Museum plan now likely to go ahead (From Echo)

I still don't think this is the right location. Somewhere like Priory Park would have been far more suitable, and accessible.

“The development is considered to act as a transition between the historic nature of Clifftown and the contemporary nature of the seafront.” So says Heading of Planning and Transport. He would say that wouldn't he?

I believe it be a great idea in principle, unfortunately the history of SBC shows us that that plans are never thought through enough to cover the detail and almost always have to be adjusted, tweaked and at worst messed up after development. Of course it will impact on the seafront. Traffic that flows in both directions mostly trouble free along Western Esplanade will be hindered by an in and out entrance to the museum complex which will of course result in hold-ups at various times. I would also hope that the complex is open seven days a week unlike the current museum, Beecroft and Focal Point Galleries. How ridiculous that these places are closed when visitors to the town are most likely to want to go there!

It could be great for Southend and I hope it turns out that way but I lack confidence in the 'cut corner', 'cut price' way our decision makers at the Civic Centre operate. Rather a shame that they can't get their hands on that 'eyesore' the Genting Casino to practice on first.

Typical 'we know what's best for you' attitude of this Council with no thought or consideration given to their pay-masters - ie the tax payers of Southend! They will get their come-uppance soon as even the die hard 'blues' are getting tired of their arrogance!

As normal the silent majority want this to go ahead. The loud minority bang on about Priory Park etc
Were you the same people who complained about the airport?
This is a much needed development for the town and will attract tourists.
I suggest you travel to some other seaside towns and see what is happening to the ones who dont move foward............. they are slowly decaying

What on earth has this got to do with the airport ?

What sort of tourists are you expecting to come to Southend who don't already come ?
I doubt this development will attract a lot more people. Especially when they will be lucky to find a parking space, and then have to pay to park.

£35,000,000 eh. I wonder if they could incorporate a library into it as well.....

I don't care either way, whether Southend gets a new museum or not. However, I do feel the cliffs is the wrong place for this sort of thing. After all, it will hardly be a major tourist attraction, a bit like the cultural centre at the end of the pier.

How about developing this museum in Victoria Avenue where all those eye sore tower blocks are ! The reason given for the redevelopment of Victoria Circus was to show the town of in a better light as visitors enter. This mind you is after they been held up in traffic looking at all the falling down tatty buildings ! I bet that must leave a lasting impression .

emcee wrote:
I don't care either way, whether Southend gets a new museum or not. However, I do feel the cliffs is the wrong place for this sort of thing. After all, it will hardly be a major tourist attraction, a bit like the cultural centre at the end of the pier.

It stands far more chance of picking up passing trade on the seafront than it would in somewhere like Priory Park, which is being suggested by some. The cultural centre on the pier is a prime example. Its only passing trade are those people who have made a concerted effort to go onto the pier. For tourist attractions to work they need to be located in close proximity to one another with high levels of foot traffic passing their doors.

"Bullish" "SOUTHEND council chiefs are determined to push through plans for a £35million seafront museum, despite concerns from campaigners and now conservation experts". Pounds to peanuts some of the Councillors have businesses at that end of the High Street which they think would benefit from the "increased footfall".
.
This is the wrong place for this museum, it should have been in Priory Park or a new museum should have been built in Victoria Avenue.

The Priory Park suggestion is just another stupid suggestion from the 'Anti Do Anything in Southend Brigade'. After all the hype over removing (and replacing) a few trees from the border of the park, for a road widening project what are the odds on a new build in the park itself, that is substantial enough to house what is wanted? Also, at least on the seafront the potential museum footfall will be greater too. and it goes to solve the mess left from the cliff slip too. Bring it on :-) about time really, I'm fed up with potentially good developments in Southend being stopped by a minority of idiots. Rant over

Hmmm £35 million for a new museum/cultural centre/eyesore - £32 million saving by closing old folks homes.

Anyone else think the council have a very strange set of priorities?

Andycal 172D wrote:
Hmmm £35 million for a new museum/cultural centre/eyesore - £32 million saving by closing old folks homes.

Anyone else think the council have a very strange set of priorities?

I totally agree with that argument to be fair :-)

JAS1983 wrote:

Andycal 172D wrote:
Hmmm £35 million for a new museum/cultural centre/eyesore - £32 million saving by closing old folks homes.

Anyone else think the council have a very strange set of priorities?

I totally agree with that argument to be fair :-)

not the eyesore bit, but the bit about money and priorities

But what about all the poor motorists who will be unable to use the road without getting held up!

evo_lution wrote:
As normal the silent majority want this to go ahead. The loud minority bang on about Priory Park etc
Were you the same people who complained about the airport?
This is a much needed development for the town and will attract tourists.
I suggest you travel to some other seaside towns and see what is happening to the ones who dont move foward............. they are slowly decaying

I was in Bournemouth the other week. Could hardly get to the town thanks to the huge number of tourists/students/re
sidents flooding the beach, parks and high street.

Even better the place looked great with old mature trees lining the streets and decent houses/buildings - as opposed to Southend's sterile concrete jungle and modern architecture.


"Campaigners have tried to block the plans and claimed they would irrevocably damage the seafront’s image. However, chiefs say the negative effect of the controversial development on the Clifftown Conservation Area will not be “significant” and are determined to secure planning permission next week. "

Too late. Southend's image is already irrevocably damaged.

I'd really recommend that as evo_lution says, people travel to other seaside towns and see just how great they are and how Southend seems to be going in completely the other direction!

Why not use the old Ecko Plastics site for the museum?

the silent majority argument..

this is the most undemocratic nonsense ever to be used..
democracy relies on the principle of 'representation' and 'petition'. Anna Waite's Favorited 'silent majority' mantra is the most dangerous thing since a Tory said 'trust me'

Location and use.

the location is, by many measures unsuitable. the historically appropriate location would be priory park. The buildings use must be for the sole Purpose of showing the Saxon artefacts and other exhibits relating to Southends history.

cost.

i find is staggering that the Tory council is spending 32 million at a time when the country and its economy is going to hell on a hand cart. Now the council should be retracting to core services and concentrating on easing the burdens of Southend residents. I find it astonishing that the council cabinet is scheduling its time and resources to push this bad idea.

SBC. fantasy time is over, Southend will never be an international tourist attraction and will remain the seaside day holiday for Londoners..

Why are we still quoting £35milllion? The projected cost if £58 million...and counting!

It is becoming rather tiresome to have to repeat this, but the objectors are not against a museum per se, just the ridiculous location! Anyone living in this area is able to witness the decaying ghost town that is Victoria Avenue. As I, and many others have said before, the perfect location for this new museum is the soon to be defunct Southend Library, next door, as luck would have it to, to the current museum. Regeneration of these two buildings would be at a fraction of the cost and satisfy so many of the needs of this project - within a minute's walk from Southend Victoria railway station, and creating not only fresh footfall for the white elephant that is Victoria shopping centre, but also potentially attracting new business to the many empty buildings in Victoria Avenue. Surely we can all see this makes sense?!!

Mr Meddle's comments that the effect on the Conservation area are considered to be positive are not only misleading but completely untrue. The only people who consider the effect to be positive are those earning money out of the development. English Heritage and other conservationists as well as the majority of those living in the Conservation area know that the effect is not positive. That is before anyone actually considers where the overflow of traffic and foot traffic is going to go if this development attracts as many people as they hope. If it does attract that many people then it will be to the dubious idea of a 200 seater restaurant, cafes and conference centre and not to the tiny museum that is being used as the excuse to push through this development. How many more disasters do we need to endure by these town planners? It is not the tourists to our town who have deep pockets, it is the residents who are being forced to pay high parking fees and pick up the tab for these wild fantasies and inefficiencies of a completely egotistical Council.

i don't really care about the seafront museum i think that the seafront is a complete mess long gone are all the things that it a great seafront

It is staggering to me that Andrew Meddle can say that the proposed design and development of the cliff build will not impact on a beautiful conservation area, particularly in light of the fact that Mr Meddle was a strategic planner before he became the Head of Service and has no design qualifications or experience whatsoever, coupled with the fact that in October he's buggering off to Australia ! No wonder the Council are happy for him to front this fiasco - when actually the front man should have been Peter Geraghty, who will no doubt step in to Andrew's shoes once Andrew is safely on the plane ! Absolutely outrageous comments from the Head of Service, and he knows it, the puppetmaster must be giving him a good reference.

SBC want to push this through no matter what - why so that they can excavate the cliffs and leave a great gaping hole there for another ten years while they spend our money wining and dining prospective investors in a seven storey development that won't be built for god knows how long ! Somebody's going out to buy new shoes, and it ain't me !

Who are you Miss Lightfoot? You seem to know some interesting facts about these people who undoubtedly live in gated houses away from all of us riff raff whose neighbourhoods do not matter. Pity on us poor souls who dare to want to walk our dogs or play with our children on the pleasant garden cliffs. The report on this development actually says that the concrete platform created by one of the "eyelids" (yes, eyelids!) of the development make up for the loss of grass. We are not the Nimbys. The planners are because for sure they would not want this on their doorsteps and Australia does seem far enough to run away from a town once you have destroyed it.

People say use Victoria Avenue, people say use gasworks sie, people say use Ekco site people forget the council do not own these sites so would either need to buy at the going rate or rent at the going rate.

Ask people coming into the town are they going to Priory Park or the Seafront what will get most votes.

The Priory Park farce is riddled with issues that will make it very unlikely to be the sucsess skipp say it will be.

Car Parking is very limited,
No Coach Park,
Train stations limited.
Location
Once you have seen the Saxon relics and the "forge" thats it nothing else to do.

Its a shame those against the Cliffs proposal do not say everything that is proposed instead it just "business complex" is it because they know the museum as a whole is something the town is crying out for and their proposals are just too small to complete?

The other permanent exhibits include:

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.
Cliff Gardens reinstated after construction.
Museum store (bringing all the outsourced artefacts back to Southend)

There is also space for Touring Exhibitions so wiht all that being proposed is it still a bad thing to have in Southend?

The die hard anti-everything new lot will not change their minds but overall the Cliffs museum offers so much more than that of the Priory Park proposal.

JAS1983 wrote:
The Priory Park suggestion is just another stupid suggestion from the 'Anti Do Anything in Southend Brigade'. After all the hype over removing (and replacing) a few trees from the border of the park, for a road widening project what are the odds on a new build in the park itself, that is substantial enough to house what is wanted? Also, at least on the seafront the potential museum footfall will be greater too. and it goes to solve the mess left from the cliff slip too. Bring it on :-) about time really, I'm fed up with potentially good developments in Southend being stopped by a minority of idiots. Rant over

Nothing wrong with developing Southend, if the Council had any sense they would have allowed the sea front marina to be built but the seafront is NOT the ideal location for this museum for lots of reasons, what else is down there that will appeal to amateur archaeologists? The answer is sweet nothing whereas Priory Park would have provided more parking and lots more of interest to the sort of people who will want to see the Prince of Prittlewell.

Is bunging a museum to shore up the cliffs the main reason for building at this location? If so, is this such a great idea? I think not. Bad siting for a successful museum and bad for the once glorious peaceful green Cliff Garden and conservation area.

Max Impact wrote:
People say use Victoria Avenue, people say use gasworks sie, people say use Ekco site people forget the council do not own these sites so would either need to buy at the going rate or rent at the going rate. Ask people coming into the town are they going to Priory Park or the Seafront what will get most votes. The Priory Park farce is riddled with issues that will make it very unlikely to be the sucsess skipp say it will be. Car Parking is very limited, No Coach Park, Train stations limited. Location Once you have seen the Saxon relics and the "forge" thats it nothing else to do. Its a shame those against the Cliffs proposal do not say everything that is proposed instead it just "business complex" is it because they know the museum as a whole is something the town is crying out for and their proposals are just too small to complete? The other permanent exhibits include: 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. Cliff Gardens reinstated after construction. Museum store (bringing all the outsourced artefacts back to Southend) There is also space for Touring Exhibitions so wiht all that being proposed is it still a bad thing to have in Southend? The die hard anti-everything new lot will not change their minds but overall the Cliffs museum offers so much more than that of the Priory Park proposal.

Do the council not own the civic office,s in vic ave that are due to be refurbed. A new smaller, leaner more high tec council office could be built. with the site then used for the museum. As i ve said before the type of people that use the seafront for a day out are not the same as would use the museum. To have both attractions at opposite ends of the town would reduce congestion but also allow the few that do want a cross over experience to walk through the high street, which will then be of benefit to the high street.

So it's not ok to lose an incredibly small portion of the cliffs, even though you can't even use that bit of the Cliffs anyway because it has been bordered off for the last 10 years, and even though the structure of the Museum actually adds MORE garden space than the location currently allows, but losing sizeable chunks of the only decent park in the centre of town is perfectly fine?

And you want us to believe that your argument has nothing to do with "not on my front door"?

Priory Park is the worst possible location for a Museum.

Building a new Museum is meant to be about improving what the Museum can offer and also make it more accessible - you can't achieve either by building in Priory Park, and by doing so you also reduce the amount of park in the town.

The same is not true for the Cliffs location because the majority of the structure takes advantage of the Cliffs allowing portions to be effectively underground.

I think this will actually be a great asset to the seafront, if done properly. Most tourists head for the seafront and high street. Not all are looking for kiss me quick hats, some might like to take in a bit of culture too. If they could include a nice area like the old bandstand that would be great too.

What ever happened to consolidation? The opening of The Priory Park Environmental Centre seems long ago and forgotten, so too The Beecroft, Pier Museum, Leigh Hetitage Centre, Southchurch Priory and The Central Museum. Another question, is it going to pay for itself? Where's the extra staff funding going to come from? It worries me that it's all about the buildings rather than the attractions inside as have a feeling the Pier Pavilion Heritage Building is heading that way too. Thought these were time of cuts to preserve essential services. Is there any joined up thinking?Beam me up Scotty!

PhilWells wrote:
So it's not ok to lose an incredibly small portion of the cliffs, even though you can't even use that bit of the Cliffs anyway because it has been bordered off for the last 10 years, and even though the structure of the Museum actually adds MORE garden space than the location currently allows, but losing sizeable chunks of the only decent park in the centre of town is perfectly fine?

And you want us to believe that your argument has nothing to do with "not on my front door"?

Priory Park is the worst possible location for a Museum.

Building a new Museum is meant to be about improving what the Museum can offer and also make it more accessible - you can't achieve either by building in Priory Park, and by doing so you also reduce the amount of park in the town.

The same is not true for the Cliffs location because the majority of the structure takes advantage of the Cliffs allowing portions to be effectively underground.

I think the point you are missing here is that, as SKIPP have already pointed out, and as indeed did Nik Webb in her contribution to the Echo letters page; the projects which are developed where the artefacts were found are considerably more successful than when they are effectively amputated from their rightful location. The 'MORE' garden space you are talking about will actually be concrete 'eyelids', charming. In terms of accessibility - gaining access to the seafront will require the tourist to come in a car. Gaining access to a museum at Priory Park will require the tourist to come in a car, unless, as I have pondered in the past, the Pier Train has become the Hogwart Express and will magically ferry people across the estuary, in which case, I do, of course, stand correct.

what a brilliant idea this will be, & the building looks great!!
why are so many people in this town have such negative views about every thing the council want to do!! we are in 2012, & not 1812!!

Truth Will Prevail wrote:

JAS1983 wrote: The Priory Park suggestion is just another stupid suggestion from the 'Anti Do Anything in Southend Brigade'. After all the hype over removing (and replacing) a few trees from the border of the park, for a road widening project what are the odds on a new build in the park itself, that is substantial enough to house what is wanted? Also, at least on the seafront the potential museum footfall will be greater too. and it goes to solve the mess left from the cliff slip too. Bring it on :-) about time really, I'm fed up with potentially good developments in Southend being stopped by a minority of idiots. Rant over

Nothing wrong with developing Southend, if the Council had any sense they would have allowed the sea front marina to be built but the seafront is NOT the ideal location for this museum for lots of reasons, what else is down there that will appeal to amateur archaeologists? The answer is sweet nothing whereas Priory Park would have provided more parking and lots more of interest to the sort of people who will want to see the Prince of Prittlewell.

How can Priory Park provide more car parking unless you make the playing fields car parking!

Mslightfoot wrote:

PhilWells wrote: So it's not ok to lose an incredibly small portion of the cliffs, even though you can't even use that bit of the Cliffs anyway because it has been bordered off for the last 10 years, and even though the structure of the Museum actually adds MORE garden space than the location currently allows, but losing sizeable chunks of the only decent park in the centre of town is perfectly fine? And you want us to believe that your argument has nothing to do with "not on my front door"? Priory Park is the worst possible location for a Museum. Building a new Museum is meant to be about improving what the Museum can offer and also make it more accessible - you can't achieve either by building in Priory Park, and by doing so you also reduce the amount of park in the town. The same is not true for the Cliffs location because the majority of the structure takes advantage of the Cliffs allowing portions to be effectively underground.

I think the point you are missing here is that, as SKIPP have already pointed out, and as indeed did Nik Webb in her contribution to the Echo letters page; the projects which are developed where the artefacts were found are considerably more successful than when they are effectively amputated from their rightful location. The 'MORE' garden space you are talking about will actually be concrete 'eyelids', charming. In terms of accessibility - gaining access to the seafront will require the tourist to come in a car. Gaining access to a museum at Priory Park will require the tourist to come in a car, unless, as I have pondered in the past, the Pier Train has become the Hogwart Express and will magically ferry people across the estuary, in which case, I do, of course, stand correct.

The vast majority of the museum will be coverd by grass, the eyelids will only take up a small fraction of grass.

The proposals clearly state the cliff gardens will be reinstated once the museum is built.

Why can people not see that FACT and why do those fighting against it not state that the gardens will be restored and open to the public once construction is complete, is it because they do not beleve on publishing the full facts, because it might just make people see the truth that they are being hoodwinked in to going for a sub standard proposal in Priory Park.

Question I was asked how old are the buildings in the Parks dept compound that would need to be demolished for the Park proposal.

Max Impact wrote:

Mslightfoot wrote:

PhilWells wrote: So it's not ok to lose an incredibly small portion of the cliffs, even though you can't even use that bit of the Cliffs anyway because it has been bordered off for the last 10 years, and even though the structure of the Museum actually adds MORE garden space than the location currently allows, but losing sizeable chunks of the only decent park in the centre of town is perfectly fine? And you want us to believe that your argument has nothing to do with "not on my front door"? Priory Park is the worst possible location for a Museum. Building a new Museum is meant to be about improving what the Museum can offer and also make it more accessible - you can't achieve either by building in Priory Park, and by doing so you also reduce the amount of park in the town. The same is not true for the Cliffs location because the majority of the structure takes advantage of the Cliffs allowing portions to be effectively underground.

I think the point you are missing here is that, as SKIPP have already pointed out, and as indeed did Nik Webb in her contribution to the Echo letters page; the projects which are developed where the artefacts were found are considerably more successful than when they are effectively amputated from their rightful location. The 'MORE' garden space you are talking about will actually be concrete 'eyelids', charming. In terms of accessibility - gaining access to the seafront will require the tourist to come in a car. Gaining access to a museum at Priory Park will require the tourist to come in a car, unless, as I have pondered in the past, the Pier Train has become the Hogwart Express and will magically ferry people across the estuary, in which case, I do, of course, stand correct.

The vast majority of the museum will be coverd by grass, the eyelids will only take up a small fraction of grass.

The proposals clearly state the cliff gardens will be reinstated once the museum is built.

Why can people not see that FACT and why do those fighting against it not state that the gardens will be restored and open to the public once construction is complete, is it because they do not beleve on publishing the full facts, because it might just make people see the truth that they are being hoodwinked in to going for a sub standard proposal in Priory Park.

Question I was asked how old are the buildings in the Parks dept compound that would need to be demolished for the Park proposal.

Oh dear - facts - now that is an interesting idea - if the build is so lovely why would they need to cover it with grass - will it be like the MI6 building in London - the worst kept secret

Because it has been designed to help bring the cliffs back into use and stop them slipping.

The height deffrence between permits such a construction.

Some people just hate change well in that case lets not build anything in Southend ever again that includes new playgrounds, hospital extentions, school extentions etc:

Nimbys wrecking Southend on protest at a time.

Max Impact wrote:
Because it has been designed to help bring the cliffs back into use and stop them slipping.

The height deffrence between permits such a construction.

Some people just hate change well in that case lets not build anything in Southend ever again that includes new playgrounds, hospital extentions, school extentions etc:

Nimbys wrecking Southend on protest at a time.

Max we all know the story of the two caterpillars sitting on a leaf watching a butterfly go by, and one caterpillar saying to the other "you'll never get me up in one of those things".

People, me, are not opposed to change - change can be a great thing,changing Victoria Avenue in to an actual 'gateway to Southend' would be a change I would welcome; honesty from the Council, would be another; this proposed development is not change - this is the same old uninspired, unexciting, stagnant rubbish dressed up in a pink bow and rolled out so that town planners (which I think going by your spelling you are), can justify their existence. There is no justification for this max - say what you will, there are a number of worthier sites that have the potential to ensure that Southend goes forward in the 21st century - rather than developing the seafront and only the seafront is narrow, if we have the money, why aren't we spending it where it's needed, do the Council, like children, only like working on a clean sheet. Wake up and smell the roses max, because if you don't eventually it will all just be concrete.

Spend it on Children but by building a museum kids can visit it, and then go and play on the beach after or go down the pier.

As for my spelling I'm dyslexic but have carved out a very susesfull career as a Oceanographic Engineer and Development Leader (My new title at work) I'm hoping they change it as a bit of a mouthfull!

Just look at the plans the majority of the Cliffs museum is underground, even a dyslexic can tell that!

Max Impact wrote:
Spend it on Children but by building a museum kids can visit it, and then go and play on the beach after or go down the pier.

As for my spelling I'm dyslexic but have carved out a very susesfull career as a Oceanographic Engineer and Development Leader (My new title at work) I'm hoping they change it as a bit of a mouthfull!

Just look at the plans the majority of the Cliffs museum is underground, even a dyslexic can tell that!

Don't be silly max, of course you're not dyslexic, otherwise you would have trouble spelling such a difficult word.

Indeed 'kids' can go and visit it and the play on the beach - of course that might be a trifle difficult if they get a summer like this one !

Going 'down the pier' well how exciting for a day out - a mile and some walk in the rain and the cold,nothing at the end and back again - WOW, mother will certainly have to pay for that.

Or they could do half an hour parking, once they've managed to get to their destination.

Half an hour in the museum.

The rest of the day in Adventure Island - costing the parents of, say, conservatively, two children, a flipping fortune !

Max, you're really not thinking this through, as an Oceanopraphic Engineer - instead of blue water thinking you need to do more blue sky thinking.

Still gotta smell the roses max - far too much concrete in your life.

;-)

Why don't they go and buy the Garrison off of those private companies to stop them from building the ugly rich people's houses that are a blot on the landscape when walking along the sea wall route and also protect the gun emplacements from further graffiti/ damage from vandals, maybe even restore them and use them as real museums?

Southend needs to attract more visitors that will come here to see the relics of our past, those people might have more intelligence than the majority of morons that frequent the town centre and sea front area.

If the town does not invest in the future they will continue to attract the fat idle tattooed unemployable moronic idiots, Eastern European gangsters, druggies and alchys who seem to be attracted to the town.

Let's have a little bit off culture in the town.

Brunning999 wrote:
Southend needs to attract more visitors that will come here to see the relics of our past, those people might have more intelligence than the majority of morons that frequent the town centre and sea front area.

If the town does not invest in the future they will continue to attract the fat idle tattooed unemployable moronic idiots, Eastern European gangsters, druggies and alchys who seem to be attracted to the town.

Let's have a little bit off culture in the town.

Yuk !

Max Impact wrote:

Mslightfoot wrote:

PhilWells wrote: So it's not ok to lose an incredibly small portion of the cliffs, even though you can't even use that bit of the Cliffs anyway because it has been bordered off for the last 10 years, and even though the structure of the Museum actually adds MORE garden space than the location currently allows, but losing sizeable chunks of the only decent park in the centre of town is perfectly fine? And you want us to believe that your argument has nothing to do with "not on my front door"? Priory Park is the worst possible location for a Museum. Building a new Museum is meant to be about improving what the Museum can offer and also make it more accessible - you can't achieve either by building in Priory Park, and by doing so you also reduce the amount of park in the town. The same is not true for the Cliffs location because the majority of the structure takes advantage of the Cliffs allowing portions to be effectively underground.

I think the point you are missing here is that, as SKIPP have already pointed out, and as indeed did Nik Webb in her contribution to the Echo letters page; the projects which are developed where the artefacts were found are considerably more successful than when they are effectively amputated from their rightful location. The 'MORE' garden space you are talking about will actually be concrete 'eyelids', charming. In terms of accessibility - gaining access to the seafront will require the tourist to come in a car. Gaining access to a museum at Priory Park will require the tourist to come in a car, unless, as I have pondered in the past, the Pier Train has become the Hogwart Express and will magically ferry people across the estuary, in which case, I do, of course, stand correct.

The vast majority of the museum will be coverd by grass, the eyelids will only take up a small fraction of grass.

The proposals clearly state the cliff gardens will be reinstated once the museum is built.

Why can people not see that FACT and why do those fighting against it not state that the gardens will be restored and open to the public once construction is complete, is it because they do not beleve on publishing the full facts, because it might just make people see the truth that they are being hoodwinked in to going for a sub standard proposal in Priory Park.

Question I was asked how old are the buildings in the Parks dept compound that would need to be demolished for the Park proposal.

because max

people remember the council stated facts about.

. warrior square cafe.
. sea front shared space 'a road without a kerb'
. various art installations 'most now removed'
. shoebury wetland park 'muddy drainage pond'
. York road market.
. the airport consultative committee 'folded after local residents associations walked out due to not being listened to by the council or stobart.'

the list goes on.. why should the tory council be believed? after so many chances why on earth should there word be taken seriously?

its this flippant and undemocratic behaviour that lost the Tories the majority in the council.

And fewer people voted for those Councillors than have signed the Petition against developing the Cliffs....
What Max is missing is that those of us opposed are far more enlightened than he can admit. We have taken times to study those plans and understand the environmental and social impact.
We are not opposed to modern design, or museums, or dare I say Culture. We are however opposed to wasting money - the money that has been spent on these plans alone could have fixed the cliff repair and restored the gardens. Lottery grants were obtained to enhance those of the cliff gardens and cliff lift already restored. Have the council applied for one for the balance required just to restore the gardens? We are also opposed to building on open space. As has been said so many times, put a glass concrete and chrome iconic building somewhere else - somewhere that actually requires regeneration.
By their own admission the planners admit that the loss of green amenity space will be replaced by the concrete platforms that will stick out and be visible from Prittlewell Square. Nice. Nimbys perhaps, yes, in part. But would you like that on your doorstep?

The money used is CAPITAL funds and can not be used to keep other services, the cliffs stabilation scheme is tied in to the cliffs museum,

if tou have actually took the time to study the plans you will see the eyelids can NOT be seen from Prittlewell Square as they are below the top level of the cliffs.

Would I like it on my doorstep yes I would, saves walking two miles or so to see it.

Mslightfoot wrote:

PhilWells wrote: So it's not ok to lose an incredibly small portion of the cliffs, even though you can't even use that bit of the Cliffs anyway because it has been bordered off for the last 10 years, and even though the structure of the Museum actually adds MORE garden space than the location currently allows, but losing sizeable chunks of the only decent park in the centre of town is perfectly fine? And you want us to believe that your argument has nothing to do with "not on my front door"? Priory Park is the worst possible location for a Museum. Building a new Museum is meant to be about improving what the Museum can offer and also make it more accessible - you can't achieve either by building in Priory Park, and by doing so you also reduce the amount of park in the town. The same is not true for the Cliffs location because the majority of the structure takes advantage of the Cliffs allowing portions to be effectively underground.

I think the point you are missing here is that, as SKIPP have already pointed out, and as indeed did Nik Webb in her contribution to the Echo letters page; the projects which are developed where the artefacts were found are considerably more successful than when they are effectively amputated from their rightful location. The 'MORE' garden space you are talking about will actually be concrete 'eyelids', charming. In terms of accessibility - gaining access to the seafront will require the tourist to come in a car. Gaining access to a museum at Priory Park will require the tourist to come in a car, unless, as I have pondered in the past, the Pier Train has become the Hogwart Express and will magically ferry people across the estuary, in which case, I do, of course, stand correct.

I would assume that this museum could never be built in priory park . This open space was given to the towns people to enjoy and I would imagine that the content of the deeds would not allow the building of something as large as a new museum on this space. After all the fuss over the trees with the road widening which actually was not going to go in the park this project could start a green riot if put forward.

I have studied the plans Max and I have also studied the officer's report and contrary to their publicity this does say that when viewed from Prittlewell Square there is a slight projection of elements. By their own admission therefore, although the use of the word "slight" is not a technical term or even a measurable one.
That report also mentions the small amount of increase to traffic which seems in direct contradiction to the assertion of the number of visitors it intends to bring to the town.
As for the comment that Priory Park was given to the people to enjoy and not be built upon ; apparently so were the cliff gardens and furthermore the proposals for Priory Park bear no resemblance to the size of the proposal on the cliff gardens.

The Priory Park proposals are are a joke, look at the lack of car parking, the roads, no coach parking, lack of railway stations.

Like I said how old are the building that will have to be demolished?

Also the space at the parks dept site is very limited its much more narrow than it is long, think of the site as two boxes placed end to end one is 172ft long x 96ft wide the other 193ft long x 68ft wide on one side is the brook on the other is the roase garden and the walled garden, it would not take long to look round and be finished then what there is the Priory museum but nothing else in the area to do.

The Cliffs museum offers so much more overall that the pathetic Saxon "Village" why do skipp not publish their full plans on the internet insted of having to go to one of their meetings. There is just too little information on the Priory Park being made freely open to warrent taking notice of it.

Max Impact wrote:
The Priory Park proposals are are a joke, look at the lack of car parking, the roads, no coach parking, lack of railway stations.

Like I said how old are the building that will have to be demolished?

Also the space at the parks dept site is very limited its much more narrow than it is long, think of the site as two boxes placed end to end one is 172ft long x 96ft wide the other 193ft long x 68ft wide on one side is the brook on the other is the roase garden and the walled garden, it would not take long to look round and be finished then what there is the Priory museum but nothing else in the area to do.

The Cliffs museum offers so much more overall that the pathetic Saxon "Village" why do skipp not publish their full plans on the internet insted of having to go to one of their meetings. There is just too little information on the Priory Park being made freely open to warrent taking notice of it.

train stations? the cliffs are further away from a station the priory park is, alas there is 'prittlewell train station'

The artist's impression looks like a UFO or possible a fruit bowl!
The seafront reveller's will doubtless attack all that glass.
Main thing is to keep the Internationally important relics of the Saxon Prince's grave in the Prittlewell Park area.

Max Impact wants to bring the relics back to Southend....I personally think it would be better if they where left in the London Museam where many more people from throughout the world could see them. However, if they come back to Southend I don't believe an out of charicter museam built into and on the cliffs is the ideal place for the relics to be exhibited even as an excuse to shore up the cliff which if managed differently might not have slipped in the first place.
What year was it.....I can't remember!
Indeed the relics are a very important find but in all honesty they are quite small in content. Gut and convert the library in Victoria Avenue. I am sure it will be cheaper and would help revitalise that part of town but as we know the Museam in the cliffs has been on the books supported by Nigel Holdcroft for a long time.
And while Max Impact goes on about bringing things back to Southend is he not depriving the people and tourists of Southend seeing the special documents about the Carvair and other aircraft he claims he has stored by a friend under special preservation conditions in Scotland. Max are not those documents important to the history and people of this town as a whole. When will you bring them back for all to admire......if they so wish? I'm sure the Southend Museam Service would be happy to accept them. After all the Carvair is so much part of the History of this town....would you not agree?

I'm a resident who will be directly affected by this and was concerned at first. I am now all for the Cliff Museum project now that I have seen the proposals and the fly-through animation. The Milton conservation society (who are made up of local residents) according to their web site is backing this project and are in consultation with the council. I have not heard of a major objection from the Clifton Conservation Assoc' apart from wanting a environmental study, so where are all these local residents who are up in arms? The only objection I have received (By a leaflet alone) are by SKIPP who do not speak for me or my neighbours. By the talks I have had with my neighbours all seem very positive. Indeed if SKIPP had engaged with the residents they would probably find the majority of locals were all for it.
As for incorporating extra conference facilities, surely trying to rake in additional private funds to pay for this is a splendid idea of helping to fund for its future up keep. As for the green spaces all is incorporated in the design and all parking is underground. If there is a budget I don't see a problem. However, if SKIPP want to publish that the majority of residents are against it they probably need to do a recount. When did they knock at our doors? Probably when the majority were all out at work.

John , do you have a link to the proposals and fly through please?

ignore last. found it. cheers.

JohnRSS1 wrote:
I'm a resident who will be directly affected by this and was concerned at first. I am now all for the Cliff Museum project now that I have seen the proposals and the fly-through animation. The Milton conservation society (who are made up of local residents) according to their web site is backing this project and are in consultation with the council. I have not heard of a major objection from the Clifton Conservation Assoc' apart from wanting a environmental study, so where are all these local residents who are up in arms? The only objection I have received (By a leaflet alone) are by SKIPP who do not speak for me or my neighbours. By the talks I have had with my neighbours all seem very positive. Indeed if SKIPP had engaged with the residents they would probably find the majority of locals were all for it.
As for incorporating extra conference facilities, surely trying to rake in additional private funds to pay for this is a splendid idea of helping to fund for its future up keep. As for the green spaces all is incorporated in the design and all parking is underground. If there is a budget I don't see a problem. However, if SKIPP want to publish that the majority of residents are against it they probably need to do a recount. When did they knock at our doors? Probably when the majority were all out at work.

First of all, the objection was not brought by the Clifftown Conservation Society, that was wrongly reported in the Echo and we have been telling them, and the Council that ever since.

Secondly, the Milton Conservation Soc., are not going to have to look out at the 'eyelids' protruding 'slightly' - we have tried to evaluate the measurement the Council planning officers call 'slightly' but so far, have been unable to quite pin it down.

Thirdly, the plan the Council is going to vote on tomorrow is not the 2009 plan that they presented to English Heritage and that they did some (albeit very minor), public consultation on.

Finally, all of the people in the Say No group, all work for a living and yet we spent time out gathering signatures on a petition which reached 2000. We did not knock on doors for two reasons; the first was because we didn't have the resources and knocking on doors takes up a lot more time and, secondly, the CCS emailed all of its members to keep them abreast of developments thereby allowing individuals to make up their own minds about how they wished to proceed. The Say No group are also members of CCS but, unlike the Milton Conservation Society, we did not ask the members to vote on whether CCS were for or against the plans because we felt that planning issues can divide a community rather than bring a community together - so we formed a separate group that any and all were welcome to join.

The green spaces will not be incorporated into this design, they are more likely to be turned into a concrete turning platform for coaches that will drop off at Clifftown Parade because the entrance will be from the top down.

https://maps.google.
co.uk/maps?q=western
+esplanade&hl=en&ll=
51.533266,0.70836&sp
n=0.000255,0.000517&
sll=53.800651,-4.064
941&sspn=7.881149,16
.940918&t=h&hnear=We
stern+Esplanade,+Sou
thend-on-Sea+SS1,+Un
ited+Kingdom&z=21&la
yer=c&cbll=51.533266
,0.70836&panoid=AXlD
3LW4tHO2TCYo5IPxHg&c
bp=12,342.22,,0,12.3
7


or this

http://publicedrms.s
outhend.gov.uk/Plann
ing/StreamDocPage/ob
j.wmv?DocNo=2206869&
PageNo=1&content=obj
.wmv

I think I like the new proposals. The buildings should great from above and almost vanish when viewed from the cliff tops and not too bad from the seafront.

If we turned the clock back to before we had our pier and it was suggested at council we built a pier to bring in tourist by boat which really was its main function.Would the likes of SKIPP be against such a development , what about when someone suggested putting a railway line along by the beach through Benfleet Leigh and Chalkwell would you object to that too. What I am trying to say is things change they always have and will continue to do so, some plans you will like some you won't .

r6keith wrote:
If we turned the clock back to before we had our pier and it was suggested at council we built a pier to bring in tourist by boat which really was its main function.Would the likes of SKIPP be against such a development , what about when someone suggested putting a railway line along by the beach through Benfleet Leigh and Chalkwell would you object to that too. What I am trying to say is things change they always have and will continue to do so, some plans you will like some you won't .

Whilst I don't wish to be rude, I think, to a very large extent, you have missed the point.

The point is that the plans that the Council minimally consulted the public on are not the plans that are being voted on at DCC today.

The Council's process in this matter has EXcluded the public, whereas, by its very nature, a public consultation should be just that, INclusive of the publics point of view.

This Council have ridden roughshod over the tax paying voters who are resident in the conservation area because, by the Council's own admission, only 25 letters of notification were sent out. 25 ! That is an outrageous abuse of power and position.

This is not about holding back the tide, this is not about objecting to change or stopping regeneration or development, this is about the legality of the Council's procedures.

The derelict buildings currently standing in Victoria Avenue are a testament to the visionaries of the late 60's early 70's - do you really want that.

If you do, I feel sorry for you, but I can assure you I will be fighting with my last breath to prevent it.

This is not just about the residents of the conservation area, this is for the residents of the whole Borough and beyond, in the same way that some residents of Leigh might not have wanted the runway extension, when the rest of the borough saw it as an asset.

Mslightfoot wrote:

r6keith wrote: If we turned the clock back to before we had our pier and it was suggested at council we built a pier to bring in tourist by boat which really was its main function.Would the likes of SKIPP be against such a development , what about when someone suggested putting a railway line along by the beach through Benfleet Leigh and Chalkwell would you object to that too. What I am trying to say is things change they always have and will continue to do so, some plans you will like some you won't .

Whilst I don't wish to be rude, I think, to a very large extent, you have missed the point. The point is that the plans that the Council minimally consulted the public on are not the plans that are being voted on at DCC today. The Council's process in this matter has EXcluded the public, whereas, by its very nature, a public consultation should be just that, INclusive of the publics point of view. This Council have ridden roughshod over the tax paying voters who are resident in the conservation area because, by the Council's own admission, only 25 letters of notification were sent out. 25 ! That is an outrageous abuse of power and position. This is not about holding back the tide, this is not about objecting to change or stopping regeneration or development, this is about the legality of the Council's procedures. The derelict buildings currently standing in Victoria Avenue are a testament to the visionaries of the late 60's early 70's - do you really want that. If you do, I feel sorry for you, but I can assure you I will be fighting with my last breath to prevent it.

Your reference to Victoria Avenue, was the mass development of that area at that time forced through planning illegally as you are suggesting ? The times have changed and the need for office blocks like this are no longer required even our councillors are not blessed with crystal ball ? I have lived in Southend and the surrounding area for most of my sixty plus years and like everyone else have seen big changes some good some not. If the due process of consultation on this new development is not followed then this needs to be looked into and acted apon. There were quite a few moans about the airports expansion process but when inspected by the Secretary of State the plans and processess employed were deemed legal and correct so quite righly the development was allowed to go ahead. If it had not been for a suggested road widening plan the kings treasure would still be buried in the ground and we would not need this new museum!