3.4 DEVELOPMENT OPTION 1.1 AND 1.2

Eldon Way should remain the established industrial and leisure centre of Hockley.The Youth Centre should be sited there and not close to residential property and a public house as proposed in the Plan.One or two of the 'take aways' in the high street might find it financially beneficial to move closer to the 'leisure centre'.Any changes to the layout of the Eldon Way site could be reviewed and introduced gradually.

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

Support proposals to improve the Station and its surrounds.

Agree with the refurbishment of the station area,this is long overdue.

Feel that leisure use with residential above will lead to many complaints re hours of use, noise and congregating groups of people.

the carpark at 3 /2 will be accessed from Brammerton Road, alreadya difficult road to get in and out of because of its proximity to the spa junction.
the car park at 5 will now be even further away from the centre of the village. why not provide parking around the perimiter of 1, as you'd find in town squares in France or Belgium?

Plans for the station sound grand but network rail will currently not even maintain the existing station area. Where will the capital invetment come from?

"Public realm improvements" will only happen if developers can achieve appropriate profits. This mitigates towards a large scale solution or there will not be any public benefits.

I do not think Hockley would benefit from one large supermarket as planned, it would lead to the closure of several small shops. The plan to have to have a car park by Bramerton Road will put increased pressure on an already busy road.As I have stated before you could have a number of improvements to Hockley without demolishing half the centre.

Hockley is important as a commuter base and any refurbishment of its railway station is welcome. The station should be of quality materials - any cafe, parking and newsagent areas will require constant maintenance if the highest quality is to be maintained and vandalism and deterioration prevented.

The landscaping in 1.1 looks excellent on the plan but will require vigilance if it is not to decline into an area of litter and despondency.

I cannot find the link to make a suggestion to the Hockley Plan. My suggestion is that Eastern National Rail should be approached to widen the railway bridge, thereby widening the road at this point and providing a footpath both sides. At present the footpatch is extremely narrow on one side only which presents a problem with old people and their buggies as well as young families with prams and pushchairs. Also when Greenward Academy and other schools use this footpath there is congestion for all foot passengers. By opening up the greensward both sides this will tidy up the area from the litter it now has and provide a clear environment for drivers.

Traffic lights would be a blight on the appearance of Hockley and would not imrove congestion one bit. The view of The Spa (critical for Hockley) would be spoiled.
Trafffic probs only exist at peak times -the same as all surrounding areas esp Rayleigh (now a no-go area most of the day in fact).
Traffic lights are incongruous with a small village like Hockley.

3.4 Development Options


Whilst the 6 development options provide an insight into the various approaches that could be adopted, it is considered that the regeneration objectives for this area can be best achieved by varying option 1.2 . We set out below a twin strategy for this area (option 1.3).

Alternative to Option 1.2 (Option 1.3)

It is important that the redevelopment and regeneration of this area is based on sound planning principles that are deliverable and offer value for money. It should be noted that Hockley is not a large settlement and as such any strategy for regenerating the centre should be commensurate with the town as a whole including any likely growth anticipated in the Regional Spatial Strategy. In that context it is not considered necessary to promote an unduly large area for renewal, particularly where the net result is a potential loss of an important and strategically significant/sustainable employment site. We would suggest a twin approach - firstly focusing on a much smaller area for regeneration and secondly, introducing a positive policy framework for encouraging more appropriate employment development.

Option 1.2 is considered, subject to refinement, to be a strategy that could be made to deliver a sustainable approach to town centre regeneration.

Policy Strategy
The retention of the majority of the site for employment purposes is considered to be critical to the delivery of a sustainable town centre/settlement. This should be one of the principles of the Area Action Plan. A strong employment site would continue to underpin the vitality and viability of the town centre and help provide the opportunity for people to continue to live close to their workplace. The site is already a large employment area and the approach should be to encourage redevelopment of it for appropriate employment purposes so that it delivers a more acceptable employment mix. This can be achieved through a proactive planning policy framework that supports new office, workshop, and light industrial development. The AAP should explain this as its main approach.

Regeneration Strategy
The second underlining principle should be to secure regeneration through the development of sites A1, A2 and A3 together with some development of B and C. These sites are located in an area that would meet the town centre regeneration objectives of the authority. These land areas are closest to the core of the town centre and the Spa Road which is identified as needing improvement. However, it is not considered that these areas are suitable for significant residential development and at most 30 flats may be appropriate. This will enable the area to deliver retail, leisure, open civic space and some limited upper floor residential and office uses. It is considered that the civic square should be slightly larger to enhance the opportunity for outdoor use, particularly opportunities for specialist markets, community gatherings, small scale exhibitions and events, seating and the on street café culture.

This approach would enable the important benefits of the Eldon Way Industrial Estate to be retained and enhanced within the context of a new policy framework for the estate. By focusing on land areas A to C for the land assembly and compulsory purchase, the delivery of regeneration will be made simpler and at a scale commensurate with the settlement. It is considered that this approach will require some of the suggested land uses to be reviewed and the residential component to be reduced in order to ensure an appropriate quantum. This approach may be more viable and require less public authority funding.

The community development options and hub concept is supported.

Option 1.1

The additional residential units proposed under this option would inevitably lead to the loss of employment land. However, for the reasons noted elsewhere in these representations that would not be a sustainable approach. Residents would need to commute out of Hockley to access any replacement employment sites thus contributing to car journeys. The customer base, which the town centre relies on, would also be undermined.

Eldon Way should remain mainly commercial, light industrial and leisure. Moving Eldon Way businesses to an expanded Southend Airport commercial area off Cherry Orchard Way would be very expensive and create a lot of additional mileage for employees. There is also currently no public transport to this area. Getting additional public transport is not an easy thing as we have discovered with the number 8 evening service.

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 object strongly mainly due to possibility of a larger supermarket and car park associated with this option. This is because I believe that the village feel would be under threat and there are enough supermarkets nearby. It will attract extra traffic in to the area causing disruption to locals. This will also badly affect small local business.

Whilst some form of development for Spa Road would improve the look of the road and pavements I feel that this is not the correct place for a large supermarket. The size of the present one is sufficient for this area and in locating a new one on the corner of Bramerton Road it will have an adverse affect on the United Reformed Church especially during Sunday trading times. A more logical position is in the Eldon Way Trading Estate if a new supermarket is necessary. This would have better delivery vehicle access than up Bramerton Road.

If the intention is to improve the visual aspect of the VILLAGE I find it strange that no mention is made of the shops on the south side of Spa Road from the Spa Pub to section J except that is for a link footpath from the main road. If the area is to be upgraded why is this section not within this structure plan. Is it because a major retailer does not own these premises?

It would be entirely inappropriate to build a large supermarket in Hockley. It would damage the community and village character. Supermarket employment is tedious and low paid and does not encourage the development of community.

All new retail in Hockley should be independent.

The community hub and associated footpath is a good idea - the supermarket would undermine community building efforts.

The building of a large supermarket in Hockley is unnecessary and unwanted.

It will encourage further traffic in the town and make the place look worse!

Assuming that public money will be put into redevelopment, can it at least focus on improving community facilities and providing them where they do not exist. A reinstated bus service (the number 7), a cycle route, subsidised chidren's groups and activities, and a youth hall and park for instance.

New homes must be affordable - there is a dearth of low-cost homes in the area - and designed to be green.

Object to a large supermarket in village. Rochford Town works well with its large Somerfields because it has been cleverly hidden away from the town square. Small business has a chance if it is not in direct competition.
I would propose re-siting Hockley' supermarket to Eldon Way or Foundry estate? Not opposed to supermarket, just where it is sited in all development options.

Hockley does not need a new town square/centre - it is a village that already has a heart and a centre through its residents and history. This proposal would be the creation of something that has no history or meaning. Hockley is not a new town, however these proposals seem to be aiming at just such a creation. A new square would become a block-paved "ghetto" in which teenagers would hang out causing nuisance.

Hockley does not need a new supermarket. Any new supermarket would presumably want to trade 24 hours. Delivery vehicles for a supermarket and additional cars of shoppers coming into Hockley for the supermarket will simply cause even more congestion than Hockley already has.

Has National Express had an input into a proposal to refurbish the station? Would they be willing to pay for this (unlikely as it wouldn't necessarily generate income for them)? The station is adequate - it is mainly used by commuters who simply want to turn up on time for their regular train in the morning and go straight home in the evening. Any improvements would be a waste of money.

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.

With reference to the above document, the church have noted the proposal to establish a car park on adjacent land.

The church wish to enter an objection to this proposal on the grounds that if the car park is used on a Sunday, the noise from vehicles and departing may prove disturbing to Sunday Services.

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

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

The siting of a huge supermarket at the end of Bramerton Road seems disastrous with huge vans coming and going at all times and a busy carpark will cause huge traffic problems in Spa Road, not to mention the hassle given to local residents. How about a new supermarket on the industrial estate at Eldon Way?

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

The suggestion of one way traffic for Woodlands Road will ease some of the hold-ups at the Spa corner, but what about the heavy load of vehicles cutting through the smaller roads leading to Woodlands Road.

I wonder about the publicity given to this project. Why were the plans displayed at Rochford and Hullbridge but not Hockley?

I like the idea of Eldon Way being used for youth-related projects, and empty buildings being reused, but with a large housing plan sited there, what about the traffic?

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

We have a choice of development or development. I propose another choice of no development whatsoever because:- Hockley is a village and is already over developed and crowded, caused by allowing too much development. Nowhere have you mentioned new schools, nurseries, doctors, dentists, facilities for elderly. More buses, security issues, crowded trains. Instead we need:- Free parking behind existing shops on the side of Somerfields with an in/out facility and a general tidying up.

We are extremely happy in our village now that we have a thriving area for our children ie monkey business. Our teenagers ie C.J's and the gymnasium. Retail centre for work for local people. The Post Office supermarket and all other small shops give us good and friendly service, although it is a struggle for them in these difficult times. We do not want a town centre with blocks of flats or Tescos to take away the livlihood of our village retailers.

We do not have an entrance to the town centre becuase Hockley is not a town. Hockley is a village and people like to park or walk to small shops in the village.

I understand that Hockley village looks a lucrative prospect for developers. Surely residents views come before their huge profits.