3.4 DEVELOPMENT OPTION 1.1 AND 1.2

Can I start by saying that I welcome the discussion on Hockley high street and to a large extent agree with the points raised against the current situation, however I have concerns about the proposals being put forward. I would also express my displeasure at the lack of information being circulated about these plans, more effort should be made by the council to improve awareness if a fair and useful feedback is to be received.

Firstly reviewing the visions/objectives set out I strongly question the conclusions regarding Eldon Way, whilst I accept it is an unusual location for this type of light industry this site provides valuable employment and leisure services within the community and any attempt to relocate those businesses risks damage to successful operations and also presents the issue of the cost being born by the residents as being unjustifiable. The talk of a town square whilst a pretty idea seems to be about aesthetics and little else, I see no specific problems with the existing linear structure and believe that this alteration is an unnecessary expense. With regard to areas J and K I am concerned that if these were refurbished for retail what would be done with existing lease holders and would the cost mean that they were prohibitively expensive to new businesses. From speaking with current lease holders they all express concern that the number of vacant units presently is due to unrealistic rents and rates.

The suggestion of a new health centre on site L1 is in principle a reasonable idea, however, how would this fit in with an overall health strategy for Hockley, we have very limited GP facilities given the number of people and no NHS dentists, I think this issue needs to be addressed, particularly given the context of further housing development mentioned elsewhere in this document.

Looking specifically at option 1.1 and 1.2 it is mentioned that a supermarket be developed on site A1 and that A3 be redeveloped, during this re-development phase how would residents be provided for as if this whole site was cleared this would lead to no local shopping facilities for elderly or those without transport. I also fail to see how moving the supermarket will improve the offering to any great extent as there simply is not the space. Further the proposal to put the car parks and 2,3 seems foolish. This would mean all the traffic flow would be at the bottom end of Bramerton road turning a difficult junction into a very dangerous junction, it would also cause much inconvenience to the residents of this road as access to and from their homes would be affected and in all likelihood parking would overflow into the road. Plus you are building next to a church, has the noise implications been considered? Further what do you plan to do with the rest of the businesses you are destroying what shops we do have, our only bank would be gone to name but one.

I agree that the leisure use units in Eldon Way should be retained, but believe building more residential on the rest of the land is folly. By your own objectives you state the aim is to keep Hockley as a village and yet these plans contradict that very aim. The resources of Hockley are stretched as it is, yet more homes are proposed. Just for starters where will any children go to school, all the schools in this area are full (both secondary and primary), plus the extra cars and other facilities cannot cope. The village has grown large enough and the focus should not be on more homes.

I support the plans for L1 and L2 and believe strongly that better provision of facilities for the community and specifically youth is important, however a building is not the answer in itself and careful consideration should be given to how these facilities will be run eg who will fund a youth club? Also will young people actually go, it can be seen in the past that even with somewhere to meet they still are found on street corners.

Looking at option 2.1 and 2.2 I note that the leisure companies currently based in Eldon way would be relocated to the new B and C sites, however I would question looking at the scale are these sites big enough. Is this really practical and once again question why this plan is so keen to destroy so many jobs and build so many more homes in an already over crowded area this seems like a double loss to me. Given the intent to build houses what provision is being made for education as they will undoubtedly bring more children into the area. It mentions the possibility of the use of compulsory purchase orders, which I find objectionable, if this plan is so critical then it is up to the council to work out how to relocate business in a constructive non forceful way, otherwise you are effectively discouraging people from going into business in case this happened again. 2.2 seems to be even worse than 2.1 as it increases the over crowding problem further by pushing more houses in, which will be right up against the railway line and therefore I question their sell ability.

Options 3.1 and 3.2 raise the same concerns about housing, which I won't revisit. My concern with the provision of commercial and leisure units would be whether they were realistically sized and priced to attract tenants and whether Hockley could support them, as otherwise this could create a white elephant of empty units. Further with the creation of the town square and village green careful consideration needs to be given to lighting and security otherwise this could be subject to vandalism or become a meeting place for large groups of young people as has been an issue at Broad Parade previously.

Looking at the overall options I can honestly say there is no plan I would support as a standalone. I am broadly in favour of the redevelopment of L1, L2 and the surface parking 5, I think the walk through 4 is a nice idea but again safety and security are un underlying issue. I actively object to the up rooting of all the businesses on the north side of Spa Road which would lose us solicitors, bank, fish shop, bathroom/kitchen shop, health food shop and our supermarket. I think a more effective strategy to ensure they can remain in Hockley is required. I believe an enlarged supermarket is the wrong idea, it will destroy local shops like green grocer's and butchers and create massive parking problems, rather than focussing on redevelopment the plan should focus on maintaining the existing infrastructure, providing better pavements keeping the areas cleaner and having rents and rates that encourage business to grow. At the end of the day if you build a load of new buildings and they end up empty because they are too expensive this is all pointless. Hockley can never compete with the larger high streets and out of town shopping centres. I think it is unrealistic to think that we will draw more people to stop, the other villages/towns all have their own offerings, Hockley should focus on providing for its residents and these plans seem to do little to promote that. If the focus was on local people why destroy local businesses.

I would also strongly urge the council to review their information dissemination system, the way these plans have been circulated is outrageous, given this is a consultation how can people consult if they haven't been informed!

1 , Spa road is a very pleasant shopping facility,the fact that a lot of the shops are low rise gives it a nice airy open feeling.To replace it with three/four story buildings would be criminal.You would jus turn it into typical urban jungle.The only modern high rise shops in Spa road look a disgrace,they do not appear to have had any decoration ar maintainance done to them since they were built,there are rotton wooden facings aon the balconies,the paintwork etc. is appalling.So much for modern buildings.

2, If you go under the railway bridge towards Ashindon you will see a parade of shops just past the petrol station,they have flats above,and if you look they are little better than slums,gaffitii all over the place,the communial areas are dirty and full of garbage.Why? because people do not look after communial areas,the children are forced to play in them ,get bored and vandelise everything.And that is exactly what will occour if you tear the heart out of Hockley with your stupid ideas.Do any of you actually live in Hockley?

3, The proposal to let "Tesco"or some other large supermarket chain to open a large store is crazy,those sort of developments should be confined to out of town locations.As I said if you allow this sort of developement to happen you can kiss goodbye to the local shops in Rochford,Hullbridge,Hawkwell, Ashingdon,they will all end up closed,you make comments about the empty shops in Spa road,but two of them have just been let,one is opening as a bakers the other one is beeing worked on at the moment.So really you just do not appear to know what you are talking about.

4, Traffic ?? The proposal allow a large supermarket will do a lot to deal with traffic problems won't it ???? That was a joke by the way !! It will without a doubt make the traffic a loy worse,when people from all, the villages previously mentioned,come here to shop.You planners really are crazy arn't you.

5, Destroying jobs on the Eldon Way trading estate,what a lot of sense that makes,where do you get the people from who make these suggestios for gods sake??Buliding lots of flats there hmmm. great idea,where are the children who will live there going to spend their time,oooooh guess,on the streets wrecking the place.Have you not learnt anything from what happened in London and othere large cities back in the sixties/seventies families and flats with no private outside space do not work.

SO as I said before LEAVE HOCKLEY ALONE

In addition why have you not consulted with the people of Hockley honistly and above board,to put it on your website and hold ameeting in Hullbrige is an awfull way to behave,I for one will certainly try to get you unelected at the next council elections.

At a recent meeting called by local residents, we were appalled to hear of the plans currently under discussion for Hockley shopping centre.

If these plans, including for a large supermarket, go ahead, the heart will be ripped out of Hockley's main shopping street. This is a village, not a town, and large-scale shops are out of character with it.

The small shops which will be left in Hockley will not be able to compete with a large supermarket and so will close, leading to a lack of diversity and local feel.

Furthermore, these plans have not been adequately publicised, as shown by the shocked local people attending the meeting.
A hard-to-find link on your website and notices in local papers (which, along with many others, we do not buy) surely does not count as an adequate consultation of the local population?

We strongly feel that the consultation period should be extended so that local people can have a proper say in the future of their home village.

Hockley Area Action Plan Issues and Options

Thank you for your email of 20 February consulting The Theatres Trust on the issues and options for the Hockley Area Action Plan.

The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres. The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Article 10, Para (v) requires the Trust to be consulted on planning applications which include 'development involving any land on which there is a theatre.' It was established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 'to promote the better protection of theatres'. This applies to all buildings that were either built as theatres or are used for theatre presentations, in current use, in other uses, or disused.

Due to the specific nature of the Trust's remit we are concerned with the protection and promotion of theatres and therefore anticipate policies relating to cultural facilities.

Objectives
We support the Objective to provide a mix of uses for the benefit of the local community. PPS6 states on page 12 (2005 version) that 'A diversity of uses in town centres makes an important contribution to their vitality and viability. Different but complementary uses, during the day and in the evening, can reinforce each other, making town centres more attractive to local residents, shoppers and visitors. Local planning authorities should encourage diversification of uses in the town centre as a whole, and ensure that tourism, leisure and cultural activities, which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups, are dispersed throughout the centre.'

3.4 Development Options

We very much support the proposal for a new community hub at sites L1 and L2 as a cultural venue to provide a focus for young people (and others) to take part in activities for social and intellectual development. Any new community facility should be multi-purpose in nature providing indoor space for leisure, arts, community and entertainment events with a performance space if possible. Such facilities should be centrally located, integrated with the existing library and with good access and parking for pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers (parking noted on Figure 8).

To support an evening economy, future venues for leisure and cultural activities should be located within the town centre and be part of a successful mixed-use environment so that participants can enliven the surrounding area in the evening and provide regular custom for local bars and restaurants outside normal working and shopping hours.

We look forward to being consulted on further LDF documents especially the Submission Core Strategy, Development Control Policies, Planning Obligations and any other town centre Area Action Plans.

I object to the proposed plan for Hockley for the following reasons:

A car park in Bramerton Road will make traffic far worse than it already is.

Small shops would be put out of business, these shops have supported this community for many years.

It would spoil village atmosphere which local residents have been very proud of.

Surely we can have improvements in 'our village' without destroying it.

Hockley is just not ready for a large supermarket especially near the Spa junction.

Please help us to improve the village without spoiling it.

I object to your plans for Hockley because of the infrastructure. Too many houses and flats for the school and doctors. Also to have traffic lights at the Spa will be more of a hold up than it is now in rush hour and school times.

I agree you need more parking in Hockley so a car park at the back of Eldon Way would be useful and hopefully free.

Hockley is a nice village, we don't want a town. Somerfield could be made bigger and stay where it is, if house next door and charity shop went. We don't need a Tesco, we have bigger shops all round the area. Make the car park of the station bigger and cheaper then cars would not park down my road all day long. Where there are 2 schools and a lot of people walk there and cars go on the path to get through to school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Development of the Village Shopping Centre and Eldon Way Trading Estate

We wish to register our concerns regarding the above development.

Our objection to options 1 and 2 are if the shops are going to be rebuilt in Spa Road, what will happen to our one and only Bank. If it is pulled down we cannot see it be reoped by Barclays. They need very little excuse to do this sort of thing.

We also object to the suggestion that traffic lights be installed at Spa Road Junction. If you stop the traffic instead of letting it filter as now happens the chaos it would cause would go back as far as Rayleigh even when not in the rush hour.

The proposed housing would cause too much extra traffic on the already congested roads around our small village.

We agree that we should retain basic shopping needs and businesses, but to expand would be detrimental to our community. The loss of the trading estate to Rochford would mean that local people would have to travel and the travel situation is not very good anyway with the loss of buses etc.

We are a village and we wish to remain a village.

I was amazed and concerned when I saw the plans being arranged for our village.

Apart from a little tweaking here and there it serves our community very well, and I cannot see a need for the large scale of clearance suggested.

Recently built housing still stands empty, do we really need any more?, the shops we have already provide adequately for our needs.

Please let Hockley remain the pleasant village it has always been, and not let the mighty Tesco empire beguile us with promises of things we cannot afford, but neither need!

In answer to your proposal for Hockley Village. Not against improvements far from it, the younger generations need a youth club etc to keep them occupied and off the streets. Eldon Way has some activities ie Gym, and Bowling. As regards to more houses being built we have had enough problems with doctors, dentist and schools plus the fact the traffic at times very heavy cannot cope.

The village has the shops maybe yes updated could do with, not a Tesco as who ever, the customers are very happy to shop in the village which is always busy. We have cobblers, ironing, dry cleaners, Somerfield, greengrocers, health shop, many others you could name. We came here for the 'semi rural' don't take it away from us, please!

Why were we not notified earlier?

I wish to voice my concern over the plan to re-vitalise Hockley. I would be the first to agree that something needs to be done, but am concerned that the schemes envisaged are very grandiose, and could cause problems for the community.

A new supermarket (?Tesco's) would be wonderful, and would save the majority of us from driving to out of the way supermarkets, as we do now. But...and this is a big but...how would Hockley village cope with an increase in the volume of traffic resulting from a new superstore, plus, housing right in its centre? Hockley is already a bottle-neck, and even a minor traffic incident can cause gridlock. With more large lorries and more cars, things would only get worse. I would have thought that Eldon Way would be a better place for a large store and carpark with lorries being encouraged to come via an improved Lower Road (is this road development still on the cards?)

If all the shops on the N side of Spa Road from Inifer Potter's downwards are to be demolished. Hockley centre would become a massive building site for some time and we would find it difficult, if not impossible, to shop, visit a bank etc while re-development was taking place. In any event the N side shopes are superior to those small, single storey shops on the S side, which cry out for improvement.

Poor run-down old Hockley certainly needs action. It is nowhere near as good as it was when I moved here in 1980 - at that time most residents shopped in the village as we had a good choice of food shops, toy and bike shops, and a couple of clothing shops too. What I would prefer to see is a thorough face-lift instead of the 'Grand Designs' planned at the moment.

The very worst suggestion to my mind is the threat to develop on the garden at the side of the Catholic Church. Is nothing sacred? Every time I walk past the garden, which is beautifully kept, I feel my spirits rise. It is a green and pleasant oasis in among all the buildings that make up the centre of Hockley. I would rather see the Spa Pub destroyed than that lovely garden!

Please accept my comments, and ensure that nothing is done to Hockley that will rip out its heart and leave it without any character.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been a Hockley resident since the late 1960s and have seen many changes in that time.

I am writing to register my OBJECTION to all the options set out under the Hockley Area Action Plan. There are many reasons for my blanket objection; the main reasons are as follows:

Supposedly enhanced retail opportunities. Over the years, one-off specialised shops have closed due to lack of custome; Hockley is so close to retail centres such as Lakeside, Blue Water, Southend, Basildon etc that I believe it is possible to significantly increase retail sales in Hockley as no amount of development will match the economies of size, scale and sheer number available in the centres mentioned and most people will still travel out of town for greater choice.

Additional opportunities for town-centre living. Whilst I applaud the vision to utilise brown-field sites rather than extending into green-belt land, by creating houses and apartments it will also increase the vehicular load onto already crowded roads. In addition the schools, doctors, dentists etc are already at capacity from what I can see; the infrastructure cannot support an increase in the population.

A very obvious anomaly in the plan suggests that in consultation, people liked the 'village-feel' of Hockley yet the plan promotes a 'town-square'. Where is the logic in that?

I write in response to the Hockley Area Action Plan Consultation Draft dated January 2009.

I am writing to place on record my objections and concerns as regards the draft proposals and the general lack of notification/consultation with affected residents that has taken place.

It appears that the proposals are nothing more than a smokescreen to facilitate the building of new homes on a massive scale. The proposals to re-develop 'Hockley village' are misconceived and ill judged and do not carry my support or, I suspect, the vast majority of people living within Hockley.

The current facilities provide adequate resource for the needs of most people. Any shops vacant at present is due purely to the impact of the 'credit crunch', and not to any other reason.

I do not support the building of a new and larger supermarket, or accept that there is any demand for such from the residents of Hockley.

The wholesale destruction of Hockley Town Centre and the compulsory purchasing of premises and homes to facilitate this ill conceived plan is completely unwarranted and unwanted.

I object to the proposal to turn Woodlands Road, Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise into a one way system, to ease traffic flow at the Spa junction. This is a long established residential area which would be turned into nothing more than a rat run and impact massively on people and homes in the affected areas.

This latter proposal is borne out of the desire of RDC to significantly over develop Hockley by building on a mass scale, with significant increases and pressure on already over loaded infrastructure.

The vast majority of residents oppose the proposals.

There has been no pro-active consultation with affected residents, which supports the widely held view that RDC is trying to slip the proposals through the back door.

Please explain why, as an affected resident, letters have not been written to the residents of Hockley, setting out the proposals and implications at the time the 'consultation process' commenced.

A new consultation period should be set in order that the views of affected residents can be properly heard and considered.

I would prefer the option be considered for a bypass to the village with localized traffic only to use Spa Road. An additional car park is needed and, possibly, a supermarket store, on the Eldon Way Industrial Site, NOT on Spa Road.

Traffic is becoming heavier and needs to be directed away from Spa Road for the benefit of residents and motorists. Residents come to Hockley because it is a village and wish it to remain so. It has all the amenities we need and we do not want it to become a Town, similar to other Towns. High density housing will bring more families and more cars. Traffic will become an increasing problem. Please keep it regulated and away as much as possible, from the shopping area in Spa Road.

Three and four storey buildings in the shopping area would de-grade it. Small areas need attention ie around railway bridge.

A youth club or similar is urgently needed for youngsters (well overdue).

My Mother lives in Heycroft Road in Hawkwell and a leaflet about a meeting on Sunday 19th April about a Hockley Area Action plan, was the first she or her neighbours had heard about it! They could not get there because it was a Sunday evening.(Not that it was RDC holding a meeting.)
Although we live in Rochford,my family use Hockley station daily, I drive through Hockley daily. Why have we heard nothing about it until now and why have we not heard about it from Rochford Council??
As your findings show, people like Hockley because of its village feel -it is not a town centre and God forbid it should become one. The lack of big shops is because it is not a suitable place for them. The large elderly population, many of whom do not drive, want a better bus service and access to Hockley.Somerfields is a reasonably priced, comfortably sized supermarket for them to use and for those of us who dislike the inpersonal service of large stores.. Those of us with cars can travel futher afield to larger supermarkets if we wish.Hockley is not the place for one.
Please consult people who are to be affected by the proposed redevelopment. Not just the few who may come across it accidentally on your website!

I am writing to you in relation to the Hockley Area Action Plan Consultation Draft dated January 2009 ("the Consultation Document"). I am a resident of Hockley and will be affected by any proposals agreed upon in the Hockley Area Action Plan. My family and I moved to Hockley nearly 5 years ago because we liked the sense of community and the village qualities that would come with living in the Hockley area.

We were saddened to find out your plans to redevelop the area and feel let down as if it were not for the private resident's leafleting campaign we would not have been aware of the existence of the Consultation Document in time. We have recently returned from holiday and did not expect to be faced with this and strongly disagree with the plans. Should these proposals go ahead we feel it would have an enormous effects on residents of Hockley.

My daughter is a pupil at The Westering's school and on our journey to school there is always lots of traffic. If you were to go ahead and build the 200 or so new properties I feel that this would only add more traffic to the area and in turn increase the chance of accidents!

All plans put forward in the Consultation Document would have an awful effect on the community and we as a family can not see any benefits. The repercussions of these proposals are as follows:

1. Increased housing - by creating so many new homes impossible stress would be placed on the current infrastructure. Without destroying local green spaces in the village, it would create massive stresses on parking, schools, medical facilities and other local amenities.

2. Changing the feel of the village high street - the focus of the new development will draw the centre of the village away from the junction of Spa Road and Woodlands Road. This will detriment the current feel of the village and have a negative impact on local businesses.

3. Destruction of part of the high street - in order to create the square in the village, a number of residential and commercial properties could be compulsorily purchased and destroyed. There are thriving businesses currently in-situ whose destruction would be a loss to the village.

4. Increased traffic - the road system is already running at full capacity. The creation of extra traffic due to the proposed extra residents and the supermarket site would have catastrophic effects.

5. Increased congestion - the creation of a supermarket would create problems, as there does not appear to be a plan to enable deliveries by HGVs. The current volume of deliveries to Somerfield already creates havoc. If there were a larger supermarket site, these problems would be compounded and there would be unmanageable levels of congestion.

In summary, we strongly object to all proposals in the Consultation Document.

1. What does it matter if the shops in the village are misaligned?

2. Will the schools, dental and doctor practices be able to cope with the influx of new people?

3. A town centre green will encourage youths from outside Hockley to congregate here and cause trouble.

4. There are empty shops in the village at the moment what is going to change this? Just because there are more premises doesn't mean more takers.

5. Police coverage is not too great now, so what would be the expected response time to an incident in the village?

6. What would be the expected response time when the fire brigade is called?

7. The introduction of a central health centre could involve old people having to travel further to see a doctor.

8. The bus service is absolutely appalling at the moment. Will this change with even more old people (old people seem to be a drain on the bus company's finances) possibly having to catch a bus to visit a doctor due to the fact that doctors will be situated in a more centralised area?

Last but not least people opted to live in a village not a town.

I am a Parish Councillor for Hockley Central Ward. With regard to the Hockley Area Action Plan, I have been approached by many residents in my ward. They are concerned and confused by the HAAP document. In this scenario the rumours and speculation in Hockley are abundant, and as result I request the consultation period be extended and everyone will get a more accurate response. Maybe a public meeting, with a district councillor and a representative from the planning department in Hockley to explain and discuss the document and the process which follows. Such a meeting would be most helpful in allaying the fears and concerns of the local residents it may even give you more positive feedback.

At present the feeling of the majority is that they would like to see Hockley 'tidied up' and certain areas improved but they do not want radical changes. They all like Hockley and enjoy living here but they don't want huge changes to the village centre. Hockley is recognised as a village not a Town and people want it to stay that way.

Please consider this requrest for an extended period of consultation.

With regard to the above plan I agree that Hockley could do with improvement in Spa Road especially to the 'south' side in keeping with the low rise of buildings to maintain the village scene.

A larger supermarket would be out of place in the centre and minor improvements could be made with the present shops with perhaps entrances to parking facilities separated from pavement areas which would be then safer and more pleasant for pedestrians.

Obviously there is much more to consider which needs far more time. I believe it is essential that Hockley retain its village style and ideas from various sources be welcomed.

If other 'villages' throughout England are developed sensibly why not Hockley. ie Poundbury etc.

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.

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.

Our members and residents are concerned about the HAAP Issues and Options Report. We feel that we have not been given sufficient time to discuss this fully with our residents but we have prepared our initial findings. Please find attached our objections and comments in response as requested by the 30 April 2009.

In response to the RDC Hockley Area Action Plan we have put together our initial thoughts. We would like to retain the village feel but would also like to see some of the following gradual improvements to the village centre;

The current shops remaining mainly as they are with permitted redevelopment where and when required. We do not believe a new and larger supermarket is necessary as it could lead to the closure of even more shops.

Additional free village centre parking is required, maybe by purchasing the vacant Aldays area and building a free public car park on this site.


Eldon Way to 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. Some redevelopment of the Eldon Estate with shops and flats could be built on the south side backing on to the current shops. This could be in a traffic free area with road access from the front part of Eldon Way. Eldon Way may require a traffic light junction with Spa Road.

We are not sure that locating a large clinic in Eldon Way or at the Spa Junction is appropriate as this could generate a large volume of traffic and parking in the centre of the village. If one of these locations is chosen sufficient free parking should be provided.

We do not believe relocating the sorting office is necessary unless the Royal Mail wants to move inside the Eldon Way commercial area. We are 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.

If the current run down Foundry Estate wanted to relocate into upgraded units in Eldon Way it could be replaced with housing and flats in keeping with those already in this area. There would also be the future possibility to expand this area into the adjacent south east corner of Eldon Way without the need for access from Eldon Way.

The entrance/exit areas north and south of the station need improving with better drop off, turn round, pedestrian paving, parking and taxi rank facilities.

The junction of Station Approach and Station Road with Spa Road needs addressing. We suggest a double mini roundabout may work.

The Spa mini roundabout junction needs replacing. Although traffic lights were apparently used here over 40 years ago, traffic lights in use over 40 years ago would not compare with the traffic light computer controlled technology of today. One of the failings with this mini roundabout is that traffic coming from Spa Road is able to hold up the B1013 through 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. We do not believe stopping traffic entering Woodland Road would be beneficial as this would make the already poor situation at the Main Road/Hockley Rise junction even worse.

The proposed green walk through the church ground is a good idea if practical but it does not line up with the pedestrian crossing that is at present near the Spa junction. To make this work the crossing would need to be moved to the car park/library area.

Although many of the shops on Main Road at the west entrance to the village are empty, this location still suffers from a severe shortage of parking and unloading facilities. This may be a good opportunity to purchase the disused wood yard area and building a free public car park on this site.

Our members and residents are concerned about the HAAP Issues and Options Report. We feel that we have not been given sufficient time to discuss this fully with our residents but we have prepared our initial findings. Please find attached our objections and comments in response as requested by the 30 April 2009.

In response to the RDC Hockley Area Action Plan we have put together our initial thoughts. We would like to retain the village feel but would also like to see some of the following gradual improvements to the village centre;

The current shops remaining mainly as they are with permitted redevelopment where and when required. We do not believe a new and larger supermarket is necessary as it could lead to the closure of even more shops.

Additional free village centre parking is required, maybe by purchasing the vacant Aldays area and building a free public car park on this site.


Eldon Way to 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. Some redevelopment of the Eldon Estate with shops and flats could be built on the south side backing on to the current shops. This could be in a traffic free area with road access from the front part of Eldon Way. Eldon Way may require a traffic light junction with Spa Road.

We are not sure that locating a large clinic in Eldon Way or at the Spa Junction is appropriate as this could generate a large volume of traffic and parking in the centre of the village. If one of these locations is chosen sufficient free parking should be provided.

We do not believe relocating the sorting office is necessary unless the Royal Mail wants to move inside the Eldon Way commercial area. We are 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.

If the current run down Foundry Estate wanted to relocate into upgraded units in Eldon Way it could be replaced with housing and flats in keeping with those already in this area. There would also be the future possibility to expand this area into the adjacent south east corner of Eldon Way without the need for access from Eldon Way.

The entrance/exit areas north and south of the station need improving with better drop off, turn round, pedestrian paving, parking and taxi rank facilities.

The junction of Station Approach and Station Road with Spa Road needs addressing. We suggest a double mini roundabout may work.

The Spa mini roundabout junction needs replacing. Although traffic lights were apparently used here over 40 years ago, traffic lights in use over 40 years ago would not compare with the traffic light computer controlled technology of today. One of the failings with this mini roundabout is that traffic coming from Spa Road is able to hold up the B1013 through 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. We do not believe stopping traffic entering Woodland Road would be beneficial as this would make the already poor situation at the Main Road/Hockley Rise junction even worse.

The proposed green walk through the church ground is a good idea if practical but it does not line up with the pedestrian crossing that is at present near the Spa junction. To make this work the crossing would need to be moved to the car park/library area.

Although many of the shops on Main Road at the west entrance to the village are empty, this location still suffers from a severe shortage of parking and unloading facilities. This may be a good opportunity to purchase the disused wood yard area and building a free public car park on this site.

Hockley is a village not a town as claimed by the consultants. Hockley has evolved over the years and has its own charm. Much of the historic centre of the village was town down in the sixties therefore to allow complete destruction would have the effect of creating a new village.

The Eldon Way Industrial Estate was built to provide local employment with good transport links both by rail and bus, far better the proposed relocation to Saxon Park at Cherry Orchard Way.

The report does not mention the Foundary Industrial Estate which is very run down, if these units were relocated to an improved Eldon Way Estate then this site could be used for housing adding to the flats already built along Station Approach.

The proposal to relocate the clinic and post office sorting office gives rise to the potential loss of these services if they do not wish to move.

Leisure and youth facilities should be retained at Eldon Way this is an ideal site away from residential areas and with good public transport links.

The proposal to site a large clinic and youth facilities at the junction of Woodlands Road and Spa Road would create further traffic problem in this area.

The proposal to close Woodlands Road to traffic will create further problems at the Hockley Rise/Southend Road junction.

Most of the shops west of the village next to the woodyard in Main Road are empty, these have always suffered poor parking and unloading facilities and would be better changed from retail to residential.

I question the need for a larger supermarket which gives potential for loss of trade for smaller shops. If redevelopment is allowed it could result in expensive premises that may result in small local businesses being unable to survive.

Therefore any redevelopment of Hockley should be gradual with retention of as much of character of the village as possible.

About five years ago Hockley was enhanced with paving, trees and planting also the services was taken underground improving the area greatly. I would like to see this type of enhancement continued.

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

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

Consultation

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

One Way traffic system

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

Proposed location of the youth club

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your comments.

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.

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.