OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.