1.2 - Working with our community

Unfair, discriminatory two-tier consultation approach adopted

At 'The Executive' on 14 March 2011, the council agreed to "accelerate" the HAAP timetable.

Subsequently RDC contract 2944, "Consultancy - Pre-submission drafts of the Hockley, Rayleigh & Rochford Area Action Plans (AAP's)" details the council's requirements for the next stage of the area action plans for the three towns. In doing so, it created a two-tier process, which heavily discriminates against residents in Hockley.

At that time, all three AAPs were at exactly the same stage, and all included in the same contract, but Hockley is being treated very differently.
 The deliverables for Rochford & Rayleigh are much more open and not prescribed.
 They are also smaller in scope and impact but much more time is being allowed for their development.
 No time was allowed for consultation in Hockley, whereas it has in the other towns, although all three area plans are, of course, starting from the same point of time and the Hockley proposals are likely to have a greater impact.

Why did the council opt for this two-tier consultation approach that discriminates against Hockley and why will Hockley not be consulted on these imposed major changes? Was it just to prevent public discussion in Hockley of an imposed, unpopular policy?

Following a question on this at Full Council on 17 July 2012, the council implemented a knee-jerk reaction. Soon after, on 14 August 2012, it introduced a short 10.5 day exhibition at the Public Library, and on-line. This suggests that our complaint was valid. There was minimal advance notice. I got my notification 4 working days before hand but most did not hear until after the exhibition had started. The entry on the council's website is dated 21 August - halfway through the consultation.

Despite this small concession, Hockley is still disadvantaged compared to the other two towns and the council has never responded on why they adopted a two-tier strategy.

The Council's response to my Formal Complaint: The council stated: "The overarching policies in relation to Hockley centre were determined through the Rochford Core Strategy, specifically in Policy RTC6. The Core Strategy was subject to considerable community involvement, appraisal and examination in public. You submitted representations on Policy RTC6 at the pre-submission stage and as part of the Core Strategy examination you attended and spoke in person at the hearing on 20 May 2010. No decision has been reached on the final contents of the Hockley Area Action Plan."

Comment: Avoids the issue. A non-response which clearly does not address the issues raised about the two-tier approach.

Since then we have discovered that Traffic Assessments have been completed for Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs confirming the discrimination. In an email, Cllr Hudson stated " both the RoAAP and the RaAAP are expected to be released for public consultation in March 2013 when they will contain a similar level of highways implication assessment as did the Hockley Area Action Plan". As the HAAP contained no highways assessment (apart from a single statement that councillors "consider" 3 slips lanes can be added to the Spa Roundabout), Cllr Hudson's statement somewhat bizzarely means that the 2 completed, and presumably paid for, TAs for RoAAP and RaAAP will not be used!

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! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
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. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

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 (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


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 has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* 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
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also 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.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 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.

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! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
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. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

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 (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


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 has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* 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
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also 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.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 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.

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! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
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. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

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 (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


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 has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* 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
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also 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.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 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.

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! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
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. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

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 (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


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 has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* 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
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also 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.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 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.

DPD is not legal because - The HAAP consultations have misled residents by misrepresenting evidence regarding RLS and its potential and as to whether HAAP should conform with Core Strategy, and regarding Traffic Assessments not undertaken although the HAAP does not incorporate highway issues. Moreover the consultation process has discriminated against Hockley compared to Rochford and Rayleigh Area Action Plans by pre-defining the outcome and limiting time available. RDC failed to analyse outcomes of consultations before determining next steps in the process.

DPD is not Sound because adequate parking (Chapter 3, Policy 3) is not provided. Also regarding highway issues 3 sliplanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable, nor is it viable to insert a sliplane and widen the pavement outside the Spa. A Traffic Assessment is required in view of the 3500 Core Strategy new houses planned in the district. Furthermore a new huge supermarket is out of proportion to Hockley and could ruin small businesses.

DETAILS - Lack of consultation, failure to take local views into account

This paragraph lists ways in which Rochford Council have reputedly consulted Hockley people and taken views into account in preparation of HAAP Submission document. These claims are not justified, nor legally compliant with their own documents.

RDC Statement of Community Involvement January 2007 says RDC's techniques for consultation include consideration to timing; venue of public meetings to ensure accessibility; public exhibitions in libraries, shops; Rochford District Matters quarterly newssheet to keep people uptodate with local planning issues; newspapers; website. HAAP procedures have not complied with that. History to date, including for Submission, follows.

Initial 'placecheck' (walkabout) was carried out by some officials apparently in February 2008, of which Hockley residents and traders were unaware. HAAP Issues & Options January 2009 foreword refers to "What you told us?" Firstly, 'we' didn't; secondly most Hockley people disagreed with the claims made in that foreword on their behalf, which were therefore not sound nor in compliance with 2007 SCI.

At a Hockley Parish Council meeting one discovered that HAAP Issues/Options document had been initially discussed and approved for consultation at a meeting in Hullbridge, not Hockley.

There were no public notices around Hockley issued by RDC about HAAP. You only check the 'website' for a consultation when you have learned from publicity it is there.

Consultation ran reasonably from February to 30 April 2009, but a small reference to it in middle pages of Rochford District Matters appeared half way through March.

Locals objected strongly to wholesale HAAP redevelopment proposals at their own meeting in Eldon Way. So a revised Issues/Options consult was published late November 201l (in time for Christmas, New Year and bad weather, not good "timing").

No Preferred Option stage apparently followed. Complaint from residents' association produced an exhibition July-August 2012 in Hockley library, which was a puzzling mix of 2009 and 2010 HAAPs, not reflecting local responses to earlier issues.

At RDC Executive committee 14.3.12 Members voted to "accelerate" preparation of Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley AAPs to public examination 2013. Report proposed to "give some priority" to HAAP to bring forward to February 2013, whilst that for Rochford and Rayleigh "could be well into the future" which was agreed - note concentration on changes to Hockley. Report also noted "need for regeneration, redevelopment". All this didn't comply with earlier responses to HAAP.

At LDF Sub-committee 21.3.12 re the 3 AAPs, Members emphasized need for protection, no change for Rochford and Rayleigh. But re choice of District or Town centre for Hockley, report proposed the latter, for regeneration, which they accepted. Portfolio holder said 'District' (basic needs for a small centre) was a "disservice to commerce", for which investment was needed. In fact District centre had been proposed by RDC's own Retail and Leisure Study 2008, to protect from further expansion, so this decision did not comply with RDC's own document, all in contravention of RDC SCI 2007.



At Rochford council meeting 27.11.12 where Pre-Submission consultation document was approved, Portfolio holder said Hockley was marked by empty shops, which is untrue which he should have known.

Submission document consultation runs from 29.11.12 to 25.1.13, including Christmas period, New Year and bad weather, not good "timing". It was also claimed that Submission consultation would be publicized in Hockley library and Hockley Parish Council notice boards. In event, there was one tiny notice in the library and none on the notice boards. Approval of Submission document for consultation on 27.11.12 was too late to enter edition of Rochford District Matters newssheet, from which it is therefore absent.

By comparison, Rochford and Rayleigh AAP placecheck, Issues/Options reports and probably coming submission one also, though both those AAPs are of limited impact on the towns compared with effect of HAAP on Hockley, have been well publicized and Submission consultations will be March-April 2013, both later than that for HAAP and at a more sensible time of year.

Core Strategy quotes Retail & Leisure Study 2008 as saying Hockley has great potential. In fact latter document says the opposite. It is apparent that outcome of HAAP process has been pre-determined from the outset. There has been no real consultation over HAAP, so the Submission document in this regard is not legally compliant, nor sound, as demonstrated above.

This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 300 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of our village by car.

DPD is not legal because - The HAAP consultations have misled residents by misrepresenting evidence regarding the Retail and Leisure Study documented view on Hockley's development potential and as to whether HAAP should conform with Core Strategy, Rochford council appears to have totally ignored the responses to 2009 and 2010 HAAP, and appears to have pre-determined the future of Hockley around the requirement for a large supermarket development regardless of other alternatives resulting from resident's input. There is no oblivious objectively assessed traffic development and trafic infrastructure requirements resulting in constructive traffic proposals for the area. This being an area which many residents within the local community recognised as needing to be addressed in the earlier responses. Moreover the consultation process has discriminated against Hockley compared to Rochford and Rayleigh Area Action Plans by pre-defining the outcome and limiting time available.

There are too few returns for the results to be meaningful and to the best of my knowledge errors in earlier documents have not been corrected

We the Hawkwell Parish Plan Group (HPPG) believe that It is vital that Essex County Council Highways Authority (ECC) make an assessment of the traffic flow through Hawkwell on B1013 from Hockley towards Rochford, and the traffic flow on B1013 towards Rayleigh (in the Rochford District as are Hawkwell and Hockley).
In the recent Hawkwell Parish Plan Questionnaire, which was answered by 25% of the households in Hawkwell, the overwhelming view was that the road infrastructure was already overloaded and any new developments in housing would exacerbate the present situation and so result in grid-lock - particularly on the B1013 and roads feeding into it.
HPPG wish to attend the Public Examination before a Planning Inspector regarding the HAAP as it affects the residents of Hawkwell (which borders on Hockley).
There are "Area Action Plans" for Rochford, Hockley, Rayleigh and Southend - but none for Hawkwell - the second largest parish in the Rochford District!

This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of our village by car.

Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013

1.1 The big picture

Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.

Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.

1.2 Working with our community

Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.

Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.

1.3 Working with our partners

Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.

Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.

1.4 The AAP area

Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.

Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.

2.1 The Hockley Context

Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.

Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.

2.2 Place profile

Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.

Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.

2.3 Policy context

Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.

Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.



2.4 Retail issues

Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.

Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.

2.5 Employment issues

Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.

Changes: Cary out an up to date study.

2.6 Land ownership context

Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.

Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.

2.7 Property market overview

Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.

Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.

2.8 Movement issues

Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.

Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.

2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal

Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.

Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.

3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?

Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.

Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.



3.2 Vision & objectives

Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.

Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.

3.3 Arriving at a framework

Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Clarify the proposals.

Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework

Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Clarify the proposals.

4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies

Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Clarify the proposals.

Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements

Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.

Policy 3 - Promoting better movement

Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.

Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing

Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.


Policy 5 - Protecting jobs

Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Use up to date studies.

Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people

Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Use up to date studies.

Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre

Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.

Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities

Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Give clear information and drawings.

5.1 Working in partnership

Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.

5.2 Financial viability

Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.

5.3 Community infrastructure

Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change

Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.