provision of primary frontages around both spaces will facilitate passive surveillance and promote interaction between the surrounding buildings and spaces in between.

6.155 All Saints Civic Square is to be created through re-claiming part of Sutton Road and providing a new open space to the north and west of All Saints Church to create a new civic square. Creation of this public open space will substantially improve the immediate setting of All Saints Church and Porters nearby to the south by removing highways infrastructure and creating an open setting from which the locally listed and listed buildings can be better appreciated from a public realm which will be more conducive to quiet relaxation. The approach will make All Saints Church the focal point of the square significantly contributing to sense of place and character in this location. The Design Code specifies that All Saint’s Civic Square should be designed as a community focused public open space that invites the use of the square by the church and the new buildings defining its edge. The Design Code states that the square should be designed to enable a host of local events and must improve the setting of All Saints Church, with its design being simple, consistent, and respectful to the church’s setting. This further contributes to place-making and social interaction.

6.156 Whilst the objectives underpinning the location and design framework for each public open space is based on a strong placemaking strategy, the new areas of public open space do not provide for a new/improved open space fronting Chichester Road (i.e. in the location described in Policy PA4 and shown “indicatively” on the Central Southend Area Action Plan Policies Map). Instead, the proposed network of open spaces provides for a more integrated landscaping response which concentrates public open space provision within the heart of the masterplan and adjacent to key nodes within the site (i.e. All Saint’s Church and Southend Victoria Station). The Design Code requires that the public realm of Chichester Road is enhanced. On the eastern site of the road the Design Code requires a minimum 2.5m width pavement, 2m width zone for cycle parking, servicing and landscaping (including retention three existing London Plane trees) with additional space required for spill out/defensible space adjacent to buildings. This design response satisfies Part 2a of Policy PA4 by providing streetscape


Pg 80

improvements opposite Victoria Shopping Centre which will enhance the setting of new and existing buildings to provide an improved pedestrian experience. Whilst this does not comply Part 3i(e) of the Policy PA4 by providing for “new/improved open space fronting Chichester Road”, the proposed landscape approach will provide a substantially improved and better defined public realm to Chichester Road. The proposed design response is appropriate for the setting of Chichester Road and the minor non-compliance is considered to be acceptable.

6.157 Alongside the six public open spaces, the Design Code establishes design criteria for the detailed design of new and improved streets throughout the site. The approach adopts a street hierarchy whereby Queensway will provide the main transport artery through the site, with each of the connected streets on the edge of the site being required to respond to the surrounding context in line with the established design criteria for Secondary Vehicle Routes. New Tertiary Vehicle Routes within the site must be designed to slow vehicle speeds, support pedestrian connectivity and create an attractive environment. The Design Code goes on to establish minimum widths for the various streetscape elements, including defensible space, spill out areas, pavements and carriageways and soft landscaping. The approaches will assist in placemaking, activation of the public realm and will ensure appropriate relationships with surrounding areas outside of the application site boundary.

6.158 In relation to trees, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment submitted by the application records that of the 85 individual trees and groups of trees, 31 are unaffected by the development proposals, 16 are to be retained by requiring additional protection measures to ensure their continued health and structural integrity due to works in close proximity and 38 are proposed to be removed. The assessment confirms that the proposed development will not have any impact on the one tree within the site that is subject to a Tree Protection Order (TPO) and confirms that a number of large London plane trees in the location of Porter’s Park and along Chichester Road will be retained. These trees are important landscape features and will remain as such in the development of the site. Of the 38 trees/groups proposed to be removed, four are Category B (moderate quality) and 34 are Category C (low quality).

6.159 To mitigate for the loss of existing trees, the Design Code confirms that two for one tree replacement should be provided. The Illustrative Landscape and Public Realm Plan shows how 190 new trees could be planted across the site and gives confidence that a minimum of two for one tree replacement could be provided across the site. Given the majority of existing trees to be removed are of low quality, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment states that new tree planting provides the opportunity to ensure the long-term value of the tree stock on the site improves in quality, species diversity and planting environment.

6.160 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment recommends that, subject to planning permission, a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement including tree protection measures is submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. This can be secured by a planning condition ensuring that these strategies are in place before any works that affect trees are carried out.


Pg 81

6.161 Overall, the detailed landscaping proposal for the Queensway and Parameters Plans and Design Code for the outline element establish an ambitious landscaping scheme which will deliver the core objectives for the site and town centre by providing improved connectivity across the site and making a significant and transformative contribution towards urban greening and placemaking. It is considered that the landscape proposals broadly accord with policy and deliver a substantial improvement to public realm and significant new planting for the site. Opportunities requiring the application to explore the potential for and optimise the provision of green roofs and green walls as part of the Reserved Matters applications will be secured via planning condition. Conditions are proposed to ensure the provision and implementation of detailed landscaping schemes and to ensure the long-term benefits of landscape improvement through a Landscape Management Plan. Long-term maintenance of landscaped areas is to be controlled by planning condition Subject to those conditions the indicative landscaping proposals would be acceptable and policy compliant.

7) Townscape and Visual Impact 6.162 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy (2007) states that development should (among

other matters) “9. Secure improvements to the urban environment through quality design [and] 10. Respect the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood where appropriate”.

6.163 Policy DM1 of the Development Management Document (2015) requires that schemes should “(i) add to the overall quality of the area and respect the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in terms of its architectural approach, height, size, scale, form, massing, density, layout, proportions, materials, townscape and/or landscape setting, use, and detailed design features…; (ii) provide appropriate detailing that contributes to and enhances the distinctiveness of place; (iii) contribute positively to the space between buildings and their relationship to the public realm;…”.

6.164 Policy DM4 relates to tall and large buildings and states that they will be acceptable where “(i) they are located in areas whose character, function and appearance would not be harmed by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building; and (ii) they integrate with the form, proportion, composition, and character of surrounding buildings, urban grain and public realm (including landscape features), particularly at street level and (iii) individually or as a group, form a distinctive landmark that emphasises a point of visual significance and enhances the skyline and image of Southend…”. The policy states that tall and large buildings will not be accepted where “(i) they adversely affect their surroundings in terms of character…; or (ii) they impact adversely on local views that make an important contribution to the character of an area; or (iii) they adversely affect the skyline of Southend as viewed from the foreshore and other important viewpoints and vistas within and outside the Borough;…”.

6.165 The Southend Central Area Action Plan (2018) identifies at Policy DS2 that “New development within Southend Central Area will be expected to demonstrate that it is compatible with/or enhances Key Views of:- The Seafront; Southend Pier; The Kursaal; Royal Terrace and Clifftown Parade; All Saints Church (outside of


Pg 82

the SCAAP boundary); Porters (outside of the SCAAP boundary) and St Mary’s Church (outside of the AAP boundary).”

6.166 The Area Action Plan defines Landmark Buildings as buildings that have “become, or may become, a point of reference because of its positive contribution to place making.” It notes that Landmark Buildings “generally occupy strategic locations such as road junctions, terminations of vistas, and corners”. All Saints Church and Porters are both identified as Existing Landmark Buildings and the Better Queensway Opportunity Site (PA.4.1) is specifically identified in Table 3 as one of the potential locations for new landmark buildings.

6.167 In respect of creation of new landmarks, Part 2 Policy DS3 states that the Council will “support and encourage the creation of new landmarks in the areas identified within Table 3, where development proposals must demonstrate that: a. design, detailing and use of materials are of exceptional quality and interest and will help to reinforce local character and distinctiveness; b. the location would provide a focal point for an existing vista/sight line or generate a new one; c. the proposals do not adversely affect the amenity of local residents; and d. the proposals do not harm the setting of nearby heritage assets.”

6.168 In line with the opportunities identified within DS3 for the Better Queensway Opportunity Site to accommodate new landmarks, the Aims for the Queensway Policy Area outlined in the Area Action Plan state that development will be residential-led and provide “opportunities for a range of building heights and densities suitable to the location”.

6.169 Given the indicative number of dwellings identified for the Better Queensway Opportunity Site within Policy PA4.1, it is acknowledged that the successful regeneration of the site, consistent with the site's allocation will inevitably lead to the introduction of new buildings of some scale, that will always result in a considerable change to views, for those who live, work in and visit the area. To quantify the nature of this inevitable change, the applicant has conducted a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) as part of the Environmental Statement. This has been subject of peer review by Lichfields. A site visit was conducted by Officers and the Council’s assessor in November 2020 and additional information provided as a result. The assessment has been conducted in accordance with best practice guidance including that published by the Landscape Institute.

6.170 Given all new buildings form part of the outline element of the application, the townscape and visual effects of new buildings have been assessed on the basis of the maximum extent of the development set out in the Building Heights Parameter Plan.

6.171 The assessment has considered a zone of theoretical visibility extending up to 3km from the site. This includes Southend Pier and is an appropriate study area.

6.172 The scope of the visual assessment was agreed with officers and comprised a representative selection of publicly accessible locations including 18 close to medium range views within a 1.5km radius of the site and six distant views within a 3km radius of the site. The selection includes views of the following locations identified in Policy DS2: the seafront including Royal Terrace and Clifftown


Pg 83

Parade from Southend Pier (views 14a and 14b); The Kursaal (view 15), All Saints Church and Porters (view 3) and St Mary's Church (view D2). The Policy requires development to be compatible with and/or enhance views of these features. The applicants’ selection of views represents a suitable assessment of these key views.

6.173 As the photographs used for the visualisations date from May 2020, when most canopies were in leaf, the assessment provides a narrative on the degree in which the views would be altered by seasonal variation in leaf cover. This approach is reasonable.

6.174 Key terms within the report for considering the significance of visual and townscape effects are set out in the tables below:

Table 6.5 Significance of Effects for the Visual Assessment

Table 6.6 Significance of Effects for the Townscape Assessment

Sources: ES Tables 8.8 and 8.11

Townscape and Visual Effects: Construction Stage 6.175 Turning first to the effects during the construction stage of the development, a

number of significant (Moderate and Major) adverse visual effects have been identified on receptors immediately surrounding the site decreasing with distance. The TVIA considers these reflect the worst case and notes that there is some acknowledgement that the impact on views closest to the existing site would, at times, be regarded as positive due to the demolition of existing residential towers.


Pg 84

Effects would be mitigated by appropriate management of construction activities to minimise unnecessary visual intrusion. That is agreed by Lichfields.

6.176 The assessment of townscape effects has been based on an analysis of ten different Townscape Character Areas (TCA). During the construction phase, a range of adverse effects have been identified, again with the most significant effects closest to and including site, with more limited effects on the wider area. This would include a major adverse effect on the Queensway Estate TCA, a medium-term Moderate Adverse effect on Porters Place TCA and a short-term Moderate to Minor adverse effect on Warrior Square. The assessment identifies that these effects would be temporary, would vary in duration depending on the location and although identified as negative some may consider them a positive sign of regeneration. That is agreed by Lichfields.

Townscape and Visual Effects: Completed Development 6.177 As the new buildings are proposed in outline, the TVIA has tested the effects of

the maximum building envelopes defined by the Parameter Plans.

6.178 Based on these parameters, and in accordance with best practice guidance, the TVIA identified a range of positive and negative visual effects before mitigation (which includes the detailed design of the buildings, landscape and the public realm) is taken into account. The potential for some significant adverse effects from the introduction of taller or more extensive built form is identified in some cases prior to mitigation, including from sensitive locations such as:

1 Warrior Square (views 1a and 1b), where an increase in the scale and extent of buildings seen above the roofs of existing buildings in winter and from the eastern edge of the square would have a moderate adverse effect before mitigation, although the development would replace existing views of Queensway Estate towers buildings.

2 Southchurch Road (view 3) where a major adverse effect is identified looking between Porters and All Saints Church due to the taller and more extensive built form replacing the view of the existing Queensway towers.

3 Queensway looking East (view 10) where development would be seen in relation to Victoria Station.

4 The southern end of the Pier (view 14b) where the building envelope on the skyline would give rise to a moderate adverse effect.

5 Eastern Esplanade (view 15) where there would be a Moderate/ Minor adverse effect due to the larger massing.

6.179 Given new buildings are proposed in outline and effects have been assessed on the maximum extent of new building envelopes, the TVIA outlines a series of mitigation measures to be delivered at the detailed design stage. In summary, the key mitigation measures identified in the TVIA comprise: Design of the highest architectural quality, with high quality details and

materials that take account of existing character and features.


Pg 85

Refined building articulation which creates relief and avoids too great a dominance of building mass.

Siting of buildings to create sufficient public space create well landscaped, pedestrian friendly streets especially where they relate closely to existing residential, or heritage buildings.

New planting to soften the built form and create interest. Landscape management strategies to secure long term benefits.

6.180 Table 8.19 of the ES also identifies specific mitigation/enhancement measures for each view. These include: Ensuring the buildings visible from Warrior Square are designed to enhance

its character, incorporating elements such as the use of brick materials that tie in with the local building stock.

Articulation of the detailed architectural design to reflect positive aspects of existing building character.

Varied building heights (including to the blocks on Southchurch Road) to create variation and relief in the roofline when viewed from Warrior Square.

Concentration of taller elements at greater distance from Porters and All Saints Church.

Design of buildings adjacent to Porters and All Saint’s Church to respond to the sensitive setting of buildings.

Ensuring high-rise elements of proposed buildings relate positively to existing residential streets.

Creation of linear landscape pockets that respects the tree lined character of existing streets.

Implementation of landscaping, especially tree planting to the Queensway and later phases of development, as soon as possible.

Careful design of individual buildings to create a varied and well composed views, detailed use of building articulation and heights to create relief and avoid too greater dominance of building mass.

Ensuring individual buildings are designed to have elements of character that are unique from one another to prevent a homogenised approach.

6.181 The Planning Statement confirms that the mitigation measures to design, form and massing of the development identified in the TVIA are captured within the Design Code (section 2.5).

6.182 The applicant reports that there would be the following visual effects before and after the assumed mitigation.

Table 6.7 Summary of visual effect pre/post mitigation

View location Visual effect before mitigation

Visual effect after mitigation

Warrior Square Conservation Significant Moderate/ Significant Moderate/ Minor


Pg 86

Areas, looking north (view 1a) Minor adverse beneficialWarrior Square East, looking North (view 1b)

Significant Moderate adverse

Significant Moderate beneficial

Coleman Street, looking east (view 2)

Minor Beneficial Significant Major/ Moderate beneficial

Southchurch Road, looking west (view 3)

Significant Major Adverse


Boscombe Road looking west (view 4)

Significant Moderate Beneficial


Milton Street Looking south (view 5a)

Significant Major/ Moderate Adverse


Guildford Road, looking west (view 5b)

Significant Moderate/ Minor Adverse

Significant Moderate/ Minor beneficial

Sutton Road looking south (view 6)



Southchurch Road looking east (view 7)



Queensway, looking north (view 8)

Significant Major/Moderate adverse


Sutton Road, looking south (view 9)

Significant Moderate Adverse


Queensway, looking east (view 10)



London Road, looking east (view 11)

Significant Moderate/Minor Beneficial

Moderate/Minor Beneficial

Church Road, looking north: view from Clifftown Conservation Area (view 12)

Minor Adverse/Negligible

Minor Adverse/ Negligible

Southchurch Park, looking north-west (view 13)

Minor beneficial Minor beneficial

Southend Pier, looking north (view 14a)

Minor adverse Minor beneficial

Southend Pier, looking north (view 14b)


Moderate beneficial

Eastern Esplanade (view 15) Significant Moderate/ Minor Adverse

Moderate/Minor Beneficial

Victoria Avenue looking south-east: view form Prittlewell Conservation Area

Negligible Negligible


Pg 87

(view D1)Prittlewell Priory looking south-east: Grade I listed (view D2)


Fossetts Way looking South (view D3)



Chalkwell Park looking east (view D6)


6.183 Following implementation of the mitigation measures, the TVIA concludes that the effects of the proposed development on close-medium range views will be negligible or beneficial (Negligible to Major/Moderate Beneficial). All adverse effects would be addressed by mitigation with the exception of distant view D3 (Fossetts Way) and the view from Clifftown, where there would continue to be Minor Adverse/Negligible effects after mitigation measures have been taken into account.

6.184 Lichfields generally agrees with this conclusion and notes that the change to beneficial is dependent on the design quality of the subsequent reserved matters and details reserved by condition. Lichfields considers the effect on the view from Church Road (view 12) to be negligible. Providing design quality is delivered at the detailed stage, there would be beneficial effects arising from the regeneration of the site on sensitive views including from Warrior Square (views 1a and 1b), Southend Pier (views 14a and 14b); The Kursaal (view 15), All Saints Church and Porters (view 3).

6.185 With regard to the visual assessment, the consultant either agreed with the conclusions of the applicant or concluded that effects prior to mitigation would be less negative, other than in respect of view 7 (Southchurch Road) which would, in the consultant’s professional judgement, result in a Minor Beneficial/Negligible effect (rather than Moderate Beneficial) prior to mitigation.

6.186 The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer notes that the detailed highway works will have a “significantly reduced visual impact and this will transform the character of the area enormously”. The Design and Conservation Officer considers that removal of the existing towers will benefit Warrior Square Conservation Area and confirms that achieving high quality design for the new buildings will be important where the development is seen from the Conservation Area. This is recognised within the Design Code and reflected in the mitigation measures.

6.187 Turning to the townscape assessment, the applicant’s analysis concludes that there would be the following effects on each TCA following construction of the development before and after mitigation being taken into account.

Table 6.8: Summary of townscape effects pre/post mitigation

Townscape character Area

Operational Townscape effect before mitigation

Operational Townscape effect after mitigation

TCA1: Victorian/Edwardian

Significant Major/Moderate adverse



Pg 88

Terrace streetsTCA2: Sutton Road Local Centre

Significant Moderate adverse


TCA3: Warrior Square



TCA4: Mixed use Significant Major/ Moderate adverse


TCA5: Campus Significant Moderate adverse


TCA6: Town Centre Significant Major / Moderate/ Minor Adverse


TCA7: Queensway Estate

Significant Major / Moderate Adverse


TCA8: Southchurch Minor adverse Minor beneficialTCA9: Porters Place Significant Moderate

adverseModerate beneficial

TCA10: Residential Minor beneficial Minor beneficial

6.188 Mitigation of the significant adverse townscape effects would also be through the detailed design of buildings, including use of high quality and appropriate materials, well considered articulation of the built form and massing on the skyline and design of the public realm/ landscape. The delivery of the necessary high-quality design and detailing of buildings, landscape and the public realm and their future maintenance is proposed to be secured through conditions, including compliance with the Design Code.

6.189 Following implementation of these mitigation measures, the TVIA concludes that all townscape effects of the proposed development will range from Minor to Moderate Beneficial. The independent review of the TVIA, agreed with the conclusions reached by the applicant in respect of these residual effects.

6.190 It is noted that the Parameter Plans and Design Code include a number of measures to secure high quality design and mitigate townscape and visual effects. These include the stepping of building heights along Southchurch Road and away from both Porters and All Saints Church.

6.191 To secure the necessary level of design quality to result in enhancements to townscape and visual amenity, the following conditions are recommended: Compliance with the Design Code, which includes obligatory design

responses that “must” be followed at the detailed design stage. External materials and samples. Arboricultural method statement and tree protection fencing proposals. Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, including phasing details and

detailed landscaping proposals. Construction Management Plan. Further Visual Impact Assessment at the detailed design stage.


Pg 89

6.192 Such planning conditions have been included within the schedule of recommended conditions provided at Appendix 5.

6.193 Owing to the scale of development, and adopting the Council consultant’s interpretation of effects (i.e. the highest adverse effects predicted), it is clear that the development will result in changed townscape and views.

6.194 The townscape assessment found that following mitigation associated with the detailed design of the scheme there would be moderate beneficial effects and an overall enhancement of the townscape character of the site and surrounding area. In particular, these changes must be considered in the context of the existing baseline conditions, with the townscape and many existing views not contributing positively to the character of the area and being compromised by prevailing poor-quality design and the visual dominance of the existing high-rise towers (including views from Warrior Square, Porters and All Saints Church). Moreover, the site is identified as being acceptable in principle for new landmarks subject to considerations of location, design quality and effects on heritage assets (Policy DS3).

6.195 Although the assessment work has identified the potential for a number of adverse visual effects on key views prior to mitigation (i.e. from Southend Pier, The Kursaal, Clifftown, All Saints Church and Porters), these can be adequately addressed through the detailed design of the scheme. The proposed conditions would enable the visual effects of the design to be reviewed as the detailed proposals come forward.

6.196 Whilst adverse impacts to view D3 have been identified post-mitigation, the view represents a distant view looking south from Fossetts Way across open land towards the application site. The development will be visible in glimpse views above the tree line on the horizon. The TVIA identifies that the view is most likely to be seen from the road whilst moving in a vehicle and will therefore be appreciated for a shorter duration. Given the open and distant nature of this view, together with the limited receptors, the view is not considered to be a local view which makes an important contribution to the character of the area or important viewpoint within the Borough. In light of this the scheme would be compatible with Key Views, local views which make an important contribution to the character of the area and the skyline of Southend as viewed from the foreshore and other important viewpoints and vistas as required by Policy DS2 and DM4.

6.197 Policy DM6 requires development not to detrimentally impact on the Thames Estuary’s openness, or views to the Thames and beaches. It is not considered that the openness of the Thames will be affected by this development, given its location, set back from the seafront, and appearance as a continuation of the built form of the seafront. This view already accommodates many modern alterations.

6.198 Importantly, it is the case that the existing open nature of the site (comprising larger areas of surface-level car park and highways infrastructure) combined with the delivery of comprehensive residential-led mixed use regeneration in accordance with the site's allocation (i.e. accommodating a significant uplift in dwellings) will inevitably result in a change of local conditions. Bringing forward a development at this location that satisfies this policy context, whilst making good


Pg 90

use of a previously developed site, regenerating a key site within the Central Area of Southend, can only be achieved with a change in some local views. Overall, whilst the development does not avoid all detrimental impacts on views (i.e. distant view D3), the development would be compatible with Key Views, local views which make an important contribution to the character of the area and the skyline of Southend as viewed from the foreshore and other important viewpoints and vistas. Accordingly, the development complies with Policy DS2 of the SCAAP (2018) and DM4 of the Development Management Document (2015).

8) Heritage 6.199 As detailed in section 3.0 of this report, the site is located within close proximity

to a number of heritage assets. The scale of the proposed development gives the potential to affect the character and appearance of the wider area, with possible impacts on a number of important heritage assets. These include Warrior Square Conservation Area, Porters Grade I listed building and the non-designated assets of All Saints Church and Coleman Street Church.

6.200 With respect to this application, the applicable statutory provisions are Section 66 (1) and Section 72(1) of the Planning and Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990. Section 66(1) states for development which affects a Listed Building or its setting that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any feature of special architectural interest that it possesses. Section 72(1) states that special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.201 The NPPF confirms that “local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.” The required assessment is provided below.

6.202 The NPPF notes at Paragraph 192 that in considering applications, account should be taken of “…the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets…” and paragraph 193 confirms that “great weight” should be attached to conservation of designated heritage assets, “the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.” Should harm or loss result from alteration, destruction or development within its setting, it requires “clear and convincing justification” (Paragraph 194).

6.203 The NPPF continues, requiring local planning authorities to refuse consent for development which leads to “…substantial harm…or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset…” unless it can be demonstrated that the harm/loss is necessary for substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm/loss, or the nature of the asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; there is no viable medium term use; conservation by grant-funding or charitable/public ownership is not possible and the harm/loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use (Paragraph 195). For development proposals that lead to “less than


Pg 91

substantial harm” to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. (Paragraph 196).

6.204 Paragraph 197 of the NPPF requires the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage to be taken into account. Where a non-designated heritage asset will be affected, a balanced judgement is required that considers the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

6.205 This guidance is reflected in local plan policy. SCAAP Policy PA4 provides clear heritage related development principles for the Queensway Policy Area confirming that the council will “ensure that new development respects the views, setting and character of all designated and non-designated heritage assets, including listed and locally listed buildings in line with Policy DM5 of the Development Management Document…” (Part 1, h). Part 2(e) of the same policy notes that landscaping and urban greening should sensitively address and enhance the setting of Porters and All Saints Church and link with Warrior Square Policy Area.

6.206 Policy DM5 of the Development Management Document highlights the need for applications that affect heritage assets to be accompanied by an assessment of its significance, and to conserve and enhance its historic and architectural character, setting and townscape value. Development proposals that are demonstrated to result in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset will be weighed against the impact on the significance of the asset and the public benefits of the proposal, and will be resisted where there is no clear and convincing justification for this. In respect on non-designated heritage assets, Policy DM5 requires development proposals that result in the loss of or harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, such as a locally listed building, to normally be resisted, although a balanced judgement will be made, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss, the significance of the asset and any public benefits.

6.207 Historic England, in its formal consultation response to the application, refers back to pre-application advice provided to the applicant in 2018 and 2020. It notes that Historic England’s earlier pre-application advice confirmed there were no direct impacts on designated assets and that the emerging proposals provided opportunities to enhance the setting of Porters Following review of the submitted application England confirmed that they did not wish to offer any further comments.

6.208 Pre-application advice from Historic England is included as a technical appendix to the Environmental Statement. Whilst this advice is based on earlier iterations of the submitted application, the following observations are relevant to the consideration of heritage impacts: Historic England support the principle of redevelopment of the existing site,

which is noted to have a negative effect on the surrounding townscape and nearby heritage assets.

The setting of Porters is almost totally compromised from any historical form it may have had and today, the building is set within private gardens bounded


Pg 92

by a high wall and fence, guarding it against the intrusive highways infrastructure adjacent.

The visibility of existing towers over the roof line of houses fronting Warrior Square has an intrusive presence.

Redevelopment to reduce the impact of vehicle traffic, reintegrate street networks and create new public space and mixed use development is supported.

Improvements to the presently over-engineered and intrusive Queensway distributor road, as well as the introduction of new public spaces, are likely to represent an enhancement to the setting of Porters (Grade I), and Warrior Square Conservation Area.

The scale of the present highways infrastructure detracts overwhelmingly from the appreciation of Porters. The reduction in road width and the removal of the underpass system is considered likely to be beneficial, as is the introduction of a greater width of footway and the planting of street trees.

The creation of a new area of public realm and open space relating to All Saints Church, immediately north of Porters, is likely to create a more positive environment from which to appreciate both the listed building and also its surrounding townscape – including All Saints Church.

Historic England noted that the height of blocks on the corner of Southchurch Road and Chichester Road was indicated to be no more than 10 storeys on the draft Parameter Plan and seven storeys on the draft illustrative masterplan. Of the two, Historic England considered that seven storeys would integrate more successfully with the existing townscape and avoid unnecessary harm to the setting of the Warrior Square Conservation Area.

The south-eastern corner of Southchurch Road wrapping around the Queensway may be more suitable for a building of larger scale than the western end of Southchurch Road owing to the need for some form of positive articulation and legibility in what is otherwise a large, open and unattractive space taken up by a roundabout. Ten storeys may be too tall.

Reinstatement of a permeable and active streetscape running north from its north-eastern corner of Warrior Square, along the historic line of Essex Street, is supported.

Recommend that the detailed designed height of buildings is informed by Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) that provide a sense of the impact of any structure on the corner of Southchurch Road/Queensway on the setting of Porters Christchurch [All Saints Church], and Warrior Square Conservation Area.

The impacts of proposed building heights could partly be minimised through a higher quality design treatment. This should be implemented in order to avoid and minimise the effects of re-introducing a similarly harmful presence to the existing towers after they are demolished.

Suggest the height of 18 storey buildings facing Queensway should be reduced in height to minimise any impact.


Pg 93

6.209 The Design and Conservation Officer considers the application proposals will have a number of heritage benefits, including through: the removal of highways infrastructure and re-grading the Queensway; creation of public open space in front of All Saints Church; improvement to the setting of the locally listed Coleman Street Church (referred to as the ‘Brethren Church’ on SBC’s Local List of Historic Buildings) through provision of Porter’s Park; re-establishment of historic street patterns; and improving views out of the Warrior Square Conservation Area. Officers acknowledge potential for harm through creation of a new roundabout to the east of All Saint’s Church but note that the impact of this can be mitigated through good design and landscaping, and note that achieving a high quality of design for the new buildings seen from Warrior Square Conservation Area will be important.

6.210 In accordance with policy requirements, the applicants informed the submission with a Heritage Impact Assessment that assessed the significance of all the heritage assets potentially affected by the development, including the extent to which their settings contribute towards their significance. Further information is provided within the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) which assesses the potential significant environmental effects on cultural heritage. A letter from the applicant (dated 12 January 2021) clarifies the conclusions reached in the Cultural Heritage ES Chapter and replaces the conclusions set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment.

6.211 The revised conclusion of the Heritage Impact Assessment compares the existing harm to the setting of heritage assets caused by the poor-quality built environment, public realm, over-engineered highway infrastructure and architectural quality of the site with the potential impact of the detailed and outline proposals on the setting of heritage assets.

6.212 In respect of the detailed element of the application, the regrading of the Queensway and provision of associated landscaping and improved public realm is concluded to result in significant enhancements to the setting of both Porter’s and All Saint’s Church. This conclusion is agreed. As noted by Historic England, the immediate setting of Porter’s and All Saint’s Church is compromised by intrusive highways infrastructure. The detailed proposals include provision of a landscape strip to the west of Porter’s. This will provide a buffer between the revised Queensway and Porters resulting in a significant enhancement. Overall, the regrading, greening and public realm improvements will substantially improve the immediate setting of Porter’s and All Saint’s Church.

6.213 For the outline element of the application, the updated conclusion of the Heritage Impact Assessment notes that should the development come forward at the maximum build heights established by Maximum Building Heights Parameter Plan, “this is likely to result in harm to the setting of the assets”. This acknowledges the potential for harm albeit at the lower end of the less than substantial harm scale. Whilst Historic England noted in their earlier pre-application advice that an 18 storey building facing Queensway should be reduced in height to minimise heritage impact, the height is materially similar to existing towers and is located in centre of the site with building height then stepping down to surrounding heritage assets.


Pg 94

6.214 Importantly however, the Parameter Plans must be read in conjunction with the Design Code; the combination of which must be adhered to at the reserved matters stage (as proposed by planning condition). The Design Code explicitly contains a series of measures formulated to mitigate potential heritage impacts and ensure the detailed design leads to the positive enhancement of the setting of heritage assets. These include the following: All Saints Civic Square must be an open space that enhances the setting of

All Saint’s Church; The materiality and furniture within All Saints Civic Square must complement

and support the enhanced setting of All Saints Church; Open spaces must be provided immediately adjacent to All Saints Church and

Brethren Church; The height of proposals along Coleman Street and immediately north of All

Saint’s Church should be limited to low-rise buildings in accordance with the Maximum Building Height Parameters;

Buildings along Southchurch Road are encouraged to include brick facing materials to the low and medium rise buildings to tie in with existing local buildings and mitigate impact of the development on views out of the adjacent conservation area;

Proposals must contribute positively to the townscape in a combination of low, medium and tall buildings, with clear spaces and separations between buildings;

Massing should reduce in height in proximity to existing context; Tall buildings should reduce in overall massing as they get taller; and

6.215 Massing must be arranged to avoid being overbearing. The Heritage Impact Assessment concludes that:

“the Design Code provides a clear set of design parameters that will ensure that the form, massing, materiality, and public realm will be of a suitable quality and respond appropriately to the surrounding context, including the nearby historic buildings. This document will ensure that the proposals will create a development which creates a sense of place that responds positively to the local character of the surrounding townscape. The principles set out within the document are considered to be sufficiently robust, such that they will secure a high-quality development scheme that results in significant enhancements to the setting of the heritage receptors when compared to the current baseline, prior to any detailed architectural design coming forward.”

6.216 Subsequent reserved matters applications are required to conform with the Parameter Plans and Design Code. These documents appropriately allow for some flexibility at the reserved matters stage. Any remaining limited impacts on the setting of heritage assets can be properly resolved at the subsequent reserved matters detailed design stage.

6.217 The impact on heritage assets, including listed buildings, conservation areas and locally listed buildings is considered in detail below:


Pg 95

Porters (Civic House) – Grade I listed: Porters is the closest listed building to the proposed development sitting immediately to the south east of the Queensway roundabout. The significance of this heritage asset is primarily derived from its architectural and historic interest. The immediate setting is a walled, private garden, being enclosed to the north, south and east by a large brick wall and close boarded fence to the west. The wider setting is heavily compromised by the prevailing highways infrastructure which has a harmful impact on the setting of the listed building. The existing residential towers also have a harmful impact on the wider setting of this heritage asset. The detailed scheme proposes regrading of Queensway and provision of associated landscaping and improved public realm which will result in significant enhancement to the setting of Porters. The detailed proposals also include provision of a landscape strip to the west of Porter’s. This will introduce a buffer between the revised Queensway and Porters resulting in a significant enhancement. The outline element of the application includes provision of a new public open space to the north of Porters and west of All Saint’s Church. This will also improve the wider setting of the building. The new mini roundabout proposed at the junction of Tyrrel Drive and Southchurch Road will introduce new highways infrastructure adjacent to Porters which will have a low degree of harm subject to detailing and landscaping. The Parameter Plans and Design Code include a number of measures to secure high quality design and mitigate townscape and visual effects. Through appropriate planning conditions outlined in section 9 (above) the setting of Porters will not be harmed through the introduction of new buildings, which will be of substantially higher quality than the existing towers. Overall it is considered that the proposal will have a beneficial impact and therefore cause no harm to the significance and setting of this heritage asset.

Warrior Square Conservation Area: The Conservation Area lies to the south of Southchurch Road and entirely outside of the application site boundary with the exception of the western part of Warrior Square North which falls within the boundary of the outline element of the application boundary. It is one of two Victorian residential squares in Southend of which the north and east streets of the square survive and comprise typical late Victorian terraced houses. The setting of the residential terraces with public gardens provides a pleasant and peaceful townscape which contributes to its special interest. The western boundary of the Conservation Area includes the commercial development in the town centre (notably Maitland House) and the existing residential towers on the application site which are visible from the public gardens. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies that all trees within the Conservation Area adjacent to the Warrior Square North/Chichester Road junction are to be retained, maintaining the character of the Conservation Area. The demolition of the existing residential towers and provision of new buildings within the site and along Southchurch Road will introduce new development of increased scale and mass closer to the Conservation Area. Whilst the Maximum Building Height Parameter Plan requires the tallest buildings to be set furthest away and the Design Code includes measures to ensure that new development complements the character of the Conservation Area, the greater massing has potential to cause limited harm to the setting


Pg 96

of the Conservation Area. This is likely to result in less than substantial harm (at the lowest end of that scale) to the setting of Warrior Square Conservation Area.

Southend Pier – Grade II listed: The view from the pier head of the skyline of Southend will change through the introduction of new buildings and greater massing in the distance but this will be seen against the urban context of Southend. The change to the view from the pier, however, will not affect the significance of the structure itself and the change to its setting will not harm its significance.

All Saint’s Church – building of local interest: Whilst the Church lies outside of the application site boundary, the surrounding roads and public realm form part of the application site. The setting of the Church is heavily compromised by existing over-engineered highways infrastructure and the poor quality design and prominence of the existing residential towers. The detailed proposals for the regrading of Queensway and provision of associated landscaping and improved public realm will result in significant enhancements to the setting of All Saint’s Church. Removal of part of Sutton Road and replacement with a public open space immediately north and west of the Church will also significantly enhance the setting of the church and create opportunities for the church to be better appreciated as the focal point of the new public open space. Introduction of new buildings and greater massing in closer proximity to the Church will impact on the setting of the building, however, through adherence with the measures outlined in the Design Code this change would enhance not harm the significance or setting of the building.

Brethren Church (Potters House Christian Centre) – building of local interest: The building lies immediately to the north of the application site on Coleman Street. The heritage significance of the asset is primarily derived from its architectural interest as well as its historic association as a place of worship. The wider setting of the building is heavily compromised by the Queensway and existing residential towers. Demolition of the towers and provision of new public open spaces (Coleman Gardens and Porter’s Park) immediately opposite and adjacent to the building will significantly improve its setting and not cause harm to its significance.

Co-op Frontage, Sutton Road – building of local interest: The heritage significance is primarily derived from the buildings architectural interest and historic interest. The wider setting of the building is compromised by the dominance of Malvern House. The demolition of Malvern House and introduction of new buildings of lower height and higher quality design within the All Saint’s Church Character Area (as required by the Design Code) will not harm the significance of the setting of the building.

6.218 In summary, less than substantial harm to the setting of Warrior Square Conservation Area has been identified. In accordance with the NPPF (Paragraph 196) and Development Management Policy DM5, the harm to this designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. These include:


Pg 97

1 Heritage: enhancement to the setting of Grade I listed Porters and locally listed All Saint’s Church and Coleman Street Church;

2 Housing provision: substantial provision of up to 1,760 new dwellings, providing a significant contribution to the Council’s housing requirement.

3 Housing mix and quality: providing for a wider range of housing, including 3-bedroom dwellings and adaptable dwelling in compliance with Nationally Described Space Standards and with private amenity space.

4 Placemaking: reconnecting this part of Central Southend to overcome severance and provide new pedestrian and cycle links across the site, including re-establishment of historic street patterns. Provision of new landmark buildings and creation of a new gateway for the town centre adjacent to Southend Victoria Train Station.

5 Public realm, open space and urban greening: substantial public realm improvements throughout the site, creation of a minimum of 0.70ha of public open space (including two new play areas), retention of key existing trees and two for one tree replacement of removed trees within the outline element.

6 Town centre and commercial uses: complementing and supporting the town centre and local economy, including though the creation of new jobs in a wider range of employment sectors and a substantially improved retail frontage on the north side of Southchurch Road.

7 Health and social: increasing the health and wellbeing of existing and future residents by: creating a safer and more welcoming environment through design; reducing antisocial behaviour, perception and potential for crime and antisocial behaviour; provision of improved play and amenity space; and providing new and improved safer walking and cycling routes to encourage active travel.

6.219 The above public benefits are substantial and concluded to outweigh the limited harm identified. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF, SCAAP Policy PA4 and Development Management Policy DM5.

9) Residential Amenity 6.220 Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Development Management Document and CP4 of

the Core Strategy refer to the impact of development on surrounding occupiers. Policy DM1 states that all development should protect the “amenity of the site, immediate neighbours, and surrounding area, having regard to privacy, overlooking, outlook, noise and disturbance, visual enclosure, pollution, and daylight and sunlight.”

6.221 High-quality development, by definition, should provide a positive living environment for its occupiers whilst not having an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours. Protection and enhancement of amenity is essential to maintaining people's quality of life and ensuring the successful integration of proposed development into existing neighbourhoods.


Pg 98

6.222 The application seeks to obtain outline planning permission with all matters reserved (including appearance, scale and layout) for later consideration.

6.223 The Building Heights Parameter Plan includes allowance for the tallest buildings adjoining Queensway and Southend Victoria Station, with heights stepping down adjacent to existing development surrounding the site, particularly on the north-east corner where predominantly two-storey residential dwellings are located. The Land Use and Maximum Height Parameter Plans ensure that heights and massing respond to the surrounding context of the site and ensure that the spaces and streets between buildings create a development that respects the local context.

6.224 In terms of the commercial uses proposed, it is normal that no details of the opening hours, delivery times, ventilation and extraction details have been submitted at this outline stage and these details can be secured via planning conditions. Subject to conditions in this respect, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any material harm to the residential amenity of the nearby and adjoining residents.

Daylight and Sunlight 6.225 Chapter 15 of the ES reports the outcome of the assessment of the likely

significant environmental effects arising from the proposed development upon daylight, sunlight and overshadowing of neighbouring properties and sensitive receptors surrounding the application site. The ES excludes assessment of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing effects on new homes to be provided within the proposed development. These effects are assessed within the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide that accompanies the planning application (see paragraphs 6.243-6.253 below). The ES assessment of effects beyond the site is based on the maximum parameters of the development and does not take account of any additional mitigation measures that will be incorporated at the Reserved Matters stage. The results therefore represent hypothetical worst-case scenarios if the development were to be built out to the fullest extents of the proposed maximum parameters.

6.226 To assess the resultant impacts of the detailed proposals, daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessments are required to form part of the Reserved Matters Applications. These assessments will consider the impact of the detailed proposals on the daylight and sunlight amenity of existing and proposed residential properties together with the impacts of overshadowing. The assessments are committed to via the Design Code and are required to be submitted for approval via planning conditions. The assessments must demonstrate acceptable daylight and sunlight impacts in accordance accord with the Design Code and recommendations of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide.

6.227 The ES considers impacts by reference to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ 2011. The BRE document comprises guidelines and is not mandatory. The numerical guidelines within the BRE document are only advisory and should, where it is considered appropriate, be afforded some flexibility. This flexibility is recognised in the NPPF


Pg 99

(Para. 123), which notes that where there is a shortage of land to meet housing needs, local planning authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance related to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards.

6.228 For calculating daylight to neighbouring properties, affected by a proposed development, the primary assessment is the vertical sky component (VSC) method of assessment together with the no sky line (NSL) assessment where internal room layouts are known or can reasonably be assumed. The BRE guide emphasises the VSC assessment as the primary method of daylight assessment.

6.229 The BRE guide establishes that a window would be adversely affected if its VSC measured at the centre of a window is less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value. The ES assesses daylight and sunlight effects on 179 neighbouring properties. It assesses a total of 1,538 windows serving 877 rooms of 179 properties for daylight and 637 rooms of 155 properties for sunlight.

6.230 The baseline assessment of daylight finds that 59.3% of neighbouring windows assessed for VSC and 81.4% of rooms assessed for NSL would meet BRE criteria for daylight. The daylight assessment of the outline parameters finds that 57.9% of 1,538 neighbouring windows assessed for daylight would meet the BRE criteria for VSC prior to any additional mitigation measures being implemented. Of the 877 rooms assessed for NSL, 62.9% would meet the BRE criteria for NSL.

6.231 The baseline sunlight assessment finds that 90% of the neighbouring 637 rooms serving 155 properties assessed meet BRE criteria for sunlight. The sunlight assessment finds that of the neighbouring 637 rooms assessed for sunlight, 78.2% would meet the BRE’s criteria for both annual and winter Probable Sunlight Hours (PSH) prior to any mitigation measures being implemented. It finds that 110 neighbouring buildings would experience little or no change in sunlight levels prior to any mitigation measures being implemented.

6.232 The ES identifies that the daylight and sunlight effects will be mitigated through the detailed design of each phase of development, including through the detailed articulation of buildings. The Design Code requires that all Reserved Matters Applications “must provide daylight/sunlight and overshadowing assessments tested against the BRE guidance, and must demonstrate consideration and appropriate mitigation where required (as described in the Daylight & Sunlight Assessment & Design Guidance document prepared by GIA)”. The detailed mitigation measures to be adhered to at the Reserved Matters Stage which are part covered within the Design Code include: Creation of streets within the developable parcels of land to minimise

continuous obstructions; Introduction of gaps within the massing of each plot, such as between two

blocks; Ensuring the gaps between blocks and streets are as wide as possible to allow

an increase in sky visibility and where possible, locate these opposite neighbouring receptors;


Pg 100

Orientation of blocks in relation to neighbouring receptors to minimise continuous obstructions;

Where possible, position of buildings within the site away from boundaries with residential properties;

Staggering of building heights; Incorporation of set-backs on the upper floors of taller elements; and Incorporation of chamfered edges of blocks both vertically and horizontally

(where possible) to allow for additional access to daylight.

6.233 With the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, the ES concludes that the likely residual daylight effects would be reduced at most receptors that experience significant effects. Following implementation of these mitigation measures, the ES identifies that 136 of the 179 neighbouring properties (76%) assessed for daylight would not experience significant effects. Of these 136 neighbouring properties, 108 of concluded to experience a Negligible effect and 28 are found to experience a non-significant Minor Adverse effect. The 43 remaining neighbouring properties where residual Moderate Adverse effects (defined as an alteration between 30-39.9% in VSC) would remain significant are located on Coleman Street, Southchurch Road, and Milton Close and comprise: 29 – 73 (odds) Coleman Street 18-22 Southchurch Road 24 – 40 (evens) Southchurch Road 104 and 106 Southchurch Road Warrior House – Southchurch Road 1 and 2 Milton Close 80 – 88 Milton Close

6.234 For sunlight, the ES finds that all neighbouring properties assessed for sunlight will not experience significant effects following implementation of mitigation through the detailed design process. 35 neighbouring buildings will experience a non-significant Minor Adverse effect.

6.235 The ES demonstrates that the development will have an adverse effect on the daylight and sunlight amenity received by some surrounding residential properties. The properties where significant daylight effects are identified are located immediately adjacent to the application site (on Southchurch Road and Coleman Street) and at Milton Close (a single storey building between Guildford Road and St Ann’s Road). A number of these properties benefit from the open character and lower massing of the existing site and are therefore particularly sensitive to changes in building massing. It is therefore inevitable that a regeneration scheme providing a substantial uplift in new homes via an increase in scale, massing and site coverage of buildings appropriate to its sustainable central location will have an adverse effect on daylight amenity to surrounding residential properties in excess of the BRE recommendations.


Pg 101

6.236 The implementation of mitigation measures will significantly reduce the number of properties experiencing significant effects in terms of daylight. However, given the scale of the development, significant effects are still likely to occur to a limited number of homes following full implementation of the development.

6.237 In considering the impact of the proposed development on the daylight and sunlight amenity of these neighbouring properties, and in weighing the planning harm in the overall planning balance, it is relevant that the BRE document comprises guidelines which are not mandatory. The numerical guidelines within the BRE document are advisory and should, where it is considered appropriate, be applied with some flexibility. In this case, flexibility is required to account for the prevailing low-density nature of much of the existing site along with the location of the site in a central location (partly within Southend Town Centre and Southend Central Area) where substantial new development is fully supported via the site allocation.

6.238 The applicant has considered the impact of the proposals on surrounding buildings and responded to the overriding principle in the BRE guidelines that “in designing a new development, it is important to safeguard the light to nearby buildings” and “as a general rule the aim should be to minimise the impact to existing property”. This is evident through the arrangements set out in the Parameter Plans and through the mitigation measures required by the Design Code. Taking this into account, along with the flexibility afforded by the NPPF (Para. 123), the proposed development does all it can to reasonably protect the amenity of immediate neighbours whilst optimising the potential of the site to make a significant and necessary contribution towards new housing provision. In this context it is concluded that residents of surrounding properties will continue to benefit from acceptable living conditions in accordance with the NPPF and Development Management Policy DM1.

Overshadowing 6.239 In relation to overshadowing, Development Management Policy DM4 states that

tall and large buildings will not be considered acceptable where they adversely affect their surroundings through overshadowing.

6.240 The overshadowing assessment undertaken as part of the ES considers 421 amenity areas that received shadow cast by the application of the Maximum Building Heights Parameter Plan. The areas comprise Southend Victoria forecourt, three communal amenity areas, and 417 rear private gardens of properties on roads surrounding the site to the north and east.

6.241 Prior to mitigation, the ES identifies that the development would cause no significant effects to the vast majority of amenity areas (94%) with 25 amenity areas (6%) significantly affected. Following application of the mitigation measures detailed in the section above, the ES concludes that none of the 421 amenity areas would experience residual significant effects through overshadowing. 22 are anticipated to experience Minor Adverse (non-significant) residual effect.

6.242 Overall, whilst the development does not avoid (some relatively modest) adverse effects caused by overshadowing (as required by Policy DM4), the height and


Pg 102

massing of the development responds appropriately to the surrounding built context and seeks to minimise adverse effects whilst optimising and regenerating the site to provide a substantial uplift in new homes. Accordingly, limited adverse effects generated by overshadowing are considered to be acceptable seen in the context of the nature and circumstances of this development proposal.

Internal Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing 6.243 Given the outline nature of the new homes, it was agreed with the applicant

through the ES Scoping that a daylight and sunlight assessment considering the detailed design of proposed accommodation will form part of each of the Reserved Matters Applications in order to demonstrate acceptable amenity.

6.244 As this outline stage, the applicant has submitted a Daylight, Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide. This document assesses the likely levels of daylight and sunlight achieved by future residential properties within the development as well as the provision of sunlight to open spaces proposed within the development.

6.245 In terms of daylight, the assessment concludes that good VSC levels are generally seen throughout the site, with 93.5% of facades capable of receiving acceptable daylight levels through either conventional design (64.2%) or slightly enlarged windows and shallower room layouts (29.3%). It concludes that the lower levels of VSC within isolated areas are comparable with those of any large-scale urban development and through detailed design future residents can be provided with acceptable daylight amenity.

6.246 For sunlight, the assessment finds that 90% of the façade area meets BRE criteria for Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) and Winter Probable Sunlight Hours (WPSH) demonstrating good levels of sunlight can be achieved within the vast majority of assessed living rooms.

6.247 For homes where lower levels of daylight and sunlight are anticipated, the Daylight, Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide outlines a series of design measures that should be explored at the detailed design stage. These include measures such as shallower layouts (without compromising compliance with the National Space standards for unit sizes or habitable room sizes), enlarged windows, careful balcony positioning, location of bedrooms in areas with the lowest levels of daylight and maximising the potential for dual-aspect units. It notes that facades facing internal courtyards will need to be carefully designed to ensure adequate daylight and sunlight amenity.

6.248 In addition, measures to ensure suitable daylight and sunlight amenity are encapsulated within the Design Code. The Design Code expressly requires that the detailed massing of buildings is developed with full regard to sunlight, daylight and overshadowing. It requires that: The massing and orientation must allow good natural light to all homes and

minimise overshadowing. All Reserved Matters Applications must provide daylight/sunlight and

overshadowing assessments tested against BRE guidance, and must


Pg 103

demonstrate consideration and appropriate mitigation where required (as described in the Daylight, Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide).

Acceptable daylight and sunlight amenity is to be provided to all dwellings and must be measured against the BRE Guidelines in terms of Average Daylight Factor (ADF), No-Sky Line (NSL), Room Depth Criterion (RDC) and Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH).

Overshadowing of public realm and communal amenity areas should minimised and shall be measured against the BRE Guidelines in terms of Sun Hours on Ground (SHOG).

6.249 For overshadowing, the Daylight, Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide confirms that the proposed areas of open space will provide a variety of sunlit conditions at different times of the day and year. The core public open spaces are anticipated to receive high levels of direct sunlight at the March equinox and exceed the BRE’s recommendation of at least 50% of each amenity space receiving direct sunlight for two or more hours at the equinox, as follows: Porter’s Park (79%); All Saints Civic Square (97%); Southchurch Landscape Link (85%); and Victoria Station Plaza (100%). The new open space along Coleman Street will be shaded (8%) at the March equinox.

6.250 The Assessment notes some challenges associated with overshadowing within courtyards identifying shady conditions below the BRE’s recommendation within some plots. The Assessment recommends that roof terraces are considered as part of the detailed design where lower levels of sun exposure within courtyards would otherwise be found. This recommendation is carried through to the Design Code, which states that communal rooftop amenity spaces should be provided where possible. This approach demonstrates that through appropriate design consistent with the Design Code all residents will be able to enjoy good levels of sunlight from communal amenity areas throughout the year.

6.251 Overall, the assessment finds that the majority (56%) of the open space provided within the illustrative masterplan (i.e. the public open space and courtyards) would receive direct sunlight for at least two hours on the March equinox.

6.252 Whilst the residential element is in outline, the submitted Daylight, Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide has considered the daylight and sunlight levels that would be provided to the dwellings within the proposed scheme and concludes that acceptable daylight and sunlight amenity can be provided through detailed design. It also finds that the proposed scheme will deliver good sunlight amenity to proposed open spaces within the development. Owing to the outline nature of the proposed buildings, the Daylight, Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide confirms that more detailed assessments should be provided for each Reserved Matters Application in respect of ADF, NSL, RDC and APSH/WPSH following resolution of the detailed design.

6.253 In order to ensure the detailed design is appropriately tested and acceptable daylight and sunlight amenity is demonstrated, in accordance accord with the Design Code and recommendations of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and Design Guide, more detailed assessments of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing are to be carried out and submitted as part of each Reserved


Pg 104

Matters Application. These assessments are proposed to be conditioned. Overall, taking into account the above, it is considered that the proposed development can provide adequate daylight and sunlight amenity for future occupiers with adequate daylight to open spaces within the proposed development. Subject to conditions, the proposed development is considered acceptable in respect of internal daylight, sunlight and overshadowing and in accordance with relevant policy.

Privacy and Outlook 6.254 Limited details on privacy and outlook have been provided at this outline design

stage. However, the Design Code prescribes a number of design criteria that are to be expressly followed at the detailed design stage. These include: Communal rooftop amenity spaces to consider privacy to adjoining homes; Privacy between balconies must be considered; Apartments should be located at the first floor and above to avoid privacy

issues at ground floor; Where ground floor residential accommodation is provided a defensible space

within a minimum depth of 1m must be provided; Minimum distances between living rooms which face each other (14m) and

living rooms and residential frontages (12m); Windows to be positioned to avoid direct overlooking.

6.255 In addition to the Design Code, provision of obscure glazing is to be controlled by condition. In terms of privacy and outlook, it is considered that the detailed design would provide adequate and acceptable levels of outlook and privacy for future occupiers and avoid unacceptable levels of intervisibility between the homes subject to compliance with the Design Code and planning conditions.

Noise and disturbance 6.256 Paragraph 180 of the NPPF states “Planning policies and decisions should also

ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on healthy, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should…mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life.”

6.257 A Noise Assessment forms part of the ES. It identifies a range of construction noise mitigation measures to attenuate noise. Suitably specified facades addressing acoustic and ventilation are required to ensure acceptable indoor noise levels are achieved at the detailed design stages. This is proposed to be secured by planning condition.

6.258 In respect of external amenity space, the ES notes that it is not possible to be definitive about the noise impact on outdoor amenity spaces given the outline nature of the proposal. It notes that detailed design measures may be capable of


Pg 105

mitigating some outdoor amenity areas from road traffic. However, areas with line-of-sight to surrounding roads, and in close proximity, will have outdoor noise levels that are significantly above relevant guideline levels. Given the guidance in BS 8233 and PPG-Noise, the ES concludes that “the availability of quiet public open space nearby means that there is a minor adverse significance of effect for outdoor amenity spaces.”

6.259 Higher noise levels are expected given the location of the site within the town centre and adjacent to Queensway. Given the varied range of public open spaces committed to via the Design Code and within close proximity (i.e. Warrior Square) it is considered that residents of the development will have convenient access to relatively quiet publicly accessible open space commensurate with the location of the site within a highly accessible location. Accordingly, the minor adverse effect is considered acceptable. Planning conditions requiring detailed Noise Impact Assessment to be undertaken at the detailed design stage are proposed.

6.260 The mitigation measures identified in the ES are carried through into the Design Code. This requires that specific considerations of noise and extract ventilation must be considered at the detailed design stages. Above the workshop spaces (adjacent to the railway) the Design Code states that designers must consider the protection from noise and odour due to ventilation from the workshops.

6.261 The Council’s Environmental Health Team confirm that the Noise Assessment meets the relevant British Standard for internal noise levels and states that noise impact from construction methods will need to controlled. Noise and vibration mitigation measures are also recommended for dwellings adjacent to the railway sidings. Conditions in respect of ventilation, odour mitigation, vibration and detailed noise assessments for sensitive residential properties are recommended.

6.262 Subject to these conditions, the proposed development is considered acceptable and policy compliant in respect of noise and disturbance.

Air Quality 6.263 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states “Planning policies and decisions should

contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land stability.”

6.264 Impacts of the development proposals on air quality is assessed as part of the ES. It confirms that current air quality conditions are favourable and no exceedances of the national objectives for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are anticipated in the construction or operational years of the Development.

6.265 The assessment of air quality impacts concludes that “concentrations at both human health and ecological receptors are expected to be well within the respective, NO2, PM10, PM2.5 and NOx air quality objectives. The predicted effects from the construction and operation of the Development on local air quality


Pg 106

are therefore considered to be not significant and no mitigation measures are proposed.”

6.266 Mitigation measures are proposed in respect of dust. With such mitigation, the ES concludes that the risk of adverse effects due to emissions from the construction phase will not be significant. The ES also recommends a review of the energy plant following the detailed design of the energy strategy. Conditions requiring detailed energy strategies and Construction Environmental Management Plans (including dust mitigation measures) for each relevant phase of development are proposed. The proposed condition in respect of dust mitigation is recommended by the Council’s Environmental Health Team. Subject to these conditions, the proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in respect of air quality.

10) Socio-economic impacts6.267 Socio-economic benefits arising from the development proposals represent an

important consideration for the application. The NPPF makes it clear that pursuing a strong and responsive and competitive economy represents a key objective (one of three) of sustainable development. Under the section title of ‘Building a Strong, Competitive Economy’, it advises that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. (Paragraph 80).

6.268 Consistent with this, Strategic Objective 1 of the SCAAP seeks “to improve and transform the economic vitality, viability and diversity of Southend Central Area by encouraging the establishment of a wider range of homes, businesses and shops whilst providing new opportunities for learning, recreation, leisure and tourism.” Reference is made to improving town centre vitality and viability and encouragement given to the expansion of businesses in the wider Southend Central Area.

6.269 Transforming the underutilised site through the provision of a substantial uplift in new homes, open space, and a diverse range of employment opportunities will undoubtably bring with it a host of socio-economic benefits for Southend. The nature of and extent of the associated benefits will depend on the detailed design of the proposal and occupiers of non-residential accommodation.

6.270 The ES considers the likely significant effects of development in respect of population and human health. Due to the outline nature of the proposals, and scope of the ES, it considers a worst-case approach and does not report all socio-economic benefits that may arise from the proposed development. The ES reports the following anticipated socio-economic effects: Construction jobs: 485 full-time equivalent direct jobs per month over a 12

year construction period plus a further 470 indirect jobs per month of construction through the spin-off and multiplier effects;

Operational Jobs: supporting 27 more jobs than existing, albeit across a wider range of employment sectors;


Pg 107

Housing: providing an uplift of up to 1,268 additional homes across a wide mix of sizes and tenures;

Open space: providing a minimum of 0.7ha of open space.

6.271 The applicant has also submitted a Health Impact Assessment. This concludes that the development will have a neutral or positive health effect on each of the 11 key health themes assessed. The positive health impacts are extensive. They include: housing quality and mix; supporting social cohesion; providing scope for additional on-site social-infrastructure; creation of enhanced open spaces; provision of play spaces; supporting sustainable modes of transport; design measures to design out crime; and supporting local employment and training opportunities.

6.272 Essex Police note the economic benefits from construction and occupation of new homes along with employment opportunities for new and existing businesses. They confirm the importance of creating a sense of place, encourage walking and cycling and building communities with accessible services and facilities – all key objectives embraced by the development proposals. Owing to the scale of development, Essex Police state that the development could increase demand for policing. However, and given the design measures to design out crime, the requested contribution is not considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development or fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development as required by the NPPF (Para. 56).

6.273 In addition to the socio-economic effects reported by the applicant, the proposals will generate additional benefits for the site and surrounding area through increased resident expenditure generated by the new resident population in local shops and services. Obligations requiring a proportion of local labour and support for employment and skills training are to be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.

6.274 Overall, the proposals support the policy ambition of SCAAP objectives, bringing economic vitality to the Southend Central Area and Southend Town Centre. Furthermore, consistent with the NPPF, the evidenced positive contribution the scheme makes towards the local economy should be given significant weight in the consideration of this application.

11) Ecology and Biodiversity 6.275 Local planning policy in respect of ecology is set within the Core Strategy Policy

CP4, that requires development proposals to enhance and complement prevailing natural assets, protecting and enhancing biodiversity values of an area. The NPPF (Para. 175) states the following:

6.276 “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be

avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;


Pg 108

development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest…”. It continues, confirming that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity”.

6.277 The NPPF (Para. 170) also promotes biodiversity net gains including by the establishment of coherent ecological networks.

6.278 The site comprises extensive hard landscaping. The Environmental Statement identifies that the site includes some small areas of amenity grassland, ornamental planting/gardens, small areas of bare ground, some trees and hedgerows.

6.279 The site is not subject to any statutory designations, but there are a number of statutory designated sites within the defined Ecological Zone of Influence within the ES. These include the Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA/Ramsar and SSSI, Foulness SPA/Ramsar and SSSI, Essex Estuaries SAC and the Southend-on-Sea Foreshore Local Nature Reserve.

6.280 The ES concludes that the development alone would have a negligible effect upon Essex Coast ‘Habitats’ sites, including the above-mentioned ecological designations. However, considering the cumulative impact of the development with other schemes would result in a significant adverse effect at least at the County level, with mitigation therefore proposed in the form of financial contributions to the Essex Coast RAMS to reduce this impact (see below).

6.281 The ES provides a number of recommendations for habitat enhancements and mitigation measures. These include; replacement tree planting; bird nesting features; bat roosting features; invertebrate features. Subject to a condition requiring these habitat enhancements, it is considered that the development would be acceptable and policy compliant in the above regards and will deliver biodiversity net gains. It is also noted that the council Parks Team has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the details of planting being conditioned and adherence to the recommendations and mitigation included within the submitted reports.

Bats6.282 A Bat Survey was submitted as part of the application. This concludes that

foraging and navigational resources on-site for use by bats are limited and no bat activity was detected on the site during dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys. However, a small summer roost is likely to be located at Quantock House due to the presence of a small number of droppings in association with that building. A European Protected Species Mitigation Licence (EPSML) is therefore proposed to be undertaken ahead of the demolition of this building.


Pg 109

Planning conditions are proposed to ensure bats are not harmed during the demolition period and, as noted above, bat roosting features are provided.

Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) 6.283 The site falls within the Zone of Influence for one or more European designated

sites scoped into the emerging Essex Coast RAMS. It is the Council’s duty as a competent authority to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to secure any necessary mitigation and record this decision within the planning documentation. Any new residential development has the potential to cause disturbance to European designated sites and therefore the development must provide appropriate mitigation. This is necessary to meet the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The Essex Coast RAMS SPD, which was adopted by Full Council on 29 October 2020, requires that a tariff of £125.58 (index linked) is paid per dwelling unit. This will be transferred to the RAMS accountable body in accordance with the RAMS Partnership Agreement.

6.284 Following Natural England’s initial comments and review of the updated Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment, Natural England confirmed agreement with the overall conclusions of the assessment that although the project is likely to have a significant effect in-combination with other projects, it can however avoid an adverse effect on European site integrity if the Essex Coast RAMS tariff is appropriately secured.

6.285 The applicant has committed to payment of the relevant tariff and this is proposed to be secured via the Section 106 Agreement. The development offers suitable mitigation of the in-combination effect of the net increase of dwellings on habitats and species. The development is acceptable and in line with policies in this regard.

12) Sustainability6.286 To appreciate the sustainable credentials of the development proposals, it is

appropriate to initially set out the key aspects of sustainable development, as defined by prevailing policy. The NPPF, as referenced in Section 4.0 of this Report, confirms that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development, which is delivered through the pursuit of three overarching objectives. The economic objective requires support for the economy, encouraging growth, innovation and improved productivity. The social objective looks to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, whilst the environmental objective seeks to protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment, making effective use of land, helping biodiversity, minimising waste and pollution, and adapting to climate change.

6.287 Policy KP2 of the Core Strategy reflects the sustainable themes referenced in the NPPF, calling for development proposals to make best use of previously used land; avoid flood risk; reduce the need for travel; ensuring good levels of accessibility; the promotion of public transport; protection for natural and historical assets; a reduction in the use of resources; the adoption of renewable and recycled energy, water and other resources (including a target of 10% of


Pg 110

energy needs to be met by on-site renewable options); and the adoption of SUDs techniques. Policy KP1 embraces the economic objectives of sustainability, identifying a spatial development strategy that identifies the Southend Town Centre and Central Area as the primary focus for regeneration. Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy mirrors much of these policy requirements, again prioritising the use of previously developed land; the adoption of sustainable and renewable resources in construction and development; creating accessible development and spaces; protecting heritage assets and existing open spaces; and reducing all forms of pollution.

6.288 Applying these identified sustainable themes to the application proposals results in a positive appraisal of the development’s sustainable credentials:1 Previously developed site: the proposals involve the redevelopment of a

section of the Queensway, existing areas of residential, commercial and community uses, and surrounding roads adjoining Queensway to the north and south. The proposals include a net increase in residential and commercial floorspace. A comprehensive landscaping scheme will also be implemented across the site. This will result in a substantial net uplift and diversification in open space provision and the creation of new public open spaces.

2 Location: The site is centrally located in the Southend Central Area and partly within the Town Centre. It is within convenient walking distance of the High Street, Southend Victoria and Southend Central Train Stations. The area is the planned focus for Council regeneration initiatives, and its allocation as an Opportunity Site in the SCAAP further supports the suitability of the site’s location to deliver sustainable development.

3 Sustainable travel: The site location partly within and adjoining Southend Town Centre and its public transport facilities ensures it provides opportunities for occupiers and visitors to embrace sustainable transport alternatives to the private car. The substantial on-site improvements to pedestrian and cycle routes, significantly aids this process overcoming the current issues of severance, segregation and perception of crime. The provision of two car club spaces will provide an alternative to private car ownership and electric vehicle charging facilities will support the use of electric vehicles. The site is a highly accessible location and this characteristic is substantially enhanced by the development proposals.

4 Economy: with the site being transformed to provide a net uplift in residential and commercial floorspace, the outline proposals establish the framework for a truly mixed use development which strongly supports and diversifies the local economy and accords with the varied economic strands of sustainable development. Whilst the precise nature of the economic benefits arising are open to detailed interpretation consistent with the finding of the SCAAP Inquiry Inspector, it is clear that the application proposal will deliver job creation, increased capital expenditure, additional linked trip expenditure and increased spend. The range of non-residential uses permitted, and committed to, within the 10,000sq.m of non-residential floorspace will provide a diverse range of new employment opportunities creating and supporting conditions to allow businesses to flourish.


Pg 111

5 Building Design, Renewable Technologies and Energy: The submitted Design Code includes a number of requirements for the development to achieve through the detailed design stages. This includes all commercial floorspace achieving a BREEAM rating of excellent and all dwellings achieving current building regulation requirements in regard to energy efficiency, thermal insulation and sustainable building standards. Water efficient design measures to limit water consumption to 105 litres per person per day are proposed to be secured by planning condition.

6 Open Space and Landscape: Overall, a minimum 0.7ha of open space is committed to across the site. The location and relationship of open spaces throughout the site will create a diverse range of spaces suitable for play, socialising and community events setting a framework for improved community cohesion. The proposals seek to deliver an increased number of trees across the site, with most Category B trees and the sole TPO tree also being retained. A two for one re-provision of trees in the public realm is confirmed in the Design Code.

7 Heritage: As referenced above, the development is found to result in less than substantial harm to heritage assets (and that is at the lower end of that spectrum). This is concluded to be outweighed by the substantial and holistic public benefits generated by the development. The detailed design subject to subsequent Reserved Matters Applications is required to positively respond to heritage assets and to seek to mitigate adverse impacts.

8 Biodiversity: the development is not predicted to impact upon statutory designated sites, whilst the site itself has negligible habitat and biodiversity value. The submitted Bat Survey confirms that Quantock House is the only building that indicates some small amounts of summer roosting and additional mitigation will be implemented through the demolition of this building to ensure no harm occurs. Through the implementation of the landscape strategy proposed as part of the development, overall biodiversity value of the site can be enhanced.

9 Flooding: The site is within Flood Zone 1, which has the lowest risk of flooding. The proposals include a SuDS scheme and will provide betterment of surface water quality treatment over the existing site network and extensive impermeable Queensway carriageway and underpass which contributes towards flooding of surface water drainage at times of heavy rainfall.

10 Pollution: With the application of a number of appropriately worded conditions relating to noise, prevailing residential amenity in neighbouring areas can be protected. Pollution in all its forms (including noise, air quality, ground conditions) will be limited and controlled through the detailed design stage.

6.289 Overall, it is considered that this mixed-use development proposal is a truly sustainable development. It appropriately optimises the locational and physical potential of the site and stitches it with Southend Town Centre to improve connections and deliver a holistic package of sustainability benefits for both the site and surrounding areas. The above review of project characteristics demonstrate that the sustainable benefits delivered through the implementation of the development, most noticeably through the transformation of a previously


Pg 112

developed central Southend location into a new mixed-use development, are of considerable merit. The NPPF identifies a presumption in favour of sustainable development, requiring local authorities to approve such proposals where they accord with the development plan. In this instance, the proposals are considered to comply with the majority of Development Plan policies with the scheme consistent with all but three areas of the Development Plan. These areas are: affordable housing provision; impact upon the setting of heritage assets; and parts of Policy PA4 (specifically impacts on the setting of some heritage assets and a different arrangement of open space to that envisaged by the Policy).Hence the application proposals should benefit from this presumption, and it is appropriate that the sustainable nature of the development proposals should weigh heavily in favour of the application, in the consideration of the overall planning balance.

13) Other environmental matters

Ground Conditions6.290 Policy DM14 of the Development Management Document (2015) requires that an

appropriate contaminated land assessment be conducted in respect of the site.

6.291 A Geo-Technical and Environmental Desk Study has been submitted with the planning application. It identifies a number of potential sources of contamination and the Preliminary Risk Assessment included within the Desk Study identifies a very low to moderate risk of contaminated land related to historical land uses/features at and in close proximity to the site. The Desk Study recommends further investigation is carried out to understand if significant contamination is present that poses a risk to human health or water receptors.

6.292 Through appropriate construction methods, users of the development will not come into contact with any contaminated soils at the site. It is recommended that prior to commencement of each phase of development taking place, detailed investigation is conducted, and a strategy put in place for reducing the risk of construction operatives or future users or workers coming in contact with any areas of concern. This can be achieved through remediation or management strategies during both the construction and operational periods. These can be secured via planning condition.

Flood Risk and Drainage6.293 Paragraph 155 of the NPPF states that “Inappropriate development in areas at

risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.”

6.294 Paragraph 157 of the NPPF states “All plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development - taking into account the current and future impacts of climate change – so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property. They should do this, and manage any residual risk, by applying the sequential test and then, if necessary, the exception test…”


Pg 113

6.295 Policy KP1 of Core Strategy states that all development proposals within flood risk zones “shall be accompanied by a detailed flood risk assessment appropriate to the scale and the nature of the development and the risk”. It is also noted that “development will only be permitted where that assessment clearly demonstrates that it is appropriate in terms of its type, siting and the mitigation measures proposed, using appropriate and sustainable flood risk management options”.

6.296 The Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy concludes that the site lies within Flood Zone 1, an area with a low fluvial, tidal and reservoir flooding risk. A detailed drainage strategy related to the detailed element of the planning application was developed in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority and Anglian Water. In its consultation response to the application Anglian Water conclude that “the surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable”.

6.297 Drainage strategies for the detailed element of the application and outline phases of the application will be secured via planning conditions. The information submitted demonstrates that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere and that the development will be safe for its lifetime. It finds that the development will reduce the risk of surface water flooding on site and in the surrounding area through the removal of the extensive impermeable Queensway carriageway and underpass which contributes towards flooding of surface water drainage at times of heavy rainfall.

6.298 AECOM, on behalf of the Lead Local Flood Authority, confirm no objection to the planning application in terms of local flood risk or drainage subject to the specified planning conditions requiring detailed designs of a surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and approved before commencement of construction. The defined scope of the surface water drainage scheme is required to include: details of how surface water will be managed during construction; confirmation of maintenance of the Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) system; and an updated drainage layout plan which corresponds with the supporting calculations.

6.299 Subject to conditions, the development is acceptable and policy compliant in respect of flood risk and drainage.

Refuse and Recycling6.300 The Design Code requires that refuse stores are adequately sized for the capacity

of buildings they serve and that each phase of development includes a bulky waste storage area. Separate refuse and recycling stores are required to be provided for residential and non-residential uses.

6.301 The Design Code identifies a series of refuse collection access routes across the site and states that refuse collection should occur from within the carriageway wherever possible. It notes that bin storage along the highway should be avoided and that a 15 metre distance between waste and recycling collection points and waste collection vehicles should be maintained where possible.

6.302 Suitable refuse and recycling stores are also required for the non-residential uses. Given the outline nature of the proposal, it is considered that conditions requiring full details of the refuse and recycling stores and a waste management


Pg 114

plan should be secured via planning conditions. Environmental Health recommends a condition in this respect subject to which they have not raised any objection.

6.303 Detailed waste recycling and waste management strategies are required to be prepared and submitted with each Reserved Matters Application. Subject to conditions, the development is acceptable and policy compliant in respect of refuse and recycling.

14 ) Overall compliance with Key Policy PA46.304 The above review of the planning issues relevant to the consideration of this

planning application has repeatedly referred to Policy PA4 of the SCAAP, that provides a site-specific policy against which to appraise the current proposals. It is considered helpful to summarise the performance of the proposals when assessed against this policy. Whilst it remains one policy in the development plan and clearly other polices are also relevant in this regard, the performance of the scheme against Policy PA4 is considered important and should carry significant weight in any decision. Reference should also be made to Appendix 3, where a detailed appraisal against all relevant policies is provided.

Policy PA4: Queensway Policy Area Development Principles

Commentary Compliance

Part 1 The Council, through its role in determining planning applications, masterplanning, another initiatives, will:

Part-Compliant for this Part overall

a. promote residential and supporting uses that deliver the aims for the Policy Area;

The application promotes a residential mixed use development that delivers the aims for the Policy Area in creating a balanced community, supported by social and community infrastructure and complemented by active ground floor uses.

Compliant

b. support well-designed, sustainable buildings appropriate to the location in terms of use scale, massing and detailed design and contribute positively to

As noted above, tall buildings are appropriately located within the site and the maximum building heights respond to the surrounding built context and location. The proposal will contribute positively to placemaking through creating new high-quality streets and public space. The detailed design of buildings will be subject to Reserved Matters and must follow the principles established via the Design Code.

Compliant


Pg 115

successful placemaking;c. ensure that development will not result in a net loss of affordable housing provision, which includes the re-provision of social housing, as part of the regeneration of the area;

The proposals provide for 300 social rented homes and 12 shared ownership homes. It will result in a net gain of affordable housing provision of substantially higher quality and a more varied mix.

Compliant

d. support proposals for well-designed refurbishment or redevelopment of retail and commercial frontages to Southchurch Road, that are compatible with the Secondary Shopping Frontage designations;

The proposals include the redevelopment of the Southchurch Road frontage to provide a new Secondary Shopping Frontage. Retail/food and beverage and café design guidance set out in the Design Code will provide controls to ensure high quality frontages to Southchurch Road.

Compliant

e. promote the provision of new social and community infrastructure, which may include facilities such as community centres and clubs, doctor and dental surgeries, and nurseries and childcare provision;

Up to 1,500sq.m of community floorspace is proposed, including a creche/nursery. This provision provides flexibility for new social and community infrastructure to be provided. A nursery is proposed to be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

Compliant

f. support new commercial development and community uses that provide activity

The Land Use Parameter Plan allows for new commercial development and community uses within these key frontages.

Compliant


Pg 116

to ground floor including offices to upper floors, along Essex Street and Chichester Road where they contribute to the aims for the policy area;g. promote energy efficiency as appropriate, including opportunity for decentralised energy supply, and the retrofit of existing development in line with local policy;

The Design Code requires that: residential homes must meet the current building regulation requirements in regards to energy efficiency, thermal insulation and sustainable building standards; passive design techniques must be actively considered from the concept design stage, following the principles of good passive design and deliver energy efficient homes, reducing energy costs by lowering the energy demand for the homes; and energy strategies must come forward for each phase of development and where possible should maximise renewable energy generation.

Compliant

h. ensure that new development respects the views, setting and character of all designated and non-designated heritage assets, including listed and locally listed buildings in line with Policy DM5 of the Development Management Document, and landmark buildings located near to the Policy Area, in line with Policy DS2: Key Views and Policy DS3: Landmarks and Landmark

The Parameter Plans and Design Code respond to and seek to respect the views, setting and character of relevant designated and non-designated heritage assets.

As noted above, some limited (less than substantial) harm to heritage assets is caused by the scale and massing of proposals.

Part-Compliant.


Pg 117

Buildings.

Part 2 - The Council will promote the following access and public realm improvements, addressing the principles of the Streetscape Manual where applicable:

Compliant for this Part overall

a) improvements to the streetscape at Chichester Road opposite Victoria Shopping Centre to enhance the setting of new and existing buildings and improve pedestrian experience, including improved crossing points.

The detailed design for the junction of Queensway / Chichester Road includes improved hard and soft landscaping opposite the Victoria Shopping Centre. The outline element includes a new Tertiary Vehicle route aligned with the eastern entrance to the Shopping Centre. The Design Code establishes that a minimum of a 2.5m pavement must be provided along the eastern side of Chichester Road’s carriageway and that three of the existing Category B London Plane trees must be preserved along the eastern edge. The Design Code requires that the eastern minimum zone of 2m must be provided for the inclusion of cycle parking, servicing, and the retention of existing trees on the eastern side of the carriageway. The Design Code identifies the provision of an improved pedestrian across Chichester Road aligned with Southchurch Road.

Compliant

b) improve connectivity and legibility to aid way finding and create a high quality pedestrian and cycling

The Design code embraces the objective of improving connectivity and legibility through the site to create high quality pedestrian and cycle linkages. Convoluted underpasses and pedestrian bridges across Queensway are proposed to be replaced by improved crossings at

Compliant


Pg 118

environment, enhancing links with the High Street, Elmer Square, Warrior Square, Victoria Station, Victoria and Sutton Gateway Neighbourhood Policy Areas;

ground level. The development will significantly improve wayfinding across Queensway to surrounding Neighbourhood Policy Areas. The Design Code commits to the provision of a primary pedestrian route with a tolerance of 15m variance to create a north-south connection linking the site across Queensway to the High Street.

c) provision of public art to enhance the urban environment, particularly to the Queensway carriageway frontage and at the junction with Sutton Road;

New areas of public realm provide opportunities for public art to be delivered through Reserved Matters Applications.Public art is proposed to be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

Compliant

d) provision for new/ improved pedestrian/ cycle priority link as identified on the Policies Map, together with improved crossings and gateway improvements at the Queensway/Sutton Road Junction, Queensway/Short Street/Chichester Road junction in association with capacity requirements for development on the Better Queensway Opportunity Site (PA4.1);

As shown in the Design Code, an improved pedestrian and cycle link is required along Southchurch Road (as identified on the Policies Map within PA4). Improved routes across the site are proposed to be established to reduce severance and substantially increase connectivity, including new crossings over Queensway, a civic square to the north west of All Saints’ Church and improved junctions at Queensway/Short Street/Chichester Road.

Compliant

e) Urban Greening, including improved

Significant improvements to urban Compliant


Pg 119

landscaping, green walls and roofs, and tree planting and establish the Queensway Urban Park, which sensitively addresses and enhances the setting of Porters and All Saints Church, and links well with Warrior Square Policy Area;

greening are committed. The Land Use Parameter Plan commits to the minimum provision of 0.70ha of public open space, including town squares, parks, play provision, buffers to heritage assets and structural landscape. Two public open spaces one either side of Queensway (Porter’s Park and Coleman Gardens) will together provide a minimum of 3,200sq.m of new public open space and make a significant positive contribution to urban greening through new soft landscaping. All Saints Civic Square provides a minimum of 2,000sq.m of public open space and will significantly improve the immediate setting of All Saints Church and Porters through replacement of part of Sutton Road with landscaping.The proposals seek to deliver an increased number of trees across the site, with most Category B trees and the sole TPO tree also being retained. A two for one re-provision of trees in the public realm is specified in the Design Code. The Design Code specifies that green roofs must be considered as part of the Reserved Matters Applications alongside provision of photovoltaic systems and roof level amenity provision. Opportunities to provide green roofs and green walls as part of the Reserved Matters Applications will be secured via planning condition. A Landscape Management Strategy will ensure the long-term benefits of landscape improvement.

Part 3 Part-Compliant for this Part overall

The Opportunity Site, as identified on the Policies Map, is considered suitable primarily

It should be noted that the application site boundary extends beyond the Opportunity Site boundary where it extends along sections of Queensway and Southchurch Road.

Compliant


Pg 120

for residential development (1,200 indicative number of dwellings), supported by social and community uses and retail. D1, A1 and A3 uses are specifically identified as other potential uses.

The proposals will deliver 177,650sqm of residential floorspace (up to 1,760 dwellings) and up to 10,000sqm of commercial floorspace including retail, employment, community, leisure and event space.

Within Opportunity Site (PA4.1): ‘Better Queensway’ Project, planning permission will be granted for comprehensive redevelopment of this site to transform it into a modern social housing-led development with supporting community and secondary town centre uses set within an enhanced local environment.

Proposals involve the creation of a mixed use residential-led development, comprising up to 1,760 dwellings (of which 17.7% will be affordable) and up to 10,000sqm of commercial floorspace, including the re-provision of commercial floorspace along Southchurch Road where it is located in the Secondary Retail Frontage and community uses across the site.

Compliant

The development will: a) re-establish the historic urban grain of the area;

The Land Use and Access Parameter Plans will re-establish the grid layout which will align with the existing surrounding road network and historic street pattern.

Compliant


Pg 121

b) fully integrate with the surrounding area through the provision of pedestrian andcycle routes to improve access and linkages;

As shown in the Access Parameter Plan, pedestrian routes across the site will be established to reduce severance and increase connectivity, including new crossings over Queensway. In terms of cycle routes, new segregated routes will be provided as part of the improvements to Queensway, while additional routes will be incorporated across the site in the new public realm to improve linkages between surrounding residential areas, the town centre and seafront.

Compliant

c) incorporate climate change mitigation and sustainability measures;

As noted above, the sustainability standards set out in the Design Code require residential homes to be energy efficient and as a minimum, meet the building regulations and statutory sustainability standards current at the time of applications. Meanwhile commercial and non-residential elements of the proposals will be required to achieve the BREEAM Excellent rating as a minimum. The Design Code also sets out requirements in terms of energy strategies, passive design, materials, transport, water and drainage and landscape and public realm.

Compliant

d) provide for comprehensive landscaping through the creation of linked public greenspace and the Queensway Urban Park;

The Design Code provides detailed requirements for each of the three character areas in terms of the public realm appearance and landscaping. This includes a network of public open space across the site, such as Porter’s Park, Coleman Gardens and All Saint’s Civic Square.

Compliant

e) provide for new/improved open space fronting Chichester Road and at ColemanStreet;

A new area of public open space ‘Coleman Gardens’ is proposed fronting onto Coleman Street. This will provide complementary public space for Porter’s Park which will be located on the opposite side of Queensway and is required to be designed as a local park space for the neighbourhood. Streetscape and pedestrian crossing improvements are proposed for

Part-compliant

No new or improved open space proposed for Chichester Road


Pg 122

Chichester Road, including a minimum 2.5m width pavement, the retention of trees, space for soft landscaping and the provision of cycle parking and servicing, however no new or improved open space is proposed.

f) provide for a comprehensive drainage system.

The Design Code requires a SuDS system to be integrated within the landscape and highways features. The detail of this will need to be provided as part of detailed submissions and as covered in the Section 106 Agreement.

Compliant

6.305 Overall, the proposal is considered to substantially comply with Policy PA4 and deliver on the core Development Principles through promotion of a residential-led mixed use development which contributes positively to successful placemaking, delivers a substantially increased number and wider range of housing (including a net uplift in social housing) and creates diverse retail, employment and community uses. The ‘part compliances’ in relation to heritage (Part 1h) and provision of an open space fronting Chichester Road and Coleman Street (Part 3e) have been assessed in the respective Heritage and Open Space sections of this Committee Report and the proposal is concluded to be acceptable in both respects.


Pg 123

7.0 Other Issues

Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CIL) (2015)7.1 This application is CIL liable and there will be a CIL charge payable. With the

proposals providing a net increase in floorspace over 100sq.m, it is liable for the Community Infrastructure Levy. The amount charged for the development will be calculated in accordance with Regulation 40 of the CIL Regulations 2010, with all charges based on the gross internal floorspace area created (with potential deductions for existing ‘in-use’ floorspace to be either retained or demolished). The Council’s current CIL charges taking into account indexation, will attract a rate of £25.62/sq.m for residential uses in this location (Zone 1), £89.65/sq.m for supermarkets/superstores/retail warehousing with a net retailing space of over 280sq.m, £0 for development by a predominantly publicly funded or not for profit organisation, and £12.81/sq.m for all other uses not listed within the CIL Charging Schedule (including commercial and smaller-scale retail space). The initial CIL estimate based on the illustrative masterplan is approximately £3,000,000.

7.2 For the purposes of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) each phase of the development will constitute a separate Chargeable Development.

7.3 In accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 143 of the Localism Act 2011) and Section 155 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, CIL is being reported as a material ‘local finance consideration’ for the purpose of planning decisions. As all new floorspace is proposed within the outline element of the application, the CIL amount payable will be calculated on submission of a Reserved Matters Applications when the floorspace figures will be confirmed.


Pg 124

8.0 Planning Obligations and Conditions

Planning Obligations8.1 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that “Planning obligations must only be sought

where they meet all of the following tests:

(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) Directly related to the development; and

(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”

8.2 Paragraph 57 of the NPPF states “where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage”.

8.3 Core Strategy Policy KP3 requires that:

“In order to help the delivery of the Plan’s provisions the Borough Council will:- …

… 2. enter into planning obligations with developers to ensure the provision of infrastructure and transportation measures required as a consequence of the development proposed. This includes provisions such as; a. roads, sewers, servicing facilities and car parking; b. improvements to cycling, walking and passenger transport facilities and services; c. off-site flood protection or mitigation measures, including sustainable drainage systems (SUDS); d. affordable housing; e. educational facilities; f. open space, ‘green grid’, recreational, sport or other community development and environmental enhancements, including the provision of public art where appropriate; g. any other works, measures or actions required as a consequence of the proposed development; and h. appropriate on-going maintenance requirements.”

8.4 The draft Heads of Terms are detailed at Appendix 6.

Heads of Terms of Required Section 106 Agreement8.5 The key features of the draft Section 106 relate to highway, affordable housing,

open space considerations. In summary these are as follows:

Affordable Housing1 Provision of 300 social/ affordable rented units and 12 units as shared equity2 Submission of Affordable Housing Strategy for each phase with first Reserved

Matter Application (RM) in any phase prior to Commencement of Development

3 Submission of Statement of Compliance for each RM application or updated Affordable Housing Phase Strategy for that Phase


Pg 125

4 Restriction on occupation of 80% market units within each Phase until the Affordable Housing (including the decant units) has been constructed and transferred to an Registered Provider (RP)

5 Nominations of Affordable Housing Units6 RP is to be Swan Housing Association7 Affordable Housing dwelling mix (excluding decant units) to be 40-50% 1 bed

units and 40-50% 2 bed units subject to local housing needs. 10 of the 300 affordable rented units will be provided as 3 beds.

8 Affordable Housing to meet Nationally Described Space Standards in accordance with the Design Code

9 Viability review mechanisms.

Education1 Phased Contributions towards Secondary Education provision - triggers for

payment on occupation of residential units in each phase.

Transport

Highway works8.6 To be secured through a Section 106 obligation to carry out and complete the

Highway Works in accordance with the terms of a s278/s38 agreement.1 Queensway Works. Trigger: works to be completed by Practical Completion

of Phase 1 as shown on the Indicative Phasing Plan2 Southern Queensway Works. Trigger: works to be completed by Practical

Completion of the second Phase (currently Phase 3 as shown on the Indicative Phasing plan)

3 Victoria Gateway Works. Trigger: works to be completed by Practical Completion of the second Phase (currently Phase 3 as shown on the Indicative Phasing plan)

Travel Strategy Group and Contribution 4 To convene a Travel Strategy Group (TSG) on first Occupation to monitor the

overall traffic impact of the development together with other schemes coming forward within the area and determine whether the highways contribution of £90,000 (TSG Contribution) is required by way of further mitigation to comprise mitigation funded via the Signalling Contribution and the Sustainable Travel Fund Contribution.

5 TSG contribution to be made up of: a Signalling Contribution of £45,000 for additional mitigation to be provided

by the Council in the form of signalised upgrades to the following junctions: i Western arm of Queensway/Southchurch Road Roundabout –

conversion to signal crossings


Pg 126

ii Sutton Road/Southchurch Road northern arm – conversion to signal crossing

iii Bournemouth Park Road/ Southchurch Road – conversion to MOVA b Sustainable Travel Plan Fund of £45,000 towards the costs of periodic

travel surveys and implementing intervention measures recommended by the TSG

Traffic Regulation Orders6 Queensway works TROs

Required at commencement of Queensway Worksa Sutton Road between Malvern and Southchurch Road one way

conversion to two wayb Prohibition of motorised vehicles only between Lancaster Gardens and

Southchurch Roadc To reduce speed on redeveloped Queensway from 40mph to 30mph from

the junction with Chichester Road / Short Street signalised junction to sixty metres west of roundabout with Southchurch Road

Required by completion of Queensway Worksd Prohibition of all vehicles other than local buses between Queensway

eastbound bus stop under Victoria Centre overbridge to local road adjacent to Victoria Railway Station

e Queensway from one hundred metres west of Short Street / Chichester Road / Queensway signalised junction to the Queensway /Southchurch Road roundabout – alterations to waiting, stopping and loading restrictions

f Southchurch Road from Queensway to sixty metres east of Lancaster Gardens junction - alterations to waiting, stopping and loading restrictions

Required by completion of Southern Queensway Worksg Alterations to waiting, stopping and loading restrictionsPhased TROS

7 Required at start of construction of Phase 1 and by completion of Phases 1A, 2, 3 and 4

Stopping up Orders 8 At commencement of Phase 1 plots, Phase 2 and 4 across Areas 1-7.

Travel Plan9 Monitoring fees of £5,000 per year for a 10 year period in relation to the Travel

Plan. Trigger for first payment on first occupation of a Residential Unit and thereafter on the anniversary of that payment for a period expiring 9 years from first Occupation of the first Residential Unit


Pg 127

Travel Packs 10 To be provided to the first occupier of each residential Unit prior to occupation.

To include details of local bus and rail operators, taxi companies, community transport, school transport operators and car clubs and links to key website e.g. Forward Motion website. Details of any offer by bus operators of discounted travel to residents of the estate will be provided to residents. Travel plan coordinator to be appointed to administer the Travel Plan Fund.

Car Club 11 Reasonable endeavours Obligation to enter into an agreement with a car club

operator for 10 years 12 Provision of free membership for 1 year and a specified number of free driving

hours (the value of this to be taken from the Travel Plan Fund. Other costs including any costs in entering into the contract with a car club operator to be at expense of developer

Open Space1 Details of any Public Open Space to be provided for each phase or sub phase

with the first RM for that phase or sub phase, setting out quantum and location, detailed design and specification including relevant adoptable standardsa Porter’s Park (Phase 1A) b All Saints Civic Square (Phase 2A) c Coleman Gardens (Phase 2B) d Victoria Station Plaza (3B)

2 Maintenancea Porter’s Park, Coleman Gardens and part of All Saints Civic Square to be

maintained by LLP/ estate man co unless adopted by the Council b Victoria Station Plaza and part of All Saints Civic Square to be adopted

by the Council subject to payment of agreed maintenance sums.c Open space areas that are to be adopted by the Council to be designed

to adoptable standards

Play areas1 Provision of 1 Locally Equipped Play Areas LEAPS and 1 Local Areas of Play

LLAP as part of the development

Public Art1 Provision of on-site public art in 3 public spaces- Porter’s Park, Coleman

Gardens and All Saints Civic Square up to a max value of £150,000 total. Art to be commissioned by developer and Public Art to be defined as per the Council's model Section 106 Agreement


Pg 128

Cultural provision 1 Marketing of the artist studios.

Estate Management 1 Estate management company to be responsible for the maintenance of

specified areas including: Public Open Space, SuDS, internal estate roads, footways and cyclesways, communal gardens, street furniture and street planting, on street car parking spaces and street lighting and signage.

2 Annual service charge

RAMS contribution1 Tariff based to mitigate impact on Benfleet and Southend Marshes

SPA/Ramsar- £125.58 per dwelling in accordance with Essex Coast RAMS SPD adopted by LPA on 30 October 2020. Phased contributions linked to commencement of residential development within each Phase. Agreed with SHBC will only apply to net increase in dwellings

Employment and Training 1 Commitment to percentages for labour construction, local labour for end user

and local supply chains. 2 Apprenticeships and Traineeships3 Cash contribution to support 100 individuals gaining the SECTA training 4 Monitoring

CCTV 1 Reasonable endeavours obligation to explore feasibility of linkage to SBC

system

Section 106 Monitoring Costs1 Tariff based

Planning Conditions8.7 A full schedule of suggested conditions is provided at Appendix 5 of this Report.

In addition to the condition referred to above in respect of the Section 106 Agreement, additional conditions are proposed in respect of a range of matters including construction, phasing, maximum floorspace, retail provision, noise, landscaping, contamination, external materials, ventilation, hours of operation, lighting, waste management, flood risk and drainage, design, car parking, cycle parking, energy and sustainability, ecology, daylight/sunlight/overshadowing, wind/microclimate, archaeology, CCTV provision, highways and public art.

Unilateral Undertaking 8.8 As the Council is the primary landowner of the site, the Council as Local Planning

Authority has taken legal advice on the structure to be adopted to ensure that the site is properly bound for the purposes of securing, and ability to enforce


Pg 129

compliance with, the required planning obligations. Accordingly, this mechanism will comprise the Council, as landowner entering into a unilateral undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which will annex the final form of the planning agreement securing the planning obligations identified in this report. The unilateral undertaking will include appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the final form planning agreement is subsequently entered into by the developer to bind the site. In addition, the planning permission will contain a planning condition which restricts development (on a phased bases) until the final form Section 106 Agreement has been entered into in relation to the relevant part of the site. It is considered that a combination of these measures, provides the Council, as Local Planning Authority, with sufficient controls to ensure that the planning obligations are properly secured and will capable of enforcement if needed.


Pg 130

9.0 Conclusions and Recommendation

Application Proposal9.1 The hybrid application, submitted by Porters Place Southend-on-Sea LLP, seeks

detailed planning permission for phased engineering works to the Queensway, Sutton Road, and Southchurch Road and outline planning permission (with all matters reserved) for residential-led mixed use development of the site. The proposals involve:

Detailed Element 1 Removal of the roundabout at Queensway/Sutton Road/Southchurch

Road through phased engineering works along with removal of the associated underpass;

2 Re-grading of the Queensway, to provide a new 4 lane carriageway at grade with footpath, cycle lane, bus facilities, public realm, landscaping and associated structures;

3 Provision of a new roundabout at grade linking Southchurch Road and Queensway; and

4 Closure/stopping up of Sutton Road.

Outline Element 5 Demolition and Phasing: All buildings and car parks within the red line

boundary; 6 Residential Development: Up to 1,760 dwellings, including market and

affordable housing across the site; 7 Commercial Uses: Up to 10,000sqm of commercial floorspace including

retail and café uses, employment space (including workshops, artist studios, recording studios, brewery and bakery), office space, community use and creche/nursery, leisure uses and event space;

8 Car and Cycle Parking: Podium and on street car parking across the site. Cycle parking on plot in secure facilities for occupants and visitor cycle parking within the public realm;

9 Access: Secondary and Tertiary vehicle routes together with pedestrian and cycle routes;

10 Landscaping and Public Open Space: a network of public spaces across the site (minimum of 0.7ha) comprising formal and informal public open space, town squares, parks, play space and structural landscaping;

9.2 The hybrid nature of the planning application appropriately responds to the ambitious and progressive requirements of the Queensway Policy Area (Policy PA4). It provides certainty on the design and delivery of the detailed highway works and provides an appropriate and desirable level of flexibility for buildings to be delivered over the anticipated 10-year phased build period. The Application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country


Pg 131

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) 2017 (as detailed in this report), the requirements of Regulation 3 have therefore been met.

Policy9.3 A full schedule of development plan policies relevant to the application proposals

is provided at Appendix 5. This includes an appraisal of the proposals against each policy objective. Policy PA4 of the SCAAP (2018) provides a specific policy in respect of the majority of the application site, identifying it as an Opportunity Site (PA4.1: ‘Better Queensway’ Project).

9.4 The overarching aim within the policy area is to deliver long term regeneration via residential-led mixed use development which creates a vibrant, sustainable neighbourhood with a distinctive character. Central to this is the transformation of the Queensway from an unattractive, over-engineered and dominant highway which disrupts the urban form and severs connectivity in this part of Southend to a street which serves to knit the urban fabric back together, re-connect Central Southend and its adjoining neighbourhoods, provides attractive streetscape and promotes walking and cycling.

Consultation9.5 As noted in Section 3 of this Report, the proposed development has been subject

to extensive and proactive pre-application engagement by the applicant. This has shaped the level of detail shown on the Parameter Plans and commitments made within the Design Code. Both are the product of a collaborative, iterative and careful design process which was initiated in 2015 through public consultation by the Council and has since evolved through a series of public consultation events and pre-application meetings between the applicant and key stakeholders. Following the applicant’s two rounds of public consultation on the emerging proposals, the applicant maintained the consultation website and has collated further comments. These comments show a high level of support for the proposed residential-led regeneration of the site.

9.6 In response to the consultation, 20 representations have been received. All responses are summarised in Appendix 1. 12 comprise objections, four comprise responses of support and four comprise requests for information. These representations have been taken into account fully and carefully in assessing the proposal.

9.7 In response to the Council’s formal consultation exercises undertaken in respect of the application, a total of 20 responses have been received. Of these, 12 comprise objections, four request further information and four support the application. The most common concerns expressed related to: resultant traffic concerns; the level of proposed car parking; highway safety; pollution; pedestrian and cycle routes; scale and massing; density; residential amenity; adverse social and health outcomes; and impacts on Southend Town Centre. Give the scale of the proposals, the relatively few objections received indicate a high level of community endorsement of both the proposed development and the consultation process undertaken by the applicant. This is corroborated by the results of the applicants’ consultation process.


Pg 132

9.8 Subject to the imposition of appropriate and required planning conditions, no statutory consultee objects to the application proposals, including Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency.

9.9 Council Officer and specialist consultant input was received in respect of design, heritage, highways, housing, noise, air quality, land contamination, drainage, lighting, parks and trees, waste, archaeology and viability. Subject to the imposition of conditions, all officers’ feedback was in favour of the development proposals, with no in-principle objections raised.

Planning Balance and Overall Conclusion 9.10 As detailed in Section 4 of this Report, Section 38(6) of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act requires that development proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant development plans for Southend comprise the Core Strategy (2007), the Development Management Document (2015) and the Southend Central Area Action Plan (SCAAP, 2018). Central to the consideration of this application is Policy PA4 of the SCAAP, which provides site specific policy requirements.

9.11 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 states that in terms of the decision-taking process this means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or where the policies most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless:

“i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

9.12 Overall, the development proposals are considered to fully comply with all but three areas of the development plan. These areas are: affordable housing provision; impact upon the setting of some heritage assets; and parts of Policy PA4 (specifically impacts on the setting of some heritage assets and a different arrangement of open space to that envisaged by the Policy). This relatively modest non-compliance should be assessed and carefully weighed in the context of the Local Plan and the NPPF, taken as a whole, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

9.13 The proposals would provide up to 177,650sq.m of new residential floorspace (up to 1,760 new dwellings). 312 dwellings would be affordable, of which 300 would be social/affordable rented units and 12 would be shared ownership units. The proposals would make a significant contribution to meeting the housing needs of the Borough and will provide a net uplift of affordable housing provision on site. The proposal has been viability tested and the 17.7% provision of affordable housing is considered to be the maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing that the scheme can currently provide.


Pg 133

9.14 Further, as the latest Housing Delivery Test results for Southend Borough Council indicates that the delivery of housing within the Borough was substantially below the housing requirement over the previous three years (36%) Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is engaged. This means that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole.

9.15 As assessed in Section 6 of this Report, the identified less than substantial harm to heritage assets does not constitute a clear reason for refusing permission for the proposed development under the NPPF (Para 11d.i). In line with Paragraph 196 of the NPPF, the resulting limited harm would be outweighed by the many significant public benefits of the proposal. These include: 1 Heritage: enhancement to the setting of Grade I listed Porters and locally

listed All Saint’s Church and Coleman Street Church;2 Housing provision: substantial provision of up to 1,760 new dwellings,

providing a significant contribution to the Council’s housing requirement.3 Housing mix and quality: providing for a wider range of housing, including 3-

bedroom dwellings and adaptable dwelling in compliance with Nationally Described Space Standards and with private amenity space.

4 Placemaking: reconnecting this part of Central Southend to overcome severance and provide new pedestrian and cycle links across the site, including re-establishment of historic street patterns. Provision of new landmark buildings and creation of a new gateway for the town centre adjacent to Southend Victoria Train Station.

5 Public realm, open space and urban greening: substantial public realm improvements throughout the site, creation of a minimum of 0.70ha of public open space (including two new play areas), retention of key existing trees and two for one tree replacement of removed trees within the outline element.

6 Town centre and commercial uses: complementing and supporting the town centre and local economy, including though the creation of new jobs in a wider range of employment sectors and a substantially improved retail frontage on the north side of Southchurch Road.

7 Health and social: increasing the health and wellbeing of existing and future residents by: creating a safer and more welcoming environment through design; reducing antisocial behaviour, perception and potential for crime and antisocial behaviour; provision of improved play and amenity space; and providing new and improved safer walking and cycling routes to encourage active travel.

9.16 A minimum of 0.70ha of public open space is committed to. The proposed network of open space provides a landscaping approach which concentrates public open space within the heart of the masterplan and adjacent to key nodes and provides a new green route within the site. Coupled with public realm improvements throughout the site, this approach will improve the immediate setting of All Saints Church, Porters and Coleman Street Church and support permeability across the site. Whilst Part 3i(e) of the Policy PA4 identifies that a new/improved open space fronting Chichester Road should be provided, the


Pg 134

proposed landscape approach will provide an improved and better defined public realm to Chichester Road and support placemaking through a well-conceived landscape strategy.

9.17 The proposed height and density in this highly sustainable location is deemed entirely acceptable. The maximum building heights and Design Code have been sensitively formulated, taking into account the surroundings and responding positively to the character, context and form and scale of neighbouring buildings and heritage assets. Tall buildings are appropriately located to provide landmarks, assist wayfinding to Southend Victoria Station and better identify the site as forming part of Southend Town Centre and Central Area. Given the open nature of much of the site (comprising larger areas of surface-level car park, highways infrastructure and smaller-scale buildings) combined with policy requirements to provide a comprehensive residential-led mixed use, change to existing views is inevitable. Whilst the proposals do not avoid all detrimental impacts on views, the development is compatible with Key Views, local views which make an important contribution to the character of the area.

9.18 The Design Code commits to achieving all relevant residential space standards and the requirements to provide private and communal amenity space and play space within the Design Code and Land Use Parameter Plan are considered to be acceptable. The Design Code establishes a framework for dwellings to be provided with a good standard of accommodation. This represents a substantial improvement to existing accommodation, which is of poor quality and provides little in the way of private and communal amenity space.

9.19 The proposals will transform the site, from a transitory site dominated by highways infrastructure and parking to a people-focused site where pedestrians and cyclists are prioritised and people feel welcome. This design approach allows for a better utilisation of space through the creation of podium areas capable of being used for residential amenity and the provision of a network of public open spaces with a minimum area of 0.70 hectares.

9.20 The proposals will secure regeneration and revitalisation of an important part of Central Southend as defined within the SCAAP. It will overcome current issues of severance caused by the Queensway, provide a substantial uplift in new dwellings, support a diverse range of new employment opportunities and stitch the site with its surroundings through a network of new public open spaces and improvements to public realm.

9.21 The proposals appropriately support the development of an underutilised site to help meet needs for housing. The benefits of the proposals transcend the Queensway site. The proposals will deliver a package of holistic benefits for residents, businesses and the local community surrounding the site, helping to deliver improved connections to the Town Centre, better health outcomes, tackle crime, restore pride and deliver a range of economic, social and environmental benefits.

9.22 In conclusion, the many and significant planning benefits of the development are considered sufficient to outweigh the identified and limited adverse impacts of the proposals such that the application proposals benefit from the presumption in


Pg 135

favour of sustainable development (NPPF Para 11d.ii). Taking account of all the relevant material considerations and notwithstanding the minor non-compliances with Policy PA4, the proposed development should be supported.

RecommendationMembers are recommended to:

(a) DELEGATE to the Interim Director of Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions and following the completion of unilateral undertaking (pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)) by the Council as landowner which secures a PLANNING AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to be entered into to secure the provision of : 17.7% units of affordable housing on site (312 units) – with 300 social/

affordable rented units and 12 units as shared equity (with the ability for additional affordable housing subject to the viability review mechanisms).

Viability review mechanisms. £718,119.05 contribution towards secondary education (with the ability for

additional deferred contributions subject to the viability review mechanisms). Highway Works, Travel Strategy Group and (if required) up to £90,000

towards additional off site mitigation and sustainable travel initiatives. Traffic Regulation Orders. Stopping up Orders. Travel Plans and monitoring fees of £5,000 per year for a 10-year period. Travel Packs. Car Club. Open Space and Play Space provision and maintenance. Public Art. Cultural Provision. Essex RAMS payment of £125.58 per dwelling to mitigate the potential

disturbance to European designated sites. Employment and training. CCTV. Monitoring fee £10,000. (as further detailed in Appendix 6)(b) That the Interim Director of Planning be DELEGATED to APPROVE the application reference 20/01479/BC4M subject to the completion of the unilateral undertaking securing the SECTION 106 planning agreement referred to above and to conditions substantially in the form contained in Appendix 5, with such detailed minor amendments to the conditions as the Interim Director of Planning may consider to be reasonable and necessary, so long as these changes do not


Pg 136

alter the objectives and purposes of the conditions detailed in Appendix 5 of this Report.

(c) In the event that the unilateral undertaking referred to in part (a) above has not been completed before 30 June 2021 or an extension of this time as may be agreed by the Interim Director of Planning to refuse planning permission for the application on grounds that the development will not secure the necessary contributions as in part (a) above and further detailed in Appendix 6. As such, the proposal would be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and policies CP3, CP6, CP7 and CP8 of the Core Strategy (2007) DM7, DM8 and DM15 of the Development Management Document (2015) and policies DS5 and PA4 of the SCAAP (2018).