3.9 TRANSPORT OPTIONS

i)A signalised junction was tried many years ago at Spa Road and was changed to a roundabout for better traffic flow which it achieved.
ii)A left turn only at Woodlands Road has benefits for road safety.There could be protests regarding the impact on the 'school run' at Hockley Rise.
iii)Potters' zebra crossing is hazardous and should be moved a short distance.It has the benefit of stopping traffic from Rayleigh allowing cars to exit from Spa Road.
Traffic in Hockley will increase with Airport expansion and housing.The District has no coherent transport plan.

Please, please do not install traffic lights at Spa Junctions. These signalised junctions are always a disater, and invariably cause more congestion. They can never be phased properly as the traffic loads are always changing on all the roads. At off peak times it is so frustrating to queue at red lights when the other roads are clear. The existing pedestriam crossing outside Potters should be relocated onto Spa road approx just beyond Bramerton Rd.

I live in Woodlands Road and I agree the the Spa roundabout is a bad junction.

But if all the local traffic using Woodlands Road is pushed through the Hockley Rise/Southend Road route then you will end up with an even more dangerous junction (busy road, brow of hill, bend in road, etc).

No mention is made in the report about what would be done with this junction and no action should be taken without a revised junction.

i think the following comment

'Many other design options are possible that will need to be worked through as part of a separate, more detailed commission.' is correct in that this should be addressed in greater detail.

-additional housing/retail will increase the amount of traffic and make the current situation a lot worse.

'Right-turns between 07:00-09:30 hrs and 16:00-17:30 hrs prohibited.' impossible to police and confusing. should either be allowed or not.

Signals at the junction of Southend Rd & Main Road would be useful and could be restricted use for 7.30 to 9.00 and 3.00 to 6.00. Sensors could be used to allow change when the other route is clear. Also closing off Woodland Rd would prevent the signals being "complicated"

Spa roundabout is too busy with traffic but the real cause is that the roads leading to it are overcrowded. Unless they can be improved or traffic can be diverted onto other routes which bypass Hockley, it is difficult to improve the Spa roundabout.

Remove some of the traffic from Spa Road by building a new road from Stantons to Eldon Way behind the shops in Spa Road.
A more frequent and reliable bus service is essential.

Create a bus / train interchange with associated junction improvements.

Support option 3.9.10

Spa Junction is an existing bottleneck. Appropriate improvements must be made to handle all the extra traffic from new houses planned to be built in the area. Traffic lights alone are inappropriate.

A bus/rail interchange is essential

Provision should be made to allow buses to turn round without using the Great eastern road 'rat-run'.

A bus/train interchange is essential.

Traffic flows for shoppers and thru traffic need to be separated to facilitate movements and improve safety.

Traffic lights alone are not an appropriate solution.

Closing Woodlands to traffic at Spa Junction is not viable.

The plan states an alternative route is available for vehicles to access Southend Road via Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise.
The adequacy of this junction should be considered in conjunction with the Spa Roundabout.

Re: 3.9.2 It states that the building line has been set back due to congestion and associated hostility. I believe it is due to planning consent restriction immposed by the planning section and was done to allow for future road changes, and therefore has nothing to do with pedestrian hostility.

Preferred option of Signalised junction with Woodland Road access retained. Right-turns between 07:00-09:30 hrs and 16:00-17:30 hrs prohibited.

Re: Consultation plan for Hockley redevelopment of Hockley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.9 Transport Options

If the Council is considering compulsory purchase powers then it should, if necessary, not exclude highways and adjoining land.

The proposed junctions will need to be assessed against potential future growth scenarios that take into account Regional Spatial Strategy growth rates.

Until more detailed modelling has taken place we are unable to comment on specific junction layouts.

I have major disagreement to the development of the Spa roundabout. I have already mentioned that any perceived problem in this are only occurs at peak times - as it does in surrounding areas. Outside peak times the junction operates effectively - there is no requirement to tamper with it.

Please forget any suggest that Woodlands Road, Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise should become a through road rather than quiet residential. I am vehmently against any such proposal.

It would devalue property, make some areas undesirable and lead to run-runs. No thank you ! I could go on.

How about moving one set of traffic lights from the plumberow side of he bridge to the Hockley village side ?

This would increase visibility, increase passing space beneath the bridge (for traffic emerging from P'Row) and still enable effective operation of the lights.

3.9.12 This statement makes an assumption that a new urban square will be constructed. I dont recall this being approved anywhere.

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

The proposed re-routing of traffic via Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise would be a total disaster; there are problems with the traffic using these roads now, especially at 'school run' times.

Spa roundabout is too busy with traffic but the real cause is that the roads leading to it are overcrowded. Unless they can be improved or traffic can be diverted onto other routes which bypass Hockley, it is difficult to improve the Spa roundabout.

Remove some of the traffic from Spa Road by building a new road from Stantons to Eldon Way behind the shops in Spa Road.
A more frequent and reliable bus service is essential.

Create a bus / train interchange with associated junction improvements.

I live on Woodlands & agree the Spa roundabout is a busy junction. However a signalised junction will cause further congestion. The option of diverting the flow of traffic using Woodlands Road via Hockley Rise/Southend Road route isn't viable. It's too residential & at the end is a busy and dangerous junction with restricted visability on the brow of the hill.If pushed, I support the option to remove access to Woodland Road altogether, but think this will have limited benefit to reducing congestion. I use Potters pedestrian crossing on a daily basis & think this a poorly positioned crossing, with drivers concentrating on the roundabout and not the pedestrians. Several drivers have previously hit the crossing beacon. It needs setting back from the roundabout or repositioning altogether.

HOCKLEY AREA ACTION PLAN - CONSULTATION ISSUES AND OPTIONS 13.2.09 TO 30.4.09

Thank you for opportunity to comment on the above. I object to the Hockley Area Action as follows, except for "Preferred Alternatives" in final paragraph.

FOREWORD

In spite of above dates, there has been no formal notification to residents/traders of such a vast scheme during February, March.

- Arrival of Rochford District Matters Sunday 29.3.09, with small advert on 2nd page, two thirds through period, leaves little time for concerned locals to come together.
- Claims are it is: 1 on RDC website - none will seek unless they are aware; 2 newspapers - few buy.
- RDC Consultation Strategy has not been applied.
- Core Strategy Preferred Option, October 2008, hid indication of devastation now proposed, except to agree Hockley (a village, with local needs) cannot compete in scale with larger nearby retail centres.
- No 'residents' were told of "Placecheck" in February 2008 of such vast proposals on their behalf. "Citizens Panel" didn't include them.
- Central Area Committee, held rotationally: Hockley, Hawkwell, Hullbridge, is suddenly replaced: Rayleigh, Rawreth, Rochford, Hullbridge. So Hockley didn't know HAAP presentation was at Hullbridge. I learn it was attended by 2 RDC Councillors, HRA and Parish Plan Chairmen, 2 Hullbridge residents. By comparison, large Hawkwell green belt housing quota was in publicised Core Strategy - residents had time to organise meetings, attend Area Committee, make views public.

Therefore I object to inadequate HAAP notification, clearly intended low key, so few will effectively object. Director said recently planning procedures should end 2012, in time for end of recession. Exactly - HAAP is done and dusted behind closed doors.

GENERAL OBJECTION

1. Introduction

PPS6 says "Town Centres often areas - significant change is planned". EEDA requires 4,600 homes for the District. I didn't think "Aspects of Hockley" needed regeneration, apart from developer driven eyesores. An unused "employment area" could be used for housing, but much Hockley trading site is locally viable; and wholesale demolition of shopping area is unjustified where most shops are successful. If the housing is needed, Planning Services should have thought of that before passing the trading estate, not remove latter now.


1.4.2 Overview of Area

Firstly Hockley is not a town. "Hockley....linear town centre" - naturally, it is a village. Paglesham, Stambridge, etc, are also linear. "Retail in 'town' (village) centre...limited...few multiples....". As a village, with local needs, apart from Somerfields supermarket, Hockley is served by small, local shops. "Multiples" would be surplus to needs.

1.4.6 "little in way of gateway features". "Need for public space within defined centre". A village does not need that; it would also be a collection centre for layabouts and rubbish. We had Spa Meadow in central Hockley, used for football matches, fairs and other local events. The owner offered it to RDC as a village green, for a modest sum. RDC refused to purchase, but allowed consent for a large bungalow estate on it - another of Planning Services' mistakes.

2. THE ISSUES - SUPPOSED CRITICISMS OF HOCKLEY "What you told us" "Placecheck....ensuring views, opinions of local residents...working together. As above we didn't. This doesn't reflect local views of working together.

Answers to "Placecheck initiate"
- "not wide range of shops; too many charity shops, closed down shops, not enough family restaurants, cafes, clothes stores". Only 3 charity ones, well used - Rayleigh has 7; closed down - credit crunch and no free parking; (also have some got wind of your plans and gone?); Cafes - one, well used; family restaurants - 2 well used - do not need more; "Boutique" proposal, clothes - go to Southend - also the young work/buy boutique items in London; there are too many estate agents, only 2 needed, not 7. Clearly the former planning rule of avoiding monopoly is no longer applied.
- "Youth meeting place" - bowling alley, Monkey Business, gym - in Eldon Way trading estate.
- "Development should take place through infilling existing sites/replacing houses with flats". This is the nub. Hockley village of homes/gardens regularly attacked by demolition, replaced by 'chavs' towers', 'town houses, blocks of dubious flats, fought unsuccessfully by residents. Plan is to turn village into over-dense town. Is this "development should be environmentally friendly!!"
- "Cheaper, more frequent public transport" you won't get that, as most people have cars; this is why Arriva cut buses to 2 per hour through Hockley, each way.
- "Toll road" B1013 was one in 18C, with toll house at Spa junction - proving Hockley was already a village, contrary to ideas it didn't start as now till railway arrived end 19C.





2.3.4 URBAN ASSESSMENT OF HOCKLEY TOWN CENTRE (eg what is supposed to be wrong with it)

- "Traffic dominated" Creation of Cherry Orchard bypass - another planning mistake, has directed all S E Essex traffic through B1013 and Lower Road Hockley. Start of 'satnav' has done likewise.
- "buildings a mix of scales" - ancient towns also a mix of scales over time, not uniform, - at least Hockley is a village, with maximum height 2 storey, c.26 feet high.
- "street furniture" no more than necessary and traffic lights will add to it
- "employment area - single route" there is no alternative
- "lacking gateway" Hockley a village
- "good examples of historic buildings...interspersed with recent purpose built development", but, apart from Spa pub, you propose to demolish the few period buildings we have left from Planning Services led demolition. Leave well alone.
- "Mix of uses lacking - supported by..employment area" a contradiction - we have variety of retail.

2.4.4 "..majority of units are...interwar.." wrong. Further down Spa Road there are period houses, as also some remaining in Southend Road. The Meadow Way bungalow estate is 1950s on former village green.

2.5 FORM/STRUCTURE

It is regrettable that formless 1960s buildings have been erected at eg corner of Main/Woodlands Roads, Somerfield block, but varying scale, 2 storey style, set well back from the road, including 19C buildings are suitable for the village.

2.5.3 Community/leisure uses are well integrated with Spa Road.

STREET NETWORK

ECC Highways have underestimated daily vehicle count - in 2005 estimated to be 2000/hour in B1013 at quiet times by their staff. Unless there can be a bypass round Rochford, Hockley/Hawkwell - probably causing more problems in green belt, nil can be done. There is nil you can do about the railway bridge and your now perceived problem with current roundabout in Mount Crescent was another example of bad planning done to accommodate the new flats by the station. The former Station Approach was a level and direct approach to the station. Pedestrians to Plumberow used the station footbridge, as they do now. Off street parking should be free. Reliance on on-street parking is dangerous.

3.1 VISION

Yet more development, or here - regeneration - is ruining the "town's (village's) identity and character". As a village we do not need and have no room for a "new square" - "homes" - this is the problem. Eldon Way industrial estate has settled, well used services. If you aren't happy, you should have thought of that before it was developed. The land might originally have been suitable for some housing - not nearly 200 - but it is too late to erect more than a few here.

Primary Care facility will conflict with 3 local GP surgeries, two of which have been; updated at much cost.

POTENTIAL OPPORTUNIT SITES Sites A1-3 I'm appalled at the proposed demise of successful shops, now blighted with prospect of Compulsory Purchase Order, including at least one family home. Destruction of 19C buildings would be part of systematic erasure of Hockley village. Sites B & C Successful local hardware business and a gym. This is obviously part of the plan to move all to new Rochford 'Saxon' Business Park under the JAAP, where they will fail. The hardware store was planning to expand and take on 14 more staff. The gym is a local community facility.

Sites J & K Successful shops

Sites L & M Successful restaurant and bank buildings. Incidentally the latter replaced in 1970s 2 fine 17C thatched, close board cottages better than anything in Rochford conservation centre, as also nearly a dozen period houses between Hawkwell side Hockley Hill and Spa pub, in 1970s. So much for planning.

The PCT would conflict with recently refurbished GP surgery. If you want regeneration, suggest demolition of 1960s buildings at corner of Main/Woodlands Roads - mainly estate agents - readily disposed of. Dentist could go in eg 19C period building 2nd from left at 'K', currently occupied by estate agent on ground floor, no longer using 1st floor accommodation.

DEVELOPMENT OPTION 1.1, 1.2

New Town Square - Hockley is a village - as argued before, we don't need a square.

Sites B, C It is ok, perhaps to erect apartments (housing) above the hardware store and gym, but not at the expanse of demolishing North side of Spa Road. There is no requirement for a massive supermarket at busy Bramerton/Spa Road junction.

A new PCT could replace estate agents at corner of Main/Woodlands Roads, as suggested above, but would still conflict with GP surgeries. Otherwise A1-3 should be left as it is.

Successful restaurant and library at L1-2 should be left.

A Hall - we have public hall at Bullwood Road, hall facility at Parish Hall opposite Greensward Academy assembly hall is hired for meetings and indoor sports events in evenings, as at all local secondary schools, Hockley Community Centre at Westminster Drive.

There are Youth Facilities at Eldon Way - Gym, Bowling Alley, Monkey Business; Why rebuild library?

Car parking exists, but is chargeable; 'Landscaped footway' is RC Church garden - apart from obvious considerations, this would cause security problems both to the church and adjacent dwelling.

Site J is a successful retail area - residential above would overlook Meadow Way bungalow estate.

Railway station/car park I thought you proposed the car park be moved south of the tracks and to use the current one for housing? - this would be a good idea.

I thought the pavements, etc, in central Hockley had already been updated, etc by Hockley Parish Council 3 years ago?

OPTIONS 2.1/2.2 AND 3.1 AND 3.2

If you plan to sacrifice Eldon Way trading estate for housing, you should have done that in the first place instead of giving consent for industry, then removing it. As it is, there are settled, successful enterprises there:- hardware store, Monkey Business, bowling alley and several more, which thrive on proximity to shopping and residential and serve the community. You proposed to move them, with CPOs, to the new Rochford 'Saxon' Business Park where they will lose business - and so much for the boast of 4700 new jobs provided by the JAAP proposal - just moving jobs from elsewhere!

May be the few empty units could be demolished or converted for apartments (housing).

In Core Strategy H Alternative Option you were against housing for North east Hockley - '..in spite of proximity to centre, station, impact on highway..traffic..through, out of Hockley..along Ashingdon Road...render location unviable'. Here, at 3.2 you propose up to 186 dwellings - surely a contradiction in ideas.

Core Strategy also notes CPOs not acceptable to public - here it is planned to ruin businesses and at least one private home.

3.8 SCALE

Hockley is a village, not a town, which is why 'predominantly..of 2 storey developments', but '..recent developments..increased scale of new building..' - yes, the ones we fought to reduce in height scale on account of harmful impact on existing, and failed. THIS MUST NOT be used as precedent for 'developments of 3, 4 storeys can easily be accommodated...'.

3.9 TRANSPORT

Buildings have always been 'set back from the street' - adds to Hockley character.

Congestion has arisen from development and particularly the Cherry Orchard bypass. Satnav also directs vehicles to B1013. Don't forget also that the Lower Road is also now congested with heavy commercial traffic.

By all means have a 'signalised' junction, though drivers doubt its efficiency, but Woodlands Road closure, traffic redirected to Hockley Rise/Kilnwood Avenue, could be disastrous. Commuters from latter roads cannot exit in the morning and contend with Westerings School run weekdays and Emmanuel Church on Sunday. Recently, a celebrity funeral at the church blocked both sides of Hockley Rise.

It would be a good idea to move the pedestrian crossing to west of Station Road - commuters have hell getting to station from central Hockley - there is opportunity from beside the public footpath to the pavement outside the new flats.

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

I trust Mrs Becket's (Housing Minister) recent announcement that housing targets must be shelved for foreseeable future for cost reasons may give EEDA and HACA pause before acceding to money requests for this regeneration. You will certainly get resistance to CPOs.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

There is no need for wholesale demolition.

There is a need for free parking - the charges at the library car park should be rescinded. More free parking could be provided behind the former Alldays - in fact that could be demolished for access. That way, the local shops would catch the passing trade. It would also counter the fact that outlying supermarkets have free parking - thus starving local shops of business. Much traffic drives through Hockley without stopping.

Hockley is a village with local basic needs - chemist, newsagent, post office, food, hardware, shoemending, haberdashery - larger items and clothes belong in adjacent towns.

In this context the former planning policy of restricting the number of outlets for one facility in a neighbourhood - a monopoly, should be reintroduced - eg Hockley does not need 7 estate agents.

Business rate and rents need to be reduced.

Traffic - increased by too much development and error of opening Cherry Orchard bypass. Unfortunately the only solution now is a further bypass round Rochford/Hockley - but that would also deny further business to Hockley shopping centre - a double trap. One answer would be increase in public transport - but that cannot be achieved in the face of car traffic - another conundrum.

As you are so keen on demolition - 1960s block at corner of Woodlands/Main Roads, possibly Alldays, as suggested before. Alldays and land to its rear could be used for free parking for shops. The Somerfield block is unaesthetic, but must be retained as the shops there are successful. We don't need a Tesco's in addition.