3.7 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS

Community
I have concerns regarding a Primary Care Centre.My reservations centre on a major increase in traffic to 'the village' and the potential threat to local popular GP practices.It would be very interesting to know if it was intended to transfer the services of the 'Blood Clinic' to GPs.Would other facilities there also be transferred thereby releasing the site for redevelopment?

I am concerned regarding the proposed development of Eldon Way, I would rather the industrial units are left. This is because there is a lack of full time employment in the area (which these units provide). Most are well established companies and therefore stable. If the area were turned over for residential use then this would loose jobs and create more people looking for the same. Whilst it might create a nicer area it does not provide for the longer term prosperity and development of the community.

-support the refurbishment of the train station
-the more public green spaces the better
-underground parking is a very good idea given the lack of space around hockley.however this must be done on brownfield sites and not interfere with the natural environment.
-the facilities should support the existing community

Who pays for these developments.
What are the costs.
Can landlords afford to pay for improving their property.
Can tenants afford the rents for new or improved properties.
It seems unlikely that national or local government will supply funding.
A private developer would only be interested if he could develop the whole of Eldon Way estate. He could be made to pay for improvements to the infrastructure and for developments in Spa Road in return for permission to develop Eldon Way estate.
If piecemeal development is allowed there will be no funding for infrastructure or other improvements.

Whilst the AAP area is tightly drawn, there should be reference to the potential for improving access to sport and recreation opportunities in the town centre such as health and fitness club provision. Any relevant findings of the recently updated Playing Pitch Strategy SPD should be referred to. The AAP's reference to 'leisure uses' does not specify what the opportunities for community facilities such as sport might be. Whilst it is appreciated that the AAP is at an early stage, future versions should be more specific as to what aspects of community facility provision should be provided/enhanced in the area.

Option 3.1 is my prefered option as it appears most conducive to having a "village green". I am concerned about the cost of this level of regeneration and funding. I am aware that there is housing planned in the form largely of appartments with some residential properties and I am concerned about the infrastructure that supports this.
The plans appear to be unrealsitic and enormous in scale. Why doesn't the council concentrate on more grounded and achievable targets in connection with Hockley? Converting the pump rooms to a youth center would be an example. A poly clinc is another possibility

Eldon Way already offers a mix of work and leisure.
Underground car parks are not the answer.Estate management experience shows the public perceive them as unsafe and unless securely locked at a fixed time each night they act as a huge playground and a fire builders dream.

All options propose 'a new foodstore' in a1/a2/a3. The presumtion is that this means a major supermarket. Given the existing difficulties for HGVs in Spa Raod, how will this be serviced? How will the Council deal with the inevitable closing of all the shops in Hockley? How will this improve the community feel and the quality of life of the area?

I am very much against any development which would involve building more houses in Hockley. I moved to Hockley because it feels smaller than Rayleigh and Rochford and has a more village-like feel about it. I do not see the need for more retail or leisure mainly because there is plenty of retail in Rayleigh and leisure facilities are ample in the area. The trains to London are already crowded enough and would not be able to accommodate 200 new householders travelling in the rush hour.

The need to attract private finance means that only large scale options are likely to be viable. Most residents want to keep the existing character and no options are provided in this regard.

I do not feel that Hockley needs a supermarket with town square in front as the centre of focus.
I would prefer to see the supermarket discreetly placed in Eldon Way, with the smaller more interesting shops around the square.

There may be a case for developing Eldon Way and both sides of Spa Road if this is 'boutique' village style with top quality materials and most definitely limited to ground floor and first floor. Nothing highere than two floors. And yet - some of us love things the way they are and think you should leave Hockley alone.

I am 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.

Who pays for these developments.
What are the costs.
Can landlords afford to pay for improving their property.
Can tenants afford the rents for new or improved properties.
It seems unlikely that national or local government will supply funding.
A private developer would only be interested if he could develop the whole of Eldon Way estate. He could be made to pay for improvements to the infrastructure and for developments in Spa Road in return for permission to develop Eldon Way estate.
If piecemeal development is allowed there will be no funding for infrastructure or other improvements.

None of the proposals are acceptable.

I object strongly to all options as they all include the liklihood of a larger supermarket and car park. This is because I believe that the village feel would be under threat and there are enough supermarkets nearby. It will attract extra traffic in to the area causing disruption to locals. This will also badly affect small local business. Surely any supermarket should be more discreet and not fronting directly on to spa road in an imposing manner. How can this possibly add character. I do however agree with public realm improvements but not more residential property.

This is the most radical of the various proposals, and expands the business potential of the centre to a viable mass, which will provide the retail/commercial choice residents deserve and need. This should ensure the prosperity of Hockley as a trading centre. Doing nothing is not an option: we are dying slowly!! However, I seriously doubt that the proposed carpark will be big enough: it looks barely the size of the present Somerfields carpark.

Why not leave Hockley as it is and put the money into refurbishing existing buildings, supporting greening and community efforts?

I would like to see the Supermarket located on Eldon Way estate - away from village but still within easy reach, to give small businesses a chance in Hockley.

Eldon Way's quite recent leisure facilities, (CJ's, Cully's Gym and Monkey Bizness) have made a significant improvement to the village. I feel it is very important to provide facilities for young people and it would be terrible if these businesses were disregarded in favour of purely residential options.

I support option 3.1, but I am concerned about the height of the retail outlets and shops. I suggest that 3 storeys is more than sufficent. This will still allow a good skyline.

1. General comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Specific comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO HOCKLEY AREA ACTION PLAN.

1. General: We respond as the neighbouring parish with many of our residents using Hockley as the nearest location for shops and local services. We seek to differentiate ourselves from Hockley and do not recognise the Hockley/Hawkwell settlement that the core strategy seeks to impose on us.

2. Question 1 (page 23): We agree that the summary at 2.9 covers the most of major issues facing Hockley town centre. We do not recognise Mount Crescent but presume it is Plumberow Ave/Spa Rd junction. We believe that the roundabout at the Spa Public house is a major issue for the town centre, the B1013 is heavily congested and the roundabout and pedestrian crossings create long tailbacks and pollution each morning and early evening. A more modern junction management traffic light system co-ordinating traffic and pedestrian usage may ease this but removing the through (rat running) traffic from the B1013 and thus Hockley would be the only real solution.
We believe that the closure of Woodlands Ave and forcing traffic to access the houses in that area to use Hockley Rise is misguided, there already exists a very real problem with traffic access/egress at Hockley Rise during the day time, this would only exacerbate that problem and badly affect Hawkwell residents. .

3. Question 2 (page 25): We agree that the objectives set out at 3.2 should be supported except that we have strong reservations about the development of the Eldon Way industrial site as a new town centre. We feel moving Eldon Way to the new Cherry Orchard commercial area would be very expensive and could create a lot of additional commuting travel, there is currently no real public transport to get to this site and that would be essential. We would prefer the Foundry estate to be re-located to the empty units on Eldon way and the resulting space at the Foundry developed for housing. We would not disagree with the development of the community uses at the Southend Rd end of Spa Rd but would be concerned at the lack of close parking spaces and the potential for generating yet more congestion. We believe the opportunity should be used to provide spaces for Hockley to make its contribution to the increased housing said to be needed in the area thus relieving Hawkwell from having to accommodate more than its fair share. As stated above we do not agree with the core strategy that lumps Hockley and Hawkwell together and we believe this action plan should be required to accommodate a fair share of the new dwellings that are said to be needed by the district, in Hockley.

4. Question 3 (page 28): We do not disagree with the options identified but would express concern that the Post Office may view the need to re-locate as an opportunity to close the sorting office and that would not be in best interests of Hockley or Hawkwell We do support the comment at 3.3.9 which recognises the need to balance development with need to manage volumes of traffic. We are also concerned that constructing a cluster of community uses at site will cause additional congestion at the junction of Spa Rd/Main Rd /Southend Rd and it will be necessary to provide adequate free parking facilities immediately close by, providing car parking near the station would not be acceptable for this facility.


5. Question 4 (page 39): We answer this question as a neighbouring parish and therefore limit our views to the effect on our residents and their use of Hockley as a local shopping and services area. We believe that whatever option is chosen it must provide retail outlets for small local businesses with a mix of shops offering local residents the option to buy many, if not all, the goods and services they need on a day to day basis. We would not want redevelopment to result in highly priced property that would prevent small local businesses from surviving and therefore we would not want a massive supermarket that would dominate/overpower local retailers. We are, to some extent, ambivalent regarding the options in respect of the removal of the employment opportunities that Eldon Way provides though the options provide leisure and commercial developments. On balance, and from the perspective of a neighbouring community, we favour the options that provide increased retail, leisure and housing in the town centre. We also wonder if the more ambitious plans are realisable. We wonder if the redevelopment of the sites currently occupied by Somerfield and the adjacent parade and the now closed convenience store could provide a town square probably of similar proportions to that in Rochford would provide a central focus for the centre of the village with the redevelopment of the Foundry for Housing thus contributing to the need for additional houses in the District. Of the options presented we would regard option 1.1 as the most realistic and the most acceptable to Hawkwell residents.

6. Transport Options:
We hold the view that until action is taken to restrict the B1013 as a rat run from the north and west of the county into Southend , via Cherry Orchard Way, not much can be achieved to improve the quality of life for people in Hockley and Hawkwell West in respect of traffic congestion causing noise and air pollution. We agree that a modern signalised system at the Spar Rd/ Main Rd /Southend Rd junction has the potential to marginally improve congestion provided, in sequencing that set of lights, pedestrians are required to wait a reasonable period of time before crossing. At the moment pedestrians drift across the pedestrian crossings constantly stopping traffic for example, at the afternoon school turn out, causing traffic to tail back often almost as far back as the junction with Hambro Hill on the outskirts of Rayleigh.

7. Question 1 (page 47):
We are implacably opposed to the shift of access traffic from Woodlands Road to Hockley Rise, the latter is already a dangerous and over subscribed junction at rush hour times, we do not regard the shift of a Hockley problem to Hawkwell is acceptable. Neither option is acceptable therefore.

8. Page 47- Southend Rd:
We are unsure whether this refers to Southend Rd or Spa Rd, the majority of the options seem to refer to Spa Rd.



9. Page 48:
The entrance/exit areas north and south of the station approach need improving with better drop off, turn round, pedestrian paving, parking and taxi rank facilities and the junction of Spa Rd and Station Approach needs addressing.

10. Main Rd:
Although many of the shops on Main Rd are empty this location suffers from a severe lack of parking and unloading facilities. This may be a good opportunity to buy the vacant wood yard and build a free car park for the use of those visiting the shops, this will no doubt improve the viability of the shops on this parade.

My wife and I have lived in Hockley since 2005 and enjoy its village feel. We would both agree that the centre of our 'village' does lack somewhat in the architectural qualities one would like to see in an ideal world. We would further agree that it lacks some better quality shops and restaurants/coffee shops. As a final comment we would also say that Hockley, at least along the Alderman's Hill/Main Road axis, suffers from severe traffic disruption at peak times, and when any lorries are delivering at the foot of the hill or there are refuse collectors at work. This seems to accord with the findings of your survey.

As a general comment, my wife and I are quite appalled at the manner in which you have sought to bring the Hockley Area Action Plan ('the Plan') to the attention of Hockley residents. We understand that it was first revealed on 13 February 2009. We discovered its existence purely by chance, talking to a trader in Hockley village centre in the first week of March who had heard about it from another trader. We further understand that there have so far been two public meetings on the subject, presumably organised by Rochford District Council, one at the Freight House in Rochford and the other in Hullbridge, with none in Hockley. We understand that one of those meetings was held at a very early hour in the day. We did not receive any notification about these meetings.

Having attended another privately organised public meeting this past Sunday 19 April 2009, it was very apparent, and it must also have been to the one councillor who attended to listen and report back, that few of the residents had heard much about the Plan; many had heard for the first time that evening. With now less than one week to the closing date for meaningful comments, it seems the Council have not tried very hard to inform residents of the existence of the plan, let alone its details.

We also understand that any substantial public sector development needs investment and assistance from the private sector, with some major players like a multiple retailer and/or property developer involved to make it happen by funding certain public aspects of the development - planning gain agreements and similar are needed to get changes to roadways etc funded. In other words any redevelopment plan like this will not succeed without external investment.

That said there can be no guarantee that quality shops will take leases in the redeveloped retail areas, or that the residential units will be purchased or let, or that the leisure facilities will be taken up by local businesses. Change has to be for the better - that cannot be assured.

Finally as a general comment on the quality of the report, my wife and I would like to think ourselves as quite well educated and worldly wise but the wording of the Plan in many places must leave many readers wondering what is meant. It is full of consultant speak that will mean little to most - for example what does 'limited permeability' (para 2.9.1) mean? Since when were bus routes 'legible' and 'positioned' (same para)? 'Visible' might be a better description? What is the 'public realm'? In addition the second bullet point of the 'Street network/management' section of 2.9.1 just tails off after 'being' - being what? The plan as drafted and presented appears to attempt to confuse residents rather than inform them.

Your Questions Answered

2.9 - Do you agree that these are the main issues facing Hockley Town Centre? Are there any other issues that should be considered?

Assuming we can make sense of some of the comments - see above re-wording used - the issues listed appear in the main to be fair. However, they seem to avoid traffic congestion as at present and we take the view that any attempts to improve the attractiveness of the Hockley village centre will only add to this. Alternatively, any failure to ameliorate the traffic flows will deter visitors and even locals from shopping as often as would be desirable and thus frustrating any re-development plans.

The comments concerning the junction of Mount Avenue/Greensward Lane are incomplete but we are struggling to see any possible point here as the lie of the land in the approach to it from the South is dictated by the topography and the fact that the railway bridge clearance can not be raised. If it is sight lines from Spa Road on the approach that are a concern I would agree and the only solution would appear to be a widening of the bridge opening in the direction of the station. I would also note as a road user that the timing of the light change from Mount Avenue to Greensward Lane etc is such that the lights turn green before the last traffic exiting Mount Avenue has cleared the junction - I park at the station and have witnessed this.

We would suggest that a priority is given to adequate parking facilities, if not on-street then off street but at rates that recognise that some shoppers may only want to stay for a half hour or less. The redevelopment of Site K would lead possibly to the removal of the free parking for customers of Potters and Seemore Glass. More free parking elsewhere would be extremely helpful in this.

We are also somewhat perplexed over the comments concerning the importance of the Spa junction as a focal point of the village and then later suggest that this be improved with traffic lights as the only apparent solution. We also think that the buildings surrounding the junction are unjustifiably criticised - Potters is a focal point from Southend Road; the Spa public house (recently refurbished) from Main Road and the other two corners are far from ugly - perfectly functional commercial premises.

3.2 - Do you agree with the vision and objectives for Hockley town centre? What would you suggest?

We cannot disagree with the objectives as listed apart from a perceived desire to create a town square. Our concern is that your proposed action plans do not address them in the main but rather go off on a 'one trick pony' of redeveloping certain parts of the Spa Road area as a priority, which pays little regard at all to the respect to be afforded to the town's identity and character (third bullet point), road congestion (fifth bullet point) and creating better public transport (sixth bullet point).

Many of the objectives are little better than motherhood statements - redeveloping the town/village centre cannot guarantee that more clothes shops and better restaurants et will take leases. Building new homes does not guarantee that they will be occupied - there is no attempt in the plan to identify even the target populations. When all is said and done, and many property investment experts will tell you this, flats above shops are not the most desirable location for a home unless the shops are not high turnover, perishable stocks and restaurants and are such a height that the shops themselves are the incidental aspect (see developments in Woodgrange Drive, Southend and Southchurch Road.

Nonetheless they are healthy aspirations as motherhood statements go - the devil will be in the detail of what the plan is and whether that can deliver against those objectives. We are very dubious that can be achieved on current evidence.

3.3 - Do you agree with the options identified for these sites? Can you suggest any other opportunities that may exist for Hockley town centre?

In short, NO.

All the various options are predicated on demolishing buildings on the north side of Spa Road, in order to create a town square, whose purpose is ill-defined. Demolishing those buildings and with them the businesses within them pays no heed at all to the character or history of Hockley. This takes no cognisance of the fact that these businesses therein serve the community well at present. They are the heart of the village: a bank; a pharmacy/chemist Post Office; full service supermarket with very convenient opening hours offering home deliveries; a green grocers; and further businesses that have been long established in that location (First Choice Bathroom and Kitchens since 1973 and Seemore Glass, a family owned business through at least two generations). This proposal strikes at the very heart of the community.

Replacement of them all by a multiple offering three times the space of Somerfield (as we understand it from site A2) is no solution. Rumours of discussions with Tesco and that they may already be negotiating to acquire Alldays and other sites in Spa Road serve to fuel concerns that the plan has no regard at all for the businesses that made Hockley the place we love. In addition, the car parking suggested appears to be smaller than that behind Somerfield and Alldays at present. Add in delivery lorries accessing the car park via Bramerton Road suggests again total disregard to traffic congestion issues, noise, pollution and the impact upon residents of housing in the Bramerton Road area.

Further it destroys any residential property that already exists in Spa Road - given an objective to create more residential property this seems at best ironic and at worst spiteful.

This week I took a friend who lives in Hullbridge along Spa Road and asked what he thought was the worst and the best property in Spa Road - he knows of the Plan (but not the detail). He identified the single storey buildings on the south side as the worst and the block containing Somerfield etc as the best. We discussed the desire to create a visually pleasing centre - the Plan refers to this - and it seems that a way to achieve this is to create properties of equal height along both sides as far as is practicable.

The options 1.1 and 1.2 clearly rely on the demolition of the units on the southern side of Eldon Way industrial park. This leaves a view form the proposed residential units of the remaining industrial units. This must be highly undesirable. Surely a better use of this space is the creation of a road between the health store in the Somerfield block (site A3) and Alldays (site A1) to a larger more accessible car park for shoppers.

Redevelopment should be confined to those areas of Spa Road where delivery of the objectives can be guaranteed. Sites J1 - J3 are surely ripe for redevelopment with significantly lower compulsory purchase costs but they only feature fully in options 3.1 onwards and partly from option 2.1 (but without any specific mention). We assume that the brick-built barn-like structure in Spa Road to the rear of the Spa public house is listed as its redevelopment is not mentioned in any option. Sites A1 and A2 could lend themselves to redevelopment also as they are low rise, of mixed quality and origin.


If uniformity of the shopping heart of Hockley is sought, site A3 could be used as the model, not the first to be replaced by a green space that seems to add very little to the community - the suspicion is that it would become a gathering place for youths who will cause noise nuisance or worse.

There appears to be no suggestion in the Plan where the sorting office would be relocated to under the various redevelopment options involving Eldon Way. Planners should not forget that this is also where residents retrieve undelivered small parcels - larger undelivered parcels have to be retrieved from Parcel Force at Chelmsford. In addition many if not all postmen use bicycles to deliver post in Hockley - removal of the sorting office to Rochford (or elsewhere) would result not only in additional travel for residents but also the increased use of delivery vans or an indirect encouragement for postmen use bicycles to deliver post in Hockley - removal of the sorting office to Rochford (or elsewhere) would result not only in additional travel for residents but also the increased use of delivery vans or an indirect encouragement for postmen to use cars. We are sure you see the environmental and traffic congestion points here.

The creation of a new residential area on the Eldon Way site is in the main laudable and a good use of the land, subject to all employers being found suitable alternative accommodation with minimum disruption to their business. The sole concern we have is the potential loss of the leisure facilities afforded by CJ's Bowling and Snooker (and the significant investment it has made) and the child entertainment business. There appears to be some suggestion of relocation on that site but surely not without significant disruption to business and loss of earnings and service to customers.

As a user of the car park at Hockley station, I would agree that the car park is not at present used 100%. That said the spaces in the western part are smaller than those closer to the station and are not ideal. This leads to cars being parked in alternate spaces. Examination of the plans suggests that the existing car park is significantly bigger than that which might be created on the south side. Using the north for residential development and creating a new south car park of smaller size does not seem like an improvement especially since it is also suggested it be used for shoppers. Further the proposed new walkway from the south car park through the Eldon Way development looks far from inviting. For rail passengers it seems to offer a longer route to Spa Road.

Consolidation of healthcare and related and other public services into one site must have economic savings. However, we do not see how four different units (primary care unit; library; GP surgery; day centre) can be shoe-horned into three buildings (site L1) without loss of service and quality of accommodation (a matter more for the local health authority than the Planning team).

3.7 - Which option do you prefer? Are there aspects of the two different plans you prefer? What are your views on the future for Eldon Way Industrial Estate? Is the balance between different uses right? Are there any other options that should be considered? Let us know why.

We prefer none of the options as they include the demolition of the better buildings in Spa Road and are predicated on the need for a town square and at that location. Please see our comments above for our reasons.

Options 1.1 and 1.2 do not address the problems we see in Hockley centre; in fact we cannot see how they improved anything and plan to construct residential property with a view of an industrial estate to the north and the back of retail to the south. Indeed where is the service access for the retail on site A3? We also lose our sorting office unless it is relocated into the industrial estate.

Options 2.1 et seq look more presentable, save again for our comments regarding Site A3. The absence of any plans for the eyesore that is Sites J2 and J3 until options 3.1 and 3.2 are perplexing.

To address the third question above, our preference is for a mixed residential and leisure use, to preserve what positives Eldon Way currently offers, namely CJ's Bowling and the childrens' play complex, at rent they can afford to pay and taking into account any relocation costs and loss of earnings. Therefore Option 2.1 offers the optimum balance of uses.

Additional options that might be considered is the size of any parking facilities. In all options they seem woefully inadequate, looking less than we have now. A3 should not be redeveloped at all but perhaps given a facelift to be put in the same design finish as any new builds along Spa Road. The car park behind should be extended northwards together with the design of Sites A2 and A1 being reversed so that car parking is as present behind Alldays and thus contiguous with that at the rear of A3. Perhaps the access roads should be combined as a public highway with a link through into Eldon Way where new housing/leisure will exist.

There is expressed concern in the Plan as to the way in which the railway dissects the Town. Can thought be given to a new overbridge connecting the centre with the Plumberrow area, rather than relying upon the station footbridge and/or the unprotected public railway board crossing to the west of Hockley station. This could be road and foot or foot only. This would link the north side of Town with the new leisure facilities and by-pass the poorly sighted junction at Mount Avenue and reduce traffic levels from Mount Avenue.

3.9.6 - What is your preferred approach to this junction? Are there any other options with regard to Southend Road/Main Road junction that you would like to be considered?

If, and this for us is a big 'if', traffic lights will reduce congestion along Main Road into Hockley, then so be it. But there is hopefully to be additional traffic being attracted by a revitalised town centre - will it therefore make any difference, including additional delivery vehicles? Additional residential homes will also increase the load although counter-balanced by a corresponding loss of business traffic from the Eldon Way Industrial Estate.

Exit from Woodlands Road restricted at peak times seems retrograde for the residents in that area; any suggestion of using Hockley Rise as an alternative to exit seems fairly foolhardy given the constrictions already in a relatively narrow road from private car parking outside residents' homes. From a purely personal perspective we have no view on this aspect of the proposed plan as there is so little traffic evidenced whenever we are passing that it seems odd that it is considered. Perhaps it is different at peak times.

The key for us in Main Road eastbound. Therefore without the construction of a relief road (any plans moved up for this in light of other plans in the area such as the airport extension or the construction of the Southend United stadium?) it is hard to see how any improvement can be made that will have a meaningful effect.

3.9.8 - Which options do you agree with/disagree with? Are there any other options regarding Southend Road that you would like to be considered?

All the options appear to relate to Spa Road!

So let us assume you mean other changes illustrated in paragraph 3.9.3. The assumption that you can just acquire the land currently owned by the Roman Catholic church to create a green walkway is quite incredulous. But the power of compulsory purchase can override local objections.

Encouragement for cycling is laudable but there is no proposed change to narrow roads (Main Road in particular) to accommodate them.

Bus parking in Spa Road obscures views for drivers exiting the two current car parks - any change in location should consider the impact on traffic exiting from any side road, including Bramerton Road.

3.9.12 - Do you agree with this option? Are there any other options with regard to Station Approach/Spa Road junction that you would like to be considered?

It is a pity this was not considered when planning permission was granted for the new homes in this area. The access to the station is untidy. However moving traffic stop lines back will limit even further a driver's view of the road outside so not ideal. Perhaps traffic lights that are sensitive to traffic flows would be better, co-ordinated with Mount Avenue lights to ensure there is no back up across that latter junction.

Although bus routes are not explored, it does seem that there is a case for a 'hopper' bus service or similar between Hawkwell, Hockley and Rayleigh to encourage shoppers out of their cars - it could access some of the estate areas, e.g Betts Farm, rather than be just along Main Road. This could be interspersed with the number 7 and 8 buses running reduced regularity. With an improved interchange at Hockley station could encourage more use of the rail service to Rochford and Southend.

As you can see from the above we need some convincing that the planners actually have the interests of Hockley residents at heart in drawing up these plans. Destroying businesses that have set up in Hockley to help create its community (Somerfield and the Chemist/Post Office are the prime examples followed by family businesses like Seemore Glass and First Choice Bathrooms and Kitchens) does not seem to be in empathy with the culture or needs of our community. Please think again.

If you would like to discuss any aspects of our comments we can be contacted at the above address most days or on my mobile or by e-mail.

I have addressed the questions posed in the document as best I can in the limited amount of time available. The reason that I have too little time is the totally inadequate consultation process. I only found out about it by chance. I have spoken to my neighbours and many friends in the village and none of them were aware of it either. If you had properly consulted local residents I strongly believe that your proposals would be completely different. As things stand I strongly object to all of them. None of them are sustainable. All would damage the character of the village and make the village a traffic nightmare. Please see the attached sheet that I typed for specific answers.

You need to hold a proper transparent consultation process before proceeding further.

Addressing the main questions regarding the Hockley action plan consultation document.

P23 The main issues should be:

(a) a modest redevelopment of shopping facilities in keeping with the character of the village
(b) better facilities for teenage members of the community

p25 This question is based on the East of England Plan. This was drawn up by an unelected quango a the behest of central government. The minister responsible, Margaret Beckett has recently acknowledged that changing economic circumstances will mean that government targets are now unachievable. You should no longer be blindly focused on these arbitrary housing targets, the fulfilment of which will significantly increase the population of our village. This will result in further overstretch of infrastructure and increased traffic congestion. This is not a sustainable option.

P28 This question is based on a false premise. Hockley is a village, not a town. A town scale development is inappropriate and fundamentally changes the character of our village. This is what attracted me and many other residents to settle here. In addition there is a fundamental flaw in the idea of moving parking away from the village centre. The convenience of close convenient parking is important to the health of local businesses. The idea of making a remote car park (railway station), might well suit Southend-on-Sea, but that is a real town.

P39 I do not have a preferred option as I do not consider any of them in the interests of local residents and businesses. The central theme of all of them is that of a new supermarket and would appear to be the only likely winner in any of the options presented. The junction of Bramerton Road and Spa Road is already congested at peak time. The new supermarket would ensure that grid lock is a permanent feature. This junction is very close to the Spa roundabout, which would be controlled by traffic lights with the resulting queues starting well before the exist to Bramerton Road. A supermarket in the proposed location would also be likely to hurt local businesses who are an important part of our community.

P47 The present Spa roundabout is congested at peak times. Whilst this can be inconvenient, the alternative is even more unpalatable. One of the key lessons of the last 40 years of road engineering is that increasing capacity does have a very temporary positive effect, before traffic volumes increase with all of the negative environmental effects. It is important to consider developments at the nearby Southend airport. It would be very unwise to make Hockley more attractive to heavy increasing airport traffic. Consider this together with the points that I have made in the previous question. Furthermore the one way option regarding Woodlands would direct significant traffic volumes up unsuitable roads such as Hockley Rise. The access junction at the brow of a hill is not suitable and roads are already in a poor state of repair.

P47 Regarding Southend Road. This is already a main road, but significantly increasing the volume of traffic would not be sustainable.

P48 This is already a difficult junction, with its proximity to the railway bridge. No development should encourage more traffic at this point.

Initially, I must say this plan does not appear to have been notified to a great number of residents and our household was only aware of the details through a leaflet found at the local surgery on Monday 27th April, three days before responses were finally due! We then had to arrange to pick up a copy of the action plan from Rochford Council offices. A plan of this proposed magnitude requires a better consultation distribution system from the Council.

FIRSTLY, GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE ACTION PLAN:

Throughout the published Action Plan, Hockley is constantly referred to as a town. We have lived in the locality for over 40 years and Hockley is not a town, but still a village with the definite characteristics of same, which is how the majority of residents still wish it to be. The proposed development of Hockley village is far too big. It is being led by housing matters and is not, as is being presented, to the benefit of the local community and Hockley traders. Even the Government Planning Statement 6 refers to Hockley as not meeting the criteria for a 'town centre'.

The plan as such is far too big a scheme and the centre of Hockley would be sufficiently welcoming purely by better maintenance of the shops along Spa Road together with a small amount of landscaping ie two or three trees planted along the pavement on the area between Bramerton Road and Somerfield's supermarket.

Having now read the Hockley Action Plan and I would make the following comments on particular sections of the plan on separate attached pages as requested:

Area Action Plan 1.2

1.2.1 The plan states 'Town centres play a key role in providing for local people's everyday needs in terms of shopping, healthcare and leisure. An AAP can provide a framework to ensure that these needs are met.'

Local people's everyday needs are already being met by the current village centre with the two exceptions of insufficient dentistry and doctor availability. Hockley village has a bakery, butcher's, greengrocer's, a supermarket and a hardware store. It has a shoemenders, men's and ladies' hairdressing shops, a dry-cleaners establishment, two florists, two chemists, an optician's and various other incidental shops which residents may wish to use. There is a library, local clinic, two surgeries, two dentists and a day-care centre as well as two halls for community use and three churches within the confines of the village centre. It has a railway station, two buses passing through and a petrol station.


(Page 2 of Plan)

1.2.4 I would suggest that 'stimulation' of the shopping area be undertaken by scrapping parking charges in Hockley car park which many people use to access doctor/dentist and library facilities, apart from shopping.

(Page 3 of Plan)

1.4 Overview of Area

1.4.2 Hockley village is too small for high-street multiples and even if the proposed developments were to take place it would still be too small for these.

1.4.3 The recent development of apartments is mentioned in the Plan. I have no knowledge of anyone local who was in favour of these apartments being built.

1.4.5 I fail to understand the phrase 'improving...quality of life for local people'. I have not met any resident who would consider it so.

1.4.6 'Enchanced retail offer for Hockley' is mentioned in the Plan. If commercial use is moved from other parts of Hockley to the shopping area, how will there be 'enhanced retail offer'.

Public space is proposed to be created in the shopping area. In local history, an open public space is just another area for youths to collect. Once this happens the space becomes virtually a no-go area for others.

2.2.2

What do I like about Hockley?

It is a village
Hockley Woods
Community feel
Low level housing
Open, airy aspect to Spa Road.

What do I dislike about Hockley?

The Spa Pub (heavy drinkers)
Bad planning issue with bar at bowling club at Eldon Way
Lack of free parking
Some shop fronts look a little drab
No. 8 bus infrequent (1 an hour)
Station Road/Spa Road junction difficulties


2.3 Urban Design

Hockley village is an easy area to understand with easily identifiable public and private spaces despite the Council's plan saying the opposite.

2.3.2 The Plan refers to the Essex Design Guide for design regarding Essex market town. Hockley is not a town, market or otherwise.

Legibility/Adaptability/Diversity

Hockley village centre is not poorly defined. The retail sector is mainly located parallel on each side of the road as is usual in a village. I see no advantage to have commercial/industrial use of shops within a retail area. In fact, these should definitely be separate as I feel they detract from people wishing to use the shops.

2.4 Land uses

Why change the use of Eldon Way to housing stock if the industrial units must then move and commercial activity be moved into the retail area?

Leisure

What sort of 'leisure' is being proposed for this development? A concern is that drinking establishments may be incorporated in the same places as children's leisure and entertainment venues (as has already happened in Hockley on the Eldon Way estate).

2.5 Form and structure

2.5.2 The wideness of the pavement in Spa Road is pleasing to walk along for residents and in no way hinders or intimidates pedestrians, as is intimated in the plan. Narrowing same is only of purpose to push more housing stock or commercial units behind the shops.

2.9 Summary of Issues (re street issues, etc)

I believe the road junction in Hockley at Station Road/Spa Road/Greensward Lane needs to be tackled - see entry on page 14 of this representation.

I do not consider the Main Road/Spa Road/Woodlands Road roundabout to be a problem - it is only the volume of traffic coming through from Rayleigh to the now opened Cherry Orchard link road which causes hold-ups (this link road was opened to address the question of congestion in Rochford which then pushed the problem back to Hockley). I have seen queues at this junction at busy times but have, however, never witnessed any problems at this junction with vehicles accessing any of the roads.

I believe the zebra crossing outside The Factory Shop could be moved further up the road to be more central.

3.2 Objectives

I do not agree that a mix of uses in the Spa Road area is useful or desirable. What is needed are shops!

I do not agree that Hockley needs a square. As with the open space near Chandos Garage is the past, it is not even desirable. This planned 'square', along with proposed 'Green landscaping along Main Road, Spa Road and Southend Road to enhance the visual amenity' will not be enhanced very long if it is not maintained. Due to council cutbacks, maintenance around local roads is non-existent and it would be expected that, after a while, this landscaping would go the same way. The Council, due to the ongoing economic climate, is not likely to have more funds than at present to carry out maintenance of public spaces.

I do not agree that Hockley needs to be more concentrated or that it would provide a higher quality of life. The pleasure of a village like Hockley is that it is not concentrated and a change of this sort would make people less likely to shop in Hockley. If concentration is wanted this can be found in other areas such as Lakeside, Southend, Basildon or Chelmsford - even Rayleigh although that does have a nice open aspect, as does Hockley at present.

3.3 Potential Opportunity Sites

3.3.8 Sites L and M

What is the 'community hub' to consist of? We already have surgeries and Library nearby. I do not think a Youth Club would be suitable at this location due to the closeness of the Spa Pub directly opposite. Whilst the exterior of the Spa public house has interest to Hockley's past, the pub itself is not a desirable one.

3.3.9 Transport

I do not agree that the junction of Spa Road/Main Road/Southend Road needs to be changed. As stated previously, I do believe the Station Road/Spa Road/Greensward Lane junction needs to be looked at - see page 14 of this representation.

3.7 Summary of Options

I do not support any of the proposed plans as I do not feel they are necessary. However, whilst I think the proposals for any of the schemes in this Action Plan are not suitable and are excessive for Hockley village, I am quite aware that Rochford Council would not have prepared this Plan without having ensured they are pushing at least one of them through in order to facilitate a housing density scheme, now or in the future. Accordingly, in this case, I consider this is to be a damage limitation exercise and therefore would state the following:

I consider the options numbered below to be in the order of least damaging to Hockley village if it has been decided to at least push one scheme through:

Starting at the top - Least damaging through to most damaging

Option 1.2
Option 1.1
Option 2.1
Option 2.2
Option 3.1
Option 3.2

3.9 Transport Options

3.9.2 - 3.9.4 I do not support a signalised plan at the junction of Spa Road/Main Road. I believe this will make matters worse.

3.9.5 I do not believe that changing access to Woodlands Road would improve matters. In fact it would create a problem at the junction of Hockley Rise and Main Road which is situated just past the brow of a hill and would also have a knock-on effect on traffic turning right out of White Hart Lane.

Station Approach/Spa Road

3.9.9 Turning right from Station Approach can be awkward but it is not used by many vehicles as opposed to the main road and Station Road.

3.9.10 I understand the problems for pedestrians crossing at this point but believe this is because very few of them - apart from Greensward pupils use the zebra crossing provided. Perhaps a zebra crossing could be placed on the Spa Road side of Station Road instead of the one already in existence, or perhaps as well as, so that station using pedestrians cross on that side (most of the traffic from Station Road turns right), especially so if the 'Factory Shop' crossing was moved to a more central position in Spa Road. There is also a problem at this junction with the bus stop. Buses coming from Ashingdon (No. 7) wait at this bus stop on the corner of the road. It is difficult turning left at Station Road from Greensward Lane if a bus is there because vehicles have to overtake and go immediately round the corner in front of it and drivers never know exactly when it will start up. In addition, when turning right out of Station Road into Spa Road - Greensward Lane, drivers have no view past the bus to see if other vehicles are coming. If, as this option describes, the road stop lines are put further back on the side roads (Station Road and Station Approach), this will make the situation worse still.

3.9.12 Bus Travel

It is considered that the No. 8 bus running on an hourly basis only is insufficient considering the Council's desire for people to use public transport within the locality.

3.10.3 Development Issues

Consultation for future development:

Whatever scheme the Council decides to push through, it has intimated it will seek private partnership arrangements for financial viability. Obviously, the private sector has it's own agenda and their participation will come at a cost, ie planning requests for more high density housing ie three/four storey flats at least, to be squeezed in. As previous unwanted development of knocking down houses and replacing them with flats has already occurred in Hockley and Hawkwell, what action is being put in place to ensure residents and not developers will decide what happens to Hockley village and it's surrounding area, which is a low level housing community and should stay as such.

East of England Plan/Rochford Futures Study

The East of England Spacial Strategy states 'new development should sustain and enhance .....throughout the region, being places with high levels of service provision'. It also says 'new housing should be....and high density......to make efficient use of land". However, the baseline analysis of Rochford District's performance (Rochford Futures Study 2007) states 'it has poor local services and amenities ....the local infrastructure is overloaded'. Nowhere in the Hockley Area Action Plan is there any reference to the local infrastructure with the exception of changes to one road junction. With all the new flats (apartments) how are the new residents supposed to access a doctor's appointment or a NHS dental one? What about the school overcrowding - the Government says children should be taught in no more than 30 in a class. In addition the roads are not suitable for more traffic in that vicinity (and the proposed signalling at the Spa Road/Main Road junction will have no effect on increased cars using the roads. What of the increased vehicle movements around the Station and Eldon Way area in what is an already congested area, far worse than the junction of Spa Road/Main Road as each day attests?

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

Mr P Symes

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC.

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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