3.10 DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

Hockley residents have parking concerns.The problem could be it is insufficient near Somerfield.An option is to knock Alldays down and combine the space created with the 'Somerfield' car park with landscaping and seating screening to the front. There is also a strip of unused land in Eldon Way between some buildings and the Somerfield/Alldays car park fence.
The Plan lacks any proposals for dealing with more traffic arising from the 'Growth' options. Water and sewage risks should be assessed for Hockley and the'District' given the relative dryness of the location and the increasing demand from more industry and housing.

Sport England considers that when considering community infrastructure provision associated with new development, the approach taken to sport/recreation facility provision should be similar to that taken to education/health facilities. Unless existing facilities have the capacity in to accommodate the additional demand generated by a development of this scale, financial contributions should be secured towards the provision or enhancement of sports facilities both on and off-site, in line with policy on planning obligations for the area. The financial contributions needed to meet the sport/recreation needs of a development of this scale should therefore be considered.

As part of the promotion of good design throughout the AAP area, reference to the incorporation of principles which encourage greater activity amongst users of new development would be a useful addition. Sport England has developed guidance for planners and masterplanners on this issue. Active Design uses three objectives to frame advice on positive design: improving accessibility; enhancing amenity; and increasing awareness. Using the three design objectives, the guidance explores in detail their application to three activity settings:
• Everyday activity destinations (shops, homes, schools workplaces)
• Informal activity and recreation (play areas, parks & gardens)
The full guidance is available at www.sportengland.org/planning_active_design.

We have no reason to object to this AAP however we feel it is important that the document clearly states an intention to deliver high quality sustainable development and therefore offer the following advice for future iterations of this AAP:

Sustainable Development

All new development should seek to achieve the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design. Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency should also be ensured in the redevelopment areas.

Residential development should, at this time, seek to achieve at least a 3 star rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes with higher ratings being encouraged wherever possible. Generally we would encourage a stepped approach equating to a requirement for all developments to achieve at least a 3 star rating up until 2013, at least a 4 star rating until 2016 and a 6 star rating after this date. This is in line with Government objectives as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development".

Non-residential developments should seek sustainability ratings under BREEAM. Wherever possible we would suggest that you specifically seek the highest possible standards for water efficiency, energy efficiency, surface water drainage and waste minimisation.


Sustainable Drainage Systems

All new developments should seek to make space for water through the provision of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in line with Approved Document Part H of the Building Regulations 2000 and Government policy set out in paragraph 8 and Annex F of PPS25, and paragraph 22 of PPS1. These systems seek to mimic natural drainage systems and retain surface water on or near to the site, in contrast to traditional drainage approaches, which tend to pipe water off site as quickly as possible.

SuDS offer significant advantages over conventional piped drainage systems in reducing flood risk by reducing the quantity of surface water run-off from a site and the speed at which it reaches watercourses, promoting groundwater recharge, and improving water quality, ecology/ biodiversity and amenity. The range of SuDS techniques available means that a SuDS approach in some form will be applicable to almost any development.


Biodiversity & Landscaping

Areas identified for landscaping should, wherever possible, be planted with only native species of local provenance. Purely horticultural schemes rarely add to the ecological value of an area, whilst planting species of local provenance provides an opportunity to increase the biodiversity value of an area and also reinforces the character of the local environment, leading to an enhanced quality of life for those living and working in the area.

The provision of multi-functional areas of public open space will assist in the sustainable management of surface water run-off, provide ecological/ biodiversity gain and provide a more natural solution for pollution prevention. A requirement for the provision of green roofs etc will also aid in the management of surface water run-off and can therefore assist in reducing surface water flood risk to developments. It should be noted that both of these measures tie in with the above sections on sustainable development and sustainable drainage.

Some options are highly complex and the 'do-ability' is questionable. Care must be taken not to adversely impact ongoing shopping during redevelopment.

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.

I 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.

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.

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.

Hockley Development Plan.
I have read the Hockley development plan and have the following comments:-
1. TRANSPORT OPTIONS
1.1. The plan does not address the problems of traffic flow for either local people shopping or through traffic between Rayleigh, Ashingdon and Rochford.
1.2. To have a supermarket located in designated areas A1 & A2 with car park behind that requires access from Bramerton Road which joins Spa Road very close to the junction with Spa Road/Southend Road/Main Road/ Woodlands Road totally ignores the problems of traffic flow. Even today try exciting Bramerton Road in a car at busy times , and turn right to go in the direction of Rayleigh. If Hockley wants to encourage people to come and shop in a pleasant "village" town, then traffic flow to and from car parks must be easily accessible and allow the passage of through traffic.
1.3. Ideally Rayleigh, Hockley, Ashingdon and Rochford needs a complete by-pass road, that has feeder roads to each. This would obviously alleviate many of the problems of through traffic, and should be considered as an essential part of the plan to increase housing in the Rochford District. Further development of the area should not be considered until this is included as Stage 1 of the current development plan.
1.4. If we now consider traffic flow in Hockley, unless this is considered as a major part of the overall Development Plan, Hockley will become traffic bound and the public will not come to spend their money, hence the point of the development will be lost.
1.5. We have to accept that private cars, be they petrol/diesel / electric /etc. will not be given up by the public easily, they are here to stay. Future public transport can be offered and considered but it is unlikely to be cost effective without public support, and it must be remembered that the public are now accustomed to total independence and freedom wanting to come and go as they please.

2. HOCKLEY ROAD DEVELOPMENT
2.1. It is essential that a Bye Pass is made part of the overall Development Plan as stated in 1.3 above.
2.2. To allow traffic to flow Hockley needs a one way system that will allow the traffic to flow in the best possible way.
2.2.1. The current bus service have used a one way system that uses Spa Road, Station Road, Great Eastern Road, and Main road back to Spa Road. This is not ideal for the following reasons,
2.2.1.1. Neither Station Road nor Great Eastern Road were developed for large volumes of traffic and are not really suitable for the current traffic that uses these roads to avoid the Spa Junction. So an essential part of any Development Plan must be keeping through traffic moving and allowing local traffic to get to and from suitable parking local to shops. Again if the Development Plan ignores these simple considerations people will not drive to Hockley to shop, as once in the car it will be easier to shop 5 to 6 miles from Hockley to out of town shopping that is easier to get to and park free of charge.
2.2.2. How can we get a practical one way road system in Hockley? The land designated "6" on figure 11 of the report is currently proposed for Landscaping. Is this really required, or will it become an area for undesirables to loiter? Let's consider putting a road through this plot of land and making it part of a one way system around Hockley Spa Public House. Hence all traffic would circulate in a clockwise direction around the Spa Road, New proposed road between Spa Road and Southend Road, and being able to exit where required from the system.
2.2.3. Traffic from Woodland Road to Main Road/Spa Road.Southend Road when exciting would have to turn left to Rayleigh. The alternative to this would be set on traffic light that only worked when vehicles from Woodlands Road passed a sensor, this would stop all traffic from Rochford and Rayleigh in the one way system to all this traffic to enter one way system at Spa Junction. Although this I feel will cause problems to the flow of traffic around the proposed one way system.
2.2.4. The report identifies a problem with the location of the traffic lights in Spa Road under the railway bridge at the junction of Elmwood Ct. This could easily be solved by relocating the traffic light for traffic travelling North-East by moving the lights on the Hockley side of the railway bridge, hence leaving under the bridge clear of stationary cars making passage of large vehicles easier.
2.2.5. Many of the problems associated with roads are self inflicted by bad planning in both recent years and in the past. Hence I feel it is critical that all aspects of the plan are considered, not just the development of new properties that cannor be supported by the local infrastructure.

3. GENERAL COMMENTS
3.1. Since I have to get my response to into Rochford District Council by tomorrow, I do not have time to consider all the other aspects of the Plan.
3.2. I believe I have demonstrated that to build a supermarket in Location A1 & A2 with parking behind, that has access via Bramerton Road to Spa Road is totally stupid and does not consider traffic or safety aspects.
3.3. In many towns/villages, if it is deemed necessary, new supermarkets are placed of the outskirts of the town with adequate parking. If Eldon Way is to be redeveloped then this is where a new supermarket should be with sufficient parking. This would not have a major impact on the traffic flow through Hockley or cause congestion at the Spa Junction.
3.4. I also find it strange that the Foundry Industrial Estate is not mentioned in the plan, why is this land not being considered for development?
3.5. The publication of the plan and the public meetings, not giving the residents of Hockley sufficient time to read digest and comment in full. The meeting that was held on Sunday the 26th April was extremely short notice, and I understand that there in another meeting tonight 29th April at 8.00 which I shall attend.
3.6. I am willing to discuss the development, with the Planning Authorities, and will follow the interest this development.
3.7. Finally, just to add that I am a retired Engineer, who has been responsible for large industrial complexes throughout the world, and have consider experience in planning.
4. WHO AM I.
4.1. David Dare
4.2. 1, Woodstock Crescent, Hockley, Essex. SS5 4XG.

Your ill thought out proposals which have been inadequately publicised are NOT wanted, not needed and too draconian. They are a blight on the village and now make selling homes in the area impossible whilst your stupid plans threaten to ruin Hockley Village.

Please, please NO supermarket in our village; no widescale development. Leave our village alone.

There seems to be many issues that arise from the proposals, but most seem to not have been addressed within the Action Plan.

The current road infrastructure is at breaking point during rush hour periods, yet the government wants expansion.

A high percentage of people, travel to London for employment. One would assume a high percentage of new residents would do the same. The 'Plan' doesn't seem to mention anything about transport improvements to get people to and from the area.

Surely this needs to be addressed before plans are made to build even more accommodation.

In the placecheck initiative you identified within the 'What do you like about Hockley?' section that people like the 'village feel'. Why then does the Action Plan seem as though you are trying to turn Hockley into a major town?

The residents of Hockley see it has a village, and have told you so. Please don't turn it into a Town.

I wish to make the following comments concerning the above document:

I notice that the document is dated January 2009. I was unaware of any plans for redeveloping Hockley until I happened to notice a comment in an article in the Echo recently - a paper I do not usually read. I then asked for information of the traders in Hockley and was told about the public meeting on Sunday April 19th. The meeting, which was organsied by a private resident, was very well attended and the overwhelming majority of people appeared to be in the same position as me - very recently aware of the Action Plan. Your method of consultation, therefore, appears to be inappropriate, untimely, and totally inefficient.

Despite the limited time I have been given to read the document, I give my initial reactions below:

1. Hockley is a village - not a town. Your own research has shown that the residents of Hockley enjoy living somewhere with the feel of a village. Every one of your proposals would appear to detract from this aspect.

2. Increasing the housing to the extent planned when Hockley does not have the infrastructure to support the increased population is unacceptable.

3. The proposed increase in population and the building of a supermarket substantially larger than the current Somerfield will increase traffic on a road system that is already running at full capacity. I live on the High Road and can testify to the amount of traffic passing at all times of the day.

4. Large supermarkets have regular and frequent deliveries by HGVs. The current deliveries to Somerfield cause bottlenecks and build-up of traffic - the roads in Hockley are not wide enough to cope and the pavements cannot be narrowed without considerable inconvenience to pedestrians.

5. The possiblity of using Compulsory Purchase Orders will adversely affect the ability of businesses and private individuals to sell/rent. Is the Credit Crunch not doing enough damage already?

I suggest that it is the interests of the Council to extend the consultation period in order that residents may have the chance to express their views. I quote from the Action Plan 'Your views are needed to help us to assess whether we have fully considered all the issues and opportunitys facing the study area and have adequately assessed the potential future options for development of the area'

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.

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

FIRSTLY, GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE ACTION PLAN:

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

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

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

Area Action Plan 1.2

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

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


(Page 2 of Plan)

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

(Page 3 of Plan)

1.4 Overview of Area

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2

What do I like about Hockley?

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

What do I dislike about Hockley?

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


2.3 Urban Design

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

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

Legibility/Adaptability/Diversity

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

2.4 Land uses

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

Leisure

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

2.5 Form and structure

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

2.9 Summary of Issues (re street issues, etc)

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

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

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

3.2 Objectives

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

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

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

3.3 Potential Opportunity Sites

3.3.8 Sites L and M

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

3.3.9 Transport

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

3.7 Summary of Options

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

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

Starting at the top - Least damaging through to most damaging

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

3.9 Transport Options

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

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

Station Approach/Spa Road

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

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

3.9.12 Bus Travel

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

3.10.3 Development Issues

Consultation for future development:

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

East of England Plan/Rochford Futures Study

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

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

Mr P Symes

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

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

None of the options proposed is acceptable per attached.

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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

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

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

Flawed Process of Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

PPS12 also refers to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged.

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

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

PPS12 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHS dentists and GP Surgeries are closed to new patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Areas of the Report

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

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

And

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

One might question why redevelopment is actually necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Bullets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 - As per previous comments on process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East of movement - could be improved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



3.3.2

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

3.3.3

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

3.3.5

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

3.3.6

Actually makes sense

3.3.7

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

3.3.8/9

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

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

3.3.10

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

3.3.11

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

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

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

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

3.4.3/4/5

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

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

3.4.6

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

3.4.7

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

3.4.8

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

3.5.1 -5

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

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

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

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

3.5.6

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

3.5.7

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

3.6.2 - Options:

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

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

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

3.6.4

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

3.7

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

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

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

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

3.8.1

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

3.8.2

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

3.8.4

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

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

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

3.9.2

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

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

3.9.3

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

3.9.4

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

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

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

3.9.5

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

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

3.9.6

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

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

3.9.7

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

3.9.8

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

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

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

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

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

3.9.9

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

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

3.10

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

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

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