5. Option 1

I would just like to add that although everyone suffers on the school runs, Hamilton Gardens is nothing more than a massive headache to many parents doing the school run and those that are residents that have to avoid going out or coming home and certain times. It has been noted that several residents of Hamilton gardens have had permission for drop kerbs, this is now causing even more chaos as of course less available places to park vehicles. I sit most days for at least 15 mins in that road whilst everyone figures out where and how we can all move as vehicles are continuously either coming up or down the road at the same time. May i suggest a simple solution that may make this stem of regular traffic flow much easier is to make the road one way at the bottom of Hamilton leading to Plumberow school from the first cornhill avenue entrance, this would divert oncoming traffic to the school without causing congestion right outside the school gates leaving children at risk from reversing cars. Also may i suggest parking to be alternated each month to what side of the road to park, this would then enable easier parking and maximising available spaces. This road has to contend with both Greensward and Plumberow.

I believe this is the best option for Hockley, without more infrastructure further housing cannot be supported. I note all three options mention the Alldays building which has always been owned by the Co-op and is now a most intrusive funeral parlour, how was this allowed to happen? I would like to see this building return to a supermarket as it was 25 years ago, this is what Hockley needs at it's centre.

This option represents 'minimal' intervention in the context of redevelopment. This is supported by Barratt Eastern Counties for the following reasons.

* The Eldon Way Industrial Estate is in a highly sustainable location. The employment area is adjacent to the railway station and located a short distance from the main bus routes which run along Spa Road. The residential areas of the town are also within walking distance, providing a potential for sustainable travel by employees. The Eldon Way Industrial Estate is therefore right at the heart of the Town and provides an opportunity to meet sustainable transport objectives by reducing the need to travel by car. Consequently, the option to retain the bulk of the employment floor space is compliant with PPS4 and sustainability objectives;
* The Eldon Way Industrial Estate performs an important economic function and its retention provides for the needs of existing businesses that require industrial and light industrial floor space. The units are nearly all fully occupied and their type and nature is necessary to providing a mixed economic base for the town and helps underpin the viability of the Town Centre through employee spending. The retention in employment floor space considered by option 1 would help underpin the viability of the centre and the modest retail development;
* There is currently no funding available for any wholesale redevelopment and this is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future. Option 1 is therefore a measured and more acceptable option for development, which focuses on the core issues of improvements to public realm and pedestrian access, junction improvements, and some larger retail units which are considered necessary in the report. Alternative proposals are not widely supported as demonstrated by the previous consultations and public funding cannot therefore be justified on schemes that require significant public purse investment.
* There is no reason why the health facility and new library considered under option 2 and 3 should not be considered within this option. These may be seen as necessary community facilities and their proposed location on the south side of the main Town Centre would be appropriate given the principal function of the industrial estate and retail frontages. Linkages could be created as noted under option 2 and 3.

i like the idea of planting lots of trees. this is a good idea which should be helped with lanscaped areas.

additional homes should come from existing brownfield areas. for example, what about the current empty retail spaces in main road (think one used to be a video rental shop and a pharmacy)

Option 1. This appears to replace existing single story shops near the Factory Shop with single story shops. I believe a recent proposal to use the Factory Shop car park for a takeaway food outlet has already been turned down in the planning stage. I do not believe the parking proposals are practical and the width of Spa Road should not reduce with trees planted close to shops. I do not believe table top crossings are a good idea. They will certainly not solve the traffic issues.

Object: Insufficient benefits.

Option one seems to be the best option [and the cheapest ]but please leave Potters alone, this is a lovely looking shop and to distroy it would be a real shame

Of all the options this one is going to preserve the village feel of Hockley. People live in Hockley because of this and any other option would ruin this. We do need a better road infrastructure as the main road is too busy at peak times and the roundabout by the Spa needs improving.
We like the intimate feel of Hockley, more houses will create more traffic, more kids so larger class sizes with worse education, more polution and we have no doubt that house prices will be affected which is unfair.
RDC needs to improve what is already here by attracting business to the area and giving residents who have worked hard to live here more for their council tax.

I support any proposed intervention to improve the facilities provided in Hockley and feel that this scheme is better than nothing. However, as stated, this option contributes nothing to the provision of housing which I feel is much needed and in my view is more appropriate in this fairly sustainable location than in the Green Belt.

5. Spatial option 1.

The site discussed represents the current core of Hockley except it could be extended to Walters and Stanton. No private funding will be available. There is no indication of how much funding RDC will provide for public realm developments, the order of priority, and the timescale. Potters car park has only about six spaces. It is difficult to understand how a new entrance will impact significantly on Spa roundabout. Based on a survey about one third of the traffic from Rayleigh turns left at the roundabout. The importance of the Potters' zebra crossing should not be overlooked in assisting the exit of traffic from Spa Road. It is accepted that more than four housing units are required.
The peak periods for traffic at the Spa roundabout are rush hours, dustcarts, road works, and parked lorries. RDC should publish statistics regarding traffic volumes, when they occur, and the percentage that turns into Spa Road.
'Alldays' car park appears to be out of the equation.
Filtering traffic from Rayleigh to Spa Road before it gets to the roundabout might help traffic flows.

These comments are formulated in discussion with the RDC Community Safety Team and Essex Police (Rochford), Neighbourhood Specialist Officer.
1. Fencing around car parks is important i.e the potential consolidated Co-op parking
2. Public car parking/potential consolidated Co-op parking should preferably be shut when the shop closes and secured by a gate
3. The alleyway from Evelyn Road to Meadow Way is not well ised and it is a hot spot for youths. It was created as a short cut to the centre of Hockley. It is wide enough for mopeds.
4. There are problems with groups of youths congregating along Spa Road.
5. The provision of alleyways should be avoided.
6. The existing pedestrain link from the station taxi area to Spa Road is not so much of an issue. It is not well known.
7. Damage to proposed trees would be an issue.

I totally support the "minimal intervention" approach because in will only include four new homes. Given the traffic congestion even on a Saturday any further housing would be highly detrimental to the current residents. Hockley is a pleasant place to live, it will not remain so if more and more housing is introduced. If we wanted overcrowding we would never have left London.

The majority of people that I have spoken to,agree with my view that the minimum possible development will ensure that Hockley retains it's small town character.

HAAP Consultation January 2011

I wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation:

Chapter 4. Overarching Frame work: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements.

Option 1: Object: Insufficient benefits.

Option 2a: Object: Inappropriate changes and missed opportunities.

Options 3: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Options 3a: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Chapter 8. Transport options: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements and the sketch proposals provided have not been researched and may not be viable.

Option 2: Object: This option forms the basis of an appropriate plan but does not go far enough but support an enhanced version as follows (changes in italics):

Roads (key priority and subject to viability confirmation)

Improvements to Spa Roundabout e.g. Slip lanes or Table top crossing
Improvements to Eldon Way, Station Approach, and Plumberow junctions

Parking:

Added/Consolidated parking square behind shops on west side of Spa Road reached via Eldon Way and (if possible) Bramerton Rd
Added on-street parallel parking in Spa Road and pick-up/drop-off points both sides of Hockley Station

Building changes

Redevelop shops on Southside of Main Road, opposite Potters, to remove 'pinch -point' on B1013
Change from retail to housing at Costcutters Parade of shops
Modernised retail units with 4 flats above Seemore Glass
Modernised retail units with 2 added retail units at Factory Shop/Car park area (to remain single storey)
Redevelop Co-Op Undertakers etc and extend to join existing shops either side, removing access roads creating additional Retail
Community centre with library/health centre/shops at current library location with 13 flats and 2 retail units
2 large format retail units in Eldon Way (delete from proposals)
Replacement of one industrial building with light industry/ offices/ parking square on Eldon Way
Retail unit near station in Spa Road replaced by house
Housing on north side of Station along Plumberow Ave, to include railway drop-off point
Retail option (possibly a market) to be considered for Sorting Office site
Options for undeveloped portion of Foundry Estate to be considered.

General

Enhanced station frontage & Pedestrian link to Eldon Way (but care re safety considerations)
Enhanced shop fronts, paving and streetscape Spa Road / Main Road / Southend Road
Improved safety, consolidated and new leisure space on Eldon Way
Flexible employment opportunities, enhanced frontages to leisure/other buildings on Eldon Way
New link through Catholic Church from Spa Road to Southend Road

HAAP Consultation January 2011

I wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation:

Chapter 4. Overarching Frame work: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements.

Option 1: Object: Insufficient benefits.

Option 2a: Object: Inappropriate changes and missed opportunities.

Options 3: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Options 3a: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Chapter 8. Transport options: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements and the sketch proposals provided have not been researched and may not be viable.

Option 2: Object: This option forms the basis of an appropriate plan but does not go far enough but support an enhanced version as follows (changes in italics):

Roads (key priority and subject to viability confirmation)
* Improvements to Spa Roundabout e.g. Slip lanes or Table top crossing
* Improvements to Eldon Way, Station Approach, and Plumberow junctions
Parking:
* Added/Consolidated parking square behind shops on west side of Spa Road reached via Eldon Way and (if possible) Bramerton Rd
* Added on-street parallel parking in Spa Road and pick-up/drop-off points both sides of Hockley Station
Building changes
* Redevelop shops on Southside of Main Road, opposite Potters, to remove 'pinch -point' on B1013
* Change from retail to housing at Costcutters Parade of shops
* Modernised retail units with 4 flats above Seemore Glass
* Modernised retail units with 2 added retail units at Factory Shop/Car park area (to remain single storey)
* Redevelop Co-Op Undertakers etc and extend to join existing shops either side, removing access roads creating additional Retail
* Community centre with library/health centre/shops at current library location with 13 flats and 2 retail units
* 2 large format retail units in Eldon Way (delete from proposals)
* Replacement of one industrial building with light industry/ offices/ parking square on Eldon Way
* Retail unit near station in Spa Road replaced by house
* Housing on north side of Station along Plumberow Ave, to include railway drop-off point
* Retail option (possibly a market) to be considered for Sorting Office site
* Options for undeveloped portion of Foundry Estate to be considered.
General
* Enhanced station frontage & Pedestrian link to Eldon Way (but care re safety considerations)
* Enhanced shop fronts, paving and streetscape Spa Road / Main Road / Southend Road
* Improved safety, consolidated and new leisure space on Eldon Way
* Flexible employment opportunities, enhanced frontages to leisure/other buildings on Eldon Way
* New link through Catholic Church from Spa Road to Southend Road

Insufficient benefits

This option will allow a continued decline in the facilities available in the village and provides no vision for the future or framework wihtin which to consider future planning applications. It is unlikely that funding would be available to provide the proposed changes to the 'public realm'.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 1

Development and land uses

Para.1: Shop front improvements: Support, only where really needed

Para.2: Replace 2 Main Road - shops, flats: Comment - principle ok, but loss of successful businesses

Para.3: Replace 34-40 Spa Road: Comment - ok as it's not a quality building, but a business will be lost
(Example of serial planning - regenerate every 30 years - so get it right at start or leave alone)

Traffic/parking

Para.1: Consolidate parking rear Co-op-Alldays for more parking: Support - parking needed near shops

Para.2: More parallel on-street parking in Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on buses.
Replacing railing with steps is risky. There was once no railing, just 1-step kerb- I fell off it

Para.3: Open west entry to Potters car park: Support

Movement/Public realm

Para.1; Improve station frontage: Object - unnecessary

Para.2-7: Pedestrian links, streetscape, greening, tabletop crossings: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2

Development and land uses

Paras. 1 - 2 Shop front improvement - Support. 2 Main Rd convert shops/flats- Support but business loss

Para. 3: Replace Alldays with new shops/flats: Support

Para. 4: Replace 1 unit in Eldon Way - startup/offices etc, new parking square: Comment -
Parking space essential, but area doesn't need more offices - bank building corner of Woodlands,
Southend Road has plenty, not always full.

Para.5 New leisure space, skating: Comment: Where and Why, has someone offered?

Para.6: Consolidate existing leisure to west of Eldon Way: Comment if it's already there, why problem?

Para.7: Improve frontages of buildings: Support if necessary

Para.8: Consolidate Hockley centre, convert Main Road retail to housing: Support, There were Victorian
houses here, but demolished for shops/flats (so this will remove businesses). Another example of serial planning - regenerate every generation, but never get it right.

Para.9: Redevelop library/GP surgery, new library/health centre plus shops: Object - No further
Space for library; GP surgery spent large sum modernising/refurbishing to get patient provision right. Where is funding coming from? Presumably from housing delivered by the New Homes
Bonus - I hope Urban can trust the Coalition Government. Also money was spent providing the
public loo - so that will go as well! Another case of serial planning - changing with each generation.

Para.10 New home on Spa Road (No.59): Object - This is one of the few period pieces left in Hockley
though unfortunately reduced from semi-detached, to single. Remainder could go on forthcoming redrafted Local List (though Rochford has a way of abolishing List when it obstructs development).
I see there is a tiny bit of parking space - is it that just what Urban propose was recently
refused for parking/traffic problems? Also two businesses will go - Dry cleaners and Sheeds.

Traffic and parking

Paras.1-3: New parking, narrow station roundabout, parking square: Support - for increased parking, but parking really needs to be near shops, viz. as in Option 1 - behind Co-op/Alldays.

Para. 4: Increase parallel on-street parking, Spa Road: Comment - Idea ok, but doubtful - pressure on .
Bus stops and pick up..

Para.5: Open west end Potter's car park - Support with reservations

Movement and Public realm

Para. 1. Station frontage improvement - doesn't need improvement

Paras.2-7 Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way, green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way, paving/street improvements Spa/Main/Southend Roads improvements - Support

Para. 8: Enhancing public realm at new combined community centre Southend road: Object -
Irrelevant, as I object to Combined Community Centre for reasons given under Option .

Para. 9: Strengthening link between Spa Road - Eldon Way: Comment unclear what this means

Para. 10: Making green link from Spa to Southend Road via Pius X churchyard: Object - Security
Risk to Church and nearest. Congregation object. Seen as ? meeting point for troublemakers

Para. 11: Enhancing environment, safety in front of existing leisure uses in Eldon Way: Support

OPTION: SPATIAL OPTION 2A

Development and Land uses

Para. 1 Replace Co-op/flats/sorting office-new shops/flats - Object/Comment - I don't like the Co-op building, which replaced good houses, one still there - though threatened under Option 3. Proposed building is an improvement on the present 1960s one, though much too townified. However, as admitted, sites will have to be found to accommodate businesses in the interim. Where does Urban think shops and flats will go during redevelopment? There is again a question of funding - proposals for that don't seem unrealistic.

Para.2: New dwellings on sorting office site: Object - Sorting office is essential locally. Remove that and we will have to travel to Basildon, Chelmsford, Colchester to collect parcels, recorded delivery items. They are busy all day. The Southend one is scheduled to go for a Tesco. These 2 proposals are another example of serial planning over time.

Para.3 Replace 34-40 Spa Road with shops/flats - ok, but loss of business, also ensure flats don't impact bungalows behind.

SPATIAL OPTION 3

Development and Land uses

Para.1: Shopfront improvements Spa/Main/Southend Road - Support only where necessary

Para. 2: Replace shops 2 Main Road, new shop/flats: Support/comment ok but loss of businesses

Para.3: Replace office corner Woodlands/Southend Rd, shops/flats - Object This replaced 17/18C timber, thatched semi-det. cottages, lost to Hockley history. But it is presentable, useful office block. This is another example of serial planning over time. Leave alone.

Para. 4: Replace library/GP centre for combined centre: Object - Another example of serial planning. GP surgery was modernised at much cost. Source of funding questionable.

Para. 5: Replace [? Poor quality building] Southend Rd with shops/houses: Object - This is small single
Storey extension to Edwardian building next door, now a very successful restaurant. The proposed 'homes' area is restaurant carpark. Together with demolition of office block next door, this would finish their business. Incidentally the graph differs from that in Option 2. Is public loo to go as well?

Para. 6: New homes at end of Pius X churchyard - Object - Very cramped area and no parking

Para. 7: Alldays/one Eldon Way building go for start up/public sector offices - Object - removal of some
leisure sites for needless offices. Public sector is reducing and many others work from home. Also Alldays Carpark is needed for public parking.

Para. 8: New leisure space plus skating rink: Object - This is fraction of size of present leisure sites. Has
Someone applied for skating rink?

Para. 9: Replace Co-op with new retail/housing: Object - All this replaced good houses. Now you want to
Remove supermarket and flats - where are they going? Another example of serial planning.

Para.10: New housing replace 2 buildings Eldon Way: Object - a muddle

Para. 11: Eldon Way Clinic to go to Southend Rd community centre, replace with housing: Object -
I already objected to Southend Rd proposal for serial planning, dubious funding, disruption. Clinic
Should stay on site.

Para. 12: New shops replace 34-40 Spa Road - object - pointless to replace a business with another.
At least in Option 2 similar proposal included flats.

Para. 13: New house at 59 Spa Road - Object - This 17-18C former semi-detached cottage (somewhat
reduced. It should go on Local List, though latter apt to get abolished to suit development.

Traffic and Parking

Paras. 1-2: New parking south of station - narrowing roundabout to stop waiting etc - Support

Para. 3: New parking square etc: - parking should be within main shopping centre

Para. 4: Parallel on-street parking - risky - pressure on bus service etc

Para. 5: Shared surface - Spa roundabout - Support

Para. 6: West entry Potters car park: Support

Movement and public realm

Para. 1: Improvements to station frontage - Object - unnecessary. It has a "real front entrance"

Paras. 2-7: Pedestrian link station-Eldon Way; green link Bramerton Rd-Eldon Way; pavking, street
Improvements central Hockley; tree planting, table top crossings Spa/Woodlands Rds
Junctions - support

Para. 8: Public realm, new community centre: Irrelevant as I object to centre as under Options 2, 3

Para. 9: Strengthen link Spa Road-Eldon Way - how?

Para. 10: Enhance environment before existing leisure uses Eldon Way - Thought you were moving them

Para. 11: Improving parking facilities etc at Main Road shops - Support

SPATIAL OPTION 3A

Development land uses etc

New housing north of railway: Support - but single-storey like Plumberow Avenue. ? parking problems
SUMMARY

Much of Options l and 2 is acceptable, but Options 2a and 3, 3a have unsuitable schemes and constitute over development. Urban's introduction refers to "low density nature of Hockley". Naturally - it is a village. Retail Study 2008 referred to in Ch.2 drew attention to lack of larger retail units, but we don't need eg Marks/Spencer, any more than Wakering, Paglesham etc co - there is one in Southend. The Co-op needs competition - unfortunately it replaced several grocers, butchers, greengrocers - what we really need. Study also referred to "..lack of leisure service operators in centre". Firstly we have four successful ones near the centre - Monkey Bizness, C J Bowling, Massive Youth Project, Cully's gym. Being a village we don't need to compete with Southend. There are other activities in the Methodist Church hall.

I note though Hockley is now classified as a District Centre, in Ch.2 this is "..to be reviewed at a later date". Why? Is the council still planning to turn it into a town? One councillor disingenuously said Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs are "finished". In fact officials confirm they will go through the 4 stage process as HAAP will. After the uproar arose when people found out the 2009 HAAP Issues/Options, one wonders if they were put up just as window dressing so Hockley should not think it was 'picked on'.

If you are desperate to provide more (presumably affordable) housing, one or two buildings still empty in Eldon Way site might be converted/rebuilt for that purpose. One or two existing firms might be approached. But bear in mind that even affordable dwellings use cars, which could generate congestion on Spa Road.

Again, one reverts to mistiming of the HAAP consultation - December/January - competing with Christmas and winter. As an example, normally relevant meetings are packed. However only 15 people attended the December one at Greensward - ?why - because road and pavements were sheets of ice. People won't get anywhere with a broken hip. Meeting was 7.30. No buses ran, necessitating walking, sharing the road with traffic. One bus passed, going to "Sorry not in Service". It does seem this mistiming is not accidental. Last year the first HAAP consult was at a reasonable time - Feb. 13 to April 30 2009 - only problem was no - no one knew about it until found out by accident. This time, the District Matters newssheet has good cover for HAAP, but many have apparently not received it.

Insufficient benefits.

I wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation:

Chapter 4. Overarching Frame work: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements.

Option 1: Object: Insufficient benefits.

Option 2a: Object: Inappropriate changes and missed opportunities.

Options 3: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Options 3a: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Chapter 8. Transport options: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements and the sketch proposals provided have not been researched and may not be viable.

Option 2: Object: This option forms the basis of an appropriate plan but does not go far enough but support an enhanced version as follows (changes in italics):

Roads (key priority and subject to viability confirmation)

Improvements to Spa Roundabout e.g. Slip lanes or Table top crossing
Improvements to Eldon Way, Station Approach, and Plumberow junctions

Parking:

Added/Consolidated parking square behind shops on west side of Spa Road reached via Eldon Way and (if possible) Bramerton Rd
Added on-street parallel parking in Spa Road and pick-up/drop-off points both sides of Hockley Station

Building changes

Redevelop shops on Southside of Main Road, opposite Potters, to remove 'pinch -point' on B1013
Change from retail to housing at Costcutters Parade of shops
Modernised retail units with 4 flats above Seemore Glass
Modernised retail units with 2 added retail units at Factory Shop/Car park area (to remain single storey)
Redevelop Co-Op Undertakers etc and extend to join existing shops either side, removing access roads creating additional Retail
Community centre with library/health centre/shops at current library location with 13 flats and 2 retail units
2 large format retail units in Eldon Way (delete from proposals)
Replacement of one industrial building with light industry/ offices/ parking square on Eldon Way
Retail unit near station in Spa Road replaced by house
Housing on north side of Station along Plumberow Ave, to include railway drop-off point
Retail option (possibly a market) to be considered for Sorting Office site
Options for undeveloped portion of Foundry Estate to be considered.

General

Enhanced station frontage & Pedestrian link to Eldon Way (but care re safety considerations)
Enhanced shop fronts, paving and streetscape Spa Road / Main Road / Southend Road
Improved safety, consolidated and new leisure space on Eldon Way
Flexible employment opportunities, enhanced frontages to leisure/other buildings on Eldon Way
New link through Catholic Church from Spa Road to Southend Road

We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation:

Chapter 4. Overarching Frame work: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements.

Option 1: Object: Insufficient benefits.

Option 2a: Object: Inappropriate changes and missed opportunities.

Options 3: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Options 3a: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Chapter 8. Transport options: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements and the sketch proposals provided have not been researched and may not be viable.

Option 2: Object: This option forms the basis of an appropriate plan but does not go far enough but support an enhanced version as follows (changes in italics):

Roads (key priority and subject to viability confirmation)

Improvements to Spa Roundabout e.g. Slip lanes or Table top crossing
Improvements to Eldon Way, Station Approach, and Plumberow junctions

Parking:

Added/Consolidated parking square behind shops on west side of Spa Road reached via Eldon Way and (if possible) Bramerton Rd
Added on-street parallel parking in Spa Road and pick-up/drop-off points both sides of Hockley Station

Building changes

Redevelop shops on Southside of Main Road, opposite Potters, to remove 'pinch -point' on B1013
Change from retail to housing at Costcutters Parade of shops
Modernised retail units with 4 flats above Seemore Glass
Modernised retail units with 2 added retail units at Factory Shop/Car park area (to remain single storey)
Redevelop Co-Op Undertakers etc and extend to join existing shops either side, removing access roads creating additional Retail
Community centre with library/health centre/shops at current library location with 13 flats and 2 retail units
2 large format retail units in Eldon Way (delete from proposals)
Replacement of one industrial building with light industry/ offices/ parking square on Eldon Way
Retail unit near station in Spa Road replaced by house
Housing on north side of Station along Plumberow Ave, to include railway drop-off point
Retail option (possibly a market) to be considered for Sorting Office site
Options for undeveloped portion of Foundry Estate to be considered.

General

Enhanced station frontage & Pedestrian link to Eldon Way (but care re safety considerations)
Enhanced shop fronts, paving and streetscape Spa Road / Main Road / Southend Road
Improved safety, consolidated and new leisure space on Eldon Way
Flexible employment opportunities, enhanced frontages to leisure/other buildings on Eldon Way
New link through Catholic Church from Spa Road to Southend Road

HAAP Consultation January 2011

I wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation:

Chapter 4. Overarching Frame work: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements.

Option 1: Object: Insufficient benefits.

Option 2a: Object: Inappropriate changes and missed opportunities.

Options 3: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Options 3a: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

Chapter 8. Transport options: Object: Previous consultations have made clear that highways infrastructure improvements to the key junctions at: Spa roundabout; Eldon Way; Station Approach and Plumberow need to be determined as a precursor to any redevelopment. Insufficient attention has been paid to these key requirements and the sketch proposals provided have not been researched and may not be viable.

Option 2: Object: This option forms the basis of an appropriate plan but does not go far enough but support an enhanced version as follows (changes in italics):

Roads (key priority and subject to viability confirmation)

Improvements to Spa Roundabout e.g. Slip lanes or Table top crossing
Improvements to Eldon Way, Station Approach, and Plumberow junctions
Road widening of Spa Road from Co-Op supermarket to railway bridge


Parking:

Added/Consolidated parking square behind shops on west side of Spa Road reached via Eldon Way and (if possible) Bramerton Rd
Added on-street parallel parking in Spa Road and pick-up/drop-off points both sides of Hockley Station

Building changes

Redevelop shops on Southside of Main Road, opposite Potters, to remove 'pinch -point' on B1013
Change from retail to housing at Costcutters Parade of shops
Modernised retail units with 4 flats above Seemore Glass
Modernised retail units with 2 added retail units at Factory Shop/Car park area (to remain single storey)
Redevelop Co-Op Undertakers etc and extend to join existing shops either side, removing access roads creating additional Retail
Community centre with library/health centre/shops at current library location with 13 flats and 2 retail units
2 large format retail units in Eldon Way (delete from proposals)
Replacement of one industrial building with light industry/ offices/ parking square on Eldon Way
Retail unit near station in Spa Road replaced by house
Housing on north side of Station along Plumberow Ave, to include railway drop-off point
Retail option (possibly a market) to be considered for Sorting Office site
Options for undeveloped portion of Foundry Estate to be considered.

General

Enhanced station frontage & Pedestrian link to Eldon Way (but care re safety considerations)
Enhanced shop fronts, paving and streetscape Spa Road / Main Road / Southend Road
Improved safety, consolidated and new leisure space on Eldon Way
Flexible employment opportunities, enhanced frontages to leisure/other buildings on Eldon Way
New link through Catholic Church from Spa Road to Southend Road

I wish to strongly raise an objection to the changes concerning Seemore Glass, in respect of the remodernisation and four flats above. Seemore Glass is a family run business and has been established in Hockley for over 45 years, we have a fantastic reputation in hockley and most of our work comes from recommendations. I feel you have not given any consideration to businesses such as mine and the impact of your proposals to me personally and the customers in hockley and the surrounding areas that we provide an excellent service to. I strongly object to this proposal and in this day and the current climate which we are in feel you putting added stress and worry to us small business owners.