3.9 TRANSPORT OPTIONS

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

We wish to register our concerns regarding the above development.

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

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

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

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

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

This is the official letter sent by all concerned by the proposed development for Hockley Town Centre, whilst we wholeheartedly agree with all that is said, I would like to make it known that we personally knew nothing about the proposals until our attention was drawn to them by a friend - we rarely receive any information in St Peters Road. I have severe reservations as to the development in terms of size and its constituent parts also the traffic proposals to my mind do not constitute a workable option.

Hockley Rise is a residential area full of parked cars at school times this therefore is not condusive to being used as a one way system.

Traffic lights at the Spa junction would clog up what otherwise runs as smoothly as possible with the amount of traffic at peak times (I regularly queue back to Hambro Hill).

Whilst appreciating that Hockley could benefit from some development the proposals put forward are far too much 'more housing' is not what is needed in an already over developed area with not enough infrastructure.

To more what community facilities that are there CJ's etc to my mind is a backward step. Please could you ensure that any future development consultation etc reaches the outskirts of Hockley and that all residents are kept informed.

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

I am a resident of Hockley and will be affected by any proposals agreed upon in the Hockley Area Action Plan. Please see my comments below, firstly regarding the lack of adequate consultation and participation of stakeholders in this consultation procedure, and secondly regarding my initial objections to the proposals in the Consultation Document. Please note that due to the lack of appropriate notice and consultation, I have not been able to address the questions posed in the Consultation Document. I require an extension to the consultation period of, say, 3 months in order to do this.

Failure to ensure adequate participation of stakeholders:

Inappropriate
The method of consultation is inappropriate. There has been no advertisement of the existence of the Consultation Document in the local press except for a passing reference in an article. I have seen no advertisement on non-council owned public notice boards (churches, shopping areas etc). No council organized public meetings have been held in Hockley - although I am led to understand there have been two meetings (one held at an inappropriate hour in the morning) in other towns in the Rochford area. The vast majority of stakeholders only found out about the Consultation Document due to a private resident's leafleting campaign in the last week or so.

Not from the outset
As I have only very recently discovered the existence of the Consultation Document I do not feel that I have been consulted from the outset of this transaction. The first well-attended meeting on this matter was organized by a private resident and held on Sunday 19 April. The deadline for comments and submissions is 30 April. There is therefore insufficient time to give any meaningful feedback.

Not transparent
Due to the lack of public awareness of the Consultation Document I do not feel that the process has been transparent. Were it not for the private resident's leafleting campaign I would not have been aware of the existence of the Consultation Document in time.

There has also been a failure to give any details of the 'research' quoted in the Consultation Document (i.e "Interactive web-based consultation" and "Placecheck Initiative") or information on where these pieces of research can be inspected.

Not accessible
Even after finding out about the Consultation Document from the private resident's leafleting campaign and learning more at a public meeting on 19 April, I have found it difficult to access the Consultation Document and associated information, as although these are on the Rochford DC website a login is required. I have therefore only been able to access the document by a) divulging personal information to a website, b) making a special trip to the library, or c) contacting the council directly and waiting for the document to arrive in the post. Considering the short timescale already mentioned, the loss of a day or two waiting for the post is critical.

No clear plan
I do not feel that my involvement has been clearly planned for by the council. Due to the failures in the consultation process I do not feel that I have been integral in the process of stakeholder participation in respect of the Consultation Document.

No proportionality of consultation
The contents of the Consultation Document have enormous effects on residents of Hockley and other stakeholders. Demolishing business and residential premises through compulsory purchase orders, large-scale high-density housing, significantly altering the geography of the village by creating a square and creating large car parks on green spaces will affect everyone in the village. I would therefore expect the scale of the awareness raising of the Consultation Document to be much greater, including at the very least a mail-shot to residents and presentations and public meetings at accessible times within Hockley in order to take stakeholders' feedback.

Initial objections to the Hockley Area Action Plan:

Despite the lack of adequate consultation described above, please find my initial comments on the contents of the Consultation Document. Because of the short timescale, I have been unable to address the questions posed in yellow boxes. I request that the council provides a further 3 months in order to have a meaningful consultation on the Consultation Document.

Unsustainable
There is no evidence in the Consultation Document that a Sustainability Appraisal has been taken into account. All plans put forward in the Consultation Document would appear to be manifestly unsustainable for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

Justification and effectiveness

Seeking Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) over peoples' homes and businesses is extremely serious. As a stakeholder in Hockley I do not believe that the village should have the sort of square suggested in the Consultation Document. I do not believe that the Eldon Way estate should be replaced by high-density housing as there are many businesses and amenities serving villagers' needs in the estate. I therefore do not believe that there is any justification for the council retaining the plans for CPOs in the Area Action Plan.

I do not believe that the need for CPOs has been founded on a robust or credible evidence base - the online surveys quoted in the Consultation Document do not warrant the destruction of peoples' homes and businesses. There are certainly alternatives that extra time in consultation will bring to the fore.

Timely progress

The Area Action Plan will run until 2021. If intention to apply for CPOs remains in the final Area Action Plan, residents' and businesses' properties will be effectively blighted until such time as the CPOs are actually granted and enforced by the council. If the Area Action Plan does include CPOs I believe that these should be sought as soon as possible by the council with a long-stop date of, say, 2011 in order to protect the personal interests of those affected.

Sustainable community strategy

As mentioned above, it would not seem that the Consultation Document has had proper (or any) regard to a sustainable community strategy.

In summary, I do not believe that the council has fulfilled its duty to ensure stakeholder participation in the Consultation Document. I would like the council to go through further, meaningful consultation. This aside, I do not believe that the proposals are sustainable, proportionate or justified.

I strongly object to all proposals in the Consultation Document and wish to participate fully in the ongoing process of stakeholder involvement in the planning of an Area Action Plan.

My wife and I would like you to register that we fully support Hockley Residents Association's objections to the proposals Rochford District Council have published recently.

Taking some of the proposals, item by item, our own detailed comments are as follows:-

a) Traffic Signals at the Spa Road junction: why stop 'right hand turns' into Woodlands Road, sets of traffic signals controlling four roads work satisfactorily at hundreds of other cross roads. If this diversion happens, the extra diverted traffic turning right at Hockley Rise will need another set of traffic lights.

b) Rebuilding all the shops on the North side of Spa Road, closer to the road is not going to help much. Some of the pavement is too narrow at the moment, if one person is using the cash machine at Barclays Bank and one or two more are waiting, it is difficult to walk past at the moment and a person with a baby in a buggy, needs to ask people to move out of the way. Why not move the kerbs closer to the shops where the pavement is too wide and provide short term parking bays for passing trade.

c) Is there enough room for a 'Square' in the length of Spa Road or is it planned to be a paved walk-way between unoccupied shops, like the new 'Square' in Rochford; or is the plan to change the shape of the road layout of Eldon Way and rename it Eldon Square?

d) Following on from (a) above the extra traffic in Hockley Rise and Kilnwood, heading towards Woodlands Road and the four 'no through roads' leading off it, will cause a lot of congestion to be followed by more yellow lines and parking restrictions in residential roads.

e) What effect is all this redevelopment going to have on the Council Tax? Are we going to be charged for something we do not want? When we moved from the Golden Cross area to Hockley our Council Tax increased two bands for a smaller property in a better area. If these major changes go ahead, changing our village into Hockley Town, we feel all the properties in Hockley should be revalued at least one band lower, if not two bands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vast majority of residents oppose the proposals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By way of introduction, Seetec has been an established employer in Hockley since 1984. Our Head Office is in the former primary school in Main Road, Hockley some 400 metres west of the town centre. Further information about us can be found on our website www.seetec.co.uk.

Our response has addresses the main issues rather than specific Sections and preferred options.

TRAFFIC
Whilst the development of the town centre is a welcome development we are very concerned that this fails to take into account the massive increase in traffic flows from future housing development over the next 10 - 25 years and more importantly, the development of Southend Airport.

We want to be clear that local employment generation through the airport and other local employers is vital especially during recession, recovery and growth, provided it is sensibly planned.

The airport expansion, itself subject to separate consultation, across both freight and passenger activities will put enormous pressure on the local road infrastructure, especially the B1013. This runs through the heart of the town centre. It is inevitable that with the potential increase in road usage by lorries and passengers over the next 5 years alone, will place enormous strains on local traffic flows. It will be exacerbated by both daytime and the largely unrestricted night flying opprtunities of the new owners Eddie Stobart. There will be further pressure caused by potential dualing of Cherry Orchard Way.

Of course the expansion of the airport is subject to separate consultation but we are of the opinion that the HAAP must have a viable long-term traffic solution such as a southern / Croach Valley by-pass. The proposals to tinker with lights and other options at Woodlands Road are inadequate and will not in itself provide the infrastructure to support the HAAP options. Southend Road / Main Road, the Spa mini roundabout and the approaching roads are narrow bottlenecks. A radical solution is required backed by major road investmnet to by-pass the town centre whilst balancing conservation needs in the surrounding woodlands and Roach Valley Conservation Zone.

The potential traffic congestion will have a detrimental impact on local retail, community and informal recreation opportunities as detailed in the HAAP and urge that the HAAP, Southend Airport and new Local Development Plan are considered in more detail at the next phase of consultation.

IMAGE
Hockley needs an image to re-generate the "character of place" and culture. Unfortunately, the image of a Spa town would be inappropriate given the recent development adjoining the Spa. Hockley Woods,however, is a jewel in the crown within the Rochford District and serious consideration should be given to expanding public investment to encourage informal recreation and promoting Hockley as the home of one of the UK's most important ancient woodlands. This potential should be explored at the next stage.

Finally, HAAP needs to offer something more for children and young people. At the very least why not resurrect the Hockley Youth Club project as an integral part of the plans?

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

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

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

P23 The main issues should be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development option 3.1 seems most logical, dispensing with Eldon Road industrial site and its associated traffic, consolidating the retail/commercial elements in a central location, while also developing surface car parks for shoppers and commuters and providing greater leisure and recreational areas alongside new residential areas.

Consideration MUST, however, be given at the same time to something better than traffic lights at the present Spa roundabout site. Increased residential areas will see the number of car users increase by 2/3 times the number of houses in an area where existing local roads are already above capacity at certain times of the day.

Alternative road routes around Hockley must be sought to give road users choice in their journeys in the hope that congestion can be lowered on the B1013 through Hockley. Lower Road Hockley must be improved both from safety and also volume of users aspects to make it wider with existing bends eased and with pedestrian/cycle paths made made available. At the same time Plumberow Avenue should be developed properly to provide another through road to Hockley. The latter already has the advantage of traffic lights at the junction with Greensward Lane/Spa Road. These traffic lights should also be amended for a filter right light on the Greensward Lane side heading towards Hockley from the Ashingdon direction. All these roads must be limited to an appropriate speed given the high volume of housing and residents in some of the areas serviced by them.

Local bus services should also be increased in an effort to reduce car usage.

Car Parking:

Not sufficient parking shown on any Option; Railway Parking too far away, will be used by commuters needing the train.

You want a modern shopping centre, free parking? You need people to come to shop and park with ease, what is wrong with multi or underground car park?

Use your forward planning. Don't waste taxpayers money, it's not yours.

Traffic flow:

You haven't done enough in the last five years, not a good track record as a council, what happens to all the businesses and factories in the area?

I have just read the report on the development of the centre of Hockley and found it an interesting read and agree some issues stated in table 1 and believe there is a requirement for improvement in Hockley.

The shopping provision in Hockley village centre I believe is not as good as it once was, and issues highlighted in table 1 represent that are too many take away businesses. I don't think there is a problem with charity shops and have personally used them on many occasions.

I am a 32 year old man and have lived in Hockley all my life and seen many developments over the years. I have a number of concerns associated with the developments proposed in the report on the future impact on the Hockley area. My concerns are as follows:

1. The report continually refers to Hockley as a town. I believe Hockley is still a village and for most residents this remains so. Rayleigh has a population of over 30,000 which reflects its town's status whilst Hockley has less than 8,900 people. Stated in the report on p54, Hockley is not considered to meet the definition of a 'town centre' Retail and Leisure Study 2008.

2. The high amount of residential homes to be built I believe will put even more pressure on already stretched public services. Local schools are at bursting point, Greensward School has very little, if at all, available to build more classrooms. Doctor's surgeries are so busy they only have a limited time to care for patients.

3. Building flats/apartments obviously saves on land but the impacts are more widespread. This increase population again putting more stres on public services and infrastructure. As stated on p16 (2.6.1) there are aprox 15,000 cars a day use Hockley's roads. By increasing the amount of homes this will put even more stress on the roads from the inhabitant's cars.

4. The traffic problem at the Spa roundabout is not solely due to the poor road layout but to too many cars due to a high population coupled with drivers not understanding how to actually use a roundabout. I frequently observe drivers signalling right and continuing straight on. Traffic lights are not the answer to solve the problem. Most of the time the junction is fine except at rush hour due to huge numbers of people using the junction.

5. Stated in the report (p11) the council would look to build larger retail unit. I presume by this statement it would mean a large supermarket chain such as Tesco. By encouraging big multinational companies into the village would spell disaster for the local butchers, greengrocer, and newsagents. Further points to highlight concerning a big supermarket chain would be more traffic from local areas into the centre of the village creating more chaos and stress on local roads. Secondly there are already three big supermarket chains within a short drive of Hockley. Tesco on the A127, ASDA on Rawreth Lane and Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir. There should be encouragement of local business not huge companies with no ties to the area.

6. Nowhere in the report does it state an introduction of cycle paths. Referring back to point 3 and 15,000 cars use the roads would it be a good idea to try and encourage people onto their bikes and maybe reduce the amount of cars. I frequently cycle to work and at times still do not feel safe. I am aware that people travel long distances to work and cycling is not a viable option, but provision should still be there. This could act to encourage people to cycle and reduce traffic.

7. As stated earlier I think Hockley could benefit from development in its shopping area. An increase in housing I feel would be detrimental to the work that is going to put into the area. After studying the tables on pages 41-45 it seems a huge increase in properties being built depending on which option is chosen. I have already stated the stress on local services. With more property being built comes cars. If every dwelling had an average of 2 cars per household that would mean more cars on the road. The table below shows how many more cars could be on the road

Option 1.1
No. of Dwellings 140
No. of cars 180

Option 1.2
No. of Dwellings 114
No. of cars 128

Option 2.1
No. of Dwellings 158
No. of cars 316

Option 2.2
No. of Dwellings 209
No. of cars 418

Option 3.1
No. of Dwellings 157
No. of cars 314

Option 3.2
No. of Dwellings 186
No. of cars 372

8. Under the 6 proposals The Hockley Clinic (area H) would be moved to area L. I understand that health visitors from this unit have already been moved out to Rayleigh, so new mothers and families have to travel to Rayleigh for care, help and advice. What is the point of providing a service of care if they are already in another town? Secondly what is stopping the local authorities of moving health care altogether out of Hockley into a super clinic in Rayleigh? This can be referred back to the point keep stressing of increase in population but limited public services available.

9. Further question are, what is the time scale for this development? With the present climate is this the right time? Stated in point 3.10.3 it will be a long term matter, will the development just simply fade away over time? Will there be a formal meeting for residents of Hockley and the council so we can air our views? Because at present there is not one planned.

Thank you for the time in reading this letter and my viewpoints.

3.9 Transport Options

The most severe problem in Hockley is traffic congestion engendered by its location on the through roads B1013 (the busiest 'B' road in the country) and Greensward Lane/Spa Road. The amount of tinkering with signalling at junctions (proposed in 3.9.4) which has proved not to work very well at the junction of Mount Crescent/Greensward Lane, will improve safety for pedestrians trying to cross a racetrack/ratrun, especially in the rush hour. It's unlikely that the problem will be eliminated by a one-way system incorporating Kilnwood Avenue and Hockley Rise because it doesn't include Spa Road/Greensward Lane. It could be argued that a one-way system involving Websters Way has improved congestion in Rayleigh, but it should also be remembered that much of the volume of traffic carried by the B1013 and Greensward Lane/Spa Road is filtered off towards the A130 north of Rayleigh before reaching the town.

Unless through traffic is diverted away from Hockley and considerable road improvement and/or widening (especially under the railway bridge in Greensward Lane) takes place (this option is not mentioned in the consultation document) the development options will make the congestion much worse in Hockley, especially with the increased numbers of HGVs needed to service proposed new retail outlets and food stores.

There is also a need for dedicated cycle routes for Hockley centre and improved public transport. The latter should certainly be upgraded to match the standard of that of other towns such as Southend, Rayleigh or Wickford if Hockley is to be known as a town instead of a village.

Your leaflet on the Hockley Area Action Plan came as a surprise as we had heard nothing about the proposals beforehand.

My wife and I, residents of Hockley for 33 years, would like to register our disapproval of all the items in the Plan except traffic lights at the Spa roundabout.

I am a resident of Bramerton Road and wish to oppose the proposed Hockley Development Plan. In each of the options there is a proposal to site and build a supermarket on the corner of Spa Road and Bramerton Road and for the parking requirements of the supermarket to be accessed from an entry in Bramerton Road. I am strongly opposed to this idea.

My concern is that Bramerton Road joins Spa Road within 25 metres of the mini roundabout and the inevitable increase in traffic movements going to and from the supermarket car park will create severe congestion both entering and exiting Bramerton Road.

The problem would be further complicated by the number of daily articulated delivery lorries required to supply a large supermarket.

I shudder to think of the situation with as many as 600 extra cars and lorries, (in addition to the many cars and delivery lorries going to the area to the rear of Potters), all entering and exiting Bramerton Road within 25 metres of a major junction. To try and turn right out of Bramerton Road is difficult enough at the best of times and rush hour means a wait of many minutes in order to turn right, reliant on the good nature of other drivers allowing us to exit.

I do not agree with the proposal for traffic lights in place of the mini roundabout at the Spa Junction, this would make it even more difficult to make a right turn exit from Bramerton Road toward Rayleigh because we would be trying to join traffic in a static queue waiting for the change of lights.

I also feel that the proposals will reduce the prices of the properties in the road because of the increase in traffic and the inevitable problems that will occur at the junction.

I do not agree with the proposal of making the exit from Woodlands Road a left turn only, because this would mean that all traffic needing to go toward Southend having to exit the area via Hockley Rise, a junction on a bend on a hill, and already causing congestion in the area during shcool hours. The proposal also means that any traffic wishing to go into Spa Road having to go toward Rayleigh and do U-turn a the mini roundabout at Buckingham Road to come back to the traffic lights to make a left turn, or go to Hockley Rise and turn left then right into Great Eastern or continue to the traffic lights to make a right turn, Carbon footprint comes to mind as well as time wasted.

I do not agree with the proposal to allow restricted right turn from Woodlands Road at certain times of the day, as I think it would create a safety problem with drivers being uncertain of times allowed or not.

I also have concerns about the way the plan has been introduced to the people of Hockley and the effect it will have on the traders many of whom knew nothing of the plan until the informal meeting of residents and shop owners, in this respect I attach further letter of objection which has been formulated on the behalf of me and many other concerned people of Hockley.

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

I am a resident of Hockley and will be affected by any proposals agreed upon in the Hockley Area Action Plan. Please see my comments below, firstly regarding the lack of adequate consultation and participation of stakeholders in this consultation procedure, and secondly regarding my initial objections to the proposals in the Consultation Document. Please note that due to the lack of appropriate notice and consultation, I have not been able to address the questions posed in the Consultation Document. I require an extension to the consultation period of, say, 3 months in order to do this.

Failure to ensure adequate participation of stakeholders:

Inappropriate
The method of consultation is inappropriate. There has been no advertisement of the existence of the Consultation Document in the local press except for a passing reference in an article. I have seen no advertisement on non-council owned public notice boards (churches, shopping areas etc). No council organized public meetings have been held in Hockley - although I am led to understand there have been two meetings (one held at an inappropriate hour in the morning) in other towns in the Rochford area. The vast majority of stakeholders only found out about the Consultation Document due to a private resident's leafleting campaign in the last week or so.

Not from the outset
As I have only very recently discovered the existence of the Consultation Document I do not feel that I have been consulted from the outset of this transaction. The first well-attended meeting on this matter was organized by a private resident and held on Sunday 19 April. The deadline for comments and submissions is 30 April. There is therefore insufficient time to give any meaningful feedback.

Not transparent
Due to the lack of public awareness of the Consultation Document I do not feel that the process has been transparent. Were it not for the private resident's leafleting campaign I would not have been aware of the existence of the Consultation Document in time.

There has also been a failure to give any details of the 'research' quoted in the Consultation Document (i.e "Interactive web-based consultation" and "Placecheck Initiative") or information on where these pieces of research can be inspected.

Not accessible
Even after finding out about the Consultation Document from the private resident's leafleting campaign and learning more at a public meeting on 19 April, I have found it difficult to access the Consultation Document and associated information, as although these are on the Rochford DC website a login is required. I have therefore only been able to access the document by a) divulging personal information to a website, b) making a special trip to the library, or c) contacting the council directly and waiting for the document to arrive in the post. Considering the short timescale already mentioned, the loss of a day or two waiting for the post is critical.

No clear plan
I do not feel that my involvement has been clearly planned for by the council. Due to the failures in the consultation process I do not feel that I have been integral in the process of stakeholder participation in respect of the Consultation Document.

No proportionality of consultation
The contents of the Consultation Document have enormous effects on residents of Hockley and other stakeholders. Demolishing business and residential premises through compulsory purchase orders, large-scale high-density housing, significantly altering the geography of the village by creating a square and creating large car parks on green spaces will affect everyone in the village. I would therefore expect the scale of the awareness raising of the Consultation Document to be much greater, including at the very least a mail-shot to residents and presentations and public meetings at accessible times within Hockley in order to take stakeholders' feedback.

Initial objections to the Hockley Area Action Plan:

Despite the lack of adequate consultation described above, please find my initial comments on the contents of the Consultation Document. Because of the short timescale, I have been unable to address the questions posed in yellow boxes. I request that the council provides a further 3 months in order to have a meaningful consultation on the Consultation Document.

Unsustainable
There is no evidence in the Consultation Document that a Sustainability Appraisal has been taken into account. All plans put forward in the Consultation Document would appear to be manifestly unsustainable for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

Justification and effectiveness

Seeking Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) over peoples' homes and businesses is extremely serious. As a stakeholder in Hockley I do not believe that the village should have the sort of square suggested in the Consultation Document. I do not believe that the Eldon Way estate should be replaced by high-density housing as there are many businesses and amenities serving villagers' needs in the estate. I therefore do not believe that there is any justification for the council retaining the plans for CPOs in the Area Action Plan.

I do not believe that the need for CPOs has been founded on a robust or credible evidence base - the online surveys quoted in the Consultation Document do not warrant the destruction of peoples' homes and businesses. There are certainly alternatives that extra time in consultation will bring to the fore.

Timely progress

The Area Action Plan will run until 2021. If intention to apply for CPOs remains in the final Area Action Plan, residents' and businesses' properties will be effectively blighted until such time as the CPOs are actually granted and enforced by the council. If the Area Action Plan does include CPOs I believe that these should be sought as soon as possible by the council with a long-stop date of, say, 2011 in order to protect the personal interests of those affected.

Sustainable community strategy

As mentioned above, it would not seem that the Consultation Document has had proper (or any) regard to a sustainable community strategy.

In summary, I do not believe that the council has fulfilled its duty to ensure stakeholder participation in the Consultation Document. I would like the council to go through further, meaningful consultation. This aside, I do not believe that the proposals are sustainable, proportionate or justified.

I strongly object to all proposals in the Consultation Document and wish to participate fully in the ongoing process of stakeholder involvement in the planning of an Area Action Plan.

I write in response to the HAAP draft dated January 09.

I live in Hockley Rise and am horrified that one of the proposals of theplan is to close the end of Woodlands Road. If the council is hoping to cause absolute chaos in Hockley Rise/Woodlands Road/Belchamps Road/Westerings Road then it's going in the right direction. This area is a complete no-go at school start and end times and to close one exit would cause complete mayhem each day. We time our comings and goings around those times. New homes have also been built on these roads relentlessly over the years.

Apart from the one meeting for residents which was arranged by a resident I feel that my involvement has not been catered for. These proposals if accepted are going to change the whole tone of Hockley village. We have too many houses already in Hockley for the infrastructure to cope with - look at the lack of dentist's for just one example.

The volume of traffic using Hockley was a cut through from Southend/Rochford and Rayleigh causes enough problems and building more houses really will have horrendous repercussions.

I feel this consultation document has been rushed through and feel I have not been involved enough. The proposals are not suited to a village setting and to demolish businesses and houses to be replaced with high density housing is not suitable for Hockley.

I feel all the proposals in this document will be detrimental to Hockley and would like to be more involved with any future planning of the area via meetings etc.

I write in connection with the proposed plans for the development (or rather total obliteration of Hockley as we know it), and also alteration of use of Woodlands Road, Kilnwood and Hockley Rise.

I have been resident here for 52 years and object most strongly to all suggestions made, and am particularly incensed at how the whole subject has been shrouded in mystery and generally kept from the public. The reason for my objections are all too obvious.

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

FIRSTLY, GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE ACTION PLAN:

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

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

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

Area Action Plan 1.2

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

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


(Page 2 of Plan)

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

(Page 3 of Plan)

1.4 Overview of Area

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2

What do I like about Hockley?

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

What do I dislike about Hockley?

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


2.3 Urban Design

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

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

Legibility/Adaptability/Diversity

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

2.4 Land uses

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

Leisure

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

2.5 Form and structure

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

2.9 Summary of Issues (re street issues, etc)

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

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

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

3.2 Objectives

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

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

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

3.3 Potential Opportunity Sites

3.3.8 Sites L and M

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

3.3.9 Transport

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

3.7 Summary of Options

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

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

Starting at the top - Least damaging through to most damaging

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

3.9 Transport Options

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

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

Station Approach/Spa Road

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

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

3.9.12 Bus Travel

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

3.10.3 Development Issues

Consultation for future development:

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

East of England Plan/Rochford Futures Study

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

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

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

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

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


Eldon Way to remain mainly commercial, light industrial and leisure. Moving Eldon Way businesses to an expanded Southend Airport commercial area off Cherry Orchard Way would be very expensive and create a lot of additional mileage for employees. There is also currently no public transport to this area. Getting additional public transport is not an easy thing as we have discovered with the number 8 evening service. Some redevelopment of the Eldon Estate with shops and flats could be built on the south side backing on to the current shops. This could be in a traffic free area with road access from the front part of Eldon Way. Eldon Way may require a traffic light junction with Spa Road.

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

We do not believe relocating the sorting office is necessary unless the Royal Mail wants to move inside the Eldon Way commercial area. We are concerned that forcing the sorting office to relocate could lead to its closure. If they did want to relocate, the current site would be a good location for additional shops, flats and parking.

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

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

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

The Spa mini roundabout junction needs replacing. Although traffic lights were apparently used here over 40 years ago, traffic lights in use over 40 years ago would not compare with the traffic light computer controlled technology of today. One of the failings with this mini roundabout is that traffic coming from Spa Road is able to hold up the B1013 through traffic from Rayleigh. This could be carefully controlled with modern traffic lights and they would have the added advantage of better pedestrian crossing. Also the junction needs to be widened out with an additional dedicated lane for traffic travelling from the west into Spa Road. We do not believe stopping traffic entering Woodland Road would be beneficial as this would make the already poor situation at the Main Road/Hockley Rise junction even worse.

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

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

Hockley Parish Town Centre Plan Public Consultation

We wish to register our concerns over a proposal in the above plan to close Woodlands Road at its meeting place with Spa Junction. This would mean all residential traffic to the area would have to use Hockley Rise to come and go.

As well as Woodlands Road, Woodland Close, The Spinneys, The Hylands and Tyrells, Hockley Rise also serves Woodpond Avenue, Claybrick Avenue, Wood End, The Westerings, Jubilee Close, Belchamps Way, Highmead and Sunny Road.

The Westerings Primary School traffic is busy twice a day and long queues form blocking Hockley Rise. Parking also takes place in Hockley Rise on a Sunday for Church visitors. Add on emergency services (fire and ambulance) and we would be facing very difficult problems with congestion.

Speaking to residents, there seems to be a consensus not to let Hockley Rise become the lone access for all the above roads and we hope these concerns are taking into account for the public consultation.

We also feel 'traffic lights' at the Spa Junction would not help traffic flow but will lead to a more 'urbanised' Hockley.

Hockley Parish Town Centre Plan Public Consultation

We wish to register our concerns over a proposal in the above plan to close Woodlands Road at its meeting place with Spa Junction. This would mean all residential traffic to the area would have to use Hockley Rise to come and go.

As well as Woodlands Road, Woodland Close, The Spinneys, The Hylands and Tyrells, Hockley Rise also serves Woodpond Avenue, Claybrick Avenue, Wood End, The Westerings, Jubilee Close, Belchamps Way, Highmead and Sunny Road.

The Westerings Primary School traffic is busy twice a day and long queues form blocking Hockley Rise. Parking also takes place in Hockley Rise on a Sunday for Church visitors. Add on emergency services (fire and ambulance) and we would be facing very difficult problems with congestion.

Speaking to residents, there seems to be a consensus not to let Hockley Rise become the lone access for all the above roads and we hope these concerns are taking into account for the public consultation.

We also feel 'traffic lights' at the Spa Junction would not help traffic flow but will lead to a more 'urbanised' Hockley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation

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

One Way traffic system

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

Proposed location of the youth club

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your comments.

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC, including factual errors in the documentation produced, along with reasons why the proposals themselves are failed.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC, including factual errors in the documentation produced, along with reasons why the proposals themselves are failed.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC, including factual errors in the documentation produced, along with reasons why the proposals themselves are failed.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.

Please refer to the attached which lists all concerns with both the process adopted by RDC, including factual errors in the documentation produced, along with reasons why the proposals themselves are failed.

Included in this is the fact that the demands placed upon objectors to either complete on-line (using a system that is very difficult to navigate if you have more than a couple of objections) or to provide individual forms for each objection - although I understand from discussion with your offices that this is not actually necessary.

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

I am writing to object to the proposals contained within the Hockley Area Action Plan.

I have a number of general comments regarding the process, documentation and manner of delivery as well as specific objections and comments and list these as follows:-

Flawed Process of Presentation

1. There has been little notification to the public. Hockley Residents Ass have tried to promote awareness, but RDC appear to have done nothing beyond posting notification on the website and a presentation in Hullbridge! Unless therefore a resident is looking for information you will be unaware of what is actually happening. As such I would view this as a basic dereliction of Council duty - failure to inform and ensure that the interests of residents are looked after. I understand also that this may breach the Freedom of Information Act and RDC's own consultation strategy.

2. The process apparently started with the issue of a questionnaire over a year ago, although residents weren't informed of the purpose or importance of this questionnaire. As such the information received is surely skewed, it is unknown if the original questions themselves were impartial or 'loaded'.

3. The connection of this scheme with other projects in the area, notably the expansion of the airport, is not made clear in spite of the fact that 1.1.1 refers to government document PPS12 (which itself is not provided as an accompaniment making it difficult for anyone without internet access to obtain the necessary information and this document makes clear reference to:-

Every local planning authority should produce a core strategy which includes:
(1) an overall vision which sets out how the area and the places within it should develop;
(2) strategic objectives for the area focussing on the key issues to be addressed;
(3) a delivery strategy for achieving these objectives. This should set out how much development is intended to happen where, when, and by what means it will be delivered. Locations for strategic development should be indicated on a key diagram; and
(4) clear arrangements for managing and monitoring the delivery of the strategy.

Without clear direction it is impossible to understand how or why this is intended to be part of the core strategy. Additionally how have residents been consulted on the overall strategy, because if that is flawed - and certainly the desire to build more homes in a densely populated area demonstrates that it is, the much if not all of the sub-plans such as this are also flawed.

PPS12 also refers to

Period of operation
4.13 The time horizon of the core strategy should be at least 15 years from the date of adoption.

As above there is no clear advices as to where the HAAP fits in the core strategy or where we are in the time horizon. Again the document lacks context.

PPS12 also refers to

Statements of Community Involvement:
An SCI should
Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises.

Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved.

Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

Include details of the LPAs approach to pre-application discussions.

Include the LPAs approach to community involvement in planning obligations (S106 agreements).

Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level.

Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations.

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

These above items from the PPS demonstrate the assistance that should be given to ordinary residents (and others) in the process. It is disingenuous and perhaps even negligent of the council not to include these within the Action Plan. Most people have very little experience of dealing with such documents and it is only at this late stage in the process (given that surveys etc have already been undertaken) that RDC have offered even limited advice. Even having read as much as I can in the past few weeks, I (and I am certainly not alone in this) have very little information regarding:-

The crucial stages in the process;
Whether residents can succeed in resisting or changing any aspect of the proposals
RDC really should explain the steps in simple terms. At the moment we seem to progress from one stage to the next with absolutely no guidance. For instance:-
I understand from information received from other sources in relation to the airport, that unless I head this document as an objection it is merely treated as a comment.
I believe petitions are ignored,
I will need to get my wife to make a separate submission in order for her views to be considered, even though we agree.
The council seems quite happy to tell people how to make positive comments, but far less inclined to advise on how to object - hardly democracy.

PPS12 again

Justification of Core Strategies
4.36 Core strategies must be justifiable: they must be:
Founded on a roust and credible evidence base; and
The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives

As above we cannot be sure that the base is robust and credible or indeed the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives, since we don't know what alternatives were first presented. If this is the first presentation of alternatives, what was the basis for selecting these options and will any ideas arising from the consultation be put forward for further consideration - is there a stage 2 consultation where ideas are put forward, if not again the process is flawed.

4. The document produced glowingly mentions the positive aspects and underplays the negative - surely the document should be impartial and genuinely enable residents to make up their own mind? Plenty of rhetoric about a town square, invigoration of the shopping area, but no mention of what business will be south. At present there is significant speculation in Hockley that an over-large (given the size of the High St and the closeness of their other stores) Tesco will be built, which will surely spell ruination for a number of other shops including the butchers, florist, bakers at least one chemist and possibly even the local landmark store Potters. Or, given Stobart's ties with Tesco are we going to end up with a huge Tesco distribution centre supporting the airport, similar to their Dudley operation?

It is also unclear where the businesses in Eldon Way are expected to move to the tables given no indication of the current area occupied by these businesses, although it would seem apparent that most of the options would mean that there is insufficient room in the High St to house them all. As such this element of the HAAP appears to be designed purely to support the proposals for the Airport. Again disingenuous of RDC in relation to the HAAP (and Southend BC not to make this clear in the JAAP that a proportion of jobs at the Airport sites will actually be moved from Hockley).

5. The document itself is deficient and typographically and factually incorrect at least in the following areas:-

a) Typo's i) pg 47 3.9.7 is headed Southend Road, although the underlying paragraph refers to Spa Road
ii) pg 22 form and structure - 'do little to little' is nonsensical

b) The train running times referred to are solely to Southend. They are obviously much more frequent than every 20 minutes in the evening peak weekdays otherwise the commuters from Hockley would never get home.

c) pg 20 2.8.1 refers to seating only being provided on the Eastbound platform, when in fact there are two benches on the Westbound platform (although anyone producing this report using Google earth wouldn't be able to see them as they are located under the canopy). There is also a waiting area on that side, but this may not always be open.

d) pg 20 2.8.4 A taxi bay (not rank) is also provided outside Somerfield and another in Bramerton Road.

e) pg 14 2.5.3 Should the community uses listed as being in Main Road not actually be shown as Southend Road?

Additionally there is a lack of documentary evidence to back up unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided to support such statements then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made by RDC that the comments within the HAAP are withdrawn.

6. The document itself concentrates on one area of Hockley and ignores both the shops (and currently empty units including the Wood Yard) further along north side of Main Road opposite the Baptist Church. The Foundry Trading Estate (although circled on pg 13 is not mentioned as such and is at the moment a separate area from Eldon Way). Both these are surely crucial to any redevelopment plan as they are the first retail impression that any visitor by road via Rayleigh and any visitor by rail will have of the town.

Additionally surely this represents an opportunity, if CPO's are being bandied about, for RDC to rectify their own planning department's historic failure to spot changes of use in nearby residential areas.

7. The council is geared very much to receiving information via the internet, whilst undoubtedly this is cost effective, it is unfair on those residents that do not have internet access, particularly the elderly who make up a significant proportion of the population in the area. It is doubtful therefore that the views obtained will actually be representative of Hockley residents.

Additionally the representation for states that each objection/comment requires completion of a separate form. Clearly this is actually designed to put people off commenting. Although I understand from a telephone conversation with RDC planning department that the council will accept one form with clearly listed comments, I would have to question whether RDC can actually determine what form objections may take. Again the process appears flawed, as this is biased towards acceptance of HAAP. At best this builds mistrust between residents and the council as to motive.

8. Perhaps also the council treat Hockley as a Town rather than, as residents do, a village means that it fits better to RDC's plans. Yet there is no confirmation that Hockley is a town. Under PPS6 the following is stated:-

Pg 30 Table 1: Types of Centre and their main characteristics
City centres are the highest level of centre identified in development plans. In terms of hierarchies, they will often be a regional centre and will serve a wide catchment. The centre may be very large, embracing a wide range of activities and may be distinguished by areas which may perform different functions. Planning for the future of such areas can be achieved successfully through the use of area action plans, with masterplans or development briefs for particular sites.
In London the 'international' and 'metropolitan' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of city centres. Town centres will usually be the second level of centres after city centres and, in many cases, they will be the principal centre or centres in a local authority's area. In rural areas they are likely to be market towns and other centres of similar size and role which function as important service centres, providing a range of facilities and services for extensive rural catchment areas. In planning the future of town centres, local planning authorities should consider the function of different parts of the centre and how these contribute to its overall vitality and viability.
In London the 'major' and many of the 'district' centres identified in the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy typically perform the role of town centres.
District centres will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.
Local centres include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette. In rural areas, large villages may perform the role of a local centre.
Foot note to Table 1:
(1) Small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance are not regarded as centres for purposes of this policy statement.

As the HAAP admits using these definitions it is extremely doubtful that Hockley is actually a town since, amongst other things it does not serve an 'extensive rural area'. How and why have RDC arrived at the conclusion that Hockley is a town? Should it actually be considered a 'local centre'?

9. Rochford Council's own Leisure document refers to Rochford being the 'Green Gateway', clearly there is a desire to put a wall up given the amount of building that has occurred in the West of the District - this needs to stop. The local infrastructure cannot cope:-

Main Road is a hugely busy road already - HAAP refers to 15,000+ vehicles back in 2007 and significant building has taken place since then. If the Airport expansion takes place and RDC regretfully support this also then further transport issues will arise.

The number of Secondary schools in the catchment area has reduced since Park School was built on.

Rochford has lost it's Hospital since that too was built on and Southend Hospital cannot cope with the parking requirements (it won't even have enough spaces when the new car park opens), let alone patients.

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

The proposal to build in Hockley also means that further residential properties are going to be built under an increasingly busy flight path from the airport development. It seems also that the railway line is to be expanded. Surely meaning that new properties will be an unattractive purchase and therefore raising the possibility that properties will remain unsold (there are several such properties already in the area - e.g. corner of Folly Lane).

It takes no account of other building projects in the immediate area e.g. Folly Lane/Church Road, in filling in Main Road, as well as future proposals in Hawkwell, all of which will put further strain on stretched resources.

Excessive and needless waste will be generated by redeveloping perfectly functional sites. This is surely contrary to RDC's requirements to reduce waste. Even allowing for recycling, the new properties will also increase the amount of waste generated in the area, putting further pressure on disposal methods.

Additional houses and traffic in the area will also increase air pollution, harming not only the general environment, but more specifically the ancient woodlands in the immediate vicinity, including Hockley Woods. The will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Airport. Again this is contrary to RDC's resolve to reduce pollution, improve the environment etc.

10. No explanation has been given as to why RDC support Government policy (I have asked my local councillors and MP to explain this apparent anomaly) there seems to be no desire to protect the quality of life enjoyed by residents, certainly Hockley has previously shown (in Government statistics) to be one of the least deprived areas of the country, yet the proposals seem to treat it as though it is one of the most deprived - is this wishful thinking on the part of the compiler?

11. The document uses a photograph of Potters, a well respected and long established local business the proprietor of which is very active in the Hockley area. This may give the impression to residents that Potters endorse the proposals put forward in the report. I would suggest that this is misleading.

12. RDC imply from action in relation to the airport that a lack of objection constitutes acceptance. Again this is undemocratic especially if individuals are unaware of the process or even the existence of the proposals.

13. RDC give no explanation as to what controls they will actually have over the development (beyond CPO's). It seems many council's are unable to refuse the commercial organisations involved in projects (e.g. McDonald's) when they decide to build, with the seeming involvement of both Stobarts and Tesco what power do RDC actually have?

Specific Areas of the Report

1.2.2 - Accounting for the following comments from RDC's own visitor guide:-

Hockley is an attractive residential area that is set amongst some of the most beautiful countryside in the Rochford District

And

Hockley of today is a small thriving town, with a village community feel.

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

1.2.3 - I would reiterate why is there support for building additional homes in over-populated areas such as this? Your own documents state that homes should be built to the East.

1.2.4 - It would probably be difficult to find an area in a recession which doesn't require some aspect of regeneration - the analysis and consultation was at least in part undertaken without participants knowing what the purpose of questioning was. How can you answer a question if you don't actually know what the question is? As such this reasoning is flawed.

1.2.5 - Place of Choice to:-
Live - I'm a lifelong resident of Rochford District, but I wouldn't choose to live in, as Hockley is increasingly becoming, an over-populated/congested area (many other residents moved from London just to avoid that). I chose to move from Rayleigh to Hockley because it is a quiet almost rural environment, with good commuter links and basic infrastructure. With this development and the airport it is now going to be noisy, unpleasant, overcrowded and somewhere I'd want to move from (although I probably won't be able to afford to as house prices will decline), socially and environmentally the area is therefore likely to decline.

Work - as with many residents I commute from the district to work and I bring money back into the area. The town supports many of my needs as they stand and most of my spending takes place within Rochford area. No account is made of the fact that many people live and work in completely different areas.

Visit - as it becomes increasingly congested and the character of the area is systematically destroyed there would be no reason for anyone to visit.

1.3 - the only paragraph that offers any clue as to the process, far too brief and ineffectual.

1.4.1 - Reiterate crucial areas omitted - Foundry In Est and empty shops in Main Road opposite Baptist Church.

1.4.2 - In the current economic climate and with an increasing amount of internet shopping Hockley High Street is probably punching above its weight - how dies it compare with Rochford or Rayleigh in terms of spend per head of population? It should be accepted (and is later in the HAAP) that Hockley will never (and shouldn't really try to) compete with Southend or Basildon and, is unlikely to ever attract more than an isolated High St name.

This shouldn't necessary be seen, as the report implies, as a bad thing since it increases choice. Hockley has managed to maintain a variety of shops (including the increasing rarity of an independent Hardware Store, Potters, as well as both a Butchers and Bakers). It is within easy reach of major shopping centres, if you need High St names go to a large town or major shopping centre. This is in spite of lack of support over business rates etc and RDC's own policy on pavement displays.

As an aside the Alldays the only place to purchase a lottery ticket and this undoubtedly attracted a good proportion of its trade as it was under-used and could not compete with Somerfield. This surely demonstrates that there I really only room for one general store in the town.

1.4.3 - Why do we need 'gateway features'? Again this is an unexplained premise surely the fact that the area has developed over time actually makes it more interesting - this area is not a major shopping centre. It support the basic needs of the residents relatively successfully. It has insufficient parking and transport infrastructure and too much local competition from major shopping towns and superstores to support anything more.

1.4.5 - How can you make 'more use of land' it's either used or it isn't and why do you want mixed use? I don't know many people that want to live on an industrial estate where early starts and late finishes rather ruin the opportunity to sleep. Fast asleep 8am Saturday morning and the roller shutter of the factory next door is raised - must be a great feeling.

Economic opportunities for local people - is really depended upon the general economy of the UK, what is the unemployment rate for Hockley? As stated many people work outside the district - there is a significant amount of commuting and the jobs provided in Hockley are probably sufficient for local needs - indeed many local business in more prosperous times have actually found it difficult to recruit.

The quality of life for local people cannot be improved with increased congestion from over development - and lets not forget the plans for the airport that will undoubtedly exacerbate matters.

1.4.6 - The need to travel is rather dependent upon who you work for. I suppose if Tesco's eventually get to build on every High St in the land no-one will have any need to travel to the shops. Aside from them most other named retail outlets will base their decision to open a shop on where they can maximise returns, it is always doubtful that Hockley would be sufficiently attractive to big names that tend to congregate together.

Report Bullets

High quality - not if over developed
Enhanced Retail - limited opportunity and this should be accepted
Town Centre Living - why? This isn't really a town environment
Public Space - why? What provisions are there to prevent anti-social behaviour that has previously caused issues in the town?
Improved connectivity - again may exacerbate anti-social behaviour issues
Redevelopment - can see no reason to include residential in this
Green Landscaping - may work, but consider road/pavement alteration improvements.

2.1.1 - Consultation appears to have been very selective and obviously represents the views of a chosen few - RDC have not previously made this clear and I would argue therefore that the process is flawed.

2.2.1 - Much of the information here appears out of date and I would comment as follows:-

Parking regs - agree that they should be enforced if they are there, but why provide free parking so far from the town centre if the desire is to improve the retail experience, when the existing car park isn't used because of distance expense?

Litter - this appears to have improved in recent weeks, clearly someone is making an effort and all credit to the chaps picking it up.

Range of shops - as above Hockley cannot be expected to compete with major towns and shopping centres all of which are much larger and have an anchor store e.g. M&S, Tesco's couldn't be considered as a anchor store as it competes on too many levels with independent stores typically of Hockley
A family restaurant, Harrisons, opened in late 2008 opposite the Baptist Church
There is a café and nearby a former café is under conversion to include a wine bar (both Spa Road south side opposite Alldays).

Spa pump house as youth centre - the lack of pavement and crossing facilities in this part of Spa Road would need to be addressed. The area is also very close to sheltered accommodation and there may well be a conflict of interests due to potential disturbance to residents.

CCTV - where - for what purpose? Potentially acceptable, but not as a replacement for proper policing.

Traffic - it would be desirable to improve the traffic situation, this would require extensive testing prior to implementation and it may have to be accepted that the current situation, whilst not ideal is actually the best.

Flats - again each case should be considered on its merits, there is a danger that Hockley could become as congested as say Westcliff or Leigh is too many conversions are permitted.

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

Questions
Dislikes - It should also be considered that whilst people may, for example, dislike the fact there are too many charity shops they can accept that they are there - Rayleigh similarly has a large number. It also appears this question was asked before redevelopment of the Spa Public House (which once again resembles a suitable focal point) or the opening of Harrisons restaurant.

Improvements question also appears to have no context. Is this 'pie in the sky/brainstorming session' or actually a serious attempt to consider all aspect if something can be done - who really wants a Toll Road? Why is this answer even listed or are we given the sum total of the answers provided (in which case they were either a group of people who lacked imagination or weren't given a clue to why the question was being asked or insufficient in numbers?

2.3.1 - Undertaken a survey - what/where with whom?

Why do we need to rely on a Government document to tell us how to design the urban space? Hockley has managed well enough since the Doomsday Book, far longer than the Government. Each area is surely unique and should be treated as such a 'one-size fits all approach' rarely succeeds will result in every town looking like another.

2.3.4 Character - traffic routes are increasingly busy and unsuitable to sustain further development. The disjointed look of the Spa area is because of RDC's development strategy of the 60's and 70's when they had little regard for historic premises and systematically destroyed the surrounding urban areas including Hockley and Rayleigh, whilst maintaining buildings in Rochford itself. Whilst it might be acceptable to redevelop newer buildings it would be a tragedy to lose some of the older properties and the road sign (which is one of the last pre-war signs remaining in-situ in the country and appearing on RDC's Tourism guide.)

Continuity - as above. The height of the buildings to the south is probably governed by the aspect, any higher and Spa Road would actually be in shade for long periods of the year. The building line is not actually badly defined on the south side the exception really being the unit housing the Shoe retailer/repairs, Hockley Electricals and the Hairdressers. Whilst on the opposite side only Somerfield sits back form the line, although their canopy, under which the trolleys and some merchandise is displayed when the shop is open, does pretty much follow the line.

Public Realm - this could be improved, but may actually be better achieved if the road were moved north, widening the pavement to the south.

East of movement - could be improved.

Legibility - why does it have to be defined, it has developed over a number of years and is, barring some tweaks fit for purpose? How many towns have 'clues as to historic role and development' - what is the purpose of this part of the report?
What are 'Gateway Features' are they required and why?

Adaptability - again surely Hockley has adapted? Why does the centre need to be enhanced (I read this to mean expanded).

Diversity - How much more diverse can we expect a place the size of Hockley to be?

2.4.1 - Pay and display car park - this is important as withdrawal of free parking by local authorities has led to increased use of 'out of town' shopping centres offering free facilities.

2.4.2 - As stated above the single storey units on the south side are aesthetically practical to prevent much of the High St being devoid of sunlight. There is a larger single storey unit on the North side currently unoccupied (Alldays) that doesn't appear to have generated that much interest. Although it is understood now to be owned by Tesco's who have a track record of buying retail sites and not using them (I believe it owns over 80% of undeveloped retail sites in UK and has recently succeeded in preventing a competition test being adopted in planning cases). Will RDC invoke a CPO against Tesco's if it is realised that another supermarket is not required?

2.4.3 - Any opportunity to increase access needs to be seriously considered against the prospect of anti-social behaviour and ease of escape! Hockley has office space at the junction of the Woodlands and Southend Roads and at Foundry Ind Est both to let!

2.5.2 - the width of Spa Road may actually increase the 'retail circuit' - I take this to mean the length of a shopping trip (it is an undefined term and not used in PPS6) - as pavements are wide enough to move freely, rather than say the narrow pavements of Rochford which are a nightmare with small children.

2.5.3 - Eldon Way was built as Trading Estate geared to light industrial use and it would have been deliberately kept separate from the High St as integration with industrial use is detrimental to the retail experience. However recent developments within Eldon Way notable CJ's bowling and Monkey Business mean that there are now leisure facilities on the Estate that would probably be beneficial to the retail experience. The reference to Community uses is surely Southend Road by this time not Main Road - Library etc.

2.6.1 - relatively busy is an understatement, the figures are now over 18 months old and there has only been the addition of properties in the region, with considerable in filling along the road to Rayleigh and building in Plumberow Avenue amongst others. Vacant flats remain on the corner of Folly Lane, new buildings along Main Road remain unsold and there are new properties currently being built on the site of the old mushroom farm in Folly Lane. Additionally we can also expect further in filling to take place. Plans also exist for a number of properties to be built in Hawkwell; Hockley Bowls Club is continually approached to sell to a developer; the owners of the Christmas Tree Farm in Hawkwell are believed to be planning to request development as this has to be considered a 'brownfield site' under existing legislation. I could go on, but it is clear that this road is already under considerable and increasing strain. Large scale development in the centre of Hockley is of major concern, particularly as any future development of the airport will undoubtedly see a further increase in traffic, including HGV's as Main Road becomes a 'rat-run' from A130 and A127. Yet it appears RDC have undertaken no research in this field (at least not that they've made public) and the plans take no account of other developments. Perhaps RDC are once again contemplating revisiting old plans to include a by-pass through Hullbridge and/or Rayleigh, although I sincerely hope not.

2.6.2 - No mention is made of the railway bridge which brings in a height restriction on vehicles.

2.6.4 - Is one Thursday representative of usage? It also doesn't state which January - 2009 in a recession?
There is no mention of parking available for customers at Somerfield and, as was, Alldays (which is currently being utilised as free parking by residents). Customer parking is also provided on the opposite side of the road by the Factory shop and also the Indian Restaurant, although the report states that these are free bays I believe that both are actually for customers only. Further, parking is available, for customers of Potters and other shops along Main Road, via Bramerton Road, which is itself often used for free parking by residents. Also Walters and Stanton have their own parking facilities (as does the parade by the wood yard). There is no mention here of the number street parking bays available on the south side of Spa Road, although they are shown as 'critical' in 2.6.5. This part of the report is deficient.

2.7.1 - Traffic speeds should be low, however, given the width of road (it widens again in the shopping area especially if parking bays are not being utilised) and lack of pavement there is actually a tendency for drivers to speed in the area from the railway station to the Spa roundabout and again to the Buckingham Road roundabout, particularly if roads are relatively clear.
Why is the roundabout approach at the station seen as poor entrance? It actually succeeds in slowing traffic for pedestrian access; the main problem is that too many people use it as a waiting point and park around it.

2.8.1 - Factual mistakes and omissions are mentioned earlier herein. Also noted that no mention is made of the proposal to run further passenger services to Rochford Airport (or whether this will collect passengers at Hockley). Additionally not clear if Stobarts will be running a freight service through Hockley (either by road or rail). Any rail freight will result in rail passenger services being in the long term to accommodate Stobarts needs and journey times (already longer to London than when the railway first arrived) will be lengthened once more. Speculation exists that Stobarts (who are undertaking work all along this line are planning to put in extra track to accommodate their (mainly freight) needs at the airport.

2.8.3 - It should be mentioned that there have been attempts to cut the service recently. The bus service has been cut back and routes altered continually since deregulation in the 1980's, when a service to Rayleigh every 15 minutes was achieved (alternate 7/8). Cutting back on bus services has been a factor in the increased usage of cars notably to pick up rail commuters, a number of whom will be dropped and/or collected for very short journeys e.g. to the Betts Farm estate. A more regular service engaging the Station might cut back on these journeys.

2.9.1 - Uses
Poor range - market forces have addressed some of these needs already e.g. Harrison restaurant. The range is pretty good for the area and HAAP is again misleading.
Employment area - is the HAAP presumably trying to say we should build houses here? Not sure how desirable such properties would be, but the main issue would have to be that the number of properties suggested is way beyond what the town can take. The infrastructure is inadequate to support extensive building - in order to travel West (and there is very little to the East of Hockley) the owners of new houses would have to access main road, (already 15,000 plus vehicles a day at Sept 2007 according to this very document). 200 houses would easily add another 400 journeys to this figure (one car each there and back). Redevelopment of the airport will also lead to increased journeys on this road as people and freight traffic seeks a short cut to the airport.
The amount of new houses is alarming, given that the GP's have closed their books to additional patients, as have NHS dentists, most of the schools are full and there are now only 3 secondary schools in Rayleigh and Hockley, Park school having been turned into a housing estate and supermarket. Rochford Hospital too suffering a similar fate at the hands of developers, leaving Southend unable to cope! Seems the entire infrastructure is being removed to build houses, the occupants of which have no direct access to the required infrastructure and RDC want to add to this.

Form and Structure
The impression is given that the buildings are a jumble. The building line is very strong on the north side (as explained earlier only the end store, Somerfield, sits back and the canopy follows the building line and is utilised below), whilst on the south side a number of shops sit in the same terrace. Is it necessary for them to be enclosed? At best the report is unclear in what it expects at worst it is misleading.
An inefficient use of land has probably occurred as the High St evolved - and these properties now represent historic buildings and should be treated as such. It might be a better idea if the council encouraged the owners to try and give them a more original and character feel/look, rather than incongruous the modern signage now employed?
The omission of other areas of commercial premises especially the empty premises further up Main Road is a glaring omission.

Other themes
No consideration is given in the report to illegal use of disabled parking bays and parking on double yellow lines particularly around Bramerton Road, rectification of which could improve the shopping experience. Nor to double parking by buses at the bus bay (mentioned above) which itself also gives poor sight lines for drivers exiting car parks behind Alldays and Somerfield on the north side when buses are parked in and around the bay. The Alldays car park is also a problem with single lane access/exit across the pavement; it is also directly adjacent to the Somerfield entrance/exit meaning that pedestrians have to negotiate 3 lanes of traffic in order to cross. This could be altered to improve the shopping/driving experience.

3.1.1 - where did this come from? How was it decided and why, it appears to be pure jargon.

3.2.1 - How and why have these objectives been arrived at? Shouldn't objectives be Specific; Measureable; Achievable; Realistic and Timebound (SMART)? These statements are in the main non-specific and certainly not measurable and not necessarily achievable, realistic or timebound
Can we be sure that Tesco's would actually improve the quality and the offer? They would surely result in closure and loss of variety.
What sort of mix?
A new square, we didn't have an old one and surely this really does constitute and inefficient use of space? It will also be to the detriment of shops on the opposite side. Rochford Town square works because you can walk around it; this is not achievable in Hockley. How many new homes?

3.2.2
It is difficult to see how much more concentrated the shopping area in Hockley could be. There are a couple of premises along Spa Road by Station Approach and those on Main Road, every other premises is commercial. The implication of 'well designed and maintained' and 'higher quality materials' is that whole scale demolition is proposed irrespective of the feelings of residents/consultation process, including of historic premises.

3.2.3
Eldon Way is not accessible from the Station - it is a separate industrial estate to the Foundry. It is possible that the residential development around the station could be continued, but this would mean moving the Foundry BP (not to the airport, but keeping the jobs within Hockley, in line with RDC's own requirements) and unused premises in and around Eldon Way and the High St would be a natural choice. This would mean that the unused land next to the railway line could be utilised and a clear distinction between residential and commercial is provided rather than a cluttered mix that this report proposes. One can only assume that the report seeks to do this as a long term measure so that as businesses fail or relocate (or are encouraged to relocate to the new airport development) applications can be made to convert commercial to residential and RDC miraculously meet their housing target and brownfield site conversion requirements. This particular aspect of the report is abhorrent.
The proposal to concentrate the Health facilities is not a bad suggestion. It may have the added benefit of making more traffic turn right at the Spa roundabout into Woodlands Road, which is one reason why this roundabout fails to function properly.



3.3.2

Mixed use hub - this should be explained. The need for a new food store is unlikely, as the failure of Alldays demonstrates that two food offerings are not viable, so would result in the loss of one store for another. Hockley is close enough to the large scale supermarkets of Tesco on A127, Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir as well as smaller stores such as Asda on the old Park School site in Rayleigh. It is also easy to obtain home delivery these days.

3.3.3

Why relocate the Royal Mail Depot and then mix use? If you are going to have mixed use may as well keep it where it is. It might make sense to relocate and convert to housing given that there are houses opposite and adjacent to the site.

3.3.5

Report is misleading D is already largely leisure (and all very recent openings) and the leisure sites should be shown as such. Relocation of these sites which offer recreational usage for children and adults should be strongly resisted.

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

K is difficult to find on the map, appears to be extension to Potters to Charlie Wong's Spa Road to corner of Bramerton Road. Refurbishment is possible, but redevelopment and use as residential implies demolition of established businesses (leading to additional costs and/or uncertainty for them especially at a time of recession), surely undesirable. These premises fail to benefit from adequate crossing facilities in the region of Bramerton Road.

3.3.8/9

Agree there is opportunity to improve this area (which also importantly includes public conveniences, crucial in a town with an aging population). I would have a concern as to the reference to 'exposed backs' the implication again is wholesale demolition. The proposals for site N also infer demolition and this includes again established businesses.

A by product of improving this area and making it a hub is that it could actually improve traffic flow at the Spa Roundabout. One reason why the Spa fails to perform well is that too few vehicles turn into Woodside Road. Additionally the roundabout itself is too small and many drivers don't understand the difference between the 'stop' and 'give way' road markings, some even fail to comprehend the concept of a roundabout when confronted with a mini-version.

3.3.10

Any improvements to the public realm should be considered as a whole, there are many seats and benches provided and they are utilised by residents.

3.3.11

It is unlikely that town centre users would park so far away from the shops, even though the proposal really seems to be centring on moving the High St north of its current site. At present the Car Park in Southend Road is too far from the shopping area (and too expensive - consider Hadleigh a comparable size shopping area is now removing weekend charging). Hence the reason why many people use Bramerton and shops own free parking facilities.

Additionally, movement of the shopping facilities northwards would in effect mean that through traffic using the Southend Road would not even be aware of the existence of shopping centre and those using Spa Road would be tempted to drive through without stopping.

If further residential development is considered, the station area does make more sense, but traffic volumes and junction issues are mentioned here and in your own report.

I have a preference to open the Alldays and Somerfield sites and part of Eldon Way to a parking area and provide limited access to the leisure facilities in Eldon Way. Care needs to be taken over whether this is vehicular access (including or excluding lorries) or pedestrian only. There has been a past need to combat anti-social behaviour (especially between local youths from other areas, notably Rochford) and measures will need to be put in place in order to prevent a resurgence of this.

3.4.3/4/5

There is no explanation as to why a town square is needed. It is an inefficient use of space. Similarly the introduction of a second supermarket would undoubtedly mean the closure of a number of other shops in Hockley (and thus a reduction in consumer choice and employment opportunities) and, probably after some time the loss of the existing supermarket as it is unlikely (even if extra building were approved the town could support two supermarkets. A preferable option would be to open B and/or C as free car parking for the town centre and the Eldon Way Estate, but retain existing businesses where possible. Units that have a retail or leisure slant should be encouraged to move to this area and the rest of the Estate left as light industrial.

The road lay-out on the Estate could also be altered - consider one way - this would also free land space?

3.4.6

More details are required of these proposals; this doesn't seem to be much different from what the premises are now?

3.4.7

Why is a car park that is currently under-utilised according to this report being extended? Shouldn't improvements to the public transport offering be considered to reduce car park usage further?

3.4.8

Perhaps the local councils will stop spending money in this area until the decision is made? Residential at H is possible if the Health Centre moves to L1 and the parking suggestion above can be accommodated.

3.5.1 -5

The option here is unacceptable. Wholesale destruction of the town centre and Eldon Way is not viable.

What is RDC's retention plan for these businesses, it is a known fact in insurance that almost half the businesses suffering a loss through fire cease to reopen and of those that do 33% fail to survive more than 3 years. What plans do RDC have to prevent enforced change sending these businesses under - it seems a huge gamble at a time of recession, something which Local Authorities are not permitted to take?

The proposal that all the units in Eldon Way could be accommodated in A1/2/3 is laughable. One of the current uses is a bowling alley and another a children's play area there would barely be room for these let alone any other business. So the proposal 2.2 to demolish the whole estate and replace with housing is not viable in accordance with the Employment Land Study (which requires commercial opportunities in the town centre). Clearly changes would provide insufficient space in the High St and commercial enterprises would be forced out of Hockley, perhaps fitting RDC's wider requirement to support the airport? This contravenes the stated objectives of HAAP (amongst other things).

Extensive house building is also unacceptable given the traffic issues. There are further issues regarding water supply and drainage (with the main at the junction of Eldon Way/Spa Road have ruptured 3 times this winter) and previous problems having occurred outside Somerfield. Currently the Betts Farm Estate, which this new development would actually be adjacent to, experiences problems with drainage/sewerage that could only be exacerbated by further house building in Eldon Way. I would also ask what provisions are proposed to combat loss of water in run off.
Alternatively is the area actually suitable for further houses - Hockley historically is Marshland is too much water actually now running off affecting the subsoil?

3.5.6

I would be concerned that any link to the station would increase anti-social behaviour, from early evening the station is a meeting point of local (and not so local) youths and it is not unreasonable to assume that any new link would increase the likelihood of them to move in a circle between the station and the town. What provisions are there in this plan to increase policing and prevent 'low level' crime?

3.5.7

The use of CPO's here is really unacceptable. Trading businesses and residents do not need the spectre of a CPO hanging over them. For businesses this actually impacts upon their viability as a trading concern (I'm not dealing with you I don't know if you'll be here next year).

3.6.2 - Options:

3.1 The introduction of a village green as a centre, excuse my sarcasm but 3 points:-

a) Interesting to note it would be considered a village green!
b) Aren't village green's usually located at the centre rather than on an odd piece of land a bit to the north that you can't actually see from the main road through the town?
c) Not exactly the optimal use of precious land is it?

3.2 The area is already commercial/leisure/retail and minimal residential, this option is really just the introduction of excessive additional residential.

3.6.4

Is underground car parking viable in Hockley given the nature of the land (marsh etc) and the amount of run-off likely?

3.7

None of the options are appealing. Small aspects make sense though:-

a) Redevelopment of the 'community hub' in Southend Road (please consider that the public conveniences should remain somewhere in the town) including the Health Centre currently in Eldon Way.

b) Investigation as to whether the traffic situation at Spa roundabout can be improved - it may have to be accepted that the existing situation is the best (the redevelopment of a) above may improve traffic flow with more vehicles using Woodlands Road), this is a busy road and if only for environmental reason traffic flow could be better.

c) Apartment dwellers still have cars and the issue of parking facilities and access is not addressed

3.8.1

Where does the option for four storey developments come in? There are no four storey developments in the region covered (with the possible exception of a small upper storey to upholsterers in the Foundry BP, although I suspect that this may be part of a fire escape). Any 3 storey residential properties have the 3rd storey built into the roof void. Any change to this creates a dangerous precedent and is not in keeping with the existing pattern. The only 3 storey commercial premises are two office buildings; a new one at the Foundry BP (which looks like the adjacent flats and, at a push lends itself to conversion to such) and the other at the Spa junction in Southend Road, which will possibly be demolished as part of the proposed redevelopment in that area?

3.8.2

Wider benefits - how can this comment be included without explanation? Another shortfall of the reporting process vague and washy statements designed to cont he unsuspecting into believing that this is a good idea. There is no documentary evidence to back up these unsubstantiated statements and this undermines the integrity of the HAAP. If documentary evidence can be provided then an amendment should be issued, if not a statement made that the comments are withdrawn.

3.8.4

The tables are hopeless giving only an indication of what the new development brings. There needs to be an indication of what currently exists in order to gauge expansion/restriction.

Notwithstanding this the options for housing appear also to be somewhat restrictive - between 114 and 209 extra units (always assuming that developers keep to original plans) a figure far in excess of the infrastructure resources the area has to offer in terms of transport, healthcare, education, policing etc.

3.9 I rather suspect that the need for road improvements has more to do with airport expansion than any desire to improve the road for residents; nonetheless I agree that improvements should be considered.

3.9.2

What is the associated hostility? This is an open term and has no meaning, why would it result in buildings being set back?

No mention is made of the pre-war road sign, which is also a landmark (this sign is even included on the front of RDC's own tourism brochure!) or the recently improved war memorial site.

3.9.3

A signalised junction is a possibility, however this should be trialled first and may actually fail (Rayleigh Weir for example invariably works better as a roundabout when the lights are out than when they are working).

3.9.4

Quality crossing facilities would make the junction an 'interesting and pleasant place to be' - I clearly, really must get out more. What is the justification for including the vacuous statement - it may make the junction more practical not interesting and pleasant. Of course it may not and a detailed trialled study needs to be undertaken.

As stated previously the following may actually improve traffic flows:-

1. the redevelopment of the community hub - making more traffic use Woodlands Road,
2. widening of the roundabout
3. alteration of the angle of Spa Road to make the junction more of a crossroads (and widening the pavement to the south side)
4. introduction of a crossing by Bramerton Road

3.9.5

No consideration is given to the 'law of unexpected consequences' e.g. restricting traffic to left turn only from Woodside Road (especially post redevelopment of the 'community hub') could mean that drivers will seek to undertake u-turns at either Walters & Stanton or the Main Road/Buckingham Road roundabout, actually adding to congestion.

Use of Hockley Rise should be similarly discouraged as the exit is on the brow of a hill with poor sight lines to the west (following the decision to allow flats to be built there). Drivers wishing to access Spa Road especially for Station and Greensward Lane and beyond are thus encouraged to use Great Eastern Road/Station Road and this is named in the proposal as being a poor quality junction.

3.9.6

I cannot see either option shown here being an improvement and the latter will undoubtedly cause confusion.

Who is going to police the timing of closure? I walk past this roundabout twice every weekday and whilst I've seen a few near misses, but I've actually yet to see an accident. At present I would suggest that:-
Speeding drivers,
Drivers without seatbelts,
Drivers who can't use a roundabout,
Drivers on mobile phones
Are all currently ignored so I cannot see a sign working. (Buckingham Road has a narrowing for priority over oncoming traffic which is not adhered to)
The proposed former option may not actually work, as stated above signalling actually tends to delay traffic even more.

3.9.7

Is there enough room to align Spa Road to the north by a few feet to create a small pavement on both sides by Meadow Way, could/should some properties to the north of Spa Road be considered for redevelopment additionally enabling widening of the pavement area? Should a one-way system operate here encompassing Station Approach/Eldon Way to enable widening of pavement and narrowing of road?

3.9.8

What is the bus stop pair (two on same side or opposite each other?) the latter is a poor idea buses rarely park properly (drivers like to chat) and traffic flow is disrupted. It would be better to encourage increase in bus services through to Rayleigh.

A pedestrian crossing could be supplied without the new retail area!

Side road entry treatments - what does this mean? Which roads? Does this just mean the restrictions at Woodlands Road junction or are there other roads being considered?

Indented parking bays - where? Free parking behind High St would be better.

Cycle Racks - already stated that the road is really too busy to encourage cycling. Notwithstanding this it is illegal for bicycles to be ridden on the pavement, but once again this is ignored in Hockley.

3.9.9

If we are considering any ideas then if a road link to Eldon Way from north end of Station Approach is provided then it may be possible to make some aspect of this one way e.g. entry to station via Approach and exit via Eldon Way and one way from Spa Road from Eldon Way to Station Approach. This would enable a pavement to be installed in Spa Road and for buses to directly serve both Eldon Way and the Station, at least in one direction, as well as provide waiting facilities for vehicles in the Approach.

Would a roundabout work better at this site, there is possibly room enough to fit one, although the rail bridge may probe to be a hindrance.

3.10

3.10.1 - A question would also need to be asked that if the market won't deliver are the proposals actually worthwhile? As we've seen with the airport (and nationally with the railways) the market only feels it is worthwhile once taxpayers money is poured in. It would be disappointing and a negligence of council duty if money was poured in and given away to public enterprise with either no degree of control or return (as with the airport).

Pg 53 Employment Land Study - all the propositions go against the policy to protect current employment land and build houses to the East, why?

Pg 54 Retail and Leisure Study - appears to support my assertions above e.g. that Hockley is not a town centre. Has good pedestrian feel and above average trading, although parts of HAAP overlook this.