Document Print/Save as PDF

Southampton City Vision Local Plan Chapter 8 - Sites

Mayflower Quarter

Mayflower Quarter Policy Options

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Mayflower Quarter
Policy Number: SI1(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Mayflower Quarter Policy Options Agree Disagree
Key Option 1 – Level of Infrastructure Transformation
Option 1a – Necessary Infrastructure – This option would deliver the necessary infrastructure specified above (both strategic and integral to each phase). It would also deliver major development of a similar scale in overall terms to that in option 1b. This would significantly transform the area, creating a more vibrant and connected Quarter, and deliver important strategic infrastructure. It would also require significantly less overall infrastructure investment. However, the wider transformational benefits identified in option 1b below would not be realised. For example, West Quay Road would remain in situ and whilst it could be enhanced as a city street, parts of the Quarter and the waterfront would remain ‘cut off’ by the busy West Quay Road. 4 11
Option 1b – Major transformation – This option would, in addition, by relocating West Quay Road, create a Quarter and waterfront destination which would be significantly better connected in overall terms, have more and higher quality green streets and spaces, and ease the flow of vehicular traffic to the city centre and Port. It would also require significantly more infrastructure investment (from developers and the public sector). 8 9
Option 1b+ – Major transformation with the relocation of West Quay Road to include the use of small areas of Port land – this enables the route of the relocated road to be realigned to enhance the setting of the town walls. 15 2
Key Option 2 – Phasing of Development and Transformational Infrastructure
Option 2a – No phasing – phases of development could continue in advance of strategic or transformational infrastructure, provided each phase contributed financially towards, and did not prejudice the provision of, that infrastructure. This option provides the maximum flexibility to deliver major development in a highly sustainable city centre location, which in itself will create significant transformational change, whilst still protecting the ability to deliver further transformational change in the future. However, it does risk creating development areas which are cut off from the wider Quarter, are less well protected from flood risk or which generate more traffic congestion, until further infrastructure is delivered. 6 11
Option 2b – Long term phasing – Longer term phases of development would not be supported until the necessary strategic and/or further transformational infrastructure had been delivered. This option may provide the impetus to ensure that strategic / transformational infrastructure is delivered and ensure that areas of new development do not remain ‘cut off’. However, it risks preventing the delivery of further major development in a highly sustainable city centre location. These developments may provide site specific measures to provide more resilience in transport / flood risk terms in advance of strategic / transformational infrastructure being implemented. 12 4

Summary of responses (63 received)

There was general support for redeveloping Mayflower Quarter although various specific concerns were raised. It was recognised the redevelopment would be an ambitious project that would require strong leadership by the Council. Some suggested that a clear vision and implementation plan would be needed and that this should be set out as part of a masterplan or supplementary planning guidance.

There was a mix of opinions on phasing with some highlighting the need for a coordinated approach. Whereas, some developers with land interests in Mayflower Quarter suggested that developments which can come forward sooner should be able to, provided they do not adversely impact on the delivery of the wider Quarter and are in line with its design principles. Other responses pointed out the need to learn lessons from phasing on other major development such as Centenary Quay. There was also a desire to devise an approach that would not see development benefits or the masterplan watered down over time.

There was mixed feeling around the proposed use of tall buildings within Mayflower Quarter with some in support and some concerned this would have a detrimental impact on the waterfront. Others suggested a more nuanced approach to building heights was needed to reflect different character and heritage considerations rather than a blanket minimum or maximum height requirement.

There was a strong feeling that in locating uses across the Quarter, residential development should not be located in proximity to the port. There was also a desire to strengthen policy considerations with regards to how the Quarter would interface with the port noting its operational and security requirements. Those with existing interests in the Primary Shopping Area were concerned that there was insufficient evidence to justify the provision of new retail and leisure uses within Mayflower Quarter without having an adverse impact on existing businesses. A variety of suggestions were made with regards to the kinds of uses that should be delivered within the Quarter including a replacement facility for The Quays, a new conference centre, hotels, museums and green spaces. Several responses made specific requests that Mayflower Park and Town Quay Park should be protected as open spaces.

There was also strong support for improving the cultural offering in the Quarter to support tourism and raise awareness of the area's heritage. In considering strategic links for active travel there were requests to recognise the different needs of pedestrians and cyclists.

Responses from statutory consultees suggested strengthening the policy with regards to heritage and environmental considerations.

Some responses indicated there was confusion around the way commentary around different city centre quarters and Mayflower Quarter was set out. There was also confusion around some specific terms, particularly around the use of the term active frontages. There were requests for further clarity or some condensing of text to address these issues

Itchen Riverside

Summary of responses (11 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Itchen Riverside
Policy Number: SI2(S)
Options Y/N: N

The majority of comments were mixed or neutral with a couple of suggestions for re- wording policy text. Some respondents sought to maximise waterfront access, aiming for continual access. Protection of maritime employment may need other employment uses to be relocated if waterfront access is not essential, for example aggregates related to port area. There were suggestions for new facilities in the area, maximising benefits of waterfront location. There was some concern about the impact on strategic views.

Marlands Shopping Centre and Surrounds

Summary of responses (8 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Marlands Shopping Centre and Surrounds
Policy Number: SI3(S)
Options Y/N: N

Comments were a mixture of agreement and disagreement, with a couple of suggestions for changes to the policy wording. There were some acknowledgements that improvements are needed but concerns were expressed about over development and too much focus on retail. There was also concern about Linkages to surrounding areas and sensitivity given strategic views.

Bargate Sites

Summary of responses (7 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Bargate Sites
Policy Number: S14(S)
Options Y/N: N

There was a feeling that there is too much emphasis on retail and suggestions were made for alternative uses perhaps with a focus on smaller retailers. There was support for pedestrianisation and adding cycling routes to this. There were positive comments about opening up the walls but concerns about the sensitivity of these heritage assets (Bargate and Town Walls).

Former Debenhams / East Street Shopping Centre Sites

Summary of responses (9 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Former Debenhams / East Street Shopping Centre Sites
Policy Number: S15(S)
Options Y/N: N

The majority of comments were mixed or neutral with a few suggestions for changes to the policy wording. There was some support for mixed use redevelopment of the site, but there were concerns that this area is too detached from West Quay and Above Bar Street, to remain part of the Primary Shopping Area. Pedestrian routes should also be cycling routes. Consideration should also be given to the nearby parks and gardens including the habitats within them.

Albon Place and Castle Way

Summary of responses (10 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Albon Place and Castle Way
Policy Number: S16(S)
Options Y/N: N

The majority of those who commented agreed with the proposed policy with just one suggestion for amendment. There was positive support for pedestrianising the area and creating a bus hub. There was a suggestion to include a footbridge and shelter. Concern was expressed for nearby heritage assets.

St Marys and Old Northam Road

St Marys and Old Northam Road Policy Options

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: St Marys and Old Northam Road
Policy Number: SI7(S)
Options Y/N: Y

St Marys and Old Northam Road Policy Options Agree Disagree
Option 1a – The proposed approach is to require the core shopping area in St Marys Street to deliver full active public frontages which provide the most vibrancy to the street and for full or partial active frontages in old Northam Road to provide greater flexibility there. The policy sets criteria for the redevelopment of sites within the area including appropriate building scale and heights and improvements to streets and spaces and links. 7 1
Option 1b –Remove limitations on old Northam Road to provide a more flexible approach to deliver regeneration in the area 5 3

Summary of responses (13 received)

The majority of respondents were supportive of the policy approach with the potential to masterplan the regeneration of Old Northam Rd and sensitively restore the historic shopfronts. It was suggested to offer opportunities to local college students learning trades to take on the works themselves as projects. Others considered that resources should be directed at St Mary Street as the regeneration of Old Northam Road was no longer a viable prospect, and creating more traffic in old Northam Road would conflict with the opportunity to create an enhanced cycle route to the Northam railway bridge. Concerns were expressed that there is a lack of clarity within the design policy to protect sensitive strategic views from the development of tall buildings in St Mary Street.

Britannnia Road Gas Works

Summary of responses (9 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Britannnia Road Gas Works
Policy Number: S18(S)
Options Y/N: N

Most comments were either mixed or in agreement with the proposed policy. There was support for the gas works site to be allocated as a mixed use development and to create better pedestrian and cycle links and improve the look and feel of this part of the city. Some felt that at least part of the structure be retained or sculpture, so the heritage is not lost.

Chapel Riverside

Summary of responses (7 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Chapel Riverside
Policy Number: S19(S)
Options Y/N: N

Respondents felt there is a need to increase access to waterfront with more access points. There is also a need to define active frontages and suggestions include bars/restaurants to bring more vibrancy to the area. There need to be connections to the City Centre possibly by water bus or taxi.

Drivers Wharf

Drivers Wharf Policy Options

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Drivers Wharf
Policy Number: SI10(S)
Options Y/N: Y

Drivers Wharf Policy Options Agree Disagree
Option 1a – To require that the mix of employment uses includes marine uses, unless this would undermine the delivery of the site. This will ensure that the site supports the marine sector and capitalises on its waterfront location, whilst still enabling appropriate flexibility. 1 1
Option 1b – To simply require that the employment uses are located to have access to a part of the waterfront wharf, without requiring that the mix of employment uses includes marine uses. This will locate the employment space so that it can potentially support marine uses, without overly restricting uses. 1 1

Summary of responses (4 received)

Responses were either in general agreement or mixed. Continuous access to the waterfront should be sought. Specific suggestions on amendments to wording were suggested including contributions for flood defences.

College Street car park

Summary of responses (6 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: College Street car park
Policy Number: SI11(S)
Options Y/N: N

There was a mixed response to this policy, which some supported but other felt that containers do not fit the surroundings but areas should nevertheless be used for public events. There were concerns raised about sensitive views.

Ocean Village

Summary of responses (16 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Ocean Village
Policy Number: SI12(S)
Options Y/N: N

Most respondents made mixed or neutral comments with around a quarter supporting the proposed policy. Concerns were raised about over development of the area and the need to consult with existing residents. Comments were also made regarding specific locations and potential developments.

Centenary Quay

Summary of responses (6 received)

Theme: Sites
Policy Name: Centenary Quay
Policy Number: SI13(S)
Options Y/N: N

There were no objections with responses either mixed or in agreement with the proposals. There is a need to improve access to waterfront as so far such access has not emerged in a way that was originally anticipated. However, some comments highlighted the need to consider the requirements of local business with regards to waterfront access.