1.1 - The big picture

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

I would also like to ask what consideration has been given to the issue of Healthcare services, with the building of so many new homes. It is already nearly impossible to get a Doctors appointment as it is: we have to bear the stress of worrying if we can get an appointment and it feels like the odds of getting an appointment are as good as winning the lottery. Will an additional surgery be built to accommodate the additional residents to the area?

The document is sound and legally compliant.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

We live in a school run area which is a no through road - if 100 new houses are built where will all the extra children from these properties go to school.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

I strongly object to these alterations to Hockley, I have lieved in Hockley for 51 years, Hockley will not be the same with all these alterations so please do not go ahead with the plans to redevelop Hockley, we have sufficient shops in Hockley, and more than enough traffic.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

A submisson process that is so complicated to understand and to complete, that it excludes vast numbers of residents due to their lack of access or ability to use a computer must in itself be illegal. You couldn't have made this more difficult if you'd tried.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! It recommends a small, "boutique" approach. There is no evidence to support requirement for a supermarket and HAAP ignores the fact that 2 supermarkets have opened since R&LS published.

RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary (9 Sept 2009 and 14 Oct 2010).

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process with discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation - only a hastily arranged exhibition using 2010 material, acknowledged by the council as "not current thinking", which had previously been consulted on. Exhibition not advertised ungtil halfway through/
* pre-defining the outcome: as noted above, the council incorrectly set requirements based on the Core Strategy
* limiting the time available: the two other AAPs have more time and more consultation.
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. FoI response showing Traffic Assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley (later denied by the council).

1.3 manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them .

2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which as not been provided. (211 v pro-rata requirement for 275). Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.
* Station carpark reduced from 159 to 72 (a 55% reduction). No reason or evidence to support this

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Core Strategy. A Traffic Assessment is required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.
* No Transport Assessment undertaken for Hockley. FoI response showing Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - later denied by RDC.
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout may not be viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa but no evidence viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations. In responses to Freedom of Information requests, the council says it has "no transport paper" to support their proposals.
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed. Traffic flows at peak commuter hours will be reversed. Impact unknown.
* Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, there is no evidence to support this; are contrary to the Retail & Leisure Study; and 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

2.4 Financial Viability (Chapter 5.2)
HAAP states financial analysis is marginal but that land assembly costs are included. The Viability Assessment states land assembly costs not included. No evidence plan is financially viable.