Double blow to plans for £35m seafront museum

6:42pm Wednesday 13th June 2012 in Southend Photograph of the Author By Stephen Hackwell

Glimpse into the future – an artist’s impression of the museum Glimpse into the future – an artist’s impression of the museum

GRAND plans for a £35million museum on Southend seafront have been rocked by a two-punch combo from campaigners.

After a late legal objection caused Southend Council to postpone the proposals at the eleventh hour last month, officials have now been forced to ask for a fresh report on the possible impacts of the development.

And their ambitions were buffeted further by the news that more than 1,500 people have signed a petition opposing the plans – enough to trigger a debate in full council.

Charlotte Raven, one of the leading campaigners, said: “It’s certainly a step, or two, in the right direction. We are hopeful we can continue to press for the council to see sense.

“There are so many other, more worthy places this museum could be built.”

The council hoped to secure planning permission for the museum, which would be sunk into the cliff gardens above Western Esplanade, last month.

However, it was forced to withdraw the plans after protesters, led by the Clifftown Conservation Association, pointed out it had not completed an environmental screening report.

The technical blueprint requires the council to assess whether the plans would have any negative impact on the wildlife, vegetation and heritage of the museum site.

Bosses have now requested the screening is carried out and the issue of planning permission reconsidered as soon as possible.

A council spokesman said: “The report is due to be completed by July 2, although we anticipate finishing before then.”

However, campaigners have also been busy gathering hundreds of names for their petition.

If all the signatories are proved to be Southend taxpayers, the 1,500-strong petition will trigger a fresh debate on the museum proposals at the next full council meeting, on July 19. Ms Raven said: “The petition shows there is a groundswell of opinion against this idea. There are so many other places – like the old gasworks site or Victoria Avenue – which are in much more need of this sort of investment.”

Comments(23)

southendshrimper says...
7:00pm Wed 13 Jun 12

1500 signatures out of a population of over 175'000 not many against it then.

Report this post »

Max Impact says...
7:28pm Wed 13 Jun 12

The small moaning minority want to destroy the only real prospect Southend has of regaining the relics from the tomb Saxon King and bringing them home.

The proposal is the best option available as it is one of the few sites the council own that could house a landmark development.

People say use Victoria Avenue but the cost of buying a site off the landowner or renting it would be very high, the same goes for the old Gasworks site it is privately owned and whilst a compulsory purchase order could be slapped on the site the council would have to pay the going rate for the site.

What those against the museum proposal conveniently forget to state is the other facility that this museum will provide, I don’t see why they don’t perhaps it is because they hate to admit just what a spectacular attraction it will be if ever built, or just because they can't be botherd...

Planetarium
The social history and development of the Southend area.
The overriding influence of the River Thames.
The wildlife and environment of the Thames Estuary.
Beecroft Art Gallery.
Costume gallery.
Touring Exhibitions.
Cliff Gardens reinstated after construction.
Museum store (bringing all the outsourced artefacts back to Southend)
Car Parking


One wonders should we get the museum in the cliffs (which I hope we do) will all these nimbys who want to see the treasures lost to Southend forever, visit it or will they stick to their morals and stay away never visiting... I think we know the answer to that, they will be first in the queue!

Report this post »

Mslightfoot says...
8:13am Thu 14 Jun 12

Max Impact has a very idealistic view about the so called 'museum', which, let's be clear, is just branding, like calling the Saxon King the Prittlewell Prince; what the development actually is, is a business/conference centre.
We 'own' the cliffs, they are a jewel in the crown of this area and they are a well used public open space, does Max Impact really believe that this public amenity should be destroyed and replaced with a business centre with car parking. There's a very interesting programme on TV at the moment about what town planners did to London, we have lived with the results of what town planners hit and run policies do to communities, forcing people to live their lives inside, instead of being part of a community in outdoor spaces; communities come together in open spaces, walking the dog, talking to neighbours, exercising on Sunday morning, all of these things would be lost forever and 10 years forward of the development being built and sitting empty, the Council will put up a scapegoat, wring their hands, apologise and tell us they can do better, we should just trust them; well they can do better now, in our time, treat the town with the respect it deserves and find a more suitable location, stop wasting our money, stop creating conflict in the community and do something about the eyesore that is Victoria Avenue.

Report this post »

Lefty Cyclist Type says...
8:25am Thu 14 Jun 12

Personally I'd sooner see the money spent repairing the cliff slip and the gardens. Maybe rebuild Never Never Land. This part of the seafront does not need any more concrete and steel, it needs to remain a green space.

Southend's green spaces are disappearing at an alarming rate, and more effort needs to be made to preserve them, because once they've gone that's it, they won't come back.

Report this post »

Ian P says...
12:26pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Charlotte Raven said: “There are so many other, more worthy places this museum could be built.”
Just how many more landslips are there in Southend then, where the building could offer the dual purpose of being a retaining wall and an amenity for the area?

Report this post »

Mrs Conservation says...
1:55pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Why does Max Impact believe that the objections to the development of the cliffs are just by Nimbys?
The report in the Echo states that there is a petition already signed by 1500 people.

Report this post »

Mrs Reason says...
2:54pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Once again, the costs of constructing the musem have been underplayed - the conservative estimate is in the region of £58 million. However, the cost of rectifying the landslip and reinstating the established green space is a fraction of this cost. It is ridiculous to suggest that objectors are not in favour of a museum - it is merely the proposed location in an area of natural beauty. It is nothing less than short-sighted to suggest that all the suitable sites in Victoria Avenue are privately owned. SBC owns the old Technical College buildings, and more obviously, the (soon to be) defunct library which, as it sits next to the existing museum, would be the perfect regeneration project. It could be annexed to the existing museum by a glass extension which would provide the space needed for the Beecroft collection and the Saxon King artefacts (I refuse to call him the Prittlewell Prince - alliterative nonsense designed to make the finds more appealing, yet somehow giving him the air of a Disney character!). The new improved museum would be well served by Southend Victoria station, and the visitors would provide the vital footfall needed for Victoria Plaza. It would go a long way to giving us a Civic area we could be proud of. THIS IS WHERE THE MUSEUM BELONGS! Max Impact, please take note and open your eyes to other avenues. You seem remarkably well informed, and are doing a sterling PR job for SBC. Let's hope you are being handsomely rewarded!

Report this post »

Max Impact says...
3:06pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Mrs Conservation wrote:
Why does Max Impact believe that the objections to the development of the cliffs are just by Nimbys? The report in the Echo states that there is a petition already signed by 1500 people.
Out of how many in town!

Report this post »

Max Impact says...
3:09pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Personally I'd sooner see the money spent repairing the cliff slip and the gardens. Maybe rebuild Never Never Land. This part of the seafront does not need any more concrete and steel, it needs to remain a green space. Southend's green spaces are disappearing at an alarming rate, and more effort needs to be made to preserve them, because once they've gone that's it, they won't come back.
Why don't you read the FACTS on the project the Cliff Gardens will be reinstated once construction is complete so very very little green space will be lost.

The plans can be found on line if you bother to take the time to check.

Report this post »

southendshrimper says...
6:35pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Mrs Conservation wrote:
Why does Max Impact believe that the objections to the development of the cliffs are just by Nimbys?
The report in the Echo states that there is a petition already signed by 1500 people.
as I already said, 1500 out of 175000+ not many against it. or did you sign it 1499 times? lol

Report this post »

Mslightfoot says...
7:27pm Thu 14 Jun 12

I did take the trouble to look at the plans on line and I also took the trouble to make an objection to those plans, which is my right. The Council insist on referring to the objection as a 'late' objection, it was not late, it was within the time frame set out by them. Late would have been the day after the closing date. The petition has only just started to be 'talked' about and I can assure you that it is being signed, on-line for SOC (Save our Cliffs), and a paper petition that is being taken around all the different areas of the town, not just the Clifftown Conservation area. People I have spoken to are appalled by the idea that a seven storey business centre has been proposed and wonder what actual value it will bring to the town. The shops and the high street are far enough away from the site that most commuters wouldn't be interested in leaving the sea front to spend their tourist pounds in the shops. Also, unless I have totally missed the point, are we not trying to get people out of their cars, why is the Council building two car park levels, when, in the proper location, people could arrive in the town by train, as Mrs Reason says, the much needed tourist footfall at what is currently, a huge empty shopping mall, would be like a shot in the arm for the town. Nothing to do with this proposal adds up as being constructive town planning, it is a plan put together by short sighted glory seekers and it doesn't stand up; indeed it collapsed at the first challenge, and that should never have happened had SBC done their job properly. There is no point in pointing the finger at people who disagree with the Council, we should, as local tax payers be asking for the heads of the people who spent thousands of our tax pounds on a plan that doesn't hold water.

Report this post »

Bosniavet says...
9:12pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Personally I'd sooner see the money spent repairing the cliff slip and the gardens. Maybe rebuild Never Never Land. This part of the seafront does not need any more concrete and steel, it needs to remain a green space. Southend's green spaces are disappearing at an alarming rate, and more effort needs to be made to preserve them, because once they've gone that's it, they won't come back.
I think you make a good point about getting the Cliffs repaired etc. Personally, I would like to see the landslip repaired (as per the advice from the consulatnts previously engaged by SBC at astronomical cost), & the museum sited elsewhere, maybe in the soon to redundant libray on Victoria Avenue (another unnecessary project which will bring no benefit to locals as previously pointed out), placing it in a central, easily accessible location.
However, I suppose we will be told that the only way SBC can repair the landslip is to get grants to build this museum complex there, in the same way as the City Beach & Victoria Gateway projects.
Here's an off the wall suggestion, why don't SBC canvas the opinions of local residents (perhaps post something to every adult on the elctoral roll), & see what we want - I bet it won't be the new museum building, in the same way we wouldn't have wanted the new library (at least not as a joint venture with the "university"). Maybe we could have a local referendum, at least then we could have a say.....

Report this post »

Mrs Conservation says...
10:41pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Well said Bosniavet !

Repair our cliffs, preserve the Cliff Gardens, minimise the traffic on the seafront and look to the desperate Victoria Avenue that needs regeneration. Allow the people of Southend the freedom to enjoy their local green open space that provides a free and healthy amenity as it has done for over a century against the backdrop of the heritage of the Conservation Area.

There are other suggestions for the housing of the Saxon King - why not listen to them instead of the Council asking themselves questions to which they have already worked out the answers.


And yes, I have signed the petition. I was number 1501, and 1500 is not a bad number of signatures in a day....

Report this post »

Max Impact says...
11:24pm Thu 14 Jun 12

Mrs Conservation wrote:
Well said Bosniavet !

Repair our cliffs, preserve the Cliff Gardens, minimise the traffic on the seafront and look to the desperate Victoria Avenue that needs regeneration. Allow the people of Southend the freedom to enjoy their local green open space that provides a free and healthy amenity as it has done for over a century against the backdrop of the heritage of the Conservation Area.

There are other suggestions for the housing of the Saxon King - why not listen to them instead of the Council asking themselves questions to which they have already worked out the answers.


And yes, I have signed the petition. I was number 1501, and 1500 is not a bad number of signatures in a day....
So have you signed the on-line and paper petitions?

As if you or anyone has signed both one will not be counted, neither will any names that do not live within the borough of Southend-on-Sea, I know a number of people outside the borough have signed including a few from Basildon.

Some people just sign without reading the forms, this was proven by a group gathering names to ban women's suffrage, they got 12,000 names mainly from women!

The current libray would need to be completely rebuilt from the ground up as the current building is totally inadequate to house the artifacts as there is no climate control within the building, the security mesures needed to keep the artifacts safe are not up to what would be needed and the open plan of the building would offer very little in fire protection.

Report this post »

jayman says...
11:32pm Thu 14 Jun 12

it was a bad idea at the start, it sort of tailed off in the middle and the less we say about the ending the better..

trying to get the Tory councillors to admit defeat is like trying to squash a camel through the eye of a needle.

as mentioned above in several well thought out posts.. use the old library site for the museum to house the artefacts of the Saxon king..

oh and dear echo.. where did 'Saxon prince' come from.. it was probably as a result of a e-mail from the masters voice with a blue rosette at the civic centre wishing the 'Saxon king' term away due to its relation in name to the organisation SKIPP..

Report this post »

jayman says...
11:44pm Thu 14 Jun 12

SBC..

"we hold consultations at high cost to the tax payer of Southend. we get the consultant company in with the glossiest brochure to crunch the numbers, cook the stats and vet the results. if for what ever reason we get an unsatisfactory result back from out multi-layer screening process then we still maintain the option of ignoring the electorate of Southend.

we are then free to throw as much money at our dreams as possible while we turn your town into a nightmare..

Report this post »

Mslightfoot says...
9:54am Fri 15 Jun 12

I'm just wondering why Max Impact compares this petition to one banning women's suffrage, seems a little 'grasping at straws' really, although I suppose it is more likely that MI is beginning to appreciate that, certainly from the posts here, the general view appears to be that tax payers who live in the Southend Borough and not the surrounding area, can read and are happy to sign the petition even once they have read the content; that's because they're not idiots, and btw Max, it is possible to sign on-line and the paper petition and have it count; the two petitions cannot be added together to make up the numbers, of course that's because it's not being organised by SBC or one of their very expensive consultant companies.

Report this post »

Mrs Reason says...
11:40am Fri 15 Jun 12

....'The current libray would need to be completely rebuilt from the ground up as the current building is totally inadequate to house the artifacts as there is no climate control within the building, the security mesures needed to keep the artifacts safe are not up to what would be needed and the open plan of the building would offer very little in fire protection'...

...and yet you advocate spending in excess of £50 million on the clifftop proposal?! Has anyone looked into the cost of buiding on the footprint of the library? Obviously, it is not fit for purpose in its present form, but one would suspect that developing this site would not prove to be anywhere near as costly. It makes perfect sense, but that is possibly would grieves SBC. The answer was (quite literally) under their noses all the time, and they have wasted so much time and money on this overly ambitious folly.


'

Report this post »

southendshrimper says...
7:17pm Fri 15 Jun 12

jayman wrote:
it was a bad idea at the start, it sort of tailed off in the middle and the less we say about the ending the better..

trying to get the Tory councillors to admit defeat is like trying to squash a camel through the eye of a needle.

as mentioned above in several well thought out posts.. use the old library site for the museum to house the artefacts of the Saxon king..

oh and dear echo.. where did 'Saxon prince' come from.. it was probably as a result of a e-mail from the masters voice with a blue rosette at the civic centre wishing the 'Saxon king' term away due to its relation in name to the organisation SKIPP..
& trying to get you to admit you cant blame the yellow streaks labour & lid dem councillors that did not vote is impossible.

Report this post »

Ivanna Goodhump says...
8:43pm Fri 15 Jun 12

Those supporting this proposal really need to look in more detail at both the calculations on visitor numbers, the financial calculations used by the Council, the tight conditions put on the usage that come with the grant from the Arts Council and the various debacles that other local Councils have got into with other similar projects - Colchester would be a good place to start.

Their "Firstsite" art gallery was originaly supposed to cost £18m. It was delivered 3 years late and £10m over budget - and this on a level site and guess who picked up the overspend.
~
It is also a gimme that Southends project cost would spiral. Unforseen costs due to the cliffs are possible, an overspend due to Council incompetance absolutely certain - their track record to date just substantiates that.

Any overspend is very difficult to recover via the gallery/museum because of the tight conditions imposed on the building usage that come with the grant from the Arts Council etc and the local Council Tax payer then has to make up the shortfall and cover the running costs.

This wouldn't be considered a viable project in the private sector and incompetant Councillors attempting to make 2+2= 5 is not a sound financial basis to persue a vanity project like this.

Report this post »

Max Impact says...
7:18pm Sun 17 Jun 12

Wonder if all these people against the museum would visit it if it is built or would they never visit?

My bet they would barge their way to the front of the line demanding to be let in first.

Report this post »

Mslightfoot says...
8:54am Mon 18 Jun 12

Ivanna Goodhump makes sound sense and Max Impact trying to diss her with a wierd view about people barging their way to the front of the line isn't the issue is it; try and focus MI, because the reality is this, if a museum to house the Saxon King is built, it should be placed in a location that is easily accessible to tourists, the local population don't really feature very large in the financial picture, it's the tourist pounds the town is after; location location location Max, every time, and that location should be where there is an existing train station, now where do we have one of those, oh yes, Victoria Avenue ! Is this one of those 'letting the air out of the tyre' problems, that six year olds know the answer to, but adults just don't get it?

Report this post »

restless 1 says...
2:34pm Mon 18 Jun 12

Surely the Saxon Artefacts should be placed in the Museum in Priory Park, after all the Priory it has just undergone a refurbishment, at the very least temporarily or for short periods, for the locals to see.

Why not put the planned museum where the cliff slide is, thus killings two birds with one stone

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree