1.5 GETTING YOUR VIEWS

We are quite happy with Hockley as it is - it just needs a bit of refurbishment to make the shop fronts more attractive. All that I can see that you will achieve is a huge amount of disruption and inconvenience for the residents while you are doing it, and a greater opportunity for the kids to gather in even greater numbers in the open spaces that you will create. You are better speding money on facilities for the kids, to keep tham off the streets and occupied!

Hockley is a village not a town
lets keep it that way.

Yes improve the traffic flow,make the pavements safer, Improve & keep the local shops.But the village could not cope with more houses.

we object to more new dwellings at eldon way, hockley is already too crowded and the roads cannot cope . we feel the village shops are fine and spa road does not need redevoloping, we do not wish to have traffic lights at the spa roundabout as this will only add to congestion as been proven with the lights placed at junction of plumberow avenue and spa road/greensward lane, obviously whoever came up with the plans for the traffic lights doesn't drive a vehicle, and whoever came up with the redevelopement of hockley can't live there

I appears that the council have not been very good at consultation. At a meeting tonight over 250 very upset residents madde it clear that they knew nothing of these plans until only a few weeks ago. where and when was the consultation prior to the plans being drawn up, and why were residents of Hockley so poorly informed?

Parking facilities could be improved in Hockley and a general tidy up of High Street. I have heard rumours of a Tescos being placed in High Street with flats above which would mean taking alot of the small village shops away. This I am not happy about as Hockley would not be the same without the village shops.

I would like to join the growing army of objectors to the proposed development of Hockley. I think that Eldon way could benefit from a refurbishment to improve leisure facilities etc. A large supermarket in Spa road would take away the community feel of the high st. The rest of the proposal seems to me to be ludicrous. By all means refurbish but leave Hockley as Hockley.

I am concerned that there has not been sufficient publicity of this action plan for the council to receive duly considered comments from the residents of Hockley.
Not everyone goes to the library, checks the local press or goes online to the Rochford District Council website.
I propose the council should extend the deadline and arrange consultation surgeries in Hockley.

As a resident of Hockley, I am strongly opposed to the proposed regeneration of Hockley 'Town'. Hockley is still regarded as a Village by it's residents and that is how we would like it to stay. We do not wish to become a Southend or Basildon. Where is the infrastructure to support the proposed development - i.e. schools, medical care etc. Our roads will not support the additional usage, and the proposed one-way system will cause chaos to residents and could potentially present extremely dangerous situations for the pupils in the surrounding area around The Westerings Primary School.

Under which decision was Hockley designated as a Town instead of being a VILLAGE which it still is. Does this give the council greater powers to alter the nature of the existing buildings.
As a VILLAGE it already has a small supermarket which is sufficient for its normal needs. The available space should be used for additional small shops and free parking restricted to a one hour stay.

Having reviewed your document, I confirm that we have no specific comments to make on this document at this stage.

We look forward to receiving your emerging planning policy related documents; preferably in an electronic format. For your information, we can receive documents via our generic email address planningconsultation@coal.gov.uk, on a CD/DVD, or a simple hyperlink which is emailed to our generic email address and links to the document on your website.

Alternatively, please mark all paper consultation documents and correspondence for the attention of the Planning and Local Authority Liaison Department.

Should you require any assistance please contact a member of Planning and Local Authority Liaison at The Coal Authority on our departmental direct line.

I do not think such an important consultation was at all well publicised. I also think the way of having to respond online very long winded and likely to deter a lot of people.

Thank you for inviting the Highways Agency to comment on the Hockley Area Action Plan - Issues and Options Consultation.

The Highways Agency has no comments to make on the Consultation Document.

Regards

I just wonder if you people ever actually visit or look at what you are prposing to change.I moved to Hockley teo years ago,because I found the village centre to be a thriving local shopping centre.Now you want to change it. WHY for what purpose your own gratification perhaps ???? Or is it a question that some big supermarket chain has identified an area where the nearest big supermarket Sainsburies is four miles away ,and the villages of Hockley,Rochford,Hullbridge,Hawkwell,Ashingdon, are ripe for the picking.You talk aboutsolving the traffick problems around Hockley ,but all you willdo is attrackt shoppers into yhe new TESCO store from these villages,which buy the way will wreck their shopping facilities a well thought out stragaty.
In addition you are willing to sact rifice all the local jobs on the Eldon way estate WHY ???? I do not know of a single PLANNED redevelope ment of an exising shopping centre which has actually improved the centre,in fact most of them are total disasters,SO WHY DON,T YOU LEAVE HOCKLEY ALONE
Robert.E.Lyon

I feel that I have not been given sufficient time to fully investigate this subject but I have prepared my initial findings.

HOCKLEY AREA ACTION PLAN - CONSULTATION ISSUES AND OPTIONS 13.2.09 TO 30.4.09

Thank you for opportunity to comment on the above. I object to the Hockley Area Action as follows, except for "Preferred Alternatives" in final paragraph.

FOREWORD

In spite of above dates, there has been no formal notification to residents/traders of such a vast scheme during February, March.

- Arrival of Rochford District Matters Sunday 29.3.09, with small advert on 2nd page, two thirds through period, leaves little time for concerned locals to come together.
- Claims are it is: 1 on RDC website - none will seek unless they are aware; 2 newspapers - few buy.
- RDC Consultation Strategy has not been applied.
- Core Strategy Preferred Option, October 2008, hid indication of devastation now proposed, except to agree Hockley (a village, with local needs) cannot compete in scale with larger nearby retail centres.
- No 'residents' were told of "Placecheck" in February 2008 of such vast proposals on their behalf. "Citizens Panel" didn't include them.
- Central Area Committee, held rotationally: Hockley, Hawkwell, Hullbridge, is suddenly replaced: Rayleigh, Rawreth, Rochford, Hullbridge. So Hockley didn't know HAAP presentation was at Hullbridge. I learn it was attended by 2 RDC Councillors, HRA and Parish Plan Chairmen, 2 Hullbridge residents. By comparison, large Hawkwell green belt housing quota was in publicised Core Strategy - residents had time to organise meetings, attend Area Committee, make views public.

Therefore I object to inadequate HAAP notification, clearly intended low key, so few will effectively object. Director said recently planning procedures should end 2012, in time for end of recession. Exactly - HAAP is done and dusted behind closed doors.

GENERAL OBJECTION

1. Introduction

PPS6 says "Town Centres often areas - significant change is planned". EEDA requires 4,600 homes for the District. I didn't think "Aspects of Hockley" needed regeneration, apart from developer driven eyesores. An unused "employment area" could be used for housing, but much Hockley trading site is locally viable; and wholesale demolition of shopping area is unjustified where most shops are successful. If the housing is needed, Planning Services should have thought of that before passing the trading estate, not remove latter now.


1.4.2 Overview of Area

Firstly Hockley is not a town. "Hockley....linear town centre" - naturally, it is a village. Paglesham, Stambridge, etc, are also linear. "Retail in 'town' (village) centre...limited...few multiples....". As a village, with local needs, apart from Somerfields supermarket, Hockley is served by small, local shops. "Multiples" would be surplus to needs.

1.4.6 "little in way of gateway features". "Need for public space within defined centre". A village does not need that; it would also be a collection centre for layabouts and rubbish. We had Spa Meadow in central Hockley, used for football matches, fairs and other local events. The owner offered it to RDC as a village green, for a modest sum. RDC refused to purchase, but allowed consent for a large bungalow estate on it - another of Planning Services' mistakes.

2. THE ISSUES - SUPPOSED CRITICISMS OF HOCKLEY "What you told us" "Placecheck....ensuring views, opinions of local residents...working together. As above we didn't. This doesn't reflect local views of working together.

Answers to "Placecheck initiate"
- "not wide range of shops; too many charity shops, closed down shops, not enough family restaurants, cafes, clothes stores". Only 3 charity ones, well used - Rayleigh has 7; closed down - credit crunch and no free parking; (also have some got wind of your plans and gone?); Cafes - one, well used; family restaurants - 2 well used - do not need more; "Boutique" proposal, clothes - go to Southend - also the young work/buy boutique items in London; there are too many estate agents, only 2 needed, not 7. Clearly the former planning rule of avoiding monopoly is no longer applied.
- "Youth meeting place" - bowling alley, Monkey Business, gym - in Eldon Way trading estate.
- "Development should take place through infilling existing sites/replacing houses with flats". This is the nub. Hockley village of homes/gardens regularly attacked by demolition, replaced by 'chavs' towers', 'town houses, blocks of dubious flats, fought unsuccessfully by residents. Plan is to turn village into over-dense town. Is this "development should be environmentally friendly!!"
- "Cheaper, more frequent public transport" you won't get that, as most people have cars; this is why Arriva cut buses to 2 per hour through Hockley, each way.
- "Toll road" B1013 was one in 18C, with toll house at Spa junction - proving Hockley was already a village, contrary to ideas it didn't start as now till railway arrived end 19C.





2.3.4 URBAN ASSESSMENT OF HOCKLEY TOWN CENTRE (eg what is supposed to be wrong with it)

- "Traffic dominated" Creation of Cherry Orchard bypass - another planning mistake, has directed all S E Essex traffic through B1013 and Lower Road Hockley. Start of 'satnav' has done likewise.
- "buildings a mix of scales" - ancient towns also a mix of scales over time, not uniform, - at least Hockley is a village, with maximum height 2 storey, c.26 feet high.
- "street furniture" no more than necessary and traffic lights will add to it
- "employment area - single route" there is no alternative
- "lacking gateway" Hockley a village
- "good examples of historic buildings...interspersed with recent purpose built development", but, apart from Spa pub, you propose to demolish the few period buildings we have left from Planning Services led demolition. Leave well alone.
- "Mix of uses lacking - supported by..employment area" a contradiction - we have variety of retail.

2.4.4 "..majority of units are...interwar.." wrong. Further down Spa Road there are period houses, as also some remaining in Southend Road. The Meadow Way bungalow estate is 1950s on former village green.

2.5 FORM/STRUCTURE

It is regrettable that formless 1960s buildings have been erected at eg corner of Main/Woodlands Roads, Somerfield block, but varying scale, 2 storey style, set well back from the road, including 19C buildings are suitable for the village.

2.5.3 Community/leisure uses are well integrated with Spa Road.

STREET NETWORK

ECC Highways have underestimated daily vehicle count - in 2005 estimated to be 2000/hour in B1013 at quiet times by their staff. Unless there can be a bypass round Rochford, Hockley/Hawkwell - probably causing more problems in green belt, nil can be done. There is nil you can do about the railway bridge and your now perceived problem with current roundabout in Mount Crescent was another example of bad planning done to accommodate the new flats by the station. The former Station Approach was a level and direct approach to the station. Pedestrians to Plumberow used the station footbridge, as they do now. Off street parking should be free. Reliance on on-street parking is dangerous.

3.1 VISION

Yet more development, or here - regeneration - is ruining the "town's (village's) identity and character". As a village we do not need and have no room for a "new square" - "homes" - this is the problem. Eldon Way industrial estate has settled, well used services. If you aren't happy, you should have thought of that before it was developed. The land might originally have been suitable for some housing - not nearly 200 - but it is too late to erect more than a few here.

Primary Care facility will conflict with 3 local GP surgeries, two of which have been; updated at much cost.

POTENTIAL OPPORTUNIT SITES Sites A1-3 I'm appalled at the proposed demise of successful shops, now blighted with prospect of Compulsory Purchase Order, including at least one family home. Destruction of 19C buildings would be part of systematic erasure of Hockley village. Sites B & C Successful local hardware business and a gym. This is obviously part of the plan to move all to new Rochford 'Saxon' Business Park under the JAAP, where they will fail. The hardware store was planning to expand and take on 14 more staff. The gym is a local community facility.

Sites J & K Successful shops

Sites L & M Successful restaurant and bank buildings. Incidentally the latter replaced in 1970s 2 fine 17C thatched, close board cottages better than anything in Rochford conservation centre, as also nearly a dozen period houses between Hawkwell side Hockley Hill and Spa pub, in 1970s. So much for planning.

The PCT would conflict with recently refurbished GP surgery. If you want regeneration, suggest demolition of 1960s buildings at corner of Main/Woodlands Roads - mainly estate agents - readily disposed of. Dentist could go in eg 19C period building 2nd from left at 'K', currently occupied by estate agent on ground floor, no longer using 1st floor accommodation.

DEVELOPMENT OPTION 1.1, 1.2

New Town Square - Hockley is a village - as argued before, we don't need a square.

Sites B, C It is ok, perhaps to erect apartments (housing) above the hardware store and gym, but not at the expanse of demolishing North side of Spa Road. There is no requirement for a massive supermarket at busy Bramerton/Spa Road junction.

A new PCT could replace estate agents at corner of Main/Woodlands Roads, as suggested above, but would still conflict with GP surgeries. Otherwise A1-3 should be left as it is.

Successful restaurant and library at L1-2 should be left.

A Hall - we have public hall at Bullwood Road, hall facility at Parish Hall opposite Greensward Academy assembly hall is hired for meetings and indoor sports events in evenings, as at all local secondary schools, Hockley Community Centre at Westminster Drive.

There are Youth Facilities at Eldon Way - Gym, Bowling Alley, Monkey Business; Why rebuild library?

Car parking exists, but is chargeable; 'Landscaped footway' is RC Church garden - apart from obvious considerations, this would cause security problems both to the church and adjacent dwelling.

Site J is a successful retail area - residential above would overlook Meadow Way bungalow estate.

Railway station/car park I thought you proposed the car park be moved south of the tracks and to use the current one for housing? - this would be a good idea.

I thought the pavements, etc, in central Hockley had already been updated, etc by Hockley Parish Council 3 years ago?

OPTIONS 2.1/2.2 AND 3.1 AND 3.2

If you plan to sacrifice Eldon Way trading estate for housing, you should have done that in the first place instead of giving consent for industry, then removing it. As it is, there are settled, successful enterprises there:- hardware store, Monkey Business, bowling alley and several more, which thrive on proximity to shopping and residential and serve the community. You proposed to move them, with CPOs, to the new Rochford 'Saxon' Business Park where they will lose business - and so much for the boast of 4700 new jobs provided by the JAAP proposal - just moving jobs from elsewhere!

May be the few empty units could be demolished or converted for apartments (housing).

In Core Strategy H Alternative Option you were against housing for North east Hockley - '..in spite of proximity to centre, station, impact on highway..traffic..through, out of Hockley..along Ashingdon Road...render location unviable'. Here, at 3.2 you propose up to 186 dwellings - surely a contradiction in ideas.

Core Strategy also notes CPOs not acceptable to public - here it is planned to ruin businesses and at least one private home.

3.8 SCALE

Hockley is a village, not a town, which is why 'predominantly..of 2 storey developments', but '..recent developments..increased scale of new building..' - yes, the ones we fought to reduce in height scale on account of harmful impact on existing, and failed. THIS MUST NOT be used as precedent for 'developments of 3, 4 storeys can easily be accommodated...'.

3.9 TRANSPORT

Buildings have always been 'set back from the street' - adds to Hockley character.

Congestion has arisen from development and particularly the Cherry Orchard bypass. Satnav also directs vehicles to B1013. Don't forget also that the Lower Road is also now congested with heavy commercial traffic.

By all means have a 'signalised' junction, though drivers doubt its efficiency, but Woodlands Road closure, traffic redirected to Hockley Rise/Kilnwood Avenue, could be disastrous. Commuters from latter roads cannot exit in the morning and contend with Westerings School run weekdays and Emmanuel Church on Sunday. Recently, a celebrity funeral at the church blocked both sides of Hockley Rise.

It would be a good idea to move the pedestrian crossing to west of Station Road - commuters have hell getting to station from central Hockley - there is opportunity from beside the public footpath to the pavement outside the new flats.

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

I trust Mrs Becket's (Housing Minister) recent announcement that housing targets must be shelved for foreseeable future for cost reasons may give EEDA and HACA pause before acceding to money requests for this regeneration. You will certainly get resistance to CPOs.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

There is no need for wholesale demolition.

There is a need for free parking - the charges at the library car park should be rescinded. More free parking could be provided behind the former Alldays - in fact that could be demolished for access. That way, the local shops would catch the passing trade. It would also counter the fact that outlying supermarkets have free parking - thus starving local shops of business. Much traffic drives through Hockley without stopping.

Hockley is a village with local basic needs - chemist, newsagent, post office, food, hardware, shoemending, haberdashery - larger items and clothes belong in adjacent towns.

In this context the former planning policy of restricting the number of outlets for one facility in a neighbourhood - a monopoly, should be reintroduced - eg Hockley does not need 7 estate agents.

Business rate and rents need to be reduced.

Traffic - increased by too much development and error of opening Cherry Orchard bypass. Unfortunately the only solution now is a further bypass round Rochford/Hockley - but that would also deny further business to Hockley shopping centre - a double trap. One answer would be increase in public transport - but that cannot be achieved in the face of car traffic - another conundrum.

As you are so keen on demolition - 1960s block at corner of Woodlands/Main Roads, possibly Alldays, as suggested before. Alldays and land to its rear could be used for free parking for shops. The Somerfield block is unaesthetic, but must be retained as the shops there are successful. We don't need a Tesco's in addition.

As a resident of Hockley I will be affected by any proposals agreed upon in the 'Hockley Area Action Plan'.

I feel that there has been very limited publicity of the 'Hockley Area Action Plan' documents existence. Why were copies not distributed to the homes and businesses within the area? Perhaps maybe just a bullet point document sent out if printing costs were an issue?

It is due to this that I feel that it is a necessity that the consultation period be extended for another 3 months. This will enable ALL affected parties time to assess the implications.

In all the consultation documents I have participated in, there has never been mention of anything drastic, like this, and certainly no one-way system. All views presented to you said we wanted to retain our Village, not make it a town. How could Rochford Council keep from Hockley residents such sweeping changes? It cannot be legal not to have notified all residents by post of what was proposed. If a caring resident had not put a leaflet through the door of a friend of mine this enormous change to Hockley would have gone ahead.

Having lived in the Hockley area for over 30 years, I know that Eldon way as a business area is between 30-40 years old. While I agree some units are empty, this area could be developed in its own right without the need for housing. I do not agree that this site should be turned into a residential area and object to the large scale chages proposed for the village. Hockley has a relatively small community and it seems the only reason changes are being proposed is so that more houses can be built. At present the space and facilities for the homes are not in place but once these changes have been made, what is there to stop further housing developments given that the centre of Hockley would have the amenities to support this.

I have the following comments about the Hockley Area Action Plan (AAP):

It doesn't seem to have been very well publicised, only exhibited in a very small area, again with limited publicity, and you would need to know about the AAP before looking for it on the RDC website. The person or persons who wrote the report seem to have only made a very limited number of visits to the area. One visit to the station car park in January.

In para 2.5.2. What does - "However, the scale of buildings here varies from one to three storeys which do not help to enclose the space: the result being that Spa Road feels wide, which may hinder pedestrian movement and thus undermine the natural retail circuit." mean?

Parking - para 2.6.4. Apart from 57 spaces in the library car park only 8 other car parking spaces are quoted - there are more spaces behind the Alldays store and the Somerfield car which do not appear to have been included.

The Rail Network - para 2.8.1. Trains run every 20 minutes to and from20London during the day but during the peak time (17.01 to 19.43) this rises to 7 trains arriving from London during 18.04-18.57 with the trains often being 12 coaches in length in the rush hour with a corresponding increase in the morning.

In paras 2.8.4 and 2.9.1 there are references to a taxi rank "located on Mount Crescent" and "the signalised junction of Mount Crescent/Spa Road/Greensward Lane". This would seem to refer to a road, which is some way away from Spa Road/Greensward Lane and I can only guess that Mount Crescent is actually Plumberow?

Para 3.4.3. The report seems to have a fixation on "a new square at the heart of the town centre". If there is housing around the "town square/green space" this traffic is again forced on to Spa Road, which increases the flow of cars along this already busy road. Please do not make Hockley into uniform rows of shops/flats, as it would lose what remains of the village atmosphere. The planning restriction height should be kept at the 2-storey level otherwise it would turn Spa Road into a windy canyon!

Para 3.4.5 The landscaped footway link appears to go through the church's garden.

Para 3.9.5 The20idea of traffic diversion hasn't really worked in Rayleigh so why should it work in Hockley? A lot of the traffic is through traffic so the idea of part-time signals at the Spa Hotel junction may improve things but can I suggest that the local schools create a lot of traffic and pupils should be encouraged to walk rather than expect their parents to drive them - at least in good weather. Woodlands Road traffic is not that heavy and I cannot understand why this needs to be restricted. Traffic is restricted by the road width under the railway bridge and also pedestrians are also restricted by the very narrow foothpath under this bridge - especially when the schools come out. Bramerton Road is also very near the Spa hotel junction and any shop/car park access would increase the chaotic traffic at this junction.

Looking at my comments they do seem to be negative rather than positive but it concerns me that so many people do not appear to have heard of this report and also that the tone seems to err on the idea of a town rather than a village atmosphere. A lot of people like Hockley because it is small scale - they all complain about the traffic but very few of them leave because of it. The centre of the village does need brightening up but it is only recently since the20sudden closure of Alldays that it has been losing heart - nowhere to buy their Lottery tickets. The Eldon Way industrial estate is moving towards more leisure-based businesses but the Foundry Estate has been enlarged and improved. Forcing these businesses to be moved out by the use of compulsory purchases seems wrong. The idea that there should be high-density housing around the town square would be out of proportion to the rest of the village. Also the 3-times the existing Somerfield size seems also too large for this area and again out of proportion.

I think that more time should be given for more consultation on this plan because of the lack of publicity and consultation time given to the people that knew of its existence. Hockley isn't perfect but there is a lot right with it.

I write to give my comments about the proposed Hockley Plan.

Although I would like to see some improvements to the centre of Hockley. I do think that some of the proposals are too drastic in the extreme.

The siting of a huge supermarket at the end of Bramerton Road seems disastrous with huge vans coming and going at all times and a busy carpark will cause huge traffic problems in Spa Road, not to mention the hassle given to local residents. I would urge you to witness the chaos caused in Spa Road when deliveries are made to Sommerfield. How about a new supermarket on the industrial estate at Eldon Way?

I like the idea of a linking path between Southend Road and Spa Road but not at the expense of the local Catholic community losing their garden which was given to them by a benefactor.

The suggestion of one way traffic for Woodlands Road will ease some of the hold-ups at the Spa corner, but what about the heavy load of vehicles cutting through the smaller roads leading to Woodlands Road. To my way of thinking the traffic problems at the Spa will be transferred to the junction of Hockley Rise and Southend Road.

I wonder about the publicity given to this project. Why were the plans displayed at Rochford and Hullbridge but not Hockley? Why was the Action Plan called a Consultation Document, I have yet to meet anyone who was consulted.

I like the idea of Eldon Way being used for youth-related projects, and empty buildilngs being reused. I am however concerned at the large influx of housing in the Plan and the effect on traffic, schools and medical facililties. I am also concerned for the local tradesmen many of whom are leaseholders who have spent many years building up businesses and will be adversely affected by compulsory purchase orders.

I do hope the Council will give careful regard to what the local residents think, and perhaps arrange a meeting with them.

Hockley Area Action Plan Consultation Document

With reference to the above draft dated January of this year, as a resident of Hockley I will be affected by proposals that might be agreed upon in your plan.

I am aware that the possible alterations to the VILLAGE centre are on the website and are in the local library, but as there has been a lack of appropriate notice I need the consultation period to be extended for a further three months.

It has only been in the past week that I (and many others) have heard anything about the above plan and that was because a meeting was organised by a private resident who had taken the trouble to distribute leaflets locally. We have seen nothing from the council.

There has been a complete lack of transparency about the whole issue. I have now received a copy of the plan from yourselves but do not feel I have been given enough time to address the questions posed in the document. Living in the centre of the village I will be greatly affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, due to the lack of appropriate notice and consultation, I require an extension to the consultation period of at least 3 months.

At a glance I do not believe that the proposals are sustainable, proportionate or justified. Some of the proposals and changes are purely of your making like extra pedestrian crossings and although only a very small suggestion - the 'T' junctions of Eldon Way and Meadow Way. I have lived in the latter for 50 years, that and Spa Close are both small closes with mostly elderly people living in them and not many cars. It has never been a problem turning into or out of here on to Spa Road. But a 'Town Square', a large supermarket taking up the heart of the village needs time to digest along with the rest of the whole document.

I wish to make the following comments concerning the above document:

I notice that the document is dated January 2009. I was unaware of any plans for redeveloping Hockley until I happened to notice a comment in an article in the Echo recently - a paper I do not usually read. I then asked for information of the traders in Hockley and was told about the public meeting on Sunday April 19th. The meeting, which was organsied by a private resident, was very well attended and the overwhelming majority of people appeared to be in the same position as me - very recently aware of the Action Plan. Your method of consultation, therefore, appears to be inappropriate, untimely, and totally inefficient.

Despite the limited time I have been given to read the document, I give my initial reactions below:

1. Hockley is a village - not a town. Your own research has shown that the residents of Hockley enjoy living somewhere with the feel of a village. Every one of your proposals would appear to detract from this aspect.

2. Increasing the housing to the extent planned when Hockley does not have the infrastructure to support the increased population is unacceptable.

3. The proposed increase in population and the building of a supermarket substantially larger than the current Somerfield will increase traffic on a road system that is already running at full capacity. I live on the High Road and can testify to the amount of traffic passing at all times of the day.

4. Large supermarkets have regular and frequent deliveries by HGVs. The current deliveries to Somerfield cause bottlenecks and build-up of traffic - the roads in Hockley are not wide enough to cope and the pavements cannot be narrowed without considerable inconvenience to pedestrians.

5. The possiblity of using Compulsory Purchase Orders will adversely affect the ability of businesses and private individuals to sell/rent. Is the Credit Crunch not doing enough damage already?

I suggest that it is the interests of the Council to extend the consultation period in order that residents may have the chance to express their views. I quote from the Action Plan 'Your views are needed to help us to assess whether we have fully considered all the issues and opportunitys facing the study area and have adequately assessed the potential future options for development of the area'

Please take this letter as an official objection to the proposed planned works (All options) dated January 2009. In addition to the over all objection we have major concerns over the consultation process, the proposed youth club location and the proposed traffic system.

My wife and I moved to Hockley three years ago for its peaceful village feel, and we are concerned that the proposed works will damage the existing environment and will have a negative rather than positive effect on Hockley.

Consultation

We do not feel that we have been adequately consulted on the proposed works or given sufficient time to assess the planned changes. I am unaware of any meaningful consultation process to date. No public board advertisements, no information in the local press, no leaflets drops, and we are not aware of any joint meetings that have been held.

One Way traffic system

As a resident of Woodlands Road we also strongly object to any proposed one way traffic system via Kilnwood Avenue. This would increase the rat run that is already in place and increase the risk of traffic accidents on local roads. Further more a traffic increase will provide high pollution in the surrounding green belt area. Kilnwood Road is already a congested road; this additional concentration of traffic will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for pedestrians, cyclists accessing Hockley woods.

Proposed location of the youth club

There seems to be no options for this part of the works. It appears that a decision has already been made on the location.

To date the council will be aware that there seems to be an issue with teenagers accumulating on local streets, therefore a youth club would be the answer. While we have no objection for a youth club to be established, we do have a strong objection of its location. The proposed works situate the youth club very close to Woodlands Road (a quiet residential road). Teenagers currently congregate in the centre of the main road; we feel that if the proposed works is to go ahead as planned, teenagers will congregate at the bottom of Woodlands Road and the surrounding area. It is self evident that at weekends teenagers drink alcohol in the main high street and we fear this would be transferred to the youth club area.

Additionally the proposed site is located in front of a predominantly residential area where occupiers could reasonably expect a level of amenity concurrent with the property. The proposed location of the youth club introduces a diverse element that by reason of the use is likely to result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbour's residential amenity.

We feel that all the works are unjustified, unnecessary, and are not welcomed by the local community.

I kindly request that our concerns and objections are taken seriously and that any planned works are redesigned and residents are adequately consulted. Please keep us fully informed of any further developments.

I look forward to your comments.