Southend seafront development plan stalls (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Southend seafront development plan stalls
7:00am Saturday 8th September 2012 in News
By Stephen Hackwell
Centre of the development – the proposed site for the Marine Plaza, which would include 350 homes, shops and restaurants
MULTIMILLION-POUND plans for a landmark seafront development in Southend have stalled amid a row over land valuations.
The Echo can reveal talks over the Inner London Group’s proposals for Marine Parade, which include 350 apartments, shops, restaurants and offices, have ground to a halt.
With plans to redevelop the eyesore Esplanade House offices, in Eastern Esplanade, also in limbo, critics have accused developers of holding the seafront to ransom.
Graham Longley , leader of Southend Council’s Lib Dem group, said: “We have been let down time and time again by developers who promise something and never deliver.
“They don’t seem to care about what the seafront looks like, or what impression is given to the people walking past.
“It leaves us with prime sites which look tatty, when so much more could be made of them.”
Inner London Group paid £2.25million for a large section of land between Marine Parade, Southchurch Avenue and Pleasant Road two years ago.
But it still needs to buy the Happidrome amusement arcade, which lies at the heart of the site, and its owners say they are nowhere near reaching a deal.
Stanley Knatchbull co-owns the Happidrome site, including the Rockery and Wilkies Shellfish Bar, with business partner Edward Warren.
It has been valued at £800,000 by the Land Registry.
He said: “Everything has stalled.
“Their valuation of the site is so far off ours that we haven’t even come close to an agreement.
“There is nothing happening at the moment.”
The first glimpse of the massive development, commonly known as Marine Plaza, was revealed in December 2010, when preliminary proposals were put forward by the Pegasus Planning Group on behalf of Inner London Group.
The scheme, which would sit opposite the Kursaal, is expected to be ten to 14 storeys high and include 6,000sqm of commercial floor space.
All existing properties on the site, including the old Funland area, the Foresters Arms and the Happidrome would be bulldozed if the plans go ahead.
The New Ship pub has already been demolished.
However, Inner London Group missed its initial self-set deadline of last summer for submitting a planning application to Southend Council.
In January, it secured permission to build 97 flats on a former factory site, in Sutton Road, Southend, after a drawn-out fight.
In the wake of that decision, Larry Fenttiman, senior partner at the company, said it could trigger other developments in Southend and Rochford District.
However, Mr Knatchbull said he had not heard from Inner London Group “for months”.
Legally, the company would not need to buy the Happidrome site before submitting a planning application.
However, because the application fee for such a large development would stretch into many thousands of pounds, it would be usual for a preliminary deal to be in place.
Mr Knatchbull said: “It’s been a long time since they’ve been in touch, and we haven’t chased them. As far as I’m concerned, nothing is happening.”
Comments(24)
southendshrimper
says...
3:46pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Chymes81
says...
4:02pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Max Impact
says...
4:14pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Why not demolish what is left of Funland and convert the whole area to car parking until/if the project can move forward.
The story states that the Land Registry had valued the land but the owners wants more, we all want more but in reality we can not always have what we want, the Land Registry are netural and would not under value or over value the land, they have nothing to gain.
This would be a fitting scheme for this section of the seafront, a tourist attraction to entertain whist at the other end a museum to teach.
jayman
says...
4:23pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Max Impact wrote:A) the council don't have the money to build a museum.
In the photo are those cars parked legally?
Why not demolish what is left of Funland and convert the whole area to car parking until/if the project can move forward.
The story states that the Land Registry had valued the land but the owners wants more, we all want more but in reality we can not always have what we want, the Land Registry are netural and would not under value or over value the land, they have nothing to gain.
This would be a fitting scheme for this section of the seafront, a tourist attraction to entertain whist at the other end a museum to teach.
B) the owners of funland don't have to sell if they don't want to and they are more then entitled to expect a price for there land.
C) yes I do want to see jobs created.
D) why dont the devepolers draw up new plans?
E) this will probably end up as yet more land bank for a greedy developer to sell on many years later!
Max Impact
says...
4:46pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Max Impact
says...
8:06am Sat 8 Sep 12
howironic
says...
8:34am Sat 8 Sep 12
Max Impact wrote:I don't believe they're parked illegally. If people are allowed to walk straight into the road in a shared space, surely cars would also be allowed to drive and park on the pavement. Its got to work both ways.
In the photo are those cars parked legally?
Why not demolish what is left of Funland and convert the whole area to car parking until/if the project can move forward.
The story states that the Land Registry had valued the land but the owners wants more, we all want more but in reality we can not always have what we want, the Land Registry are netural and would not under value or over value the land, they have nothing to gain.
This would be a fitting scheme for this section of the seafront, a tourist attraction to entertain whist at the other end a museum to teach.
EssexBoy1956
says...
8:40am Sat 8 Sep 12
thesouthendone
says...
8:59am Sat 8 Sep 12
It seems like unless they go its going to be like trying to polish a turd!
tatersalad
says...
10:59am Sat 8 Sep 12
EssexBoy1956 wrote:Its not illegal, its them, not us.
One's a BMW, so that can park where it likes. The one behind is probably illegally parked though.
marshman
says...
11:13am Sat 8 Sep 12
v.randy
says...
11:28am Sat 8 Sep 12
All these DEV's have enomous land banks and it's just a game of monopoly to them.It's not as though any of them live in Southend.I doubt if these game-players have even visited Southend ,so why should they care what mess they leave behind.
They have milked the rising property market for decades and should having made a 'committment?' finish what they have started but MONEY=POWER and unfortunately all the power is in the hands of Developers,Landlords and investors ,so we the people/council have to crawl and beg for them to do something..sickening
!!!!
Bernard Manning
says...
12:24pm Sat 8 Sep 12
emcee
says...
1:59pm Sat 8 Sep 12
-
Well then it's about time the council had some balls and started fining these developers for leaving land in such a state, being behind schedule on any agreed timescales (these should be included as part of the planning agreement) and by not organising their development efficiently (as we see here).
Why are the developers able to buy land for a project in the "hope" they can purchase any remaining land AFTER they start any development. And why is planning permission given to developers when ALL the land that is required for the development not in their possession.
It is not the developers who are holding the seafront to ransom, it is the owners of the remaining land, and quite rightly so. Why should they sell at anything below market value? However, it is the council who allowed it to get like this.
jolllyboy
says...
4:41pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Nebs
says...
5:50pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Brunning999
says...
9:44pm Sat 8 Sep 12
The only Erks that like that area are 'the day trippers'
It is no longer part of The Charecter of Southend as Southend no longer has a Charecter.
Parts are modernizing improving and moving forward and some parts are an embarrassment to the town.
benfleet101
says...
10:01pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Nebs wrote:I like that idea. It could kill two birds with one stone. Be a brave Government that tried to enforce it though as the Developers wouldn't like it and the Government seems to need to keep them sweet.
After 5 years the owners of development land should have to pay business rates or council tax based on what could potentially go there.
jayman
says...
10:40pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Brunning999 wrote:Southend used to have character, many years ago.
That part of Southend can only fit the description of 'a dump'
The only Erks that like that area are 'the day trippers'
It is no longer part of The Charecter of Southend as Southend no longer has a Charecter.
Parts are modernizing improving and moving forward and some parts are an embarrassment to the town.
now Southend looks like a training area for second rate apprentice architects.
the sea front has had so much development I'm expecting the concrete to start weaving itself into DNA.
1nails
says...
11:58pm Sat 8 Sep 12
beaulocks
says...
6:31pm Sun 9 Sep 12
1nails wrote:All regis have is icing on top, no fingers in pie yet its far too messy.
Do Regis, or Countrywide have a finger in this pie ????.
rodgdodge
says...
8:50am Mon 10 Sep 12
en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Fantaseas) type of development, with maybe accommodation (serviced holiday apartments ect ).We need a recreational facility for all year use ,on the sea-front, if the town is going to attract developers who will build for the much needed longer stay (cash-spending)visit
ors
APR
says...
8:58am Mon 10 Sep 12
Max Impact says...
3:34pm Fri 7 Sep 12