6. Option 2

I believe this option is wrong for Hockley and would not be viable.

Option 2 and 2a

* The greater intervention proposed under option 2 and 2a would reduce the number and type of employment units. Whilst replacement offices are envisaged and may potentially offset some job losses this would be at the expense of smaller units and units suitable for industrial/light industrial purposes. Eldon Way performs an important role in terms of the mix of units suitable for different commercial operations. The loss of these in favour of office uses would mean that the industrial type uses would have no suitable alternative accommodation. The report does not explain what alternative accommodation is available for the occupiers and this in itself indicates that delivery is unproven.
* The proposals include a number of new uses such as leisure, and ice skating. There is no evidence in the report to suggest that such uses are necessary or in demand. In any event, Hockley is not a centre where large scale leisure uses should be directed. It is a small market town and the centre provides for daily and weekly shopping needs together with employment. It is not considered that the regeneration for the mix proposed is suitable in that context.
* The report indicates that a key objective is to provide more housing thus avoiding the need to identify Green Belt land for housing. The recent changes to Government policy and the proposed alterations to the Core Strategy now mean that that policy objective is already being met. In any event, by removing much needed industrial floor space in favour of offices and housing, the stock of industrial units is being undermined;
* There is no evidence of how the proposals will be funded. Whilst reference is made in the report to various funds, reference is also made to the fact that these are changing and that funding will be more restrictive. It would be wrong to put forward options which cannot be realistically funded or do not have any prospect of funding. A scheme on the scale of Option 2 would require tenant and landowner agreement, neither of which are forthcoming. In those circumstances the authority would need to engage CPO powers to advance the site assembly. AAP will need to outline how the compulsory purchase order process will affect delivery, including an explanation of the process, how long it will take, how it will be funded, whether the Council will pump prime the project and whether a development partner will be sought. It is likely that EIA will be necessary with an urban regeneration project of this size. In the absence of this assessment in the report Option 2 should not be considered

i agree with:
-improvements to fronts of retail units
-use of existing brownfield sites for retail/housing

I disagree with:
-developing eldon way for business use. this should be used for public services/land (e.g. leisure/youth/public gardens) and/or partially used for housing.
-new car park in train station. utterly pointless and will not be used. hockley should not be attracting people from outside-it doesnt currently. the retail areas should be used to RETAIN existing residents not encouraging more traffic and people in. the existing residents of hockley need the services.

Option 2. To just replace the Coop funeral parlour and not the other single story buildings in this are does not make sense. Additional offices are not required as there are empty units on the Foundry Estate. Existing shops should not be turned into homes. The proposed redevelopment of the existing library and health centre to provide a new combined community centre with library and health facilities should not be squeezed into the area allocated and should not include shops in this area. Consideration should be given to include and replace the Indian restaurant area and the shop opposite Walton & Stanton's to bring the building line back from the road for Spa Junction improvements. This junction should be replaced with modern computer controlled traffic lights with additional lanes. The access to the car park should be taken from Woodlands Road. A new home on Spa Road, close to the train station is unnecessary. The creation of a new parking area on the south side of the train station, for weekday commuters is a good idea but I do not believe it will be used by weekend shoppers. The vehicular drop-off and pick-up points should not be in the car park but at the station. Maybe the seating area at the side of Kilnfield House could be utilized. I do not believe the parallel parking proposals are practical and the width of Spa Road should not reduce with trees planted close to shops. Potters parking should not be changed especially as parking for flats would be necessary. If a green link walk way was created through the churchyard a crossing should be provided to cross Southend Road at its end.

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

I think the projected pictue in option 2 makes Hockley look like any other clone town with all the individuality and charm lost

Seems just to be looking to improve certain areas which RDC should be doing anyway. See my comments on option 1. Alldays has already been replaced by a funeral parlour-did we really need 2 of these in a village? Local shops could be improved with another supermarket to rival the Co-op (like in Rochford) which will give better choice for residents.

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

6. Spatial option 2.

Option 2 could form the basis of a plan but needs adjustment.
Consolidation of Hockley centre in Spa Road and improving shop frontages are necessary. Where to and how can Cost Cutters be persuaded to move? There should be new Leisure facilities in Eldon Way.
A combined community centre does not seem practicable. Already some services e.g. blood tests and simple biopsies that were carried out in Hockley Clinic or Southend Hospital are being done in local surgeries. It is understood that the Government wishes GP's to carry out and control more hospital type work. There are two surgeries in Hockley and one of them is joined to a Rayleigh Practice. Will there be enough space for a centralised and growing GP Practise? What about parking for at least twice the number of patients using the existing surgery?
If the Clinic services are moved to surgeries then redevelop the area for houses. Extend the building of flats in Station Approach into the Foundry Industrial estate with suitable screening converting the new unsold office block to flats.
There is insufficient central parking (near the Co op) in Hockley. The new Funeral Parlour will prevent combining the two car parks. Extend the existing 'Co op' car park into Eldon Way. Increase street parking where possible

Comments formulated in discussion with RDC Community Safety Team and Essex Police (Rochford) Neighbourhood Specialist Officer
1. The proposed link through the green space to the side of the Church raises concerns of youths congregating. There is potential for gates to lock/secure teh area. The area should be open plan so that there is nowhere to hide/nothing to hide behind. There should not be any benches as this may emcourage people to congregate there. Natural surveillance is important. There should be a condition/policy etc. stating that there should be no teen shelter or benches etc. You would need to be able to see from one side to the other. Some trees may need to be thinned back.
2. Footpath alongside Eldon Way is a current concern. Proper fencing is needed, there are holes on the Eldon Way side which people can climb through although there are different land levels. Who owns footpath? ECC? Hockley Parish Council? Is there potential to close this route?
3. Improve lighting.
4. Link from Eldon Way to train station, would be an issue of youths congregating or using it as a cut through or escape route, not an open, direct route which raises safety concerns etc.

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

My detailed comments are grouped around the various parts of the plan as follows:
Spa Road South side retail units - Ideally the plan should provide for the replacement of all these buildings as none are attractive and all in need of some modernisation. However, we should seek a design which gives the impression of age and character rather than a straight row of rather boring shop fronts. The buildings could reasonably be 2 storey or at least single storey with attic space. This would provide either small start up business space/studios or residential studio flats. Consideration would need to be given to oversight of the bungalows to the rear, but the proposed developments would not necessarily need south facing windows.
Spa Road North side retail units - I have no objection to the replacement of the building at 2 Main Road, but note that the space at the front could be used to resolve problems at the Spa junction. I can see the benefit of the new retail units shown as R and LR on the plan, especially if the LR unit replaced the existing Co-op/Somerfield unit. This could ease access for delivery lorries to the store. I also like the larger car park with road access via Eldon Way and a footpath through to Spa Road although the extra traffic in Eldon way may need more than a 'table top ' crossing for pedestrians. I would include the redevelopment of the existing Co-op/Somerfield and associated shops as shown in option 2a, but would prefer to retain the sorting office as I believe this is valuable to the village. My regret is losing the warehouse currently in Eldon Way which appears to be a thriving business. I would hope a way could be found to rehouse them on the estate.
Eldon Way - I agree with the consolidation of leisure facilities into one area with easy access to both the village centre and car park. It may however, be necessary to put railings or other safety measures in place to protect children using the centre. The provision of new office space is dependent on there being a demand - there is already a lot of such space in the village. Perhaps something more flexible could be considered.
Library and Health Centre - Given the recent refurbishment at the doctor's surgery I am not sure the development as envisaged is sensible. However, if it were possible to extend the facilities to include those currently provided in Spa Road , this would release that land for housing as proposed in option 3. Presumably these facilities would need to incorporate the current Day Centre located in the car park, but again I cannot see any sense in knocking down a perfectly good building. If there is a new footpath via the Church (though I would not see this as a priority) then there should be an exit from the car park aligned with it and the existing Zebra crossing relocated to link the two.
Station - It is a good idea to provide new parking to the south of the station, but any changes to the roundabout and drop off points must be dependent on the parking space being provided so that short stay pick up is possible and there is space for the taxis. Alternatively the Taxi rank could stay where it is and a more modest redevelopment of the front of the station undertaken. The proposal in option 3 for flats to the north east of the station on existing waste ground seems sensible. However, putting flats on the other side on the existing car park would create a 'barrier' for people using the rest of the car park. similarly the idea for a drop of point on that side of the station seems pointless. Possibly a better solution would be to create another entrance into the car park from Plumberow Avenue near the existing footpath which would allow people to drive in and then exit only from the other entrance. The space directly in front of the north side of the station would be used as car parking for the proposed flats. Any additional flats could be located at the far end of the car park (assuming additional space is provided to the souith of the station) and could link to the proposed houses off Plumberow Avenue shown in option 3a. I cannot see any great benefits to a new link between the station and Eldon Way but would not object if it could be achieved without great cost.
Other aspects - I cannot see any benefit in opening the western entrance to the Potters car park. The number of cars affected would be minimal and would disrupt traffic flow by Waters and Stanton as traffic turned in and out. I would be disappointed to lose the retail units further along Main Raod, but recognise they have been difficult to fill recently so perhaps residential use would be better. I am not sure why the current estate agents/proposed house shown as 5 on the plan is significant to the plan. If it is then the adjoining retail building should be included.

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.

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.

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.