7. Option 3

At a meeting of Hockley Residents' Association on 14 November I and a few other people voted for Option 3 but a quite forceful majority decided upon Option 2. I am told that the existing inidustrial units on the Eldon Way estate are unsound and inadequate. It seems the responsible choice to replace them with the residential development proposed in Option 3. We can thereby use 'brownfield' for new housing instead of the green belt elsewhere. I do not agree with the proposals for Plumberow Avenue contained in Option 3A. If Hockley is to be redeveloped at all it is worth doing a high quality, comprehensive, good looking and careful job of work. Please do not permit any WHITE UPVC.

This option is not in keeping with the village of Hockley, the infrastructure cannot support more housing.

* The scale and scope of regeneration under this option would significantly erode the ability of Eldon Way to act as an industrial estate. The quantum of housing, retail and leisure uses would result in a dramatic change in the form and function of Hockley Town Centre and elevate it beyond its current market town role. 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 erode the estate as a site for industrial type uses. 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 3 would require tenant and landowner agreement, neither of which are forthcoming. It would also require much wider support from various agencies including regional bodies and the County Council. The authority would almost certainly need to engage CPO powers to advance the site assembly and the options would need to investigate whether this was a viable strategy. 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 3 should not be considered

far too much development. what about the public spaces/leisure facilities/hospitals and social services for all of the new residents?!

Option 3. To replace the relatively modern building opposite Potters that appears to be in current use makes no sense. 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. The shops opposite Walton & Stanton's should be replaced with homes not shops and should be accessed only from Woodlands Road. This junction should be replaced with modern computer controlled traffic lights with additional lanes. The access to the car park should only be taken from Woodlands Road. I cannot find the proposed replacement of poor quality building on Southend Road, with retail and homes to the rear. Additional offices are not required as there are empty units on the Foundry Estate. Existing shops should not be turned into homes. The replacement of the Coop is unnecessary. This also appears to replace existing single story shops near the Factory Shop with single story shops. I believe a recent proposal to use the Factory Shop car park for a takeaway food outlet has already been turned down in the planning stage. 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. Spa Junction should be replaced with modern computer controlled traffic lights with additional lanes. 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. 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. The shops opposite Walton & Stanton's should be replaced with homes not shops and should be accessed only from Woodlands Road.

Inappropriate changes and over development.

We etc. do not want more new homes will lead to bigger class sizes (more kids) and more traffic (not needed already too much). Just make improvements to shopping area, pavements

This scheme provides the greatest level of improvement to Hockley Town Centre. The current level of housing here justifies this level of intervention. I feel that the proposals could be improved upon but any change is welcome. Hockley is in dire need of visual enhancement which would hopefully encourage investment.

I would prefer to see the scheme that represents the highest level of intervention but any intervention and improvement is better than nothing. Hockley is currently stagnant and is a poor shopping environment.

7. Spatial option 3.

This proposal is not suitable as it over develops Hockley.

HAAP Consultation January 2011

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

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

Option 1: Object: Insufficient benefits.

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

Options 3: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

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

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

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

Roads (key priority and subject to viability confirmation)

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

Parking:

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

Building changes

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

General

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

HAAP Consultation January 2011

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

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

Option 1: Object: Insufficient benefits.

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

Options 3: Object: Inappropriate changes and over development.

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate changes and over development

This option would result in overdevelopment of the village. The additional houses and flats in the centre of the village would increase traffic congestion and pressure on health and education facilities in the area. It also offers less parking and leisure facilities than Option 2. However, there are some aspects that could be taken forward in a revised version of option 2.

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.