Hockley Town Centre

Access to Hockley is via two busy roads which meet in the centre and there is little room for housing development close to the centre. Some relief could be given by a road following the railway line to Rayleigh from the Plumberow Road junction. This route may open up areas for housing development. Magnolia Road into Hawkwell, again beside the railway line, may also offer brownfield building opportunities.

I am dismayed to read that the town centre of Hockley will, in my opinion and I am sure many other Hullbridge residents, unnecessarily receive monies to further enhance their town centre whilst, vast areas within the village of Hullbridge are yet to have any formal pavement let alone road structure. I believe, as a Rochford tax payer, my money would be better spent bringing Hullbridge up to the level currently enjoyed by Hockley and surrounding areas?

Hockley would probably benefit from being traffic free but I do not believe it would be popular to send all the traffic down Great Eastern Road. I cannot see a lot that can be done to improve the shopping centre without pulling it down and starting again. If there is any money to spare it should be used to improve the station forecourt where there are no pavements and no drop-off turn round for cars. A situation that should have been addressed when the flats were built.

With reference to your letter, dated 28th January 2008, I would like to make the following comments.

I feel, as I am sure, most members of the public, will be of the same opinion, that Rochford and Hockley town centre's should not have any further development thus keeping their charactor and historical village outlook.

There are many parcels of land surrounding Rochford and Hockley that could be used for building purposes to help young people to get onto the first steps of owning their own home.

Rochford council do not do enough in releasing these small parcels of land (although in the green belt areas) to build cheaper, and more affordable houses for the young people in the town.

We have parcels of land in Disraeli Road, Rayleigh Avenue that has a house both ends of Disraeli Road and a parcel of land in the middle this could be classed as in-fill, then the road could go through to Grove Road, Rayleigh this land could have small propeties built on for first time buyers, instead of you granting permission for the mansions at the top of Rayleigh Avenue that have been built in the last few years. Also wasted land at the bottom of The Drive at Rayleigh.

Land not used at Rayleigh Downs Road off the Rayleigh Road, these are all issue's I think the council should consider. But they need to be affordable houses, to help our young people.

I particularly like the Parish feel and I would not want this lost with any development being sympathetic to its surroundings. A number of the shops are dated and require refurbishment with future tenants needing to be carefully selected to ensure standards are further improved.
The Spa Public House has improved the dynamic no end and show's the Parish's potential.
I would not want Hockley to grow much more in terms of population.
As a final point the pavements and residential roads are poorly maintained with substructure regularly being exposed, this needs to be addressed and will improve the aesthetic appearance readily.

HRA members would like to see:

- roads and parking improved as a priority e.g
- possible one way system with Great Eastern Road
- linking car parks at rear of shops and possible rear access road
- enhancement at Spa junction, widening the size of the existing roundabout
- improve junction of Spa Road; Station Approach; and Station Road
- converting zebra crossing by the Factory shop into a pelican crossing
- extending the superior pavement surface around all the centre (eg outside library)
- improving fascia of shops on east side of Spa Road. Members would ideally like to see them demolished and rebuild but recognised this was not practical.
- Improving bus stops by providing lay-by (eg outside library) and shelters (eg by chinese restaurant) and an extra one in Southend Road about halfway to the White Hart one.

I agree with the comments from Hockley Residents Association, but would like to add 2 more.

1) Deepen the Bus Lay-by by about 1 metre outside Alldays so the buses don't jut out into the road, restricting traffic at times down to one lane.

This also applies to any new lay-bys for buses, our roads are narrow enough.

2) Please no more take aways.

I would love to see Hockley and Rochford square undergo a make-over. As a resident I would like to see well known high street clothes stores in the area as well cafes or sandwich bars for families. I feel this would attract more families to the area and make it a nicer place to be. We currently have to travel to Rayleigh if we wish to go shopping due to the lack of facilities in both areas. There will also have to be a stronger police prescence at night in both areas in order to attract families.

Hockley is dominated by fast food establishments. Most visitors to the centre of Hockley are there for a short shopping period only and existing acccess arrangements are quite adequate. There is no need to change for change sake nor need to spend more tax payers' money unnecessarily.

Rochford and Hockley Town Centre Masterplans

Thank you for consulting the Home Builders Federation (HBF) on the above.


Specific points:

The text states that "this study will help to identify how much capacity for development exists within the town centres of Rochford and Hockley and what level of new development is appropriate, taking into account the local character and historical context of the town centres, to achieve the Council's vision of making the district the place of choice in the county to live, work and visit". The text gives an impression that the Masterplans are seeking to fulfil a role that needs to be undertaken by a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

PPS3 now requires the production of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments, with key input from key stakeholders such as the development industry. These are far more vigorous in their approach, and make it clear that existing commitments will only be able to counted, where there is evidence that they will actually be deliverable.

Annex C of PPS3 states, "a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:

- Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.

- Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed-use developments.

- Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.

- Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.

- Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.

- Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.

- Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites".

Indeed PPS3 requires the production of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments with key input from key stakeholders such as the development industry. These are far more vigorous in their approach, and make it clear that existing commitments will only be able to counted, where there is evidence that they will actually be deliverable. Any Assessment methodology will need to be discussed with key stakeholders including HBF and its Members as part of any such assessment. Stakeholders will then need to be fully involved throughout the production of the assessment.

Consequently, the likely overall housing supply will not be known until the Council has undertaken a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment in full accordance with national guidance and in conjunction with other key stakeholders. This will examine whether assumptions are realistic or not (e.g. in respect of urban capacity, commitments, future windfalls e.t.c.). It is only at that point that there will be suitable evidence to demonstrate whether the overall housing requirement is likely to be deliverable or not. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the overall requirement figure is a minimum requirement that should be exceeded.

The HBF looks forward to it and its Members being consulted on the draft methodology for the SHLAA. The Federation is keen that these fully accord with national guidance and are not simply rehashed Urban Capacity or Housing Land Availability Studies.

As the HBF Regional Planner I see my role as facilitating and co-ordinating our Member's involvement throughout the SHLAA production process. I expect this will result in them being involved in the Assessment of the developability and deliverability of individual sites.

On behalf of the HBF I will be seeking to ensure that our Members local knowledge can be fully utilised in Assessments.



Unfortunately, the full text in relation to the Masterplans on your Council's website does not appear to be readily accessible. Therefore, I have been unable to view it, and can't comment upon any further matters.


Consultation:

I look forward to being consulted on all future relevant DPD and SPD documents in the future, and would appreciate being notified in writing wherever these documents are being either submitted to the Secretary of State, or being Adopted.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. I will of course be happy to help organise any meetings involving our Members necessary during the production of the SHLAA.

Hockley Town Centre Masterplan - Proposals from HPPG

In June 2007, HPPG made 4 representations on the Local Development Framework Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Regulation 26 Draft, which were based on responses to a questionnaire sent to each household in Hockley. The representations cover the whole Parish of Hockley but are also relevant in the development of the Hockley Town Centre Masterplan. The representations are repeated below for your reference.

Representation Number 158
Section: 4.2.7 Green Belt & Strategic Gaps Between Settlements Preferred Option
Support/Object: SUPPORT
Summary: 1. Should Hockley remain as a distinct community?
It was unanimous with almost 100% of responses that Hockley should remain as a distinct community with clear boundaries and green spaces with no further infilling between Hockley and its neighbouring parishes.

Representation Number 159
Section: 4.5 Housing Numbers & Phasing
Support/Object: COMMENT
Summary: 2. Preferred methods of absorbing new homes
The most popular vote, with over 40% of responses, was that there should be no further development in Hockley. However, we are aware of the planned increase of 3700 new homes of which 50% seem to be in or east of Hockley, which will obviously have a serious impact.
The preferred methods for absorbing new developments were as follows:
* Building on plots that form part of existing property / industrial sites
* Small groups of houses
* Replacing houses with flats / apartments to protect greenbelt and open spaces
* Provision of a satellite village remote from Hockley
The least preferred methods were:
* Large housing estates
* Building on greenbelt and open spaces
* Infilling with mini-roads off main roads

Representation Number 160
Section: 4.10.8 Character of Place & the Historic Environment Preferred Option
Support/Object: SUPPORT
Summary: 3. Protection of old and historic buildings
There was strong support for preserving all the buildings that are currently listed. In addition, there were recommendations for several buildings that were previously put forward but rejected for listing, plus several buildings that have not previously been proposed. A list is currently under preparation for follow up with the appropriate departments to ensure their protection during development.

Representation Number 161
Section: 4.6 General Development Locations
Support/Object: COMMENT
Summary: Appropriate development in terms of housing, leisure, community and business
The preferred types of appropriate development for Hockley were as follows:
* Youth centres
* Shops
* Restaurants
* Leisure facilities
* Starter homes
* Sports facilities
The least preferred appropriate development included:
* Workshops / Industrial Units / Business Parks
* Housing (except starter homes)
* Pubs

Appropriate infrastructure to match development.
There was a major concern that infrastructure will not match housing developments in Hockley. The main issues included:
* Inadequate highways - need for a by-pass or alternative proposals to alleviate traffic congestion
* Insufficient medical centres
* Inadequate parking
* Inadequate community services
* Inadequate public transport
* Insufficient school places
The areas which seem to best match development include:
* Sewage disposal
* Water supply
* Gas and electrical supply

Priority types of accommodation needed in future years
Apart from starter homes, there was very little support of additional housing in Hockley. However, assuming that the proposal for additional homes goes ahead, the preferred categories of accommodation needed in Hockley are:
1) Owner occupied
2) Private rented
3) Housing association
4) Shared ownership

The priority general types of accommodation needed are:
1) 2 Bedroom properties
2) 3 Bedroom properties
3) Retirement homes
4) 1 Bedroom properties
5) Sheltered accommodation
6) Homes for the disabled
7) 4+ Bedroom properties

The top 10 individual types of property needed are:
1) 3 Bedroom house - owner occupied
2) 2 Bedroom house - owner occupied
3) Retirement homes - owner occupied
4) 4+ Bedroom house - owner occupied
5) 1 Bedroom house - owner occupied
6) Retirement homes - private rented
7) 2 Bedroom flat / apartment - owner occupied
8) Sheltered accommodation - owner occupied
9) Sheltered accommodation - housing association
10) Retirement homes - housing association

Location of power cables
It was unanimous with almost 100% of responses that new power cables should be located underground.

Location of mobile phone masts
The most popular vote, with 64% of responses, was that there should be no additional mobile phone masts in Hockley. If there has to be more mobile phone masts, then there was a strong recommendation that they should be located remote from people and animals. As such, they should be remote (by at least 500 metres) from residential areas, schools and medical centres.

Pollution issues related to traffic and businesses
The main pollution issues were attributed to traffic (noise, smells and fumes) and businesses (smells and fumes). Any future development in or around Hockley is likely to increase pollution issues, and every effort must be made to offset pollution effects. In addition, any expansion at Southend Airport will increase pollution, and must be considered in any planning applications.

Additional content to be included in the Masterplan

In addition to the representations above related to future development in Hockley, and based on further recommendations in the Hockley Parish Plan, HPPG suggest the following for inclusion in the Masterplan for Hockley Town Centre and its immediate vicinity.

Environmentally Friendly
* Pollution free in terms of litter, dog mess, graffiti, smells, fumes, noise, lighting and mobile phone masts
* More flowers, trees, shrubs and seats
* Tidy and appropriate shop fronts
* Well maintained roads, pavements and street lighting
* Frequent collection of refuse and recyclable materials for residents (including flats / apartments) and businesses, including separation of garbage, recyclable materials and compost (food and garden waste)
* Increased types of recyclable material for both doorstep and central collection locations

Appropriate development and infrastructure (in addition to the 4 representations above)
* Additional restaurants (not Chinese or Indian) with less take-aways
* Additional shops with less charity shops
* A Youth Club
* Youth meeting places / shelter

Elimination of transport issues
* Better traffic flow through Hockley by improved junctions in the vicinity of the village centre
* Zebra crossings replaced by pelican crossings
* 20 mph speed limit through village centre
* Enforcement of regulations related to on-road parking and commercial deliveries at peak periods
* Bus stop outside Alldays in Spa Road relocated to improve visibility for cars exiting car parks at Alldays and Somerfield
* Additional parking facilities for bicycles
* Additional free parking behind the shops, in the Industrial Estates, and at Hockley Station
* Free parking for first half hour in public car park behind Hockley library

Facilities for people with disabilities
* Improved access to shops / service providers, automatic doors, and wider entrances and aisles
* No uneven, sloping or poorly maintained pavements. Wider pavements. Lowered kerbs at road crossings, disabled parking areas and bus stops
* Stop cyclists riding on pavements
* Stop vehicles parking on pavements
* Relocated obstructions on pavements e.g. telephone poles, electricity poles, street furniture and billboards
* Better maintenance of overgrown trees and hedges on pavements
* More disabled parking spaces near shops
* Stop illegal parking in disabled bays
* Seats and shelters at bus stops
* Improved facilities for disabled youths

Reduced Crime and anti-social behaviour
* Latest digital CCTV cameras in identified problem locations
* More police presence including foot patrols and night patrols
* Elimination of drugs and alcohol abuse

Having read the article on the front page of the Standard W/E Friday, February 15, 2008, I thought I would take up the suggestion to register my views in relation to proposals such as 'to pedestrianise Market Square' in Rochford as well as regarding a 'makeover' for Hockley. I had hoped to find a page or two of further information on such proposals without trawling through menu after menu and page after page on the website. If the district council truly is interested in 'consulting residents' to 'find out how much redevelopment is needed in Rochford and Hockley and what would be appropriate', I really think the information and options to respond should be more readily accessible in order to reflect the views of a true cross-section of the community.

My views: Firstly, I think it would be a bad idea to pedestrianise Market Square, Rochford, as it's a central hub of activity that could become too static and possibly less attractive to many, especially at less busy times of the day, if one didn't have the flow of traffic passing by. Secondly, if Hockley has been earmarked for a makeover, then I believe that as many people as possible in the immediate and neighbouring areas should be provided with information on any proposals and be included in surveys, as soon as possible, to find out what really is needed, as I believe only residents and regular visitors to the area know best.

I do hope any consultations/proposals will take into consideration the needs of us residents,

Although Hockley Parish Plan Group has already submitted a representation with respect to the Hockley Town Centre Masterplan, we would like to summarise our findings during the placecheck walk, most of which support our representation.

Things we disliked during the walk

* Poor state of seating
* Poor state of bus shelters in Southend Road
* Poor state of décor at shops, residential properties, rail station, clinic etc.
* Poor state of gardens / open space near the railway bridge
* Pavements in need of repair
* Shop car parks in need of repair
* Litter, especially cigarette ends outside eating, drinking and gambling establishments
* Telegraph poles as an obstruction to less mobile people
* Disregard of parking regulations, including delivery vans
* Location of bus stop at Alldays (including driver make-up time) causing a visibility hazard for vehicles exiting Alldays and Somerfield car parks
* Traffic congestion build-up at Spa roundabout
* Many closed down empty shops
* Too many charity shops
* Too many take-away food shops

Additional facilities we discussed during the walk

* Specialist shops
* Family restaurants (especially Italian) and cafes
* Youth club
* Youth meeting place, possibly in one of the empty shops
* Police station
* Possible community use for the Spa Pump rooms
* CCTV cameras
* Bins for cigarette ends including stubbing out feature, similar to Spa pub
* Additional seating in the vicinity of the Spa roundabout
* Seating and a shelter at the Royal Taste bus stop
* Flower beds in the vicinity of the Spa roundabout
* More central bicycle parking facilities
* Possible bus lay-by in Southend Road
* Better signposting of car parks
* Clearer marking and regulations of parking spaces, including disabled spaces
* Additional free parking behind the shops in Spa Road
* Join up Somerfield and Alldays carparks to make better use of space
* Additional disabled parking spaces on and off road
* Additional car parking on the Plumberow Avenue side of the Railway station
* Free parking (especially short term) at the public car park behind the library


Tim Gleadall

On behalf of Hockley Parish Plan Group

I did speak with a couple of shopkeepers in Hockley, Sunrise Health and Salmon's.

Richard Faraway at Sunrise Health said that "Hockley is dying" and that regeneration needs to be done (I think he is responding himself, hopefully) and both he and Mr. Salmon said that problems started when Rochford DC started charging for car parking.