FRESH plans to turn a city centre office block, which has been mothballed for more than three decades, into homes have been rejected.

Elmer Developments Ltd hoped to turn the second to ninth floors of the former Prudential building, in Elmer Approach, into 102 flats but proposals were refused over concerns about the size of accommodation.

The building has stood empty for 35 years despite numerous plans being given the green light to redevelop the site.

A series of applications for flats and one proposal including a hotel have all been approved by Southend Council but aside from scaffolding being set up, no work appeared to have been carried out.

Anne Jones, councillor responsible for planning and housing, said: “A large number of the units are not compliant with minimum size requirements and would not provide good quality accommodation or amenity.

“Well designed housing, compliant with standards is something which we aim to support the delivery of.”

Work was set to begin for approved plans to transform the site into a new hotel, flats and shops before the pandemic hit.

Other previously approved plans include transforming it into 112 flats, 140 flats, and also 119 flats, over the last 15 years.

Plans by Redrock Developments, submitted in 2018, also proposed new studio flats could work as student accommodation for those studying at Essex University’s Southend campus.

Southend Council planning officers also said there were issues with meeting coastal habitats regulations under the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) which protects coastal areas from the negative effects of new housing developments.

The report said: “We would be concerned about the quality of the accommodation here, but the application fell for us at an earlier hurdle of the prior approval process. Prior approval is refused because the development applied for has already commenced on site.

“The development offers no reasonable mitigation of the in-combination effect of the net increase of 102 dwellings on habitats and species.

“This is unacceptable and contrary to RAMS which seek to protect the natural environment with specific reference to the coastal habitats.”