3.3 POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY SITES

Any shopping improvements should focus on the hub between Waters and Stanton to Somerfield.Most residents view a new large supermarket with abhorrence.The Retail and Leisure Study stated that there was good mix of independent traders.It proposed building on these strengths by encouraging niche and specialist businesses.The area that needs addressing is the frontage of some shops along Spa Road.A different facade e.g.bay windows,fascia etc. would give a marked improvement and could gradually be achieved when granting planning applications or leases change.

Comment on behalf of the Hockley and Hawkwell Day Centre, Southend Road, Hockley SS5 4PZ which is within the site area L as defined in Fig 7 but no mention is made of the building or plans for the day centre within the report. The day centre is a charitable organisation which provides hot meals and activities for local vulnerable elderly. It is essential it continues its work. The day centre must be allowed to participate in the planning process and be allowed to give its views. Please keep the Chairman (Mr David Turrell) informed and involved. Thank You

If changes are to be made, a more holistic approach needs to be considered:
- the narrow strip of land on SE side of Spa Rd is unsuitable for 2 story development due to nearness of houses
- the empty shops & woodyard just up the hill towards Rayleigh should be included.

There is a real danger the Post Office will close the sorting office rather than move it.

Residents would welcome improve health facilities but are concerned that this should not adversely impact existing GP services. A new clinic must be compatible with the existing GP service.

Residents would like to ensure landmark buildings (eg the Spa pub; Potters shop) are maintained.

Private finance is required to fund any changes. This means large scale, contiguous development and rules out many options which do not provide this.

The only viable option to attrack private finance is likely to be a major redevelopment of both the retail and industrial areas.

All options must include provision for road improvement

Redevelopment of the retail area alone will not create public space and will cause phasing problems adversely affecting retailers

Improved medical facilities are desperately required but any solution must embrace existing GP services and not be imposed.

Eldon Way is reported to have problems with the water table which mat restrict options. Further research is required.

The Post Office is closing sorting offices nationally and care needs to be taken that proposals do not trigger the closure of the Hockley office.

the fe houses in the area are already affected by planning blight. The way forward needs to be resolved asap.

When you destroy the village centre as you intend what will happen to the people running the current buisness. They did the same in Southend and people lost their buisness, if you do this what buisness will there be to fill the new shops?

The doctors should be left alone it is perfectly situated where it is with parking and a chemist close by.

I think the whole of the village shop have been included up to the parade of shops opposite the Methodist church. I do not think the shops south of Spa road have sufficient space for a two storey development and I would feel sorry for the residents of Meadow Way.

In addition to these sites you should improve the Broadlands area. Confining consideration to these central sites means that other local shops are neglected. The shops in Broad Parade need refurbishment. The pavement area all around these shops, particularly the poor surface by Greensward Lane, is an eyesore, which is sad because the green is well maintained. Do not exclude Broadlands and Greensward when raising our quality of life.

Re: Consultation plan for Hockley redevelopment of Hockley

I wish to object to the ' under-handed ' way Rochford council have tried to force through the so-called redevelopment of Hockley.

This so-called Public Consultation is some sort of joke, or extremely devious, makes us wonder as usual, are some contracts to be given to builder ' friends.'

Where and when did you notify us council tax payers of this ' public ' consultation? You have just sent out the council tax renewals, you could have put surveys in it for us and informed us of your planned wholesale demolition and destruction of our village.

Evidently you have had a consultation document since 13th February and you have notified hardly anyone, just who have you consulted? The consultation ends 30th April doesn't leave us much time does it? Bet you're all sorry someone ' spilled the beans.'

I attended our meeting and note you had a council ' spy ' there who couldn't get away quick enough when he was found out, if he was an ' observer ' why did he run before the end? Why did no-one from the council have the guts to attend? Because you all knew how underhanded and devious you were being?

Nobody in Hockley wants this destruction and most of us only found out about it when some public spirited person in Hockley took the time and trouble to print up leaflets and post to us, which came through our letter boxes Friday 17th April - something YOU should have done.

The traffic between 4pm - 6pm though Hockley is terrible and some stupid idiot has decided that we need traffic lights in place of the Spa roundabout, are you lot insane, or have never even been to Hockley?

Obviously the flow of traffic is better with a roundabout, than being held up by traffic lights! What do you want, traffic jams all the way to Rayleigh?

Then a supermarket ( four times bigger than one at present ) rumour has it, TESCO are involved. You say you want to help local traders, well you certainly will put them all out of business with a massive Tesco there. Why not just lower their business rates and give THEM a grant to redevelop?

Two hundred homes to be built at Eldon Way! That's clever as well isn't it! Another possible 400 cars ( most people have two per household, sometimes more ) trying to get in and out of Hockley. Have you tried to get though to the village rush hours?

In Hockley, the infrastructure i.e. road layouts, doctors and schools CANNOT cope with this stupid scheme. You'd be better building a new Town somewhere and not try to destroy a ' village ' like Hockley

All this stinks of another way the ' public servants ' are dictating to US and obviously a lot of money will change hands here, could it be a few backhanders to get money from the Thames Gateway idea?

I will be sending a copy of this E mail to my M.P as well ( just in case he may not be aware of it either ).

I am totally against your plans Hockley is a village,and should remain so. Why not reduce business rates, then shops may not close. The infrastructure does not allow for additional housing. Traffic lights at Spa junction will be an absolute nightmare. Buses have already been cut, how can you even think about increasing housing. There are at least 20 new developments within walking distance of where I live that have not been sold. Leave Hockley alone and think about what you are doing.

Remember Councillors are elected but can also be de-elected.

I am very much against additional homes being built in Hockley. There are planty of empty/unsold flats already so who would be occupying and further builds? There is no mention of supporting infrastructure for the potential opportunities mentioned, so any additional homes/people/cars cannot be sanctioned.

How about moving the library to the Old Fire Station and save costs of the fire station (which I believe are £30K pa). Consolidate health care centres on teh vacted library site.

What bothers me is that there is no granularity of development opportunites and we seem to have blanket solutions rather than specifics.

Some improvements to Hockley ARE required but major redevelopment is unwelcome to say the least.

Under 3.3.7 the word 'residential' crops up agan. Cynics may say that this is the sole objective of the council viz build more homes to meet the arbitrary figues put out by the east of england plan.

3.3.9 Period properties are not candidate for demolition, they must be retained. Decrepit shops (eg the old motor spares shop on the corner of Bramerton Road) ARE !

3.3.11 This scary ! I feel that the council just want more residential development without proper infrastructure being in place. Hockley residents are against such expansion.

Reference is made under paragraph 3.3.4 to compulsory purchase powers and again at paragraph 3.10. The Issues and Options for the Area Action Plan do not currently provide any insight into how delivery will occur and over what time period. Most of the options that are proposed would indicate that some degree of compulsory purchase is envisaged. This being the case there has to be a section within the document that explains the process, how funding will be achieved and a delivery programme. Often it is necessary to achieve a planning permission prior to pursuing compulsory purchase powers and depending on the circumstances a regeneration scheme of this scale could require Environmental Impact Assessment. It may then be necessary to participate in an inquiry to review the compulsory purchase order and then find funding to purchase the site and begin. Much of the site is industrial and may require costly mitigation. This process and the nature of the problems could take several years and be very costly - possibly to the extent that it is not viable. The Area Action Plan therefore needs to fully review the processes and set out how delivery will be achieved. It may be necessary for the Council to explain how it will fund the regeneration, particularly any pump priming initiatives. It is our view that the complexity of this process will require that the proposals are phased toward the end of the Plan period and this needs to be reflected in the emerging Core Strategy.

Paragraph 3.3.2 to 3.3.6

For the purposes of this Issues and Options review, identifying the sites as A to H is a suitable way of identifying key land areas that could feature in one or more of the options under consideration. Sites A1, A2 and A3 would logically be suitable for primarily Town Centre uses including retail, leisure and the civic square. These sites are closest to the central town centre along a road identified as needing regeneration. Some office could be included at upper floor levels.

Sites B to G relates to the Eldon Way Industrial Estate and it is suggested in the Options and Issues document that more appropriate and valuable uses could replace the existing industrial uses. This section is drafted in such a way that the indication is that employment uses should be removed in favour of other uses such as residential. This is not considered to be an appropriate strategy for various sustainability and town centre viability reasons. The sites are in a highly sustainable location where the proximity of existing residential areas, bus routes and railway station contribute to sustainability objectives and the need to reduce the use of the private car, particularly for short trips such as commuting. The industrial area also helps sustain the town centre through the provision of a customer base and through business links. Irrespective of the employment land availability assessment of the wider district, the locational merits of the Eldon Way employment site would indicate to us that the majority of the site should continue to be maintained for employment type uses rather than wholesale redevelopment for residential and leisure purposes. Rather than removing employment uses altogether the objective should be to maintain an employment presence by encouraging a mix of appropriate employment uses such as offices, light industrial, high technology and studio based workshops.

I do not believe relocating the sorting office is necessary unless the Royal Mail wants to move inside the Eldon Way commercial area. I am concerned that forcing the sorting office to relocate could lead to its closure. If they did want to relocate, the current site would be a good location for additional shops, flats and parking.

Site J backs directly on to residents small back gardens to build above one storey is intrusive and claustrophobic. Elsewhere buildings of this nature do not back directly on to residents properties. The present buildings are the most recent commercial buildings in Hockley.

Hockley already has an excess of residents why provide for more when there are infrastucture problems for those already living there?

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.

I feel many of the options here are on too grand a scale for Hockley which is essentially a large village and should remain so.

Many of the things to improve Hockley's appearance & character could be superficial and far less radical than demolishing most of the village and starting from scratch.

Here's some immediate & less radical suggestions:

Smarten up the appearance of the shops - many are in quite a tired & decrepid state and need renovating.

Reduce business rates - the plan mentions a lack of specialist shops in Hockley, but there are 11 empty shops in the high st now most of which were specialist before they closed ( ie, the old Bathroom Showroom, Chemists, Electrical Shop, Timber Yard, Goldtime Jewellers, Chris Allnut Estate Agents, Florist/Cafe, Power Tool Shop, Hockley Electrical, AllDays Convenience store,etc...)

Evidence that new-builds do not equate to immediate population is evident by the unfinished & empty office to let by Hockley station, as well as the new flats many of which remain un-let/unsold in Hockley.

I would seriously question whether simply building new shops will mean businessses will return in what is without doubt a deepening & longer recession than anticipated.

Any empty office space above existing shops or empty office units etc - could be converted into residential flats.

Remove grafiitti & reduce levels of litter in the village. I had thought that Rochford District Council had appointed an enforcement officer whose responsibilities include "reduced levels of litter, dog fouling, graffiti and fly tipping". The addition of CC-TV might stop any reoccurrance.

Add some more greenery around the village. Hockley is well known for its woods and the village centre should retain a green feel.

Create a small village square - this was mentioned in the plan and Hockley does need a 'centre' - A village square needs to be in a central location - If AllDay's remains empty why not demolish this building and put a village square here?

Alternatively the out-buildings behind the Spa pub look like they are about to fall down - could this area be made into a small green area or alternatively how about a small outdoor market on certain days?

Offer Free Parking in the village (& combine the Somerfield /Alldays Car Park so that you have a more effective entrance/exit).

Make better use of the more iconic buildings in Hockley such as the Spa Pump rooms - suggestions for use could be as a village hall, tea-rooms, restaurant, youth-centre, gym,??

Retain any period properties in the village.

Allow for change of business use for some of the empty shops to permit more cafe's, bar's, an Italian restaurant etc and a cosmopolitan feel.

Smarten up the exterior of the Bull pub. It's a lovely pub but starting to fall apart in places.

Increase/improve marketing on the appeal of Hockley woods - more attractions, walks, nature trails, picturesque areas might increase visitors into the village.

Create more youth facilities - Could the empty warehouses round Eldon Way be better utilised for this purpose?

If it transpires that Hockley is to become a larger 'town' I have not seen any mention in the Area Action Plan to improve the overall infrastructure -ie coping with increased levels of trafiic, improved parking, more schools, nurseries, doctors, dentists, more trains, buses etc. to cope with the increase in Hockley's population.

A new large supermarket will inevitably lead to further decline in the small shops and businesses.

Finally, I agree with the plans to refurbish the station

Totally against supermarket and car park at Bramerton Rd, especially if the entrance is in Bramerton. This will kill local business and not benefit the economy of the village, just boost the big supermarkets profits. Also, would pull in extra traffic creating difficulties for locals.