2.6 STREET NETWORK/MANAGEMENT

Dear Jeff

I am writing to inform you that I will be unable to attend the meeting on 10th March 2009.

I would be grateful if you will accept this letter as apology for my absence and forward my views on the proposed development of the town centre to the Rochford Council members attending the meeting.

I attended a Parish Council meeting on the 26 th February 2009, where the proposals were explained to us.

The proposals were drafted after an initial consultation ( I believe this was the Draft Action Plan commissioned by the HPPG) a placecheck event (where members of the citizens panel were invited to a workshop event) and an internet survey. (Most residents are not aware of such a survey). I assume that these were well advertised and I like many others missed them due to failure on our part to look at the relevant notice boards on the high street.

Having said this, the meeting was well attended and even had representation from the youth of our community.

The report states that the town core is made small retail units with largest recognisable high street chain being Somerfields. It states that there is poor range of retail shops and proposes to increase these by building a large supermarket (approximately, three times larger than Somerfields). The residents feel are a lot of take away restaurants and charity shops, and lately there are a numerous empty shops. The proposals state that the little on street parking facility that we have, although it provides retailers with passing trade in looking at the design of "Public Realm" this will be an issue. (in my opinion another nail in the coffin for local traders). It further states that a small free off street parking lot is provided along Spa Road, although this only has space for eight vehicles.

The view of most people attending the meeting was that we do not need a national supermarket as it will starve all the other surviving retailers out of existence. Residents generally feel that they like the village feel of Hockley and if a large supermarket was not in keeping with this image. There were recommendations from many attending including myself that the degeneration of business was caused by lack of adequate parking for the public. The parking space behind the library is too far from the retail area of the village and customers have to cross two major roads to get to it. Somerfields parking is for their customers only, and many customers find that facility inadequate. The majority of residents shop out of town because of lack of convenient parking in Hockley.

It transpired that the whole project will be financed by a developer. His interest will not necessarily be the interest of Hockley. What Hockley needs is adequate parking. This will attract more traders who rely on customers who spend more time in the village centre. The fact that there are a lot of take-away outlets is because they do not have to rely on customer spending time in Hockley and their main trade is in the evening. Indeed I am providing delivery services in the pharmacy for people who are either unable to come to the pharmacy or they can not be bothered to come due to issues mentioned above. Not all traders are in a position to provide this service. When businesses shut, the vacant properties are attracted by charities, who do not have to pay council tax, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and eventually, the town will not attract diverse customers.

It is the council's duty to ensure adequate amenities for traders to carry out their daily business. The traders face paying same council tax as the neighbouring towns which have adequate convenient parking. Failure to address this issue will lead to a ghost town which will not be in anybody's interest apart from the developer. We have to look at the interest of the future generation of Hockley. The Eldon Way development as a leisure facility for children is a very good development, the council may be able to attract more such enterprises by reviewing their council tax treatment for such organisations. The council will save more on policing our streets on weekends than any concessions given to such businesses.

It would be a mistake to disregard the cause of Hockley's decline and instead treat the symptoms with a makeover of Hockley.

Yours sincerely

the provision of ample, free parking adjacent to s supermarket is considered a critical requirement. Ideally, this should be off-set allowing better traffic flows on the main roads.

Proposals for a supermarket adjacent to Bramerton Road are entirely inappropriate and will cause traffic chaos by the busy Spa Junction

As a local shopping area, free parking is considered essential to help mitigate against people travelling to Tesco etc

Traffic lights are not an appropriate solution for Spa Junction. Additional slip lanes are required to ease traffic flows.

To attrack shoppers and encourage people to stay in Hockley, plentiful, free parking adjacent to a supermarket is required

I do not think traffic lights would improve the Spa junction. With the continually increasing number of cars and housing development the junction is always going to be a problem. There is no potential for a bypass so I think the mini roundabout is the best you can do. Future rises in oil prices may relieve the traffic problem

I do not see any problem with the width of Spa road . Having lived hear for 36 years I have no problem with it. As to the narrowing of the road as you approach the bridge this is a feature and also acts to calm the traffic which all seems to be the rage nowdays .
I am amazed that the railway car park is being considered for the use of shoppers. Who these days wants to cart their shoping that distance to the car.There is more parking in Hockley than most people realize behind many of the shops.

In trying to change Hockley from a village to a town there would be need to enlarge the road capacity around the centre shopping area, this will envolve more parking in some form and as most of the areas designated for potential development are at this time privately owned the possibility just of costs for any carpark make it every slim in taking place. If the village status is to continue more attactive facilities such as free parking and easy road access will have to be made. On street parking is probably one of the only ways out.

The Spa mini roundabout junction needs replacing with computer controlled traffic lights. One of the failings with this mini roundabout is that traffic coming from Spa Road is able to hold up the B1013 trough traffic from Rayleigh. This could be carefully controlled with modern traffic lights and they would have the added advantage of better pedestrian crossing. Also the junction needs to be widened out with an additional dedicated lane for traffic travelling from the west into Spa Road.

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.

You clearly did NOT visit Hockley. The 'offstreet' parking you refer to is private. It is for use by the Factoryshop and is clearly marked as such.

We need FREE parking - pay and display parking is available but it is excessively priced for short stay.

The railway carpark is usually FULL and is for railway use and expensive.

2.6.3 should read Plumberow Avenue instead of Mount Crescent.

The junction of Plumberow Avenue and Greensward Lane is controlled by a signalized junction - it is not Mount Crescent. better than no signals at all - irrelevant observation

Why are we changing what residents want - a village - into a town? Mount Crescent is beyond the Station, Plumberow Avenue is clearing marked at the railway bridge. Was an on-site visit made? Clearly it is not just the residents who have been asked to comment without proper consultation.

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.

1. General comments

I have only just been made aware of this consultation by the action of local residents. I have not seen any information from the council concerning the plan. There appears to have been an almost complete reliance on the Internet to provide information which precludes many people from participating (This risk is recognised in the Statement of Community Involvement) and which is in stark contrast to the publicity surrounding the development of Southend Airport where we received a variety of circulars to households. This apparent secrecy is bound to raise concerns amongst those living in the area.

The options on which this paper is based must be questionable as they have only come from the Placecheck which was conducted via the website and from the Citizens panel. Whilst I am sure any comments made by those involved have been honestly provided they cannot be said to represent the wide cross section of residents in the area. There should have been much wider public engagement before this paper was published including open public meetings, and involvement of the parish council and other community groups. This early engagement as I understand is one of the key elements of the Government guidance for producing local plans.

The paper contains a number of 'jargon' terms - for example, 'retail offer' (page 11) 'fine grained scale' (page 14) 'collector road' (page 16), 'limited permeability' (Page 22). This causes some confusion trying to work out what is being proposed (and again is contrary to the SCI) and gives the impression that the document has been produced as an academic exercise by people who have just come from the latest planning course.

The paper contains a number of factual inaccuracies. For example it repeatedly refers to Mount Crescent when I believe it means Plumberow Avenue. It suggests that the pavements in Hockley are in poor repair when they were refurbished only last year.

It also makes a number of assertions for which no evidence is given and in my view are inaccurate. For example it asserts that the junction of Main Road and Spa Road is the main focus for the village. This depends on what you mean by the focus. In my view the place where most people meet and stop to talk is along Spa Road. It suggests that pedestrian crossings are poor at the main road/Spa Road junction. There are in fact 2 crossings within a few yards of the roundabout and I have never encountered any problems with using them in all the years I have been here. It suggests that the 'signalised' junction between Plumberow Avenue and Greensward Lane has safety issues, but doesn't define what these are or give any evidence in terms of accident statistics.

You mention spatial planning in the opening remarks. My understanding of this is the need to take a wide of all aspects that are effected by the development. You have recognised some aspects in terms of economic prosperity and touched on issues like local health centres. You do not however appear to considered the impact of your proposals on local schools, the impact on other services such as the Police and Fire services or the impact of this greater population on the wider road systems feeding into Hockley.

However, my main concern is the continual reference to Hockley as a town. It is not. It is a village, albeit an expanding one and as your 'Placecheck' told you the village feel is something that is greatly valued by local residents. Creating a town is not something that is needed for Hockley; there are already towns close by in Rayleigh and Southend. The requirements for a village for the future are something quite different and for example don't include an influx of High Street multiples. Also although we have some 3 storey developments in the village at present we do not want this to be the model for the future and certainly not buildings 4 storeys or more.

As a final point many of the apparent problems identified in the report are a direct result of council decisions over previous years. For example the poor road junction between Station Road and the railway station is a result of planning decisions taken. I also believe the reason so many shops are closed or have been taken over by Charity shops is because of the burden of high business rates. Now I am sure these decisions were taken on the basis of best available information at the time, however, it highlights the need for flexibility to take decisions on a case by case basis. Whilst I accept that an overall long term strategy is a useful framework, it cannot be produced without consideration of the detailed realities of local decision making.

2. Specific comments

The following table makes specific comments relating to individual options in the paper.

Page 10 Table 2 - There seems to be an obsession here and elsewhere with layout and structure. It must be remembered that the character of many of our historic towns and villages relies on such 'quirkiness', rather than the neat ordered design of straight lines and geometric shapes so often seen in an artists impression.

Page 16 para 2.6.4 - I am not sure the off street parking mentioned here is actually official (I assume it is the space between the Factory Shop and the Shoeshop). If you are mentioning this free parking then you should also consider the parking available behind Somerfields and the (former) Alldays shops. I certainly agree that on street and other free parking are vital to the future prosperity of the village.

Page 22 Para 2.9 - I disagree with many of the statements here and as mentioned above they are based on unfounded assertions and lack of real knowledge. Specifically:
• There is not a poor range of retail outlets. We have a supermarket, post office and Pharmacy, bakers, butchers, greengrocers, dry cleaners, hardware store and various others
• The fact that the 'employment land' (I assume Eldon Way) doesn't relate to the village is not important. It has the potential to provide local employment which again is vital to the prosperity of the village.
• As above, the fact that the form and structure is unco-ordinated and has a 'weak' building line is not an issue for residents. It adds to the character of the village. I also disagree that the space is cluttered.
• As mentioned I don't agree that the junction of Plumberow Avenue and Greensward Lane is hazardous.
• I don't agree that the number of pedestrian crossings is poor. There are 3 in the main area of the plan and it is not difficult to cross at other points if you are reasonably fit and aware; traffic volumes are not so great outside the rush hour.
The real issue that needs to be addressed is how to encourage small local businesses to set up shop in the village and enhance its attractiveness. My personal view is that we should avoid attracting the large national chains and focus on the small specialist shops that cannot be found in Rayleigh or Southend.

Page 24 Para 3.1 - As noted above I do not agree with the persistent use of the term 'Town'. The vision should emphasise the village nature that we want to preserve. The final phrase in your current statement is important - it should be a pleasure to live and work in. I am concerned that the main focus of the plans seems to be to remove the already limited local working opportunities in the village. Not everyone wants to work in an office; we need to ensure there a diverse range of work opportunities for local people.

Page 24 Para 3.2 - I disagree with the proposal for a new square at the heart of the village. The benefit of the current 'ribbon' nature of the village means that people can meet along the length of the shopping parade. Creating a focus will risk concentrating this in a very small space and shops further away will be at a distinct disadvantage. We have already seen the decline of shops further up Main Road as people focus their attention on the Spa Road shops.
There is a presumption that the land in Eldon Way is not being used appropriately and would have more value under alternative use. As far as I can see the only people who would realise any increase in value would be the current land owners who would see their assets rise as they are sold for housing. Local residents would simply see greater strain on the existing infrastructure and services. I reiterate my view that a key objective must be to create an environment that will attract new businesses to the area that will offer a wide range of employment opportunities and attract visitors to the village. Have you considered encouraging the establishment of a series of small 'craft shops' on the estate?

Page 28 Para 3.3 Potential Sites - I am not sure why there is a need for a new foodstore on Sites A1 to A3 given the existing Somerfield Store. If you are suggesting that a larger store is needed that would attract people to do their weekly shopping then you would have to provide adjacent car parking which doesn't seem to feature in your options.

As mentioned before, in relation to sites B to G I disagree that the Eldon Way industrial use is not appropriate. What evidence do you have to support this assertion other than it seems to be prime residential land for a developer?

In relation to sites J and K there doesn't seem to be any proposal for the shops on the south side of Spa Road other than those from the Factory shop to the Hairdressers. What is proposed for shops the other way (towards the Spa)?

I cannot understand why you consider sites L and M to be 'cluttered and unco-ordinated'. There is a mix of shops, offices, the library and surgery as well as the car park and day centre.

Your assertion in para 3.3.10 that 'improvements to the quality of the public realm are required' needs firstly to be expressed in plain English and secondly to be justified.

Page 29 Para 3.4 Options 1.1 and 1.2 - Again I disagree with the need for a new village square. Not only is there no justified need, there is a risk that it will further alter the balance of the village to the detriment of shops further away.

I accept that some of the buildings along Spa Road are in need of refurbishment or replacement, but this should be done with due consideration to the 'village' atmosphere required. New units should be small and available on terms that will attract new small businesses. National chains should be discouraged from moving in.

The proposal for a new footway between the proposed community hub and Spa Road risks splitting shops beyond there from the rest of the village. It is no great distance to walk round the existing road into the village.

It seems bizarre to propose new public toilets at the station (para 3.4.7); surely they should be close to the main shops?

Real time bus information would be useful if the transport authorities can be persuaded to invest in it - the technology is already well proven. However, given the recent reduction in bus services it seems unlikely they will want to make the investment. The station already provides upto date train times. What might be useful would be to integrate bus and train services and provide common ticketing but I suspect that is beyond the capability of the council - it certainly seems difficult for national government to achieve!

As mentioned before I am not convinced that the quality of pavements and street furniture is as major issue as suggested here.

Page 33 Para 3.5 options 2.1 and 2.2 - This section contains no detail about proposals for sites D, E or F and yet this a distinct variation from the options 1.1 and 1.2. From the colour coding I assume this is to be residential accommodation. The concern here must be the limited access to and from this new estate onto the Spa Road and the increase in traffic arising from the new houses and flats. (I assume the area marked 1 on the map is pedestrian access only)

Para 3.5.4 suggest that sites A1, A2 and A3 would provide scope to accommodate any displaced employment use. If I understand correctly the proposals for these sites are shops and offices, not the sort of employment use currently in Eldon Way. Also if it were possible to accommodate some relocating businesses this would surely be at the expense of business already operating in Spa Road?

Page 36 Para 3.6 Options 3.1 and 3.2 - The proposal in Option 3.1 for a village green is attractive but I wonder whether it would simply become an extension of garden space for those living in the proposed new flats. It is effectively in a cul de sac and probably would not be used by other local residents. It also begs the question of how the 'value' of the land can be met by such a proposal.

The proposal to increase the number of flats is a concern. The village needs to provide a good mix of accommodation to ensure a diverse population. There have been a number of developments of flats in recent years and the balance needs to switch to providing more family accommodation. Otherwise the village will sink even further into a dormitory town with young professionals commuting to town every day and no one using the village facilities.

The proposal to have no surface parking also takes no account of the realities of visitors to people in the new houses and flats. They will expect to be able to park outside or nearby. Will underground car parks enable them to do this?

Page 39 para 3.7 - Without reiterating the points above I do not think any of the options particularly well founded. What is a slight concern is that the paper is written as though a number of decisions have already been made. Those responsible for taking the plan forward must take an open and honest view of comments made in the consultation and accept that previous ideas may not be the best way forward.

However I accept that there is a need for some planning framework to inform future developments in the village. I do not agree with the wholesale redevelopment of the Eldon Way estate but I can see a need for some redevelopment along Spa Road. Whatever development is proposed must reflect the village nature of Hockley as its residents want. Therefore shops, restaurants etc must be focused on small local businesses providing facilities that are unique to the village.

However, the planning framework of itself is of little value. The Council cannot deliver the plan without the support of businesses who can see benefits in coming to Hockley. Therefore the plan must show how the council can encourage the sort of businesses that are needed either directly through business rates or indirectly by providing access to other funding and support for new business.

Page 46 Transport options Main Road/Spa Road Junction - I disagree with the assertions made about the existing Main road/Spa Road junction. In particular the view that the Main Road/Southend Road is the dominant route. I believe that the traffic merges and exits from a variety of routes and is therefore ideally suited to a roundabout solution rather than traffic lights. I believe that traffic lights would increase congestion by forcing traffic to wait when it would other wise be able to move and also even if the right turn to Woodlands Road were prohibited there would still be increased congestion from traffic turning right from Southend Road to Spa Road. So in answer to your first question on page 47 I would suggest you leave the existing roundabout solution in place.

I cannot understand you comment about hostility at the junction and cannot see how this may have caused buildings to be set back from the street. Do you think they live in fear of being confronted by an angry lorry and creep away from the road overnight?

The concern over pedestrian crossings at this junction is unfounded. Indeed the courtesies shown by drivers to pedestrians is one of the pleasant things about living in the village. I rarely have to wait more than a few seconds before someone will stop and let me cross. As soon as you put a set of lights in place you will lose this and you will also run the risk of people dashing across the road when they think they can make it.

I disagree with your proposal to prohibit right turns into Woodlands Road even if only at certain times. Such a move would increase traffic along Hockley Rise and Kilnwood Avenue which is already heavily congested particularly at school times. Furthermore I don't think the existing roundabout creates a great problem. There may be some confusion when traffic from main Road signals a right turn and then goes down Southend Road but traffic is moving slowly and there is little danger of accidents.

Page 47 Transport options - Southend Road - Although this is subtitled Southend Road it seems to only discuss Spa Road.

I am not sure the width of the pavement opposite Bramerton Road is a major concern, but I can't see how straightening the road would improve matters. Rather it would seem you would have to create a kink in the road to take space from the opposite pavement. Also if you straightened the road to any extent you create more problems at the Main Road/Spa Road Junction.

Similarly I cannot see the lack of pavement near Meadow Way a problem - I don't recall seeing anyone trying to walk along that side of the road.

As I disagree with the need for a new square I don't see the need to relocate bus stops. The only issue for siting bus stops is that to ensure the buses can park without blocking through traffic as has been done recently with the stop outside the (former) Alldays.

If I understand your maps correctly there is already a suitable pedestrian crossing on Spa Road. Are you proposing a second crossing?

I cannot comment on the proposal for new 'side road entry treatments' as I have no idea what you are talking about.

By indented parking bays do you mean parallel to the road as they currently are or 'herringbone' style where you park at an angle. If the latter this will further restrict the width of the road which you have expressed concerns about. If the former then yes I believe there should be on street parking as at present and it should remain free.

Although I disagree with the need for a square, I have no objection to cycle racks being installed to provide additional security, providing they don't obstruct the pavements and 'clutter the public realm'.

Page 48 Station Approach/Spa Road - I agree there are issues at this junction and it is a pity the Council did not act when the development of the flats on the former stationmasters house was being considered.

In para 3.9.9 I am not sure there is a need for sight of the traffic lights and cannot see the relevance of the comment about the roundabout. Indeed it is a useful way of ensuring vehicles can enter and leave the station.

Again I am not sure what is meant in para 3.9.10 by 'side road entry treatments'. You still have traffic coming from a number of different directions competing to turn each and every way. Installation of a double mini roundabout may have some affect in easing the problems of cars and lorries but improving matters for pedestrians is more difficult. The existing pedestrian crossing is too far from the normal routes out of the station. However, moving it any closer to the junction may increase problems with traffic flow and block the side roads.

2.2.1 Comments on Interactive web-based consultation.

Those Hockley residents, like myself, who have no or limited access to a computer, have been excluded from this consultation. Through a proper democratic process we should have been notified of this, the Placecheck Initiative and the Hockley Action Plan through mailshots, not by word of mouth, as has been the case with the latter. I understand that there was a snippet in the latest issue of Rochford Matters, but that has not been delivered to me.

One of the key points highlighted by the members of the Citizen Panel shows that they have not grasped the realities of retail trade in Hockley. The retail shops which don't specialise, such as a clothes shop, tend to do well. The charity shops are one of the few attractions of the village and are always busy - we need more not less!

Two other key points, however, are very relevant to the improvement of Hockley; free parking should be extended to the Library carpark, especially if the health centre is moved there and traffic issues, which engender the most severe problem in Hockley but which have not been dealt with at all in the consultation document, in particular dedicated bus lanes and cycle routes, tracks or paths.

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC, including factual errors in the documentation produced, along with reasons why the proposals themselves are failed.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC, including factual errors in the documentation produced, along with reasons why the proposals themselves are failed.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC, including factual errors in the documentation produced, along with reasons why the proposals themselves are failed.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Mr P Symes

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Mr P Symes

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Mr P Symes

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.