My wife and I have lived in Hockley since 2005 and enjoy its village feel. We would both agree that the centre of our 'village' does lack somewhat in the architectural qualities one would like to see in an ideal world. We would further agree that it lacks some better quality shops and restaurants/coffee shops. As a final comment we would also say that Hockley, at least along the Alderman's Hill/Main Road axis, suffers from severe traffic disruption at peak times, and when any lorries are delivering at the foot of the hill or there are refuse collectors at work. This seems to accord with the findings of your survey.

As a general comment, my wife and I are quite appalled at the manner in which you have sought to bring the Hockley Area Action Plan ('the Plan') to the attention of Hockley residents. We understand that it was first revealed on 13 February 2009. We discovered its existence purely by chance, talking to a trader in Hockley village centre in the first week of March who had heard about it from another trader. We further understand that there have so far been two public meetings on the subject, presumably organised by Rochford District Council, one at the Freight House in Rochford and the other in Hullbridge, with none in Hockley. We understand that one of those meetings was held at a very early hour in the day. We did not receive any notification about these meetings.

Having attended another privately organised public meeting this past Sunday 19 April 2009, it was very apparent, and it must also have been to the one councillor who attended to listen and report back, that few of the residents had heard much about the Plan; many had heard for the first time that evening. With now less than one week to the closing date for meaningful comments, it seems the Council have not tried very hard to inform residents of the existence of the plan, let alone its details.

We also understand that any substantial public sector development needs investment and assistance from the private sector, with some major players like a multiple retailer and/or property developer involved to make it happen by funding certain public aspects of the development - planning gain agreements and similar are needed to get changes to roadways etc funded. In other words any redevelopment plan like this will not succeed without external investment.

That said there can be no guarantee that quality shops will take leases in the redeveloped retail areas, or that the residential units will be purchased or let, or that the leisure facilities will be taken up by local businesses. Change has to be for the better - that cannot be assured.

Finally as a general comment on the quality of the report, my wife and I would like to think ourselves as quite well educated and worldly wise but the wording of the Plan in many places must leave many readers wondering what is meant. It is full of consultant speak that will mean little to most - for example what does 'limited permeability' (para 2.9.1) mean? Since when were bus routes 'legible' and 'positioned' (same para)? 'Visible' might be a better description? What is the 'public realm'? In addition the second bullet point of the 'Street network/management' section of 2.9.1 just tails off after 'being' - being what? The plan as drafted and presented appears to attempt to confuse residents rather than inform them.

Your Questions Answered

2.9 - Do you agree that these are the main issues facing Hockley Town Centre? Are there any other issues that should be considered?

Assuming we can make sense of some of the comments - see above re-wording used - the issues listed appear in the main to be fair. However, they seem to avoid traffic congestion as at present and we take the view that any attempts to improve the attractiveness of the Hockley village centre will only add to this. Alternatively, any failure to ameliorate the traffic flows will deter visitors and even locals from shopping as often as would be desirable and thus frustrating any re-development plans.

The comments concerning the junction of Mount Avenue/Greensward Lane are incomplete but we are struggling to see any possible point here as the lie of the land in the approach to it from the South is dictated by the topography and the fact that the railway bridge clearance can not be raised. If it is sight lines from Spa Road on the approach that are a concern I would agree and the only solution would appear to be a widening of the bridge opening in the direction of the station. I would also note as a road user that the timing of the light change from Mount Avenue to Greensward Lane etc is such that the lights turn green before the last traffic exiting Mount Avenue has cleared the junction - I park at the station and have witnessed this.

We would suggest that a priority is given to adequate parking facilities, if not on-street then off street but at rates that recognise that some shoppers may only want to stay for a half hour or less. The redevelopment of Site K would lead possibly to the removal of the free parking for customers of Potters and Seemore Glass. More free parking elsewhere would be extremely helpful in this.

We are also somewhat perplexed over the comments concerning the importance of the Spa junction as a focal point of the village and then later suggest that this be improved with traffic lights as the only apparent solution. We also think that the buildings surrounding the junction are unjustifiably criticised - Potters is a focal point from Southend Road; the Spa public house (recently refurbished) from Main Road and the other two corners are far from ugly - perfectly functional commercial premises.

3.2 - Do you agree with the vision and objectives for Hockley town centre? What would you suggest?

We cannot disagree with the objectives as listed apart from a perceived desire to create a town square. Our concern is that your proposed action plans do not address them in the main but rather go off on a 'one trick pony' of redeveloping certain parts of the Spa Road area as a priority, which pays little regard at all to the respect to be afforded to the town's identity and character (third bullet point), road congestion (fifth bullet point) and creating better public transport (sixth bullet point).

Many of the objectives are little better than motherhood statements - redeveloping the town/village centre cannot guarantee that more clothes shops and better restaurants et will take leases. Building new homes does not guarantee that they will be occupied - there is no attempt in the plan to identify even the target populations. When all is said and done, and many property investment experts will tell you this, flats above shops are not the most desirable location for a home unless the shops are not high turnover, perishable stocks and restaurants and are such a height that the shops themselves are the incidental aspect (see developments in Woodgrange Drive, Southend and Southchurch Road.

Nonetheless they are healthy aspirations as motherhood statements go - the devil will be in the detail of what the plan is and whether that can deliver against those objectives. We are very dubious that can be achieved on current evidence.

3.3 - Do you agree with the options identified for these sites? Can you suggest any other opportunities that may exist for Hockley town centre?

In short, NO.

All the various options are predicated on demolishing buildings on the north side of Spa Road, in order to create a town square, whose purpose is ill-defined. Demolishing those buildings and with them the businesses within them pays no heed at all to the character or history of Hockley. This takes no cognisance of the fact that these businesses therein serve the community well at present. They are the heart of the village: a bank; a pharmacy/chemist Post Office; full service supermarket with very convenient opening hours offering home deliveries; a green grocers; and further businesses that have been long established in that location (First Choice Bathroom and Kitchens since 1973 and Seemore Glass, a family owned business through at least two generations). This proposal strikes at the very heart of the community.

Replacement of them all by a multiple offering three times the space of Somerfield (as we understand it from site A2) is no solution. Rumours of discussions with Tesco and that they may already be negotiating to acquire Alldays and other sites in Spa Road serve to fuel concerns that the plan has no regard at all for the businesses that made Hockley the place we love. In addition, the car parking suggested appears to be smaller than that behind Somerfield and Alldays at present. Add in delivery lorries accessing the car park via Bramerton Road suggests again total disregard to traffic congestion issues, noise, pollution and the impact upon residents of housing in the Bramerton Road area.

Further it destroys any residential property that already exists in Spa Road - given an objective to create more residential property this seems at best ironic and at worst spiteful.

This week I took a friend who lives in Hullbridge along Spa Road and asked what he thought was the worst and the best property in Spa Road - he knows of the Plan (but not the detail). He identified the single storey buildings on the south side as the worst and the block containing Somerfield etc as the best. We discussed the desire to create a visually pleasing centre - the Plan refers to this - and it seems that a way to achieve this is to create properties of equal height along both sides as far as is practicable.

The options 1.1 and 1.2 clearly rely on the demolition of the units on the southern side of Eldon Way industrial park. This leaves a view form the proposed residential units of the remaining industrial units. This must be highly undesirable. Surely a better use of this space is the creation of a road between the health store in the Somerfield block (site A3) and Alldays (site A1) to a larger more accessible car park for shoppers.

Redevelopment should be confined to those areas of Spa Road where delivery of the objectives can be guaranteed. Sites J1 - J3 are surely ripe for redevelopment with significantly lower compulsory purchase costs but they only feature fully in options 3.1 onwards and partly from option 2.1 (but without any specific mention). We assume that the brick-built barn-like structure in Spa Road to the rear of the Spa public house is listed as its redevelopment is not mentioned in any option. Sites A1 and A2 could lend themselves to redevelopment also as they are low rise, of mixed quality and origin.


If uniformity of the shopping heart of Hockley is sought, site A3 could be used as the model, not the first to be replaced by a green space that seems to add very little to the community - the suspicion is that it would become a gathering place for youths who will cause noise nuisance or worse.

There appears to be no suggestion in the Plan where the sorting office would be relocated to under the various redevelopment options involving Eldon Way. Planners should not forget that this is also where residents retrieve undelivered small parcels - larger undelivered parcels have to be retrieved from Parcel Force at Chelmsford. In addition many if not all postmen use bicycles to deliver post in Hockley - removal of the sorting office to Rochford (or elsewhere) would result not only in additional travel for residents but also the increased use of delivery vans or an indirect encouragement for postmen use bicycles to deliver post in Hockley - removal of the sorting office to Rochford (or elsewhere) would result not only in additional travel for residents but also the increased use of delivery vans or an indirect encouragement for postmen to use cars. We are sure you see the environmental and traffic congestion points here.

The creation of a new residential area on the Eldon Way site is in the main laudable and a good use of the land, subject to all employers being found suitable alternative accommodation with minimum disruption to their business. The sole concern we have is the potential loss of the leisure facilities afforded by CJ's Bowling and Snooker (and the significant investment it has made) and the child entertainment business. There appears to be some suggestion of relocation on that site but surely not without significant disruption to business and loss of earnings and service to customers.

As a user of the car park at Hockley station, I would agree that the car park is not at present used 100%. That said the spaces in the western part are smaller than those closer to the station and are not ideal. This leads to cars being parked in alternate spaces. Examination of the plans suggests that the existing car park is significantly bigger than that which might be created on the south side. Using the north for residential development and creating a new south car park of smaller size does not seem like an improvement especially since it is also suggested it be used for shoppers. Further the proposed new walkway from the south car park through the Eldon Way development looks far from inviting. For rail passengers it seems to offer a longer route to Spa Road.

Consolidation of healthcare and related and other public services into one site must have economic savings. However, we do not see how four different units (primary care unit; library; GP surgery; day centre) can be shoe-horned into three buildings (site L1) without loss of service and quality of accommodation (a matter more for the local health authority than the Planning team).

3.7 - Which option do you prefer? Are there aspects of the two different plans you prefer? What are your views on the future for Eldon Way Industrial Estate? Is the balance between different uses right? Are there any other options that should be considered? Let us know why.

We prefer none of the options as they include the demolition of the better buildings in Spa Road and are predicated on the need for a town square and at that location. Please see our comments above for our reasons.

Options 1.1 and 1.2 do not address the problems we see in Hockley centre; in fact we cannot see how they improved anything and plan to construct residential property with a view of an industrial estate to the north and the back of retail to the south. Indeed where is the service access for the retail on site A3? We also lose our sorting office unless it is relocated into the industrial estate.

Options 2.1 et seq look more presentable, save again for our comments regarding Site A3. The absence of any plans for the eyesore that is Sites J2 and J3 until options 3.1 and 3.2 are perplexing.

To address the third question above, our preference is for a mixed residential and leisure use, to preserve what positives Eldon Way currently offers, namely CJ's Bowling and the childrens' play complex, at rent they can afford to pay and taking into account any relocation costs and loss of earnings. Therefore Option 2.1 offers the optimum balance of uses.

Additional options that might be considered is the size of any parking facilities. In all options they seem woefully inadequate, looking less than we have now. A3 should not be redeveloped at all but perhaps given a facelift to be put in the same design finish as any new builds along Spa Road. The car park behind should be extended northwards together with the design of Sites A2 and A1 being reversed so that car parking is as present behind Alldays and thus contiguous with that at the rear of A3. Perhaps the access roads should be combined as a public highway with a link through into Eldon Way where new housing/leisure will exist.

There is expressed concern in the Plan as to the way in which the railway dissects the Town. Can thought be given to a new overbridge connecting the centre with the Plumberrow area, rather than relying upon the station footbridge and/or the unprotected public railway board crossing to the west of Hockley station. This could be road and foot or foot only. This would link the north side of Town with the new leisure facilities and by-pass the poorly sighted junction at Mount Avenue and reduce traffic levels from Mount Avenue.

3.9.6 - What is your preferred approach to this junction? Are there any other options with regard to Southend Road/Main Road junction that you would like to be considered?

If, and this for us is a big 'if', traffic lights will reduce congestion along Main Road into Hockley, then so be it. But there is hopefully to be additional traffic being attracted by a revitalised town centre - will it therefore make any difference, including additional delivery vehicles? Additional residential homes will also increase the load although counter-balanced by a corresponding loss of business traffic from the Eldon Way Industrial Estate.

Exit from Woodlands Road restricted at peak times seems retrograde for the residents in that area; any suggestion of using Hockley Rise as an alternative to exit seems fairly foolhardy given the constrictions already in a relatively narrow road from private car parking outside residents' homes. From a purely personal perspective we have no view on this aspect of the proposed plan as there is so little traffic evidenced whenever we are passing that it seems odd that it is considered. Perhaps it is different at peak times.

The key for us in Main Road eastbound. Therefore without the construction of a relief road (any plans moved up for this in light of other plans in the area such as the airport extension or the construction of the Southend United stadium?) it is hard to see how any improvement can be made that will have a meaningful effect.

3.9.8 - Which options do you agree with/disagree with? Are there any other options regarding Southend Road that you would like to be considered?

All the options appear to relate to Spa Road!

So let us assume you mean other changes illustrated in paragraph 3.9.3. The assumption that you can just acquire the land currently owned by the Roman Catholic church to create a green walkway is quite incredulous. But the power of compulsory purchase can override local objections.

Encouragement for cycling is laudable but there is no proposed change to narrow roads (Main Road in particular) to accommodate them.

Bus parking in Spa Road obscures views for drivers exiting the two current car parks - any change in location should consider the impact on traffic exiting from any side road, including Bramerton Road.

3.9.12 - Do you agree with this option? Are there any other options with regard to Station Approach/Spa Road junction that you would like to be considered?

It is a pity this was not considered when planning permission was granted for the new homes in this area. The access to the station is untidy. However moving traffic stop lines back will limit even further a driver's view of the road outside so not ideal. Perhaps traffic lights that are sensitive to traffic flows would be better, co-ordinated with Mount Avenue lights to ensure there is no back up across that latter junction.

Although bus routes are not explored, it does seem that there is a case for a 'hopper' bus service or similar between Hawkwell, Hockley and Rayleigh to encourage shoppers out of their cars - it could access some of the estate areas, e.g Betts Farm, rather than be just along Main Road. This could be interspersed with the number 7 and 8 buses running reduced regularity. With an improved interchange at Hockley station could encourage more use of the rail service to Rochford and Southend.

As you can see from the above we need some convincing that the planners actually have the interests of Hockley residents at heart in drawing up these plans. Destroying businesses that have set up in Hockley to help create its community (Somerfield and the Chemist/Post Office are the prime examples followed by family businesses like Seemore Glass and First Choice Bathrooms and Kitchens) does not seem to be in empathy with the culture or needs of our community. Please think again.

If you would like to discuss any aspects of our comments we can be contacted at the above address most days or on my mobile or by e-mail.