Objectives

Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1

Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 25521

Received: 29/04/2010

Respondent: Ms G Yeadell

Representation Summary:

We dispute plans to move "bad neighbour" industrial estate Eldon Way to "a new employment park..west of the District", in favour of [150] "residential". The estate has several settled "leisure centres" providing for the local population, such as C J Bowling, Monkey Bizness, Cully's gym. These would be ruined by removal to a remote site. Incidentally this item is to be decided under Stage 2 of HAAP, but is pre-empted by Core Strategy.

Full text:

Housing - Design of New Developments - DM1

There is no substance in proposals for "..additions in keeping..with local characteristics". We know from experience that "..design, scale, form of new dwellings...impact on..the surrounding built environment". With such evidence to the contrary, why should we trust developers will be led by "guidance on local character of individual settlements..to ensure developments are sensitive to the local area and designed in a way..acceptable to the local population"?

Re Village Design Statements, gross plans on which Hockley public were 'consulted' and to which they substantially objected on grounds of:- "overlooking, privacy, visual amenity; relationship to existing and nearby buildings; scale, form.." were forced through regardless. Cases whre opposition was ignored: 66 mansions at Etheldore/Wood Avenue replaced plotlands, greenbelt; 3 storey town houses - Spa Road and 11 White Hart Lane near bungalows and 2 storey homes; gated complex of 5 mansions at Hawkley Meade replaced 2 Victorian houses, gardens; 11 flats at 1 Southend Road replaced period house, garden; Tyrells on green belt; giant yellow mansion at High Road near Valley Forge replaced a chalet; 1st stage HAAP forsaw multi-storeyed buildings in Hockley centre, with above opposed cases as precedent. Why must we credit RDC concern for our wishes now?

Density of New Developments - DM2

As regards density reflecting "character, scale, form of locality" there has been too much laisser faire in this respect already, so it would be shutting stable door after horse has gone. PPS3 wants land to provide enough buildings, but families need gardens.

Infilling, Intensification, Backlands - DM3

We all know from experience that this has "negative impact on amenity..character..increased traffic..town cramming" as in above cases. A cousin sought a home in High Road, but rejected it due to daylight loss from over-densification.

"Demolition of individual dwellings to be replaced by multiple dwellings..eg block of flats..not supported" has happened: period house 1 Southend Road replaced by 11 flats.

We are tired of caring for homes and paying rates to live on prospective bulldozer sites. Proposals in HAAP are to convert Eldon Way centre to 150 residential. Doubtless 2 for 1 infill elsewhere in Hockley is threatened alternative if that doesn't happen. 'Backlands' may occur to avoid such demolition.

As it appears no further development can be achieved without demolition, we require a moratorium on population inflow from elsewhere in UK.

Habitable floorspace for New Developments - DM4

There is no operational need for "6..7 bedspace" and no "two plus, etc, storey" in a village. Modern families do not have 5, 6, 7 children - average is 2 to 3.

Light Pollution - DM5

We agree "light trespass" causes "stress and anxiety for those adversely affected". As well as control "with full horizontal cut off" in future plans, you should rectify cases where planners knowingly took no action, though legally bound, during development, resulting in light from many 10' lampposts plus other lights (all from premises) spilling into neighbours' bedrooms all night.

Character of Place - Local List - DM7

Proposals in this item are disingenuous..
DMDPC Introduction says: "Core Strategy recognises importance of protecting locally significant buildings..of historic and architectural importance,.. through reintroduction of the Local List." "It is important to consider impact of development..on wider area beyond boundary of protected areas and locally important unlisted buildings which are cherished by the local community". Demolished in face of their opposition!

Your Vision in 5 years claims the "District's distinctive character and historical built environment has been retained" - maybe in Rochford, Rayleigh, etc., carefully much deleted in Hockley.
In Hockley no less than 1 dozen significant 17 to 19C buildings have been destroyed since 1970 in quarter mile from Marigold Corner to Spa corner from redevelopments, some proved a commercial mistake. Many more of similar vintage in Main Road, Plumberow etc have been demolished. Massive opposition in each case was ignored..

Local List? Don't' make me laugh. No 1 Southend Road, significant 17-19C period house in a garden on peak of Hockley Hill was acquired to replace with flats. Embarrassingly for RDC it was on Local List. Suddenly we learned from the then planning Policy manager; "Government now frowns on Local Lists". Accordingly Local List was abolished. Other councils claimed no knowledge of such dictum and had no plans to abolish their Local List.
The Council rejected request for national Listing, due to cost risk. (Developer took care to remove staircase and many other items, plus any TPO-able trees). English Heritage took care not to visit, thus in breach of their own procedures, relying on ECC Heritage officer (with vested interest in all building going in south Essex). He even mistook the house for another one, so claimed it was "square"! Meanwhile, nauseatingly, dilapidated buildings in Rochford were refurbished "sponsored by English Heritage", "sponsored by.." (various architectural societies). In Rayleigh, the Mill and other items were refurbished with large sums from public funds.

Proposal was to erect flats, demolish house. At determination, massively attended by opponents of demolition, redevelopment, Ward Member gave 4 reasons to refuse flats (3 were deleted on Director's instructions), but Member ignored the house, thus paving way for demolition. (Planning Officer admitted had he included that in refusal, there would have been no demolition, leaving time for other things, eg listing).

As soon as No1 was demolished, we learned Government now "approved" of Local Lists and steps were taken to re-establish it. How disingenuous can you get? (Please don't write giving some other version. I would not believe it, nor would anyone else locally). It is apparent that Hockley has been the cash cow to finance Rayleigh, Rochford.

A further risk: Recently, the Hockley Area Action Plan is to "regenerate" the village centre. At a shambolic public meeting November 2009, a developer asked the Planning Portfolio councillor: "What about old buildings?" (Draft plan includes potential youth centre opposite the Spa pub). Councillor replied: "The Spa pub looks well now it has been refurbished. It is on the Local List, which has no basis in law..." In other words, go ahead and demolish. So much for Local List.

Demolition continues. Last year 2 period items were demolished in High Road Hockley, replaced with 6 over-dense buildings, hard to sell. Another 19C period gem in Greensward Lane, close by Hampstead Gardens, awaits demolition, in face of vast opposition, for a housing estate, presumably only the recession has delayed.

The proposed Local List is equivocal. Policy UC8 of the Local List adopted April 1995, abolished 2005, says:- "LPA will review List on a regular basis and take every opportunity to promote buildings to full Listed status under provision of Planning Act 1990". DM7 is ambivalent by comparison.

I suggest RDC puts its money where its mouth is to save what is left: "buildings..of historic and architectural importance,..through reintroduction of the Local List.". "It is important to consider impact of development..on wider area beyond boundary of protected areas and locally important unlisted buildings which are cherished by the local community".

We require all 19C buildings in central Hockley saved. To keep the character fo the village, all others of similar period and slightly beyond into 29C, should be put on the Local List. May we also have access to this new Local List. We were told we would be consulted, but that has not happened. Could the list be redrafted to have some reliable significance.

Transport
Vision - It is optimistic to assure that "developer contributions have ensured that new developments are well integrated with public transport". If a Section 106 agreement provides for eg classroom, community centre etc, that stays once developer has made his pile and moved on, but a bus service must be funded year on year - no developer will do that.

Economic Development, Retail and Town Centres, Advertisements

We dispute plans to move "bad neighbour" industrial estate Eldon Way to "a new employment park..west of the District", in favour of [150] "residential". The estate has several settled "leisure centres" providing for the local population, such as C J Bowling, Monkey Bizness, Cully's gym. These would be ruined by removal to a remote site. Incidentally this item is to be decided under Stage 2 of HAAP, but is pre-empted by Core Strategy.

We don't want "vast majority of new retail development directed to Hockley". We want lower business rates to enable basic local retail to survive in central Hockley. The so called "affluent" can buy clothes, luxuries in Southend, Lakeside, etc. I agree development "must respect the character of the locality and local businesses currently operating there". Therefore, no "regeneration", please, particularly of listable buildings.

I agree with Advertisement paras. 2 and 3. Recently a highly "inappropriate signage", "excessively illuminated" has spoiled aspect of an otherwise pleasing 19C, successful, store. I'm sure it is confusing and a hazard. It distracts me, but it had planning consent. This should be discouraged.