3.9 TRANSPORT OPTIONS

Whilst the Spa Road/Main Road 'mini' roundabout does need improvement traffic must NOT be forced along Hockley Rise. The exit from Hockley Rise onto Main Road (near White Hart)is a nightmare. It is very difficult to get out without forcing into the traffic. This junction desparately need help not making worse by forcing yet more traffic to use it.

I am concerned that a signalised junction could be detrimental in terms of street scene due to clutter ie guardrail, posts, inspection chambers, signage etc.

Transport and road issues will play a large part in this scheme,yet you admit that no roadcount has been taken up! Why not? Even the casual observer can see that the road infrastructure is barely adequate now, and would be paralysed by expansion of traffic caused by a major redevelopment. Traffic lights on the Spa Pub roundabout would barely ease the congestion, and hopes should not be pinned on this! Your study admits that a further detailed study will be required, and I agree with this entirely. The outcome will either support or kill the redevelopment plan.

Please make public transport use easier by providing marked cycle ways, bike parking and an easily accessible bus stop.

Rerouting traffic through Woodlands Rd/Kilnwood/Hockley Rise would be a mistake. The Hockley Rise/Southend Road junction is already often difficult to get out of and this change, coupled with the school runs, would be a disaster. Lights are not the answer - the main reason the roundabout has problems/near accidents is that many drivers coming from Southend Road are incapable of understanding that traffic coming from Rayleigh and signalling right is going up Woodlands Road, not straight on.

Hockley Rise and Kilnwood Avenue as an alternative route for vehicles to access Southend Road would mean extreme use of a narrow residential roads that provide the only access to Westerings Primary School. This would be hazardous to families/children and would create an unbearable environment for residents. There are many residential side roads off Hockley Rise/Kilwood and Woodlands Road and such change would render it impossible to turn in/out of properties and side roads. This should not be part of any road plan for Hockley.

Re: Spa roundabout.

I object to any proposal to limit access to or from Woodlands Road. This would only move any perceived problem in relation to Woodlands Road to the Hockley Rise/Southend Road junction, not resolve the actual problem.

Drivers need to be made more aware of Woodlands by upgrading its status on the road signs. Approach speeds are a problem and need to be reduced to 20 mph and calming measures provided including humps and raised section for the whole junction. Drivers approach too fast and need to understand that Hockley is not part of a race track to work.

Oppose Woodland Road restrictions. I do not feel that Woodland Road traffic causes any conjestion - it is purely down to volume of traffic. Restrictions would just create traffic flow issues further where Hockley Rise joins the main road. At least with a roundabout residents in and around Woodland Road area have a chance of getting out on the main road!

Would propose looking into a 1 way system or a no right turn into village from Southend Road perhaps, to keep traffic moving?

Traffic lights at the Southend Road / Main Road junction would only add to the existing congestion back towards Rayleigh in the evening rush hour. Surely the flow of traffic is better with a roundabout?

I appreciate that this junction could do with some improvement, but is forcing traffic towards primary school age children attending The Westerings School a good idea?

During the 'school run' Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise are littered with parked cars. Traffic being forced onto this route could lead to an even more dangerous walk to school for those children living in the surrounding area.

Forcing traffic to use Kilnwood Avenue / Hockley Rise causes even more issues. The junction at Hockley Rise / Southend Road has restricted visibility due to the brow of the hill looking left. Also with the Westerings School in close proximity of this route surely this is not a viable option?

I have the following comments about the Hockley Area Action Plan (AAP):

It doesn't seem to have been very well publicised, only exhibited in a very small area, again with limited publicity, and you would need to know about the AAP before looking for it on the RDC website. The person or persons who wrote the report seem to have only made a very limited number of visits to the area. One visit to the station car park in January.

In para 2.5.2. What does - "However, the scale of buildings here varies from one to three storeys which do not help to enclose the space: the result being that Spa Road feels wide, which may hinder pedestrian movement and thus undermine the natural retail circuit." mean?

Parking - para 2.6.4. Apart from 57 spaces in the library car park only 8 other car parking spaces are quoted - there are more spaces behind the Alldays store and the Somerfield car which do not appear to have been included.

The Rail Network - para 2.8.1. Trains run every 20 minutes to and from20London during the day but during the peak time (17.01 to 19.43) this rises to 7 trains arriving from London during 18.04-18.57 with the trains often being 12 coaches in length in the rush hour with a corresponding increase in the morning.

In paras 2.8.4 and 2.9.1 there are references to a taxi rank "located on Mount Crescent" and "the signalised junction of Mount Crescent/Spa Road/Greensward Lane". This would seem to refer to a road, which is some way away from Spa Road/Greensward Lane and I can only guess that Mount Crescent is actually Plumberow?

Para 3.4.3. The report seems to have a fixation on "a new square at the heart of the town centre". If there is housing around the "town square/green space" this traffic is again forced on to Spa Road, which increases the flow of cars along this already busy road. Please do not make Hockley into uniform rows of shops/flats, as it would lose what remains of the village atmosphere. The planning restriction height should be kept at the 2-storey level otherwise it would turn Spa Road into a windy canyon!

Para 3.4.5 The landscaped footway link appears to go through the church's garden.

Para 3.9.5 The20idea of traffic diversion hasn't really worked in Rayleigh so why should it work in Hockley? A lot of the traffic is through traffic so the idea of part-time signals at the Spa Hotel junction may improve things but can I suggest that the local schools create a lot of traffic and pupils should be encouraged to walk rather than expect their parents to drive them - at least in good weather. Woodlands Road traffic is not that heavy and I cannot understand why this needs to be restricted. Traffic is restricted by the road width under the railway bridge and also pedestrians are also restricted by the very narrow foothpath under this bridge - especially when the schools come out. Bramerton Road is also very near the Spa hotel junction and any shop/car park access would increase the chaotic traffic at this junction.

Looking at my comments they do seem to be negative rather than positive but it concerns me that so many people do not appear to have heard of this report and also that the tone seems to err on the idea of a town rather than a village atmosphere. A lot of people like Hockley because it is small scale - they all complain about the traffic but very few of them leave because of it. The centre of the village does need brightening up but it is only recently since the20sudden closure of Alldays that it has been losing heart - nowhere to buy their Lottery tickets. The Eldon Way industrial estate is moving towards more leisure-based businesses but the Foundry Estate has been enlarged and improved. Forcing these businesses to be moved out by the use of compulsory purchases seems wrong. The idea that there should be high-density housing around the town square would be out of proportion to the rest of the village. Also the 3-times the existing Somerfield size seems also too large for this area and again out of proportion.

I think that more time should be given for more consultation on this plan because of the lack of publicity and consultation time given to the people that knew of its existence. Hockley isn't perfect but there is a lot right with it.

Rochford District Council, I am writing to you regarding the 'Hockley Area Action Plan'.

I would like to take this opportunity to have my views heard a a trader of Hockley.

Village.
I have worked in Hockley for 23 years now so I think I know the area quite well. I would like to see the village stay a village, it looks like you are trying to make it a mini town.

My own business.
I am aware on one of your plans, you are going to move our shops forward. I would not like to be right on the pathway as many of my elderly customers arrive on mobility scooters. Also my own car has its own parking space next to my shop. I also hope none of my loyal customers take their custom elsewhere. This does concern me while all this upheaval is going on. Would you be in a position to compensate.

Local Shops
While Hockley is being demolished, where are all the local shoppers going to shop? Especially the elderly. I hope all the shoppers return to Hockley and don't find it easier to shop elsewhere. Hockley may become a ghost town.

Supermarket
Yes I think Hockley should have a slightly bigger supermarket, with more choice. But please not Tescos. They have a very big store only five minutes away in a car or a no. 18 bus ride.

Traffic congestion
Traffic is going to be a nightmare. Have you been through Hockley between 8-9am and 4-6pm? Having traffic lights and a one way system will not help the congestion. It's already congested now.

Housing
This is another add to congestion to the roads in Hockley. Also the doctors, dentists and schools in Hockley; there is no places available.

Please take all our views into consideration, or have you already made your minds up? We are all trying to make a real honest living at the end of the day.

I look forward to hearing from yourselves soon.

With regard to the Hockley Area Action Plan, I would like to first strongly object to the fact that all the residents of Hockley were not informed of these propoals, only a few of them were aware of what was being planned and I myself only found out from a friend yesterday.

The residents of Hockley refer to it as a village not a town so any changes should reflect how the population feel about the area in which they live. If you want to create a focal point then I suggest you reinstate the village green that Hockley once had in the centre of the village.

I feel it is not necessary to knock down the whole of the north side of Spa Road, this area includes small businesses that have been in Hockley for many years and give Hockley its character they create the village feeling that the residents have, we need to retain our post office, newsagents chemist and small businesses these are what makes Hockley what it is and that is a Village.

What village has a very large store occupying one whole side of the shopping area? Thi s is not in keeping with the rest of Hockley where there is a variety of different stores.

The proposed store on the corner of Bramerton Road is far too close to the Spa junction, I feel this is dangerous and will create even more problems with the traffic trying to exit Bramerton Road. This was one of the main reasons that Bramerton Road was kept as a no through road in the first place and what you propose would be even worse with not only cars but large lorries trying to gain access to and exit from the road, it is bad enough with the few lorries that deliver to Potters at the moment. This proposal needs to be reconsidered very carefully with road safety in mind. How about building your large store in Eldon Way instead?

The traffic through the village is already at saturation point and we do not need even more cars and lorries on our roads that are still only the same width as when they were used by horse and cart.

Our schools and surgeries are already at breaking point and this needs to be taken into consideration before it is too late.

So basically my views are I Say No to your action plan it is a plan for disaster for the village of Hockley and all the residents should be consulted before this does any further.

We are very concerned to hear about the proposed re-development of Hockley which has been discussed at a town meeting held today. We are not sure how these plans have been circulated to residents, but do know that the vast majority of those attending were also unaware. You may like to know that a councillor was present for a very short period of time reassuring us that he was listening to our concerns and would be passing them onto the relevant personnel at the Council. However, moments later when called back for further discussion, he had apparently left. This did not leave a very good impression with the group.

We understand that there are various options being proposed, so we would like to give you our views: Firstly, we know that there is a suggestion of clearance of the North side of Spa Road and to have a new 'town' square in the middle, with a supermarket three times the size of Somerfields at the Bramerton/Spa Road junction with parking to the rear and a large amount of additional housing. Hockley is a village and therefore its infrastructure, schools, doctors, roads, hospital and transport etc (already at bursting point), is not able to sustain such development.

We also understand that Tesco is interested in having a supermarket in the High Street and has already purchased property nearby. Obviously they will now have a vested interest in driving any development forward, without any consideration for the local community. We are very concerned at the amount of supply lorries that will be using the only road into Hockley, together with the increase in traffic that this supermarket and further residential homes would bring. The roads in this area are already at breaking point. A recent survey found that as many as 15,000 cars pass through each day and therefore any further traffic from new housing or supermarket with deliveries etc would not be a suitable addition to this already overcrowded area. There is only one road coming from Rayleigh into Hockley and there is also speculation of additional traffic from Southend Airport.

We hear that traffic lights have been proposed at the Spa Road junction. This would create a huge tail-back, as the only reason that the current traffic flow is working, is that people are taking their own initiative to ensure that this badly directed route can still safely operate. If traffic lights were put into place, the cars would back up along the already congested Hockley Road as well as in the other directions ie Greensward Lane. This could cause gridlock as far back as the Rochford and Ashingdon areas.

The suggestion of re-directing Woodlands Avenue traffic at peak time to go through Hockley Rise is not a feasible proposition, as traffic is already colossal due to the Westerings School. It is generally extremely difficult to get in and out of Hockley Rise on a daily basis due to the volume of on-coming traffic. The road is quite narrow and there are always cars parked both sides. Also, children use these roads to get to Westerings School, and surely their safety should be paramount before re-directing more cars to a road that is increasingly struggling with traffic flow.

We were appalled to hear that the 30th of April is the closing date for consultation and therefore would hope that more time be provided for the community to air their concerns and any suggestions to be taken into consideration before further plans are submitted.

We do understand that improvements could be made to this area and are open to ideas to improve not destroy Hockley. We welcome your comments and would be a grateful for a copy of the current plans by return of post

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.

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.

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.

Keep your hands of Hockley Village, we love it as it is.

The Planning Department Team where were you on Sunday 19th April, we had one person from the Council and he left half way through the meeting he missed the best part of the meeting.

There were 400 villagers at the meeting at C J Tenpin Bowling Club standing along all sides.

Point 1 It is not easy getting out of our village at certain times the traffic is heavy now.

Point 2 We have lived in Hockley for 40 years. We came hear because it was a quiet place of peace, over the years you have allowed every space to be built on, making Hockley not so quiet and at peace 400 people agreed with me, we are full to capacity. We do not want 250 houses, we have had our quota if you look over the past 10 years. We want to tell the government to pick somewhere else to put 250 houses and 4 people per house 250 cars, we all have cars these days. People are losing their houses every day, lives being destroyed and you are proposing to build 250 houses, these people will not be able to afford.

Point 3 I hear many of these houses are for social housing. We do not want these people in our village. We have worked very hard for years going to work buying our houses looking after our houses, bringing up our children in a great place a village or you would say it has become a small town.

Point 4 Tesco or any other store we think 400 people would hate. We love our small shops.

I am horrified that vast sums of our money will be used for the proposed re-developments of Hockley. These are not necessary, apart from better parking.

What residents appreciate about Hockley is a compact shopping area where small, retail shops are still able to trade.

We do need traffic lights at the Spa junction - the roundabout is a hazard.

We do need more parking facilities especially at the clinic and sorting office.

The tax we pay would be better spent providing more police protection and road maintenance than unnecessary work proposed. Eldon Way Trading Estate provides work as it stands, so while it could be more attractive, it should remain. Sign posts are needed.

Residents are destroying the country ambiance by paving frontages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.3 'Potential for roundabout to be removed.' By putting traffic lights instead will cause massive traffic delays. As a driver I can state it is easier and quicker to go over a roundabout, than being held up at traffic lights. There are queues of traffic going through between 4-6pm and traffic lights will cause more delay. There is no problem crossing at the Spa, there are two pedestrian crossings already.

3.8.1 'Three or four storeys can be easily accommodated.'

Hockley is a village, not a town, mainly bungalows. We don't need, or want a 4 storey Tesco and right near a road junction too. Don't start a precendent for high rise in our village and cause more traffic to wait around at junctions. You will put our local traders out of business as well.

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

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

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

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

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

SO as I said before LEAVE HOCKLEY ALONE

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

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.

I have lived in Hockley since 1960, and the village has changed gradually over the years. Your proposals for bulldozing the trading estate and building 200 houses, allowing Tescos to build a supermarket at the Bramerton Rd/Spa Rd junction are unbelieveable. Have your planniung Dept. really thought these proposals out. I think not !! And what purpose would a connection roadway between Southend Rd and Spa Rd serve. And has your planning Dept. given serious thought to the chaos that will ensue when you make Woodlands Rd, Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise into a one way system. Had you forgotten there is a schoool in the Westerings???
Please do not destroy Hockley Village with your idiotic plans.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My main comment is on the Transport Options Sections 3.9.5 and 3.9.6. These propose restricting traffic on Woodlands Road to 'left out only' and get vehicles to access Southend Road via Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise. However, this junction is already becoming congested morning and evening with vehicles trying to turn right into Southend Road but facing a continuous stream of traffic. The plan proposed would make this situation worse. My preferred option would be for a signalised junction with Woodlands Road access retained. If extra space could be made available at this junction traffic could be allowed to turn right without restriction.

The main problem of excessive traffic on the Southend Road will remain until some possible by-pass was made - or an improvement to Lower Road to make it better for the use of East/West traffic throughout the district.