Site to the West of Rochford

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Allocations DPD consultation
West Rochford Action Group Response
Proposed Allocation WR 1-4

Green Belt

It is inappropriate to allocate any of these sites as all are within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Government attaches great importance to the protection of the Green Belt as detailed in PPG2. In para 1.4 it states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. They help to protect the countryside and Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. PPG 2 also states the other central purposes of including land in the Green Belt (paragraph 1.5):

- To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
- To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
- To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

PPG 2 explains that the purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection and that development within Green Belts is strictly controlled by National Green Belt policy under PPG 2 to ensure that the purposes of Green Belts are not undermined and in para 1.6 states that once Green Belts have been defined the use of land in them has a positive role to play in fulfilling the specified objectives including the provision of opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population and to retain attractive landscapes and enhance landscapes near to where people live and to retain land in agricultural forestry and related areas

The proposals to allocate one of these sites for residential development would undoubtedly cause harm to the Green Belt for the reasons set out below:-

"The sprawl of a large built up area"

The proposal to allocate one of these sites for 600 dwellings and a primary school would result in the spreading outwards of this built up area since additional and significant residential development would be directly linked to the surrounding existing settlement. Such would result in a marked sprawl of the urban area.

Impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt including "the loss of an open, attractive landscape close to where people live


(a) Loss of an open landscape

As stated in PPG 2, the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Whilst some land designated as Green Belt may not be entirely open in nature as buildings or uses that reduce openness may occupy a site, this is certainly not the case at any of these sites where the existing landscape is exceptional.

All 4 sites are entirely open in nature, contain no built structures, and are not made subject to any use which might compromise openness. The Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Directive 2005 final regulatory impact statement when considering the size of development that would be potentially harmful to the green belt and should require referral to the Secretary of State states that that a site which roughly equate to ten new, average-size dwellings broadly represents the scale of development around which there is the potential for significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt

The sizeable proposed development of 600 dwellings and a primary school would create substantial built form on land which is currently entirely open in nature which would result in significant harm as a result of a considerable loss of openness.

In addition there is no evidence provided in the Allocations DPD that the Council have undertaken a landscape impact assessment prior to proposing this site be allocated for residential development.

(b) Loss of an attractive landscape close to where people live

Sites WR1 and WR4 adjoin the western edge of the built up residential settlement of Rochford and is therefore located close to where people live.

All 4 of the Sites are natural in appearance, consisting of an actively toiled agricultural field.

The visual attractiveness of all of the 4 sites arises as a consequence of both the natural appearance of the land alongside the fact that the land is actively toiled and provides a traditional land use typical of, and pleasant to observe in, the countryside. The allocation of this land for development will be contrary to the provisions of PPG2.

( c) Impact on character

The proposed development would also dramatically change the character of the Site. The Site is currently peaceful and free from general activity. The only activity which can presently be gauged is that characterised by an extremely modest level of vehicular activity (comprising the infrequent use of farm machinery) and a low-level pedestrian flow arising from those who may use the existing public right of way when traversing the Site for recreational and/or scenic purposes.

The proposed development would significantly increase the level of general activity, noise and disturbance at the Site. Such would be wholly incongruous to the Site. This would derive from a significant increase in pedestrian and vehicular activity which would result from the creation of up to 600 residential dwellings and a primary school.

The appearance of the land alongside the fact that the land is actively toiled provides a traditional land use typical of, and pleasant to observe in, the countryside.

This particular area of West Rochford although technically on the edge of the town is unique in character. The railway line on the eastern side forms a boundary which has the effect of separating the town from the Hall Road giving the effect of a separate settlement. This area contains a small amount of low density housing Part of the area on the south side contains Rochford Hall a Grade1 listed building which is part of the conservation area. The remainder is an attractive expanse of well kept open fields trees and hedgerows . The unique character of the area was recognised by Rochford District Council in May 2007 in its document entitled" LDF - Evidence Base- Rochford Conservation Area and Management Plan.

The area analysis begins by describing Hall Road as follows:

Until the first half of the 20th century, Hall Road was undeveloped. It still has a rural feel to it, to which the trees along it make a significant contribution, and forms an attractive approach to the town and conservation area. The large houses which have been built along Hall Road since the Second World War begin on the south side outside the conservation area and stop at Rochford Hall where the conservation area begins. The Hall and the conservation area have formed an obstacle to development on this side of the road, but the houses resume on the north side outside the conservation area boundary which is drawn along the north side of the road. It is essential to the preservation of this approach to the town, and of the setting of Rochford Hall, that further suburbanisation of the road is avoided. In particular, boundary walls in unsympathetic materials can have an effect quite disproportionate to their size or the appearance of the road (Fig. 15). Hedges are much more appropriate in this context.

The current proposals for WR 1-4 are completely at odds with the Council's own statements in this context in that it proposes large scale development with a massive quantity of visible brick

In relation to WR1 one of the reasons stated to justify this site being the Council's preferred option is that it provides a defensible Green Belt boundary. However the existing boundary with Oak Road is fully defensible if the normal criteria of PPG2 are applied

.2. Agricultural Land

The proposal to release prime agricultural land ignores the need to fulfil the future requirements of feeding the country in view of the serious concerns for world food shortages and the estimated large increase in the population of the world and particularly this country. It will not be environmentally acceptable to pursue a policy of importing food which could be grown in this country

The land in Hall Road falls into the category of Best and Most Versatile land (BMV) and is identified at para 8.16 of the present Local Development Plan as being a national resource and should be protected from permanent loss. This is confirmed by national statistics as TIN049 from Natural England states that Grade 1 and2 together form around 21% of all farmland in England. The need for such land to be protected is further stated in PPS7 paras 28 and 29. This states that where significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable Local Planning Authorities should seek to use area of poorer quality land (grade 3b 4 & 5)in preference. Para 29 requires that development land should include policies which identify any major areas of agricultural land that are planned for development and where it is proposed to develop BMV land this should be done having carefully weighed the options in the light of competent advice. The CSCD and Allocations DPD do not include policies specifically identify agricultural land in this way. Furthermore no evidence has been provided that the local Planning Authority have taken competent advice as required by para 29.

3.Roads and transport -

Traffic congestion in Hall Road and on the outskirts of Rochford town is a frequent occurrence particularly at peak times. Additional development in West Rochford on the scale proposed will force additional traffic on to both Hall Road and Cherry Orchard Way and thence on to the A127 or via Warners Bridge towards Southend Town Centre - both routes are regularly congested. The junction improvement proposed will not solve the issue because it was acknowledged in the East of England Plan paras 4.57 and 4.58 that in the morning peak period traffic flows on the A127 already exceed capacity in the westbound direction which it is expected to become worse by 2031. It was also acknowledged that traffic flows already exceed capacity on several sections of the A13 and are forecast to increase further . If the employment proposals north of Aviation Way which have been included as part of the airport expansion and development scheme proceed the traffic impact would be even worse. Furthermore the pedestrian access under the bridge at Rochford station already poses dangers to pedestrians particularly for those in wheelchairs and prams with no potential for access improvements. The increased traffic flow generated by development proposals will exacerbate the dangers.

Emergency services must be able to gain access to incidents and a significant further increase in traffic flows that will result from these proposals will jeopardise their effective operation.

It is stated that all 4 sites are within walking distance of Rochford Railway station and bus routes. Any development at the western end of WR1 and WR4 or on any part of WR2 and WR3 will entail a considerable walk in excess of 30 minutes to either the train station bus routes or Town Centre There is currently no bus service serving Hall Road or Cherry Orchard Way. The distance from the western end of site WR1 is approximately 0.5 miles to the train station and from the north western point of the site approx 0.7 miles to the train station with a further walk to the town centre.

The nearest bus stop for westward travel is by the train station and for eastward travel either in Dalys Road or East Street The practical result of these proposals is that residents in this area will rely on the motor car contrary to the objective of the Core Strategy and not in line with PPG13. The proposal to include a primary school in this location will exacerbate the traffic situation still further with additional cars parking in the early morning and mid afternoon. This scenario already exists in relation to Rochford Primary school where the lack of parking facilities results in parents cars being parked in St Andrews Road and the access road in Church Lane in the early morning and mid afternoon. It was also acknowledged in the Core Strategy document that 84% of households have cars.

A full transport assessment is required to ensure the provisions of PPG13 para 23 can be met before reallocating green belt land and ensure achievement of the key planning objective set out in para 19 of PPG13 to ensure that developments are accessible by public transport walking and cycling to promote social inclusion particularly for those who do not have regular use of a car. The emphasis in the Core Strategy on social housing provision makes this requirement particularly important. Para 40 of PPG13 requires that this same policy should be applied in rural areas where public transport is less available.

WRAG response to Allocations DPD
Community Facilities page 110.

We have already objected to the residential development in WR1-4 which it is proposed to include a primary school. A new primary school in this location is unsuitable as it does not meet the criteria set out on page 111.

In particular Hall Road provides a direct route for emergency services and traffic calming measures would therefore be inappropriate in this location. Hall Road is a direct route into the town centre from the west and already carries considerable traffic which will be exacerbated by further residential and primary school development.

A new primary school would cause considerable parking problems in the area as is already the case early in the mornings and late afternoon when St Andrews Road in particular is utilised as a car park for parents of children at Rochford Primary School following the development of the schools car park several years ago.

As has already been stated under objections to WR1-4 there are no buses in this location

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO ALLOCATIONS DPD DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

1 INTRODUCTION:

Hawkwell Parish Council is still of the opinion that a new village should be created in South West Rayleigh to enable the benefits of easy access to the highway network to be realised and where all the infrastructure could be provided in a phased way without compromising existing settlements.

We consider that a Local Development Framework should be a document that sets out the strategy for spatial planning in the district. Whilst we understand that the Planning Authority has a statutory obligation to undertake a call for sites we are firmly of the opinion that such an approach mitigates against a truly strategic approach with the result that around 200 sites have now being put forward. We note that the DPD asserts that, of the 3,790 dwellings that have to provided according to the East of England Plan, some 2745 of these dwellings will be on green belt. The maths is simple, that means over 72% of the dwellings will be on green belt which is contrary to the stated policy of using brown field sites for the majority of these new dwellings. With such a gross distortion of the guidelines established by government a truly strategic approach (ie a new settlement) is all the more essential.

However, bearing in mind the above view, the Parish will respond to the proposed site allocations on the basis of preference for those which will do the least damage and provide the best defence to the remaining greenbelt. In this respect sites in Rayleigh, Rawreth area NLR5 seem the most suitable option.

2 RESIDENTIAL:

West Rayleigh

NLR5 is probably the best option because it has a strong defensible boundary and a bus service could be provided between London Rd and Rawreth Lane.

West Rochford

600 dwellings and a school in this location would destroy the rural nature of Hall Road. It would reduce and indeed almost remove the differentiation between Rochford and Hawkwell and is a prime example of urban creep. It will contribute to congestion as traffic tries to access the A127 via the B1013 Cherry Orchard Way. The loss of high quality agricultural land is always regrettable, especially in view of recent comment in the popular press on the need to protect prime agricultural land for food production in the coming years. Option WR1 is possibly the least damaging if the hedge line is protected along Ironwell Lane and Hall Road and access to Ironwell Lane by motor vehicle is prohibited.

West Hockley WH2

This option is preferred because it has previous industrial use and can be accessed off Folly Lane.

South Hawkwell 175 dwellings

The Parish Council maintains that this location is unsuitable and does not meet the sustainability requirements. Of these options, SH2 is the least damaging because it retains the wooded area behind Thorpe Close.


SH3 or SH4

These options must not be entertained because they encompass land between Rectory Road and Hall Road as well as Hawkwell Nursery site. The Jewson's site as a brown field site should, with resolution of access problems, take some of the allocation for South Hawkwell.

East Ashingdon 100 dwellings and land for extension of King Edmond School

Kind Edmond School would be large enough if a secondary school was provided in Great Wakering. This would save long journeys for the children (some 600 bussed every day causing increased traffic and pollution to local roads). However, Option EA is the least damaging as it limits development to one side of Brays Lane.

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

Option SWH1 is probably the least damaging.

South Canewdon 60 dwellings

SC6 is the most suitable providing a defensible boundary can be maintained.

South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings

All of the sites are unsuitable because they have an impact on Oxford Road.

SEA1 could be accessed off Oxford Road, The Drive and Ashingdon Road which will cause further traffic problems in these locations. West Great Wakering Option WGW5 would be most suitable.

Rawreth Industrial Estate

It is possibly better relocated and replaced by housing.

Stambridge Mills

This site would benefit from being zoned for housing providing public access is maintained to the waterfront.

Star Lane Industrial Estate and Star Lane Brickworks could accommodate housing although it is well located as an industrial site.

Eldon Way/Foundry Estate

Eldon Way should stay as local employers convenient for the station and has leisure uses. The Foundry Site could well be relocated and developed for housing, it would be a natural extension to the flats either side of Railway approach.


Gypsy and Traveller site locations

Option GT3 is the most suitable as it is closer to shops and schools.

3 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAND:

West Rayleigh E18

Seems the most suitable because of its Highway location.

South of Great Wakering

Option E22 offers the least disruption to residents and has less impact on Poynters Lane.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATIONS:

The Parish Council agrees that areas shown on figure 4.3 and listed in table 41 should be allocated wildlife sites. Also agree that figure 4.4 should be allocated as the upper Roach Valley.

We also agree that the Coastal protection Belt should be shown as figure 4.5.

5 COMMUNITY FACILITIES:

Education

The Parish agrees in principle with the approach that a new Primary School be provided within future residential locations.

If the proposed site west of Rochford is on the eastern side of the new development it would appear to be far too near Rochford Primary we would question the need in this location.

Of the options presented Option KES2 is the most suitable however we maintain the view that if a new Secondary School were built in Great Wakering there would be no need to extend Kind Edmonds School and a large number of children would have their journey to school substantially reduced .

Open Space

We agree with the open space being protected through OS1 and consider that sites must be allocated rather than to left to determination by the vagary of negotiations with developers. We are again offended by the continuance of the Planning Authority to regard Hawkwell as a sub set of Hockley (there is no mention of Hawkwell in figure 5.1) - Glencroft is in Hawkwell, it is leased and managed by Hawkwell ( as are Spencers and Magnolia) and to state on page 127 that it is in Hockley undermines our confidence in the knowledge of the author of the detail of the layout of the district and the importance of community identity in such an important document.

Community Facilities

We believe community facilities proposed in (Option CF1) and illustrated and listed in figure 5.2 must be safeguarded. However we note that no account has been taken of the other community facilities that exist in the district (eg we draw specific attention to Hawkwell Village & Ashingdon & East Hawkwell Village Halls - both charitable trusts) that make significant contributions to community in the district, these too must be safeguarded.

6. TOWN CENTRES:

Rayleigh Town Centre Option TC1

Existing town centre boundary to be maintained.

Rochford TC4 is less restrictive but also allows customers to move around a smaller area.

Hockley Option TC8 seems the best option providing a more contained area.

We support the view that Hockley should be re-allocated as a District Centre.

Option TC12 Rayleigh

There must be a distinction between primary and secondary shopping frontages to maintain a vibrant town centre.

Rochford TC13

The distinction between secondary and primary should be maintained. The mixed-use development must be included in the primary shopping area because it contains the Supermarket.

Hockley TC15

We support this option as it utilises the existing primary shopping frontage to form primary shopping area.


7 OTHER ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS:

Hawkwell Parish Council wishes to be represented at The Examination in Public.

Once again we would take the opportunity to remind you that we are still awaiting a response to questions we have previously raised on various planning matters e.g. HAAP and JAAP.



We would also like to make the following comments in respect of the above document:-



2 Residential pg 4 - how are these figures arrived at ( I understand by another Conservative controlled quango)? How can it be blithely stated that 250 houses are to be built per annum post 2021, surely at some point building will have to cease otherwise there will be no room?

No mention is made of the number of dwellings that have already been built in the area since 2006 and the fact that some of these are still for sale long after completion (e.g. Follygate development on Aldermans Hill near Folly Lane in Hockley)? What are these numbers and why aren't they shown?

How have the figures for each location been arrived at? Seems very arbitrary

The council seems to show a lack of appreciation for quality of life for existing residents and just seeks to cram in more and more development - bewildering having seen this morning that whole estates new properties in Northern Ireland are being demolished because their housing boom never quite materialised and surely something that nationally needs to be properly considered?



Pg 5 - I refer you back to our comments on the HAAP (attached). Why is the council so obsessed with supporting the overdevelopment of the area and concreting over everything, especially as the road infrastructure cannot support large numbers of houses along the B1013. The HAAP is still at consultation stage and I believe 95% of respondents rejected the Council's proposals for redevelopment as unsuitable.



Pg 6 - It could alternatively be stated that the Council rejects proposals for significant redevelopment as the infrastructure is incapable of receiving the necessary upgrade. In recent years RDC has lost a Hospital and a Secondary School (Park in Rayleigh) to housing development, even with significant redevelopment Southend Hospital will not be able to cope and the roads in the region (especially the B1013) will be at capacity.



Pg 8 - Rawreth - there is already a green buffer - undeveloped land! - Development will lead to the joining up of Rayleigh to Rawreth, something that the Council has always previously sought to avoid - the merger of separate community areas. A theme repeated on pages 16 & 18, which effectively will merge Rochford and Hawkwell.



Pg 19-24 West Hockley development - As mentioned above the Follygate development has I am certain only been completed since 2006 and comprises 14 flats. If there is a need for 50 dwellings in this area at least 14 have already been built reducing the required number to 36 (and that's without other developments that have taken place along the B1013 in West Hockley where single properties have been demolished to be replaced by 2 or 3 new ones). So it is difficult to justify squeezing any more properties in this area, particularly as significant development in this area takes no account of the poor road access (Folly Lane is often congested and Fountain Lane is one-way) and will also increase traffic onto the B1013, where it is not unusual to have tailbacks from the Spa to Folly Lane. Congestion problems are often exacerbated by horse riders travelling between the stables beyond Church Road and the Hockley Woods Bridle Way. Option WFH4 also makes no mention of the impact this will have on either the small woodland nor pupils at Hockley Primary School as lessons are disrupted by ongoing building works.



Pg 28 South Hawkwell SH3, as with Rochford there is a danger of the merger of two distinct areas Rochford and Hawkwell



Hullbridge and Canewdon - Both areas have particularly poor public transport links and are low lying - has the reality of this been properly considered? Council are apparently committed to getting people using public transport to cut down carbon emissions etc and to be located near their places of work, but, particularly with 500 properties in Hullbridge, this would clearly run contrary to this policy. Nationally recommendations are being made to avoid development of flood plains and yet construction appears to be welcomed on areas below 10m



West Gt Wakering WGW3 & 4 - As with many of the above points the potential merger of areas and use of low lying land with poor public transport.





Overall preference should be given to redevelopment of industrial sites which have closed. The danger is however that RDC's pursuit of Brownfield sites leads us to situations where agricultural land is used for something like a Christmas Tree farm and is then able to be classed as a Brownfield site (see Hawkwell) or worse a company decides to shut a perfectly good functioning site in order to sell the land for housing (Eon call centre in Rayleigh - significantly another site that hasn't apparently been taken into account since a number of properties have already been built in that location).



Gypsy and Traveller sites pg 62 - Again no explanation as to how these figures have been arrived at; or indeed, why.



The following questions also need to be answered:-



Why can't Travellers use commercial pitches like everyone else?



What would happen if the Council didn't allocate any additional pitches?


Where are the existing pitches?



How are Travellers allowed to exploit planning laws on illegal pitches and have access to public utilities (surely the council should be able to prevent the Utility companies from providing such services without planning permission)?



What fees does the council obtain from Travellers using pitches - e.g. Council Tax ?



How have the sites listed been selected? GT4 is particularly close to an historic site and



Why hasn't consideration been given to the strip of land beside the airport, identified in the JAAP as having little use and already fulfilling the function of serving a travelling community being the site of the circus every year?





Office space - pgs 81-88. Again not apparent how these figures are arrived at, there seems to be a fair amount of vacant sites including office space around the district. On the one hand seem to be saying that Eldon Way in Hockley is under pressure for alternative use because sites can't be let and on the other that you need to build more sites - can only be one or the other not both. Also don't believe that this takes account of Eon closure - if you refuse planning permission for the site then there is clearly a large amount of vacant office space in Rayleigh!





Pg 90 - Southend Airport - We refer to our previous objections to development of this site attached





4 pg 98 - what is "minimum" development - undefined and irrelevant term - refer to my previous comments on the Core Strategy (attached)



Pg 108 Upper Roach Valley - Certainly the area without development should be as wide as possible. However given the proximity of other woodland e.g. Betts Wood and Folly Wood - can they not be incorporated? Is it not possible to extend the area bordering Hockley and Rayleigh across the farmland to the Railway line or indeed the east side of Hockley to ensure that buffers are maintained between Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh to the West and Rochford to the East?



Pg 111 - interesting selection for a school given that Southend Council have agreed that as many flights as possible should take off in this direction. As objectors to airport expansion we would support a school being sited here if this would prevent airport expansion and aircraft being directed over residential areas of Hawkwell and Hockley as seems to happen at present



Pg 111-115 - Whilst not knowing any of these areas in any great detail concern would be that expansion of the schools and access would lead to pressure to develop other adjacent sites , which were previously inaccessible, putting further strain on Green Belt.



Pg 116 - 125 - Not sure what the document is driving at here. If the suggestion is that none of these education sites should be used for anything other than the existing function and not be sold off then this is of course sensible. Although, this overlooks the fact that many of them are locked in residential areas and cannot expand. Indeed spare land adjacent to Fitzwimarc School was sold some while back and the front playground has now been lost to car parking. It would be more sensible therefore for the council to propose protection of the areas immediately adjacent to schools to enable them to expand if and when necessary rather than use existing space for non-educational purposes e.g. car parking. The current proposals are just a continuation of the lack of foresight that has seen school sites developed and then pressure to build new ones or expand existing sites e.g. loss of Park School in Rayleigh.





Pg 125-127 - Have to question what the protection actually offers - there doesn't seem to be a great deal of protection offered by Green Belt status and we would welcome additional protection. The map however makes it almost impossible to see the full extent (or limitation) of the proposals. From the areas known to us would suggest that Land South of Nelson Gardens, Hockley Woods and Turret House Open Space should all link up and provide a buffer stretching from rear of Wellington Road where it adjoins B1013 right over to Albert Road and all the way up to and beyond Hockley Woods, but this isn't apparent from the map.



Would also question why so little consideration is given to area between Hockley and Hullbridge, around Betts Wood, Folly Lane etc, all open land and part of public footpath network and currently affording good views across open land. Similarly Gusted Hall area?, Belchamps? Etc all omitted



Pg 130 Leisure Facilities - Less than 7% population within 20 minutes of 3 different leisure facilities. Although no definitions are given of "leisure facilities" I'd really question the accuracy of this statement. Leaving aside "fringe" activities such as snooker; bowling and fishing there are least 3 Sports Centres in Rayleigh, Hawkwell, Wakering, (plus just outside district Thundersley; Eastwood etc) offering a variety of activities and most of the population live within 10 minutes drive of these. There are numerous footpaths and cycleways, local gyms and dance studios, football pitches and children's play areas in every town (including adjacent to the sports centres) and a number of community and church halls offering leisure activities for adults and children e.g. Judo





Pg 135 - As with above these need to form part of the leisure strategy - certainly our local community centre (Hockley) is under-utilised and from knowledge of Grange that too wasn't used enough. But why are other sites omitted? Why are the sites listed given preference over many other community sites e.g. Hockley Public Hall; Castle Road Hall and why isn't more consideration given to encouraging schools to use their facilities outside of school hours/term?



With or without protection the fear is that the Council will offload these to "Developers" as with Clements Hall and the real likelihood is that sites such as Grange and Hockley Community Centre will then be deemed "uncommercial" and closed by any developer before being redeveloped as housing



Pg 136 Town Centres - There appears to be a lack of recognition that traditional town centres are declining anyway and therefore if there is housing pressure this could be accommodated by contracting the retail area.



Incidentally with regard to Rayleigh and Rochford there was a recent article in the Evening Standard that referred to studies demonstrating that one-way systems exacerbate the decline of town centres as drivers pass through too quickly and are discouraged from stopping.



For Hockley - again contraction of the area to the West needs to be considered, this area has suffered in every recession and shops here have stood unoccupied for years (e.g. Old Post Office Bathroom Store and could provide housing. However other business are (hopefully surviving). One of the main problems in the centre is lack of parking (the car park is located too far from the shopping area and now that there are good leisure facilities (e.g. bowling alley in Eldon Way access from the High St could be easier (many of the stores have parking to the rear and with the loss of Alldays there is an opportunity for another access point). Foundry contains many vacant office sites that could be better utilised, particularly if there is housing pressure. Full consideration should be given to reallocating it as a District Centre, but this shouldn't mean that it is neglected.



We've previously commented on HAAP and Rayleigh development and would repeat those comments for town centre development.