Southend seafront development plan stalls

7:00am Saturday 8th September 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Stephen Hackwell

Centre of the development – the proposed site for the Marine Plaza, which would include 350 homes, shops and restaurants 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)

3:34pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

The loss of the projected jobs that would have been created will please some.
The loss of the projected jobs that would have been created will please some. Max Impact

3:46pm Fri 7 Sep 12

southendshrimper says...

No doubt jayman will be rubbing his hands in glee. Blaming SBC for the delay.
No doubt jayman will be rubbing his hands in glee. Blaming SBC for the delay. southendshrimper

4:02pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Chymes81 says...

Shame, I saw a display in the Victoria Plaza Shopping Centre about a year back, showing what the Marine Plaza will look like and I though it looked fantastic. Much better than the old eye-sores that are there now.
Shame, I saw a display in the Victoria Plaza Shopping Centre about a year back, showing what the Marine Plaza will look like and I though it looked fantastic. Much better than the old eye-sores that are there now. Chymes81

4:14pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

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.
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. Max Impact

4:23pm Fri 7 Sep 12

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
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.
A) the council don't have the money to build a museum.

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!
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]A) the council don't have the money to build a museum. 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! jayman

4:46pm Fri 7 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

I did not say they have to sell, I just pointed out that we can't always have what we want.
I did not say they have to sell, I just pointed out that we can't always have what we want. Max Impact

8:06am Sat 8 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Did this story vanish from the site then come back again?
Did this story vanish from the site then come back again? Max Impact

8:34am Sat 8 Sep 12

howironic says...

Max Impact wrote:
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.
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.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]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. howironic

8:40am Sat 8 Sep 12

EssexBoy1956 says...

One's a BMW, so that can park where it likes. The one behind is probably illegally parked though.
One's a BMW, so that can park where it likes. The one behind is probably illegally parked though. EssexBoy1956

8:59am Sat 8 Sep 12

thesouthendone says...

Can't they issue a compulsory purchase order? All the arcades down the seafront are a run down mess, none of them (sweeping statement alert) have reinvested any sizable sum in new frontage or machines to bring them out of the 90s (if not earlier) and they along with the run down take aways and bars seriously undermide the work that has been done with "city beach"
It seems like unless they go its going to be like trying to polish a turd!
Can't they issue a compulsory purchase order? All the arcades down the seafront are a run down mess, none of them (sweeping statement alert) have reinvested any sizable sum in new frontage or machines to bring them out of the 90s (if not earlier) and they along with the run down take aways and bars seriously undermide the work that has been done with "city beach" It seems like unless they go its going to be like trying to polish a turd! thesouthendone

10:59am Sat 8 Sep 12

tatersalad says...

EssexBoy1956 wrote:
One's a BMW, so that can park where it likes. The one behind is probably illegally parked though.
Its not illegal, its them, not us.
[quote][p][bold]EssexBoy1956[/bold] wrote: One's a BMW, so that can park where it likes. The one behind is probably illegally parked though.[/p][/quote]Its not illegal, its them, not us. tatersalad

11:13am Sat 8 Sep 12

marshman says...

Back in the early eighties I worked on the demolition of the terrace of houses and shops that were opposite the Kursaal fronting Southchurch Avenue. There was a deep cellar that ran the whole length of the site from the corner of Marine Parade up to the houses that are still there now. We did a right cowboy job filling it in with rubble and old iron - even a couple of old stair cases went down the hole. I'd be very wary of building a shed on top of it let alone a massive housing and retail development. Hope they clear it out and order enough concrete to do a proper job or the ground will just give away. Does that sort of thing show on a survey?
Back in the early eighties I worked on the demolition of the terrace of houses and shops that were opposite the Kursaal fronting Southchurch Avenue. There was a deep cellar that ran the whole length of the site from the corner of Marine Parade up to the houses that are still there now. We did a right cowboy job filling it in with rubble and old iron - even a couple of old stair cases went down the hole. I'd be very wary of building a shed on top of it let alone a massive housing and retail development. Hope they clear it out and order enough concrete to do a proper job or the ground will just give away. Does that sort of thing show on a survey? marshman

11:28am Sat 8 Sep 12

v.randy says...

These developers are very smart money driven parasites,who only build when it suits them and when profit taking is at a max.
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
!!!!
These developers are very smart money driven parasites,who only build when it suits them and when profit taking is at a max. 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 !!!! v.randy

12:24pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Bernard Manning says...

This talk of so-called improvement is all fine and dandy but I've yet to read where there is provision for a strip pub within the development.
This talk of so-called improvement is all fine and dandy but I've yet to read where there is provision for a strip pub within the development. Bernard Manning

1:59pm Sat 8 Sep 12

emcee says...

Quote Graham Longley: “We have been let down time and time again by developers who promise something and never deliver."
-
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.
Quote Graham Longley: “We have been let down time and time again by developers who promise something and never deliver." - 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. emcee

4:41pm Sat 8 Sep 12

jolllyboy says...

Sounds like blackmail to me. Developers are greedy. They always want to start building on green belt because brown belt costs more to build on. Dont give in. We need a temporary car park there for now until the developer gives in.
Sounds like blackmail to me. Developers are greedy. They always want to start building on green belt because brown belt costs more to build on. Dont give in. We need a temporary car park there for now until the developer gives in. jolllyboy

5:50pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Nebs says...

After 5 years the owners of development land should have to pay business rates or council tax based on what could potentially go there.
After 5 years the owners of development land should have to pay business rates or council tax based on what could potentially go there. Nebs

9:44pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Brunning999 says...

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.
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. Brunning999

10:01pm Sat 8 Sep 12

benfleet101 says...

Nebs wrote:
After 5 years the owners of development land should have to pay business rates or council tax based on what could potentially go there.
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.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: After 5 years the owners of development land should have to pay business rates or council tax based on what could potentially go there.[/p][/quote]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. benfleet101

10:40pm Sat 8 Sep 12

jayman says...

Brunning999 wrote:
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.
Southend used to have character, many years ago.

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.
[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]Southend used to have character, many years ago. 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. jayman

11:58pm Sat 8 Sep 12

1nails says...

Do Regis, or Countrywide have a finger in this pie ????.
Do Regis, or Countrywide have a finger in this pie ????. 1nails

6:31pm Sun 9 Sep 12

beaulocks says...

1nails wrote:
Do Regis, or Countrywide have a finger in this pie ????.
All regis have is icing on top, no fingers in pie yet its far too messy.
[quote][p][bold]1nails[/bold] wrote: Do Regis, or Countrywide have a finger in this pie ????.[/p][/quote]All regis have is icing on top, no fingers in pie yet its far too messy. beaulocks

8:50am Mon 10 Sep 12

rodgdodge says...

Good place for a Fantaseas(seehttp://
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
Good place for a Fantaseas(seehttp:// 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 rodgdodge

8:58am Mon 10 Sep 12

APR says...

It'll happen eventually. There's no doubt about that.
It'll happen eventually. There's no doubt about that. APR

Comments are closed on this article.

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