Summary of responses
on Southampton’s new
Local Plan: first stage –
issues and options
January 2016
Contents
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
2.
Methodology ...................................................................................................... 1
3.
4.
Events
1
Publicity / Consultation
2
Responses ......................................................................................................... 3
Formal response form, letters and emails
3
Electronic questionnaire responses
3
Drop-in sessions
3
Issues raised ...................................................................................................... 4
Appendix 1 List of consultees at Issues and Options stage ....................................... 6
Appendix 2 One to one meetings .............................................................................. 7
Appendix 3 Respondents using formal response form............................................... 8
Appendix 4 Analysis of electronic questionnaire respondents ................................. 10
Appendix 5 Responses at drop in sessions ............................................................. 12
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
1. Introduction
1.1
This report covers the consultation on Local Plan Issues and Options paper. It
is the first stage in the production of a new Local Plan for the city. When
adopted, the plan will bring together the current planning documents into one
single plan. In addition to setting out the vision and objectives for the city, the
Local Plan will include strategic policies, development management policies
and site allocations. It will replace saved policies in the Local Plan Review,
Core Strategy and City Centre Action Plan.
1.2
The report summarises who was consulted, how and when they were involved.
It also identified the key messages and issues raised by those who responded.
1.3
This statement has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 22 (c) of the
Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
2. Methodology
2.1
The formal public consultation on the Issue and Options paper ran for 12 weeks
22 July – 16 October 2015.
2.2
A 12 week consultation period was chosen in accordance with the time
recommended in the code of good practice between the council and statutory,
community and voluntary organisations (the Southampton Compact) and as
much of the consultation period ran over the school holidays. As this was an
early stage in the production of the plan, representations made after the closing
date were also accepted and are included in the analysis in this document.
Events
2.3
The consultation on the new local plan was lunched at a business breakfast
briefing on 22nd July 2015. This was a joint briefing on the Local Plan and Local
Transport Plan with Business South and Hampshire Chamber of Commerce.
Around 60 delegates came to the briefing and took part in round table
discussions about the key issues in the plans. (A summary from the workshop
is available online at www.southampton.gov.uk/newlocalplan).
2.4
Officers went out to Southampton’s larger centres and were available to answer
questions at seven locations in the city;
 Bargate Monument (outside on the north side) – staffed by Kay Brown and
Warren Jackson-Hookins, Thursday 10 September 11am to 1pm
 Portswood Sainsburys (inside foyer) – Dawn Heppell and Warren
Jackson-Hookins, Tuesday 15 September 1 to 3pm
 Shirley Sainsburys – Kay Brown and Warren Jackson-Hookins, Thursday
17 September 1 to 3pm
 Central Library (in foyer next to the library entrance) – Graham Tuck and
Dawn Heppell, Thursday 17 September 5 to 7pm
 Lordshill Sainsburys (outside under the canopy at the front of store) – Kay
Brown and Dawn Heppell, Tuesday 22 September 1 to 3 pm
 Woolston Co-op, Portsmouth Road (outside in front of the store) – Dawn
Heppell and Warren Jackson-Hookins, Thursday 24 September 3 to 5pm
 Bitterne Precinct Sainsburys – Graham Tuck and Dawn Heppell,
Wednesday, 30 September 11am to 1pm
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
1
2.5
Meetings were also held with key stakeholders such as landowners,
businesses and adjoining councils. In addition meetings were held with specific
consultation bodies (Natural England, Environment Agency and Historic
England) and with general consultation bodies and businesses, particularly
those located at Itchen Riverside. See Appendix 1 for a list of meetings.
2.6
Presentations were given to the Chamber of Commerce and the Health and
Wellbeing Board.
Publicity / Consultation
2.7
In July 2015, emails and letters inviting comments on the Issues and Option
paper and the initial Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report were sent to the
Specific Consultation Bodies and General Consultation bodies in accordance
with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and the Town & Country
Planning (Local Plan) (England) Regulations 2012. The key stakeholders were
offered the opportunity of a meeting to discuss their views.
2.8
A summary leaflet was produced and distributed widely. This set out why a plan
was needed and the five key areas of focus of the plan. It directed people
towards the website for further information and copies of the documents.
2.9
The consultation on the Issues and Options paper together with the
consultation on the initial Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report was also
publicised as follows:
 An electronic copy of the documents was available on the council’s
website in the Planning Policy homepages and new pages were added to
give further information on the key areas of focus (as identified in the
summary leaflets);
 Copies of the documents were available for public inspection in the Civic
Centre, Gateway (the council’s face-to-face contact centre) and all
libraries and council housing offices;
 Copies of the documents were available to the general public on request;
 Copies of the plan were sent to all councillors;
 Tweets were sent by both the city council and Invest in Southampton
twitter feeds to promote debate and publicise the plan
 Information was placed in the Weekly Bulletin and Staff Bulletin to
publicise the plan internally;
 A public notice placed in the Hampshire Independent and on Hantsweb.
2.10 The Issues and Options paper was divided into sections on topics and then key
sites. It asked a number of questions to determine the key issues to be
addressed in the draft strategy and the best approach for identified sites.
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the suggested
approach and whether there were other options we should consider.
2.11 Two response forms were produced to accompany the paper; a standard
response form to be used by formal consultees and an electronic questionnaire
designed for residents and businesses. A prize draw was held for respondents
to the electronic questionnaire offering a £100 WestQuay voucher.
Representations who did not use the form provided or the questionnaire were
also accepted.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
2
3. Responses
Formal response form, letters and emails
3.1
A total of 59 responses were received using either the formal response form or
letters or emails sent in directly (see appendix 2 for list of respondents). The
types of respondent are shown below:
Type of respondent
Public sector including Local Authority
Business and business groups
National agency
Voluntary organisations / pressure groups / civic societies
Developers, landowners and consultants
Residents and councillors
Total
No. of
responses
8
13
5
10
12
11
59
Electronic questionnaire responses
3.2
A total of 215 questionnaires were completed (1 of which was on a printed out
questionnaire posted back).
3.3
Responses were received from a range of respondents; male and female, of
different ages and from across the city. Most of the respondents lived and/or
worked in the city. (See appendix 3 for more information).
3.4
Although the electronic questionnaires generated a considerably larger
response than previous consultations, over 500 people started the
questionnaire and abandoned it before the end. For future questionnaires, the
council will consider using different formats for example shorter questionnaires
and more closed questions to improve the response rate.
Drop-in sessions
3.5
The Planning Policy team visited a number of centres with a pop up display to
talk to residents. This was publicised beforehand on the letters and emails to
consultees, on the website and in publicity materials. The events were held on
different days and in the late morning, early and late afternoon and early
evening. Where possible, dates were chosen when markets were on to
maximise the number of people in the centres. Locations were chosen to
provide shelter in case of bad weather.
3.6
Appendix 4 sets out the comments noted at the events. The success of these
sessions varied considerably. At three venues, people had visited the centres
specifically to attend. However most people were not aware of the consultation
and in some locations people were generally in a hurry and unwilling to stop or
take leaflets. The most successful events were held in locations with lots of
passing trade, where people naturally congregated and the weather was good.
As a result of the consultation, the council has learned about more residents
and community groups and in the future will use them to host and publicise
events as appropriate.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
3
4. Issues raised
4.1
The response forms, questionnaire and drop in sessions meant that views were
gathered from a cross section of society. They provided an opportunity for
people to express opinions on a range of topics and express both planning and
non-planning comments.
4.2
Key messages from the response forms and electronic questionnaires have
been collated into separate papers and detailed responses will help inform the
production of the plan. However the following overarching messages could be
drawn from across the responses:
1. Variety of views and differences of opinions
It is unlikely that there will be consensus about many of the issues discussed in
the plan. Many responses identified the need to engage the community and
work in partnership with others when developing the plan.
2. Question of who the city should cater for - focus on own residents,
independent shops and local businesses more
Many of the respondents in the electronic questionnaire argued that instead of
focusing on visitors, students or ‘big business’, the city should focus on
providing for local residents and supporting local businesses.
3. Key issues – student housing, parking (including park and ride), traffic flow
Although a wide range of issues and views were raised, student housing,
parking and traffic flow were the issues raised most often. Student housing is a
concern for many as student schemes are built instead of housing for local
residents. There is also a concern about their impact on the character of areas.
Transport issues including the need for sufficient residential parking, support for
park and ride and the frustration of traffic and its impact on where people visit.
4. Question if we have the right infrastructure to support growth?
There was concern that existing infrastructure cannot cope with demands from
new development. There was also a view that investment in infrastructure such
as green infrastructure and high speed broadband could help deliver objectives
such as encouraging more walking and cycling and attracting businesses.
5. Concern about decline of existing older urban areas such as East Street
The need for regeneration of areas such as East Street, Bargate and Above
Bar to reverse their decline was raised. Opportunities were identified to improve
these areas, particularly East Street.
6. Need to focus beyond city centre
A wide range of comments were received on the town, district and local centres
and other areas outside the city centre. Respondents noted the importance of
communities and neighbourhoods and the need to provide and protect facilities
and infrastructure required to support them.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
4
7. Need to be flexible to respond to changing situations and opportunities
It was noted that significant changes were likely over the period of the plan,
particularly relating to changes in retail uses. There will also be unexpected
opportunities that arise. Instead of seeking to identify these, the plan should be
flexible.
8. Not losing the character of places
There was concern that development should not detract from the heritage and
character of existing areas. Particular concerns were raised the impact of too
many flats, Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), student accommodation
and tall buildings.
9. Quality of places – maintenance, cleanliness, public realm etc
The importance of maintenance was raised across a number of topics including
transport infrastructure, open space, historic buildings and public realm. There
were also comments on the need to keep the city clean.
10. Capacity of city to support more housing on brownfield sites but not at the
expense of local high streets etc
A number of comments supported using brownfield land for development.
However there was a general concern expressed that new development could
change areas and should not be at the expense of, for example, local high
streets or employment.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
5
Appendix 1 List of consultees at Issues and Options stage
The list of consultees reflect the Statement of Community Involvement (adopted in
April 2013) which was prepared in accordance with the Town & Country Planning
(Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
At the Issues and options consultation stage of the City Centre Action Plan the
Council notified the organisations and individuals within the following 3 groups which
it considers may have an interest in the subject of the proposed local plan.
 specific consultation bodies
 general consultation bodies
 residents or other persons carrying on business in the area
Specific consultation bodies include:
 The Environment Agency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
for England (known as Heritage England), the Marine Management
Organisation, Natural England, Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (company
number 2904587), the Highways England; the Homes and Communities
Agency.
 Adjoining local authorities and Parish Councils
 Hampshire police and crime commissioner
 Utilities providers– e.g. electronic communications; electricity; gas; sewerage;
water suppliers.
 Clinical Commissioning Group
General consultation bodies include:
 voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the local
planning authority’s area
 bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national
groups in the local planning authority’s area,
 bodies which represent the interests of different religious groups in the local
planning authority’s area,
 bodies which represent the interests of disabled persons in the local planning
authority’s area
 bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in the
local planning authority’s area
Residents and local businesses include
 Residents associations
 Other Area – based groups (e.g. churches, local voluntary groups)
 individual businesses and residents
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
6
Appendix 2 One to one meetings
Who with
Date
Natural England
2nd April, 22nd September 2015
Environment Agency
11th August 2015
Historic England
19th August 2015
Eastleigh Borough Council
9th July 2015
Test Valley District Council
17th September 2015
New Forest District Council
16th September 2015
University of Southampton
12th May, 26th August 2015
Solent University
16th April 2015
Chamber of Commerce (presentation)
7th October 2015
Health and Wellbeing Board
8th October 2015
SCAPPS / COSS
7th October 2015
Itchen Riverside businesses:
Griffon Hoverwork
9th September 2015
Woolston Board
10th September 2015
City College
15th September 2015
Cemex Aggregates
28th September 2015
Southampton Football Club
29th September 2015
Willments
29th September 2015
Trimline
5th October 2015
EMR
6th October 2015
Questmap
10th October 2015
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
7
Appendix 3 Respondents using formal response form
Ref.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Name / organisation
Tony Bunday
Planware Ltd
Network Rail
Denise Wyatt
Marine Management Organisation
Polygon Residents Action Group
Hammerson (Barton Willmore)
Stewart Morris
Juliet Ross
Hythe & Dibden PC
Cllr Pope
Highfield Residents Association
Tarmac (QuarryPlan)
Malcolm Wilson
Lyn Brayshaw
Alec Samuels
Ellandi (Savills)
Representing landowners in Itchen Riverside
(Luken Beck)
Sport England
Supermarine (Luken Beck)
National Express
Southampton Football Club
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust
New Forest DC
Test Valley BC
Angela Cotton
Thornbury Avenue and District Residents
Association
City of Southampton Society
Mountpark (Oxalis Planning)
ABP (Adams Hendry)
Scotia Gas Networks (Quod)
EMR (European Metal Recycling)
GL Hearn
Highways England
Community response (Rebecca Kinge)
Eastleigh BC
Pressmile (Solent Planning)
Hampshire County Council
UBS (Montagu Evans)
Natural England
Environment Agency
Ford Motor Company (Iceni)
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
Type of respondent
General public
Planning consultants
Transport provider
General public
Govt agency
Residents group
Business
General public
General public
Parish council
Councillor
Residents group
Business
General public
General public
General public
Business
Landowner - Itchen Riverside
Govt agency
Landowner - Itchen Riverside
Transport provider
Football club
Charity / Civic society
Adjoining authority
Adjoining authority
General public
Residents group
Charity / Civic society
Developer
Business
Infrastructure provider / landowner
Business
Planning consultant
Govt agency
General public, businesses
Adjoining authority
Landowner
Adjoining authority
Landowner
Govt agency
Govt agency
Business
8
Ref.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
Name / organisation
Tarmac (Quarryplan)
Bargate Property
Aviva (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners)
University of Southampton (Luken Beck)
RSPB
Inland Homes (Savills)
Royal Pier Waterfront (Terence O Rourke)
Ministry of Justice
New Forest NPA
Forterra Buildings Products Ltd
Mobile Operators Assocation (Mono
consultants)
MPA
Transition Southampton
SCAPPS
Simon Hill
Woolston Community Association
Cllr Claisse
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
Type of respondent
Business
Developer
Landowner
University
Charity / Civic society
Developer
Developer
Government ministry, landowner
Adjacent authority
Business
Business group
Trade Association
Community group
Charity / civic society
General Public
Charity / Civic society
Councillor
9
Appendix 4 Analysis of electronic questionnaire respondents
Gender of respondents (electronic questionnaire)
84
93
Male
Female
Age profile of respondents (electronic questionnaire)
80
68
Number of respodents
70
60
50
44
40
46
34
26
30
21
20
11
10
4
0
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
No
response
Age group
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
10
Type of respondents (electronic questionnaire)
8 10
167
0
50
4
2
6
70
100
150
200
250
300
Number of respondents
Resident
Work in Southampton
Business owner
Local group
Statutory agency
Councillor
Other
Number of respondents
Where respondents live (electronic questionnaire)
35
30
30
23
25
19
20
15
10
5
16
14
13
15
14
15
11
7
3
5
7
2
3
13
5
0
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
11
Appendix 5 Responses at drop in sessions
NAME
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT
BARGATE
(10TH September 2015, 11am – 1pm)

John Hall

Zara Tayfon
Holyrood Estate
resident

Yvonne Soave
Peter Flanagan

Josh Pike
Cal Pike
G Huston



Visitors from
Hastings
Ken & Linda
Norman
X
Mrs Verlonova
Issac Eadzie
Chiko Lungu
Paul Garayo
North Baddesley

Student

COMMENTS
Bargate Street should be widened, pedestrianized remove traffic islands for bikes.
East Street Shopping Centre, Aldi, Wilkins, Robert Dyas – more diversity in shopping. Pouring quality needs
improving. Housing at CQ looks really good.
Social problems a concern. Need more support for drug addicts / homeless. Safety a concern. Traffic is a concern.
Also where do people work not enough offices.
Culture needs more promotion. No dedicated syphons hall by Itchen Bridge ‘Canute Centre’. Private money. Not
enough made of history & heritage. Divided city, more community engagement, linking communities, particularly
Millbrook & Woolston.
Presentation of green areas is important. Bus is good. SMART card is important.
Confusing road network. Signs could be improved for visitors. Nice and green in centre.
Would like to see taller development around the park. Great views like New York, solve housing problem.
Portswood Sainsbury’s should have flats on roof. Cars put in basements do don’t clutter the roads. ‘Pygmy’
development shouldn’t be built. Should be much taller development like Toronto.
Pleasantly surprised. A lot of very tired 60’s development needing replacement.
Need infrastructure to support growth. ‘Brand’ damage. Keen to see more waterfront development. More for cruise
liner trader. Its USP – not more shopping, more heritage waterfront and connecting. Good affordable local housing
not all student good.
Synchronizing buses with times would be helpful.
Youth club in the centre, electronic games, MUGAs needed (didn’t know about local ones). Good city for students.
Crime down. Not much change. Housing needed, wider ranges. Need traditional houses with rear gardens at an
affordable. Weston should be better developed on the waterfront. Portsmouth is way ahead.
Cultural development is important. Temporary use of vacant buildings help regeneration. Helps to link pride and
community focus.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
12
NAME
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT
COMMENTS
Ferranti
Donavellas
Andrew Watson

Waterfront – don’t block out views. Want access t se view of boat.

Spencer Bowman

Kelly McCormick
Angela Milligan


Binuk Jacob

Positive comments. Above Bar / Below Bar precinct. Would like to see less traffic / sleeping policeman on housing
estates. Nice parks in City. Ecology and recycling should be promoted. One of the best art galleries in
Southampton / Britian. Itchen Riverside is good too.
Quality of new buildings poor. Ocean Boulevard / new student Parks – Bedford Place re cladding of existing
buildings is poor. Mayflower. Paint a missed opportunity – its overpowering! We say yes to everything! Quality of
design more important than use. No grey buildings as is oppressive. Portland store by Civic Centre. No cycle lane
on Platform Road, stops half way along Canute Road / Platform Road. Shared footpath can be confusing for users.
Protect the City Walls.
East Street needs improving.
Less places for coffee etc – need more of these uses.
Too much gentrification – eg: City Centre and less affordable shops and uses needed, otherwise we will drive local
people out.
More jobs – more empty land
Good city – quiet. Good public transport too.
But rents high. Office development by train station good.
Demolish Marlands and provide a bus station.
No strong opinions – like Southampton as a City.
Mayflower Park – we need plans for this.
More water side access on Soton Water
Watermark West Quay is a welcome addition
Cineworld – we need plans for re-use in case it closes.
No name / details
given
No name or
contact details
given
Brian McGhee

Elaine Gogin

Likes city parts – protect them!
A nice city
But underpass being taken away through Watermark West Quay development – he doesn’t agree with this.
Litter wardens – we need more.
Car parking – dreadful
Flats – 1 car only not enough! Bad for emergency services in terms of road layout design.
Good developments – eg: Student Buildings
Soton Gateway building – good landmark building
More tall buildings needed with colours at night – put the city on the map!
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
13
NAME
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT
Raymond Ridout;
Brooke Foster;
Darren Bray

Rachel Bell
PORTSWOOD
(15th September 2015, 1 – 3pm)

Ciarain Brady
Madam
 Flowers Estate
 St Denys
SHIRLEY
(17th September 2015, 1pm – 3pm)

Robert Northover
Carole Gratorex
Netley
COMMENTS
Developing more as a city – developments good
We need more economic development
Likes Soton
Good balance with parks – protect them as we have them.
More job opportunities (currently unemployed)
More places other than the job centre.
SCC housing benefit info & job centre address & local Plan Issues & Options
Housing exchange / transfers / hostels.
New West Quay
Young people – we need homes. Hostels closing in Portswood. Affordable homes.
Portacabins used for rest / purposes – Bournemouth / Brighton – could Soton do the same?
More empty appartments – not enough jobs at the moment.
More needs to be made of Seafront.
Walking route on Itchen / Cycle route needed.
Mayflower Park – not good currently!
Protect the Common but more lifting needed.
Sports centre is hit!
Good quality design buildings is needed.
Importance of buses – bus service has just been taken away from the Flowers Estate and has had an impact on
elderly residents who can’t walk into Portswood
Happy with Portswood and surrounding areas and appreciate good transport links
Issues with student housing
Loss of Woolwhichs, West Quay worst shopping centre for
Roof on precinct. Cuts to police force – increase in crime. Cuts affect people we need. Southampton the best!
Discount for Itchen Bridge or bridge card for non-city residents, should be available as this is seen as the local city.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
14
NAME
Sylvan Rupert
Ian Paterson
Bob Leavey
Rose Smith &
Colin Smith
Graham Hutchins
Rose smith
Vic Cristina
Mrs Purcell
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT
COMMENTS

Millbrook

Bassett
Totton

Empty shops is an issue. Come for shopping every Thursday. More chairs in street. Comes by taxi. Pavement are
not in good condition will have problems with a buggy on broken slabs.
No idea what is going on but comes to Shirley to do shopping regularly.


Bassett

Gerald ThomasScott
Jason Wheeler
Joan Mansfield
Margaret Osmond

Freemantle

Shirley
New development is really good. Used to be a slum, love the parks. Miss the bird aviary, student bring trade to city.
Henry road – community for engineering company closed down. Need another petrol station in Shirley area.
Coxford Road problem with parking. Can’t get permit for parking where she lives. 38 only available. Want to know
more info for the Shirley, Car park near health centre community care for carers – concern about redevelopment –
11 flats no parking. Issue with parking. Street cleaning an issue and parking on pavements – dropped kerbs. Night
time drinking through the centre of Shirley. Not enough rubbish collection, bins filled.
Want speed limit 20mph to reduce vibrations on roads. Councillor looking at licensing of premises selling alcohol.
Workman’s club on Vectis Street what’s happening? Children care? Need to follow up this one!
Too many charity shops, more help for small business. Support local shops. More use of seafront. Not enough
roads to support cruise industry. Don’t think P&R outside city would work with cruise trade 100,000 cars cruise
ships. ABP should do more – more money from containers – cruise liners expensive. Not done as much as
Portsmouth best port on south coast.
Don’t want Library to shut down. Roads need improving, catch a bus near Saints Pub. Shrubs needs cutting down,
but lots of more housing for homeless – apartments – not high rise – affordable.
Sea city –
Working in a city of opportunity. Concern about community facilities closing down. More activities for young people.
Community swimming pool – stop them vandalising. St James Park is a good facility.
Don’t drive. Disabled son not enough disabled parking in City Centre. Closed all public toilets is not helpful. Can’t
use all store WC’s. Not enough fore thought for disabled.
Student accommodation is fine but University needs to keep up good standards. Bus services good but keep
changing routes. Not all drivers helpful.
Pavements for cyclists, not good. What work is being done to develop cycle route is poor from Avenue. Concern
about area around station. Investment in public more consistent a lot of money spent on some schemes but not.
Look at Bristol, Copenhagen. Heritage not treasured, losing our rich heritage. Lost two historic houses in Shirley.
Overview of the character of the city. Blocking views of Offices. Integrated transport – Oyster card, flat rate. Can’t
use bus card on two different companies. Change route all the time. Lack of info about routes. Simplify pavement
system. Access to sunshine Vitamin D important so tall buildings a concern as create shade.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
15
NAME
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT

No name given

Tony West


David Fletcher

Margaret Wright,
Vice Chair
Redbridge
Residents
Association
Mrs Warner

Karen Barnell

COMMENTS
Neighbourhood watch needed, although crime isn’t as bad these days.
Mayfield – no childrens play areas
Community facilities – more needed / Day centres to promote confidence etc. Give people a chance.
Good city though / good developments and growning!
Promote city history
Start up businesses needed / plus knowledge of this.
Royal pier – exciting development.
Parking is a problem.
Bargate needs redeveloping.
Good city and happy with the citys offer.
Green (near Stake Road) getting narrower – protect Open Spaces .
Not enough parking for flats.
High parking prices has impact on shopping centres – East Street and Bargate. Parking was an issue with
Morrisons pulling out of East Street.
Too many flats without infrastructure – eg: Parking / schools & amenities. Warren Avenue – Flat developments
going up here with these issues.
Keep Mayflower Park as part of Royal Pier. Not another development like Ocean Village wanted.
Developments in Adanac Park – need to be looked at in combination with development more widely –eg: Dibden –
Soton.
Air quality issues need to be looked at – caused by traffic HGVs Issues & Options paper doesn’t capture all the
issues. Council hasn’t followed inspectors recommendation for the Test Lane South Site.
Too many charity shops / drop in
Nice library / cafes
Protect existing shopping centres – quality shops needed. No shoe shop in Shirley!
Good public transport links in city.
No cars to go into Mayflower Park. Keep Mayflower Park as it is.
We need to maintain the Waterfront and Views.
Too many student parks
City gone downhill
Newer buildings are eyesores
Markets to be retained and improved
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
16
NAME
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT
Kevin Hill

Mrs Denis
Woodward

CENTRAL LIBRARY
(17th September 2015, 5 – 7pm)

LORDSHILL
(21st September 2015, 11 – 1pm)





COMMENTS
Generally good downhill and need improving
The Common used for Southampton show then the Balloon Festival. We need more events for people and families.
Craft shops needed.
Platform Road – very good improvements
Keeps traffic flowing.
Parking is a huge issue.
Road changes are complicated.
More disabled parking needed.
Building standards need to be improved – inclusive access needed.
More lifts needed
Tatwin Crescent – yellow lines needed
Walk up blocks – these have no improvements – rain comes through and soaks floor.
Walk up gardeners
Drainage needs improving because of waterlogging
Cumbrian Way – Maybush – issues here with landing not connected to floor and its not safe. No.s 178-204 Tatwin
Crescent is an excellent block – like a large family unit.
Supported glass tall buildings and wondered why there weren’t more inland
Cycle routes can be improved. More clarification of routes and signage. Need development and infrastructure.
Make sure development is finished. Concerned about impact West Quay, BHS closing is a concern. Retail is
shifting to the docks. Council said they would build new homes but haven’t, Sea City a waste of money.
Need more smaller homes for young people. Should be more houses that cater for carers (extra bedrooms).
Pavements in terrible condition. Access disabilities could better more facilities locally should be provided. Not
enough choice shopping and pubs want to remain independent.
Clean up the Lordshill. Ice rink for kids entertainment. Why are we having a casino? Don’t like City Gateway.
Issue of too much traffic and delays when travelling into the city centre. Need better bus service
The council should be spending less on vanity projects such as the Station Quarter works – lick of paint and flowers
would suffice
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
17
NAME
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT





WOOLSTON
(24th September 2015, 3 – 5pm)




BITTERNE
(30th September 2015, 11am – 1pm)

Colin McQueen


(Freemantle)


COMMENTS
New housing and new facilities in Lordshill – knock down and start again.
Best thing is the dust cart, waiting for 8 years for a small council house (2 bed with shower) on waiting list.
Very skeptical that Royal Pier will be built (Used to go dancing there). Also skeptical don’t want flats and offices go
to Pompey for entertainment.
Mercury Close no facilities for children in local parks. Good facility at Mansel Park and St James but doesn’t drive.
Spitfire Memorial needed in park. More council and affordable houses. Protect open spaces. Want more energy
saving measures, in houses and commercial buildings.
Questioned the quality of new developments – had heard about construction problems in Admirals Quay
Issue of lack of food stores in Woolston – large Co-op has closed on the edge of the centre and the proposed Lidl to
replace it is not likely to open for 18 months. The only supermarkets are small Co-op stores which can be poor for
fresh fruit and vegetables. In the city centre, there is also a lack of choice for larger supermarkets.
Questioned why there were long delays bringing forward developments after the initial designs were publicised.
Concerns about Centenary Quay and lack of employment there. Questioned when the library was going to move
and when/if Morrisons would open.
See change happening with what development in the City Centre and University growth. Doing a good job, keep it
up.
It’s nice to see development and things happening.
Concerned about air quality – part of Western Docks Community Forum.
Needs a balance between economic growth and quality of life. Concerned about financial impact of lots of
development in City Centre – IKEA, Royal Pier.
Asked about Park and Ride. Poor quality cycle routes – no political support opportunities. Missed in new projects /
development ie: Central Station.
Need to reduce number of cars on road.
Likes Sea City Museum. Needs more access to the waterfront - missed opportunities but what can you do now?
Disappointed that Mayflower Park does not include children’s paddling pool as promised; had a quick look at new
proposals.
Concerned about state of environment and maintenance – improving public realm / mobility / access.
New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
18
NAME
SOUTHAMPTON
RESIDENT
COMMENTS

Traffic congestion – difficult moving east – west across the city – bus lanes which aren’t used by buses so wasting
space (would be ok with bus lanes if really frequent services like in London). Parking charges in the City Centre are
too high so shops out of centre at Hedge End
Use General Hospital a lot recently and doesn’t agree with re-organisation of main entrance – should have spent
money on treating patients.

New Local Plan Issues and options paper – summary of responses
19