Object

Hockley Area Action Plan Options Report

Representation ID: 26537

Received: 22/12/2010

Respondent: Barratt Eastern Counties

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Representation Summary:

Object to this option because of the reduction in the type and number of employment units for which there is no alternative accommodation in a sustainable location. Alternative employment such as offices is not satisfactory as it harms current light industrial and storage provision. There is no evidence of a need for ice skating locally. There is no longer a need to focus housing in this location given the intention to abolish RSS. Housing should not replace employment. No evidence of funding for this option or how CPO will occur.

Full text:

Option 2 and 2a

* The greater intervention proposed under option 2 and 2a would reduce the number and type of employment units. Whilst replacement offices are envisaged and may potentially offset some job losses this would be at the expense of smaller units and units suitable for industrial/light industrial purposes. Eldon Way performs an important role in terms of the mix of units suitable for different commercial operations. The loss of these in favour of office uses would mean that the industrial type uses would have no suitable alternative accommodation. The report does not explain what alternative accommodation is available for the occupiers and this in itself indicates that delivery is unproven.
* The proposals include a number of new uses such as leisure, and ice skating. There is no evidence in the report to suggest that such uses are necessary or in demand. In any event, Hockley is not a centre where large scale leisure uses should be directed. It is a small market town and the centre provides for daily and weekly shopping needs together with employment. It is not considered that the regeneration for the mix proposed is suitable in that context.
* The report indicates that a key objective is to provide more housing thus avoiding the need to identify Green Belt land for housing. The recent changes to Government policy and the proposed alterations to the Core Strategy now mean that that policy objective is already being met. In any event, by removing much needed industrial floor space in favour of offices and housing, the stock of industrial units is being undermined;
* There is no evidence of how the proposals will be funded. Whilst reference is made in the report to various funds, reference is also made to the fact that these are changing and that funding will be more restrictive. It would be wrong to put forward options which cannot be realistically funded or do not have any prospect of funding. A scheme on the scale of Option 2 would require tenant and landowner agreement, neither of which are forthcoming. In those circumstances the authority would need to engage CPO powers to advance the site assembly. AAP will need to outline how the compulsory purchase order process will affect delivery, including an explanation of the process, how long it will take, how it will be funded, whether the Council will pump prime the project and whether a development partner will be sought. It is likely that EIA will be necessary with an urban regeneration project of this size. In the absence of this assessment in the report Option 2 should not be considered