Re: Core Strategy for Hockley Redevelopment


I object to the Core Strategy for the following reasons;



You are ignoring the views of the local residents, who have overwhelmingly stated via the Hockley Parish Plan that they do not want any large-scale housing development in Hockley, but if there has to be some additional housing, there must be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces and any developments must be matched by the appropriate levels of infrastructure.
Our village needs improvements to build on what we have now rather than a long drawn out proposal, which, by the time it is agreed and completed will have seen Hockley become just a huge housing estate without a thriving centre, because many local businesses will have disappeared due to the dreadfully inadequate transport links.
Our roads simply cannot cope with the existing traffic volumes let alone the massive increase in traffic, which will result from the relocation of businesses and numerous housing developments.
Our village is surrounded by some of the most beautiful countryside in the district which we do not want to see disappear forever.


Listed below are some of the technical points as to why I object to the Core Strategy and why I believe it to be inaccurate, misleading and unsound.



By proposing to move employment at Hockley's two business estates to a green field site near the airport, which has no existing public transport links and being 2-3 miles from the nearest railway station, is contrary to government policy PPG4. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions by placing a reliance on car transport as a means of getting to work.



Though RDC are proposing to upgrade the nearest road to a dual carriageway, the main connecting road (the B1013), which runs through Hockley, will remain single-carriageway. This road is already horrendously busy and virtually grid locked at peak times, so this is quite unbelievable that with the predicted expansion of the airport and new industrial estate, there is no provision for the improvement of the B1013 through Hockley. The proposed development of the business estates for housing (and additional housing proposed for Hawkwell) also means an increase in the volume of traffic in the Hockley area with no provision for improvement or expansion to cope with the higher volume.



The site selected for the new industrial estate contravenes PPS4, which states that for "out-of-centre sites, preference is given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport, especially public transport, walking and cycling, as well as by car and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. As there is no existing public transport, there is no obvious likelihood of forming links with any existing centres. In addition, because of its remote location, accessed by the narrow, busy B1013; it is not suitable for access by cycle or on foot.



It also contravenes PPS1, which states reducing the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges".



PPS12 4.9 states the infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs. Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified. The district's highways suffer from years of under investment and over use. The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.



Policy T2 provides a list of required highway improvements. The list contains most of the more major roads in the District including Rectory Lane, which has a single track, traffic light controlled railway bridge. 1200 dwellings are proposed for the northern end of Rectory Road and a further 175 at the southern end. The cost of addressing the railway bridge bottleneck will be significant but is not mentioned. No attempt is made to either cost these charges or explain how improvements not linked to any one specific development will be paid for (eg B1013; Ashingdon Road; a network of walking, cycling, bridleways).



The proposals also ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates form a significant part of the ongoing Hockley Area Action Plan (HAAP) consultation but the Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation. Neither the Core Strategy nor HAAP define its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities. There no cross-referencing between concurrent plans affecting the exact same piece of land.



There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP regarding the description of proposed uses for the two industrial estates. The Core Strategy refers to Leisure, Commercial and Residential whilst HAAP mentions a "village green, introducing a significant area of public open space". There is not sufficient space for both and the Core Strategy is again pre-empting the ongoing HAAP.



If a decision is taken now, as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent, which HAAP will need to follow, and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.



THE Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008. It states "The Retail & Leisure Study indicates Hockley has great potential. Hockley has been identified as having a need for additional convenience floor space".


What the R&LS actually states is:

1) (10.26) "the scale of need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.
2) (10.28) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space."

3) (10.29 "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's

existing strengths, rather than retail expansion"

4) 10.31 "The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as defined by PPS6. Moveover, we have identified that it is a very small catchment population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".



Invest in what we already have rather than forcing upon us something none of us have asked for. Most people would agree that Hockley needs a facelift but it does not need changing beyond all recognition. This strategy does not propose to deal with the issues that affect this area now, and does not propose to deal with these same issues that will be exacerbated further by the proposals that are being made. Attached are some ideas for relatively quickly achievable solutions, which would enhance the village and deal with some of the traffic problems, without losing "Hockley". We live here because we like it - if we didn't we would have moved!

Make the Spa Pub the roundabout, which would greatly reduce the junction exit combinations that exist at the current mini roundabout.

Traffic will still be able to flow when the brewery lorry parks up - it is very dangerous trying to manoeuvre round it onto that mini roundabout, as you cannot see vehicles coming the other way.

Hockley Ideas:

Demolish the "Alldays" building and use that space to create the "village square", which could be landscaped or used in the way the Rayleigh Market car park is used - farmers markets, market days, parking on non market days. This would maintain the existing focal point of Hockley, the High Street, therefore not being detrimental to the shops on the other side of the road. It would also provide a possible link to the Leisure facilities in Eldon Way.