Vision

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 17643

Received: 31/03/2010

Respondent: Hockley Residents Association

Representation Summary:

The proposals for Hockley Town Centre, Eldon way and Foundry Industrial estate are pre-empting the outcome of the Core Strategy; and the concurrent Allocations DPD (which asks residents to choose between a town and village). It also contradicts the council's own evidence base where the Retail and Leisure Study 2008 recommends reclassifying Hockley as a village and states it will not support further shops.

Full text:

The proposals for Hockley Town Centre, Eldon way and Foundry Industrial estate are pre-empting the outcome of the Core Strategy; and the concurrent Allocations DPD (which asks residents to choose between a town and village). It also contradicts the council's own evidence base where the Retail and Leisure Study 2008 recommends reclassifying Hockley as a village and states it will not support further shops.

Support

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 17998

Received: 14/04/2010

Respondent: Ms Jean Townsend

Representation Summary:

'Regeneration' should mean the replacement of ugly/tacky premises with the highest quality stone/brickwork/timber constructions. Hockley must never degenerate into another Wickford/Rayleigh/ Billericay. Building design should reflect existing historic buildings like The Spa/Spa House. Aesthetics and quality matter as much as calling a place a 'district', 'village' or 'town'.

Full text:

'Regeneration' should mean the replacement of ugly/tacky premises with the highest quality stone/brickwork/timber constructions. Hockley must never degenerate into another Wickford/Rayleigh/ Billericay. Building design should reflect existing historic buildings like The Spa/Spa House. Aesthetics and quality matter as much as calling a place a 'district', 'village' or 'town'.

Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 20070

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Martin Howlett

Representation Summary:

As the 'green' part of Thames Gateway South East, the town centres of Rayleigh and Rochford should stand out for their environmental credentials - air quality (traffic management) and sustainability in particular.
There is a particular issue with 'through traffic' adding to local traffic.

Full text:

As the 'green' part of Thames Gateway South East, the town centres of Rayleigh and Rochford should stand out for their environmental credentials - air quality (traffic management) and sustainability in particular.
There is a particular issue with 'through traffic' adding to local traffic.

Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 21269

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: The Theatres Trust

Representation Summary:

Retail and Town Centres: We note and support the Vision of the first bullet point that by 2025 your town centres will contain a range of services and facilities that meet local demand. This is reflected in the third bullet point which states that shoppers will remain in the District's town centres because of the range of activities etc. Unfortunately there are no policies to introduce a range of facilities and services for your town centres, other than related to retail, as expressed in PPS4.

We query the use of the word 'shoppers' as visitors to your town centres who are attracted by a 'range of activities' may not primarily be 'shoppers'.

Full text:

Thank you for your email of 18 March consulting The Theatres Trust on the Allocations Development Plan Document and the Development Management Development Plan Document.

The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres. The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Article 10, Para (v) requires the Trust to be consulted on planning applications which include 'development involving any land on which there is a theatre.' It was established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 'to promote the better protection of theatres'. This applies to all buildings that were either built as theatres or are used for theatre presentations, in current use, in other uses, or disused.

Due to the specific nature of the Trust's remit we are concerned with the protection and promotion of theatres and therefore anticipate policies relating to cultural facilities.

Development Management

Retail and Town Centres: We note and support the Vision of the first bullet point that by 2025 your town centres will contain a range of services and facilities that meet local demand. This is reflected in the third bullet point which states that shoppers will remain in the District's town centres because of the range of activities etc. Unfortunately there are no policies to introduce a range of facilities and services for your town centres, other than related to retail, as expressed in PPS4.

We query the use of the word 'shoppers' as visitors to your town centres who are attracted by a 'range of activities' may not primarily be 'shoppers'.

Your Cultural Strategy on page 5 states that We have already mentioned that culture effects us all on a daily basis, so it is essential that we do not leave future developments to chance. By creating this strategy and continuing the evaluation and development of the action plans, we can ensure that all gaps in provision, opportunities, demands and aspirations, priorities and partners, are identified and acted upon.

Although the Rayleigh and Rochford AAPs may discuss town centre uses other than retail, the deferring of development implementations to subsequent planning documents places the reliance on these other documents to make the important decisions. Unfortunately there is no guidance in the Core Strategy for the Development Management document to provide policies to support the development of cultural facilities in town centres.

The Development Management document should contain a policy in this section that seeks to promote the provision of community, recreation and leisure facilities within the key centres for development, including local service centre villages. It should also confirm that key local services and facilities are to be protected from development proposals that would result in their loss unless specified criteria to demonstrate a clear lack of viability of the facility can be met.

We look forward to being consulted on the Rayleigh and Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plans.



Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 25522

Received: 29/04/2010

Respondent: Ms G Yeadell

Representation Summary:

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.

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.