Better Queensway: Southend Labour’s Big Promises, Big Risks and Big Questions

Better Queensway should be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Southend. The area needs investment. Residents deserve better homes, safer streets, improved crossings, public space and a stronger link between the city centre and surrounding communities.

But after years of delays, changing plans and financial uncertainty, residents are entitled to ask a simple question: Can Southend City Council actually deliver it?

The original Better Queensway delivery model relied on a joint venture with Swan Housing. But Swan was later downgraded by the Regulator of Social Housing because it was judged non-compliant on governance and financial viability. Swan was then taken over by Sanctuary, and Sanctuary eventually withdrew from the project.

That meant Southend City Council took full ownership of Porters Place, the company behind the scheme.

That is a major shift. The project moved from being delivered with a housing partner to the council carrying far more responsibility itself.

The council now says the scheme could deliver around 1,600 new homes, alongside road changes, safer crossings, cycle routes and public realm improvements. It has appointed Taylor Woodrow for highways works, while Lambert Smith Hampton is reviewing the housing plans to see whether they still work under new rules and rising building costs.

That matters.

If the housing plans are still being reviewed, residents deserve to know exactly what is now being delivered, when it will happen, and who is carrying the financial risk.

The council’s own budget papers also raise questions. Better Queensway highways infrastructure appears in the capital programme at around £20m–£22m, including £14.5m of Homes England funding. That is a significant commitment of public money before the full housing delivery route appears fully settled.

At the same time, Southend Council’s wider finances are under pressure. The council has faced forecast overspends, structural budget gaps, rising social care costs, and repeated Council Tax rises. Its own budget papers included money to correct unrealistic income assumptions and vacancy assumptions.

So this is not just about Better Queensway. It is about competence.

Can a council already under financial pressure manage one of the most complex regeneration projects in Southend’s history?

There is another issue too: local government reorganisation. Southend City Council is expected to be abolished in 2028 and replaced by a new South East Essex authority covering Southend, Castle Point and Rochford.

So residents need answers now.

Who will own Better Queensway after Southend City Council disappears?

Will the new authority inherit the risks and liabilities?

Could the project be delayed, changed or scaled back?

Who will be accountable if promises made today are not delivered tomorrow?

Nobody is saying Queensway should be left as it is. It clearly needs regeneration.

But big promises are not enough.

Southend residents deserve a clear, honest explanation of:

What Better Queensway will really cost?

Who is paying for it?

Who is carrying the risk?

Who will deliver the homes?

What happens after local government reorganisation?

And whether this administration has shown the competence needed to deliver it.

Better Queensway could still be a success.

But residents should not be expected to accept glossy regeneration language without hard answers.