Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

Purpose of Report

1. To advise Members of the response to the public consultation on the Borough Council's resolution to consult on its preferred option for improving Priory Crescent and Cuckoo Corner as an integral part of the Local Transport Plan Major Scheme.
2. To seek Members' approval to take forward work on the detailed design of the scheme based on the preferred option.

Recommendation

Background

1. At its meeting on 9th October 2001, Members of the Cabinet considered various scenarios for improving Priory Crescent and Cuckoo Corner (Report No. DTES 01/166) as part of the Major Scheme as set out in the approved Local Transport Plan. It seeks to implement the provisions of the adopted Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan (adopted March 1994) which designates Cuckoo Corner and Priory Crescent (north) for junction and highway improvements respectively.
2. Members resolved to reject the scenarios A, B, D and E, principally because of the environmental damage that would result and their impact on the adjoining Priory Park, and to;
   • affirm the objectives of seeking to reduce congestion at Cuckoo Corner and along the northern section of Priory Crescent, and to seek the views of residents, businesses and transport operators within the Borough by carrying out a public consultation on a proposed solution incorporating:
     • the introduction of a traffic signal control junction at Cuckoo Corner Scenario C),
     • improvement to the carriageway along Priory Crescent that avoids taking land from the Park for the carriageway (Option F5),
     • an additional bridge being constructed across the railway line.
   • to include in the public consultation the scenarios rejected and other options considered and to report the results of the consultation to the Cabinet as soon as possible.
3. The preferred scheme was accordingly reported in the Winter edition of the Civic News with views sought by 4th January 2002. This was extended to the 31st January 2002 at the Council meeting held on 13th December 2001.

Public Consultation - Responses to Civic News Article

1. The Civic News was distributed in early November to over 70,000 households in the Borough and made available free of charge at Council offices, the tourist information shop in the High Street, all libraries and local housing offices.
2. The article relating to Priory Crescent and Cuckoo Corner formed the front page headline to the Civic News with a map of the preferred scheme and a 'question and answer' article set out on pages 2 and 3 (see Appendix 1).
3. Individual letters of response and residence of the respondents can be summarised as follows:

   	Against the Proposals	Support the Proposals	Undecided	Total
   Live within the Borough	63	16	12	91
   Live in adjoining Districts	4	-	-	4
   Live Elsewhere	-	-	-	-
   Total	67	16	12	95

4. A summary of the individual responses is set out in Appendix 2.

Objections

5. The main reasons given for the majority of the 67 respondents who object to the Council's preferred scheme can be summarised as follows:
   • detrimental impact on the environment and amenities of Priory Park,
   • loss of numerous mature street trees to the detriment of the street scene and setting of Priory Park,
   • creation of additional traffic at a time when the emphasis should be on reducing traffic growth,
   • scheme make no difference to relieving congestion and improving journey times,
   • creation of additional noise and pollution.
6. A number of respondents also question how the proposals will relate to the function of other junctions along the A127 and at the Sutton Road roundabout, some arguing that it is improvements to these that hold the key to relieving traffic congestion. A number of objectors argue that junction improvements at Cuckoo Corner, and possibly Sutton Road, are all that are required to resolve the congestion problems.
7. The benefits to be gained in reduced journey times are also questions as too are how accessibility is to be gained to commercial and residential premises along Priory Crescent. Some objectors question the relationship of the proposal with proposed developments east of the town and highlight the need to effectively control such development.
8. Alternatives to the preferred scheme are also put forward by objectors such as one way flows at peak hours, flyover and a park and ride scheme.
9. In addition a number of respondents have questioned the Council's view that Option F5 will not take land from the Park by pointing out that it is proposed to locate a footpath to the south of Priory Crescent within the Park. The question as to whether this footway would be inaccessible at night when the Park is closed has been raised.
10. On a similar point a number of respondents argue that Option F5 also impinges on land in the Park by taking the amenity strip located between Priory Crescent and the railway line. It is contended that htis area of land originally formed part of the Park when it was acquired by the Council in the 1920's.

Support for the Proposals

11. All 16 respondents registering their support for the proposals live on the eastern side of the Borough. Worsening congestion in the Priory Crescent area has led to a feeling of isolation and an urgent need to tackle the issue.
13. A number of respondents note that because of the congestion problems they take alternative routes through the town, particularly the seafront route which is regarded as inappropriate as an alternative route to and from east Southend. As with objectors, various alternative solutions are put forward such as an underpass.
14. Whilst supporting the proposals, some respondents regard it as only a short term solution and have identified the need in the longer term for an alternative access route to east Southend.

Public Petitions

1. In addition to the individual letters, 13 separate petitions containing in total nearly 20,000 signatories have been received relating to the Priory Crescent and Cuckoo Corner proposals. However, at least one of the petitions {Petition (a)} involved signature collection before the consultation period commenced; two have sub sets to them (b) and (e); and one has been sent to Sir Teddy Taylor, MP but not to the Council (d).
2. The 13 petitions may be summarised as follows:
   1. 3,032 people have signed a duplicate protest letter addressed to the Leader of the Council. Headed 'Save Priory Park' the letter expresses concern about the impact of a dual carriageway Priory Crescent on the Park, the destruction of mature trees and that the proposals will in the short term encourage greater car use at the expense of encouraging people to use public transport. A copy of the letter and details of the number of signatories is set out in Appendix 3. This also contains a summary list of other comments which a number of individual people have made at the bottom of the petition form.

      The petition letter was submitted to the Council in June 2001 before the Council resolved to present Option F5 for consultation.

   2. 2,737 people have signed 6 separate petitions byt similar 'Save Priory Park' headings with the following statements:
      • "I wish to support the save Priory Park campaign and hereby register my protest at the proposal to build a road through Priory Park".
      • This petition has nothing to do with the school. As you probably know there are plans to expand Priory Crescent into Priory Park. We feel that we cannot just sit back and let them do this and would be grateful if you could sign this petition to show you care too"
      • "Save Priory Park"
      • "Save our Priory Park Petition"
      • Under a Yellow Advertiser Save the Park Campaign heading - "I wish to support the Save the Park campaign and register my protest at the proposal to build a road through Priory Park"
      • "We the undersigned wish Priory Park to continue to be dedicated held used and enjoyed as and for the purpose of a public park for the benefit of the inhabitants of the County Borough of Southend on Sea and the recreation of the public in accordance with the deed dated 3rd April 1925"
      A copy of each petition form and details of the number of signatories is attached at Appendix 4.
   3. 11,271 people have signed a petition headed 'Priory Park Petition' with the statement 'the Priory Park, Prittlewell was dedicated to the people of Southend, "to be held used and enjoyed in perpetuity as a public park". We the undersigned are opposed to any plans for the widening of Priory Crescent, which will encroach upon the Park's area or cause damage to any mature trees in the Park or Priory Crescent.' A copy of the petition form and details of the number of signatories is set out in Appendix 5.
   4. Some 1,000 people have signed a letter of objection to Sir Teddy Taylor MP. Headed 'Save Priory Park' the letter expresses concern about the proposals and states that it will require removal of trees both inside and outside the Park to facilitate construction of the road and result in higher volumes of traffic and noise to the detriment of road safety and the quality of life of local residents. A copy of the letter is set out in Appendix 5.
   5. 1,001 people have signed 3 separate petitions under similar headings relating to the proposed road widening at Priory Crescent with the following statements
      • "we the undersigned are opposed to the Road widening scheme, which will cut into Priory Park. We believe that the £3.5 million should be spent on more environmentally friendly measures to reduce traffic in the town."
      • "we the undersigned are showing our protest for the plans for the road widening scheme for Priory Park"
      • "Petition agains the proposed widening of Priory Crescent"
      A copy of each petition form and details of the number of signatories is set out in Appendix 7.
   6. 439 people have signed a Newsletter consultation published by Priory Park Preservation Society in association with KARERS (Keeping Our Amenities, Recreational and Environmental Resources Safe), Parklife, the Freen Party and Friends of the Earth. The Newsletter sets out a copy of the alignment of Option F5 with related information. As part of a joint survey which was undertaken in the High Street, Southend on Saturday 20th January 2002, the Newsletter asks respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following proposal, 'KARERS, PPPS, Parklife, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth propose that Priory Park and its surroundings are preseved in their entirity, and are never subjected to any loss or degradation from road building or development.' 429 have signed they agree with this proposal and 10 that they disagree. Of particular note, the Newsletter says that the Council's preferred option (F5) "...... causes significant loss of Park land on the northern and eastern boundaries". A copy of the Newsletter, covering letter from the 'Parklife' campaign group and details of the number of signatories, is set out in Appendix 8.
3. The residency of 12 of the petitions received is set out in the table below. Copies have been requested of the signed petitions received by Sir Teddy Taylor MP currently held in his office and it has therefore not been possible to identify the residency of the signatories at the time of writing this report.
   

   	Number of People Signed Petition
   Live within the Borough	14,284
   Live in adjoining Districts	2,920
   Live Elsewhere	1,276
   Total	18,480

4. The originals of the letter responses to the Civic News article and 13 of the 13 petitions will be available for inspection by Members at the meeting - the other petition being currently held in Sir Teddy Taylor's office.

Land Take from Priory Park

1. In considering representations on the Priory Crescent/Cuckoo Corner highway proposals and having regard to Petition (f) in particular, it is important to clarify which land is affected by the proposals. As noted above, some respondents have commented that amenity land outside the current Park boundaries situated between Priory Crescent and railway line, which is affected by Option F5, originally formed part of the Park when it was given to the people of the Borough by R.A. Jones 'to be held, used and enjoyed in perpetuity as a public park'. Therefore, it is contended, the proposed Option F5 does affect Priory Park and should be considered accordingly. This comment appears to be based on the Charity Commissioners certificate which refers to a single statement of deeds.
2. In addition, some respondents and petition letters have referred to the need for a footpath in the Park as part of the proposed dualled Priory Crescent (Option F5), and as such land is required to be taken from the Park.

Priory Park Title Deeds

3. In submitting representations on the Priory Park/Cuckoo Corner highway proposals some respondents have commented that amenity land outside the Park boundaries between the road and the railway line, which is affected by Optino F5, originally formed part of the Park when it was aquired by the Council's predecessor. Therefore, it is contended, the proposed Option F5 does affect Priory Park. This contention appears to be based on the Charity Commission's particulars of registration that identifies the 4 conveyances forming the title to the Park. One of the conveyances includes a small part of the Park to the north and east, the amenity land between the road and the railway line and other land forming the site of parts of Eastern Avenue and Priory Crescent.
4. The status of the amenity land was considered in detail in 1989 when the Charity Commission was supplied with copies of each of the 4 conveyances forming the title to the Park. The Commission expressed the opinion that the amenity land was held for the purposes of open spaces and is not held on the charitable trusts of Priory Park.
5. The amenity land is the subject of a covenant with the Southend on Sea Estates Company for maintenance as open space. That Company was acquired by Higgs and Hill, now Swan Hill, and negotiations will need to be concluded with the Company accordingly for any road widening strip within this area.
6. In summary, it can be concluded that the highway alignment of proposed option F5 does not involve taking land from Priory Park.

Footpath in the Park

7. In progressing Option F5 it remains desirable to include a footpath within the Park roughly parallel to the northern section of Priory Crescent between the proposed new Park entrance and gateway at Cuckoo Corner and the existing Park entrance and footpath opposite the Royal Bank of Scotland site. The principal function of this footpath would be to provide access to and within the Park. It would involve no tree loss and would be included with the proposed extra tree planting and landscaping.
8. The footpath would provide a substitute for a footway on the southern side of Priory Crescent. New pedestrian crossing facilities would be provided across Priory Crescent, Victoria Avenue, Prince Avenue and Manners Way as part of the new traffic signalled controlled junction at Cuckoo Corner to link to the new footpath.
9. The footpath within the Park would be closed at night as are all other footpaths within the Park. Pedestrian facilities along the southern side of Priory Crescent will not be necessary as at night pedestrian movement can be accommodated on the northern footway of Priory Crescent serving the residential and commercial premises, there being no requirement for access on the southern side with the Park closed.
10. Utility company plant displaced from the south side of Priory Crescent would be better placed within the Park with appropriate wayleaves. The best location for such utility plant continues to be within the proposed footway. However, a final conclusion depends on negotiations currently taking place with undertakers.
11. There is scope for the footpath route to also include a cycle track linking to the existing cycle track within the Park.
12. In summary, the construction of a footpath within the Park would be part of the amenity in the Park and improve pedestrian accessibility to and within the Park. It would not be part of the public highway or be a public right of way but would have utility company plant beneath it. A cycle track could also be included. The footpath and/or cycle track is not essential for the implementation of the highway scheme in Priory Crescent but is desirable for access within the Park. The surfaced area would also enable access to the underground utility services as necessary.

Comments on Representations

1. Whilst acknowledging the objectors environmental and related concerns about the preferred scheme, some of the petitions must be treated with caution as they imply land within the Priory Park will be taken for the proposals, one petition specifically referring to 'a road through the Park'. At leas[t] one of the petitions also relates to the period prior to the identification of the Borough Council's preferred option which does not involve taking land from Priory Park.
2. Given that the preferred option of the Council does not involve taking land from Priory Park, the main issue can be summarised as one of weighing up the benefits of the scheme against its impact on the environment of Priory Crescent and the setting of Priory Park.
3. This issue was recognised by members of the Integrated Transportation Partnership in helping to draw up the Local Transport Plan. Members of the Partnership identified at an early stage the problems of congestion at Priory Crescent and Cuckoo Corner and the need to tackle these as part of a Major Scheme to address directly poor accessibility and barrier to investment in the town.
4. The majority of partners recognised that the best way forward for resolving the congestion problems was to upgrade Priory Crescent to dual carriageway status and provide for junction improvements at Cuckoo Corner whilst also needing to keep to an absolute minimum the impact on Priory Park. Thus reiterating the issues first identified in the Borough Local Plan formally adopted in 1994.
5. The Major Scheme is fundamental to realising the Local Town Plan strategy and to addressing the transportation problems facing the town. Priory Crescent forms an integral part of the identified freight route serving the town and it forms a fundamental component of the concept of 'Environmental Rooms and Distributors' to provide a rationale across the Borough for the movement of traffic and for the implementation of environmental enhancements.
6. The Local Transport Plan recognises that realising such opportunities to improve accessibility to Southend will be crucial to the regeneration of the town and the extended Thames Gateway. This will help provide for greater economic prosperity and job creation. Implementation of the proposals as part of the Major Scheme are considered essential if:
   • the agreed strategy objectives of the Local Transport Plan are to be met,
   • traffic congestion is to be reduced,
   • accessibility improved,
   • development and regeneration opportunities realised,
   • travel choice widened,
   • environmental improvements achieved in Environmental Rooms,
   • the more efficient movement of freight achieved, and
   • the economic regeneration and growth of the town facilitated.
7. Alternative options such as flyovers and one way systems put forward by a number of respondents, have already been considered by Members and not accepted due to their environmental and cost implications (ref Caninet Report dated 9th October - DTES 01/166)
8. A number of respondents have argues that the money for the Priory Crescent/Cuckoo Corner scheme should be spent on improving and encouraging alternative means of transport to reduce traffic growth and hence negate the need for the scheme.
9. As members are aware, significant sums of money within the LTP are already being spent on ways of widening travel choice but they will not negate the need for highway improvements at Priory Crescent and Cuckoo Corner.

Conclusions

1. The proposals to improve Cuckoo Corner and Priory Crescent form an integral part of the strategy of the Local Transport Plan and adopted Borough Local Plan.
2. Whilst it is acknowledged that the preferred scheme would result in the loss of trees, including a number of mature trees, the benefits of the scheme across the Borough are considered to be such as to outweigh its disadvantages. However, it is essential that the impact of the scheme is minimised and the Council has made clear its commitment to replace lost trees on a 2-1 basis and to seek to provide additional landscaping as part of the design of the new highway.
3. The alternative is to not accept the Borough Council's preferred optino and to accept congestion with its resutant worsening impact on accessibility to the town and its economy and to force road users to seek alternative routes on unsuitable roads. This would not be consistent with the approved policy.
4. Consultations with affected landowners and public utility companies have commenced.

Background Papers

1. Southend on Sea Local transport Plan 2001/02 to 2005/6 - July 2000
2. Adopted Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan (March 1994)
3. Individual public responses to Civic News article
4. 6 petitions received relating to the proposals

Appendices

1. The following appendices are attached to this report.
   1. Appendix 1 Extract from Civic News - Winter 2000
   2. Appendix 2 Proforma containing a summary of the individual responses to Civic News article.
   3. Appendix 3-8 Copy of wording of petitions submitted and number of signatories.