4.2 SENDING IN YOUR VIEWS

I welcome someone looking at Hockley but the document does not state where funding will come from, when and how long it will take or any changes to the road system for the 200 additional houses in the centre. where will the Industrial area go? Many of the units have changed from industrial to leasure.
The bus service has been cut and there does not appear to be a reaction to this from Parish/District or Councty Councillors. The traffic lights at Plumberow/greensward Lane require a sensor put back in plumberow as traffic has to sit when nothing is coming from Spa Road, at night. Not enough room at lights for right filter lane from Greensward/Plumberow. You cannot make business move into the village unless they feel that they will make a profit so will incentives be offered. Putting traffic lights instead of the roundabout at the Spa junction could back traffic up even more. Where will the sorting Office go? Has the Health authority said that they are keen for the medical centre to close and has the doctors surgery enough room to cope? Parking would be idea than green square which will only be used by new householders.
From memory councillor Hudson stated at the launch that the residents would get a copy of the action plan but I have not received one and only through HRA did I find out about this site.

Interesting that all 6 of the proposals intend using the garden at St Pius X Catholic Church as a walk through. This presents the Church with an opportunity to offer facilities such as a drop in centre, cafe etc and increase our profile. However we have no funds to facilitate this, so would need to come to some arrangement if this part of the project were to go ahead. I would have over 200 angry and vociferous parishioners if there was no benefit to the church. So far the most common comment has been "All the windows will get broken."

A meeting was held last night to discuss the plans, approx 400 people attended every person in attedance objected to the plans.

One of the key reasons people move to Hockley is for it's friendly village atmosphere. We do not need new homes and a large supermarket in Hockley the infrustrucure can not support this - it will kill of local business (example South Woodham Ferrers). It will turn Hockley into a town - which we all object to.

The added retail and housing will result in added trafic as well as a burden for schools and doctors.

Not enough consultation with the stakeholders.Hockley is a village not a concrete jungle.A supermarket on Bramerton road would cause more traffic proplems .Another 200 houses is not a good idea on an already overloaded infrastructure.To support local shops how about a period of free parking. Traffic lights and no right turn into Woodlands Rd would just move the traffic jam to Hockley rise.We have lived in Hockley for 32 years .our children live here, many of the residents know each other. This is the feel of the heart of the community, not just new shops, more traffic and big supermarkets.

The public do not appear to have been notified about the existence of a Hockley Area Action Plan. At a meeting held last Sunday in CJ Bowling it was stated that the vast majority of Traders and Residents knew nothing of the plan. On this point alone I would like to see the consutancy deadline extended to at least the end of October 2009.

Councillors alledgedly say that the plan will not happen for 20 years. Can you confirm this?

100 words is not enough to make a full representation.Constructive comments cannot be made in summary form.

John Bird

I moved to Hockley 3 years ago as I really liked the area I would be very disappointed if the village changed. Also I agree many residents still seem unaware of the proposals. Additional consultation is required!

Re: Consultation plan for Hockley redevelopment of Hockley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The present document (Issues and Options) makes no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts. The Rochford Historic Environment Characterisation (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area, Hockley Town Centre, which is the focus of this consultation.

The HEC document was produced in order to provide planners with an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, impact of potential development and the need for informed conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ) is 30. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the document is one which generally comprises a considerable concentration of pre and post war residential development, replacing dispersed pre-war plotland style settlements. Such extensive development may have impacted upon the survival or disturbed the archaeological resource, which within the modern settlement is limited to a series of Neolithic tools and two post-medieval brickwork sites. Additional Factors such as quarrying associated with brick-making and in particular the former Hockley Brickworks which comprises a significant area of the consultation site, will likely to have had a severe impact upon the archaeological deposits. Equally the low density of evidence may also reflect the lack of archaeological investigation rather than a complete absence of archaeological activity. The mid 19th century attempts to establish a spa at Hockley and the survival of the listed pump room also provide an interesting historic provenance to the area and built character to streetscape along Spa Road.

It is therefore important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

I agree with the comments and reservations made by HPPG and further add that were an additional access road built from the Southend road, behind the Spa road shops, the shop area could be pedestrianised. Thus creating a "centre" for the village. This would make an excellent site for community project of many types.

Also compulsory purchase of the land and shops stretching along the the immediate approach to the Spa public house, (excluding the block by Potters) would give extra housing space. Businesses should be located within the present shopping area.

It is ludicrous that consultation by the council has been limited and only a few residents have been consulted over what the council want to do in Hockley. In my view this is underhand and the council must not carry on this way.

It is equally ludicrous that the idea of a 'landscaped footway link' on the Spa Road church ground had not been broached with those who own the land. Are the council serious when they waffle on (apparently) and say they didn't know who owned the land ?

The council seem to lack empathy for the Hockley village and whilst they say they want to hear of residents concerns it remains that these must then steer any agreed development of Hockley village not be dismissed.

Why do the council interpret 'making improvements' as 'we want supermarkets and large car parks in Hockley' or 'we want to tear down existing buildings to make way for more flats and/or houses'. Yes, there are sensible improvements to be made and I expect these would be welcomed but I do not see why a strategy for development of Hockley village (or any other village for that matter) must be large scale/all or nothing. The village does not need to be anything other than self-sufficient (for want of a better term) and disproportionately disruptive or major changes are not required. A sledgehammer 'solution' is not required.

I believe the softly-softly approach IS possible. This must be the starting point even if making improvements may be a daunting task, if softly-softly is the approach that Hockley residents would like to take why should it not be so?

For what its worth, I have a few suggestions that may fuel a (much needed) brainstorm on the subject:

- Move the library into the old fire station (save £30K on Fire Station running costs)
- Extend the Jones practice onto space vacated by library
- Bring outlying shops (eg beauticians in Southend Road) into Hockley village and allow favourable rates/leases etc to those doing so
- Encourage outlying shops around the area to move into the village existing premises eg Golf-in one (Rayleigh) might be interested in moving
- Shops next to the White Hart pub may be interested in re-locating to the village
- Introduce a covenant to govern the (good) appearance of shops/premises in the village and adopt a 'model village' approach

I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas that have yet to be considered and investigated

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 AREA ACTION PLAN - CONSULTATION ISSUES AND OPTIONS 13.2.09 TO 30.4.09

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

FOREWORD

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

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

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

GENERAL OBJECTION

1. Introduction

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


1.4.2 Overview of Area

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

2.5 FORM/STRUCTURE

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

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

STREET NETWORK

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

3.1 VISION

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

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

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

Sites J & K Successful shops

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

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

DEVELOPMENT OPTION 1.1, 1.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPTIONS 2.1/2.2 AND 3.1 AND 3.2

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

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

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

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

3.8 SCALE

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

3.9 TRANSPORT

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

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

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

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

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

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

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

There is no need for wholesale demolition.

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

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

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

Business rate and rents need to be reduced.

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

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

I have just returned from Holiday so was unable to attend meeting regarding Hockley area Action Plan, and I would certainly like more time to read and digest Action Plan and possible consultation with the Council, so would like you to consider extending the deadline of consultation period to allow for further period to reply to Action Plan and here views of others in Council and C of Trade

all the roads that lead to hockley are inadequate for any more infrastructure ie supermarkets ,houses etc.
Any development should involve local people in a discussion not everyone has internet access.
Any development must improve hockley for its inhabitants not benefit a few individuals or companies
My idea is to surround the proposed town!! centre with a road payed for by the developer and divert Southend bound traffic around it and return up spa road to the spa which would be 2 lanes so greensward road traffic could merge with it and merge again with either rayeigh bound or southend bound traffic woodlands road would be then joining a one section to rayeigh or round the new road to southend or ashingdon as required

Hockley Area Action Plan Consultation Document

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 public 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 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.

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.

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 public 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The only improvements that need to be made to Hockley are as follows:
The roundabout at the Spa Junction to be removed and replaced with traffic lights

Double yellow lines to be placed at major road junctions for 100 metres and 50 metres at other junctions to improve traffic flow.

OTHERWISE LEAVE HOCKLEY ALONE It is a village environment and should not be made into a town, that`s why we have Rayleigh and Southend

1. Lack of consultation for Hockley residents and the fact that no meetings took place in Hockley.
2. I'm against the wholesale destruction of the centre of Hockley.
3. Against too much over development and in particular the high number of dwellings.
4. Concerned about the effect on Hockley by such a development given that the current roads can only just cope.
5. Developing the centre of Hockley using any of the proposed schemes would be to the detriment of the village.

We attended a meeting tonight of Hockley residents, organised by a Hockley resident, regarding Rochford Councils planned redevelopment of the village shopping centre and Eldon Way trading estate. Two-thirds of the 400 people present were totally unaware of any such proposals. We feel that you have failed in your responsibilty as a council to nofity the people of Hockley of these proposed plans and should therefore, at the very least, extend the deadline beyond 30 April 2009 in order to give all Hockley residents time to digest the information and respond accordingly.

I strongly object to all proposals in the consultation document. The proposals appear to be unsustainable and somewhat disjointed. You say you wish to attract more businesses to the area, yet you will drive those that currently exist away with Compulsory Purchase Orders and mass demolition.

The local transport infrastructure and support services (i.e. Doctors, Dentists etc.) are already operating over and above what they should do. These need upgrade / expansion before any major development or redevelopment happens in the area.

None of these issues get a mention with the consultation document. Why?

Hockley Area Action Plan Consultation Document

I am writing to express my concerns related to the above document.
As a resident of Hockley any proposals will have an effect on us, however the consultation of those effected has been poor in the extreme.

I have only recently discovered the existence of this document via fellow residents, there has been plenty of chat, but no firm information from our council. I am amazed that those that are voted in to represent us have not chosen to make these proposals common knowledge. All information has come from a private residents leaflet and a public meeting organized by a private resident.

I have today downloaded all the information related to this proposal, however would suggest that I will need rather more time, than that allowed, to comment. The cut off time of 30/4/09 is unreasonable considering the total lack of notice from the council.

I require an extension to the consultation period in order to make a reasoned comment upon the many issues and proposals raised.

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

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

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

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

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

The method of consultation for the above action plan has not been appropriate. The existence of the Consultation Document has not been advertised in the local press except for a passing reference in an article. I have not seen any advertisement on non-council owned public notice boards, ie churches, shopping areas etc and I am certain there have been no council organized public meetings held in the Hockley area. I understand that there have been two meetings in towns in the Rochford area, but one was held at 7am in the morning and I was led to believe that it was by invitation only.

The vast majority of residents only found out about the Consultation Document when a leafleting campaign was recently carried out by a private resident. A large number of residents attented a meeting to discuss the action plan and in my opinion it became apparent that the consensus was overwhelmingly against a complete re-vamping of the village centre.

With regard to my comments above it is necessary and essential that more time, and I would suggest three months as a minimum, is provided for local residents to have the proper opportunity for consideration of the action plan.

My objection is that this plan has only been known by many Hockley residents, who will be greatly affected by these changes, in the past week or so and we have not had any consultations or any notifications about this previously. So more time is needed and therefore I require an extension to the consultation period.

Dear Mr Francois

I don't know if I'm doing the right thing writing to you about the Hockley Area Action Plan Document whether it is the type of thing you get involved in or are even aware of.

However, as a constituent I am very concerned that this document has only come to my and a lot of other residents notice about 10 days ago, having been brought about by a private resident's leaflet campaign.

The deadline for any objections is 30.4.09, and, not having been made aware of it's existence by any kind of notification feel there is insufficient time to address or digest the proposals contained therein.

I would therefore request that you add some weight to trying to extend the consultation period with Rochford Council, thus enabling us, the residents to fully absorb and understand what is proposed.

Thank you for your time.

I am writing in response to the Hockley Area Action Plan received 23.4.09.

I am a resident of Hockley and will be afected by any proposals agreed in this plan. Having only been aware of it's existence about 10 days ago, have not had enough time to digest and assess how it will affect myself or my family, or to even be objective at such short notice.

How could such an important plan have failed to come to my, or a lot of people's notice?

May I respectfully request an extension of the consultation period for a reasonable time to enable myself and other interested parties to fully address the questions posed in said document.

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

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

Please consider this requrest for an extended period of consultation.

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. 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.

As a resident of Hockley my family and I would be affected by the adverse proposals planned in the Hockley Area Action Plan and would be strongly opposed to many of these changes which will destroy the 'village' as we know it.

Also there has been a lack of adequate consultation in the consultation procedure and Hockley residents need more time to address the questions posed in the consultation document.

Indeed had it not been for the private residents leafletting campaign we would have been unaware of these proposals until too late to register disapproval.

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.