4. Proposals plan and area-wide policies

Proposals to raise entry to Woodlands Road from Spa roundabout are not backed by any research; would cause tailbacks from cars turning in and endanger pedestrians.

A full Transport Assessment (TA) is required to determine practical solutions to this key problem.

The council has undertaken TAs for Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs but not for Hockley. This is discriminatory and the council is trying to hide the truth. Why?

Plan proposes to widen pavement AND insert an extra lane outside Spa Pub. No evidence this is viable. No Traffic Assessment (TA) to determine if appropriate. the council's own expert reports that space is restricted. Why has the council ignored its own expert? What evidence is there to support their view. Why have costs fallen from £2m in Core Strategy to £300K?

The council wants to provide a public open space and an evening culture, despite repeated rejections by residents. Near by Rayleigh has significant nuisance problems associated with its evening economy. Police levels have been reduced to 1 PC and 2 PCSOs to 30,000 residents and would be unable to police effectively.

Readng the HAAP proposals as differenrt from the proposals in 2011 I would lke to register my objections.
I do not believe the plan is sound and based on genune facts.
1.The increase in housing that is stated will benefit local residents.
How will this occur? Local residents already have houses or flats. The benefit would be for new people to move into the area.
2. Minimal traffic increase due to local employment.
How is this valid? Hockley is a dormatory villiage for commuters into London. Hundreds of people from around Hockley and neighboring districts use Hockley statation everyday. This is evidenced by the additional cars that are parked during the day in many local side streets. By increasing the stated office space will not reduce traffic because people will still be traveling to London, it will increase traffic from people now moving into the offices.
3. Build a new food outlet.
Sainsbury and Co-op already have the market on food retail. There is no requirement for further food retail outlets. This will increase further traffic by people comng to Hockley to shop.
4. Increase in pedestrian activity.
Unlikely.Instead of a food outlet, a general Mall with various outlets such as is found in the USA with a large carpark would have people walking around. Where are these expected pedestrians going to come from? Most people walk around the villiage center now, so why would they change?
5. Spa roundabout alterations.
I Agree the Spa roundabout becomes busy. This is at peak times only and I have found it when the schools are open. The amount of vehicle traffic between 08:00 and 09:30 and 15:00 to 16:00 causes queues all along Greensward Lane.
Surely with this proposed increase in retail and lght industry along with the school run traffic flow will only get worse. Any change to the roundabout is restricted by the size of the B1013 and the Spa pub, Potters hardware and Seemore Glass preventing any meaningful expansion of the junction.
6. Raised entrance to Woodlands Avenue.
I have tried to research this statement. There is no available data on what specifically this means. Does this mean a subway? Does this mean a walk over bridge? Any bridge will certainly have to be high enough to cater for LGV's feeding the new and existing retail and light industry that you propose. Any subway will affect traffic for months which you plans state will have minimal impact of traffic operations.

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. I therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.

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.

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.

21825/A3/AI 22nd January 2013

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL
HOCKLEY AREA ACTION PLAN
REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CO-OPERATIVE GROUP

BACKGROUND

1. We act on behalf of the Co-operative Group ("the Co-op") and have been instructed to submit representations and objections to the consultation on the Hockley Area Action Plan. In particular, these representations focus on the allocation of a circa 3,000 sq m gross foodstore on the Eldon Way Site.

2. The Co-op is an important and longstanding stakeholder in Hockley, operating a 'Co-operative Food' store in the Town Centre. This store performs an important anchor role. It generates trade, footfall and associated spin-off benefits for other retailers, in turn providing a valuable contribution to the overall vitality and viability of the Town Centre.

3. Against this background, we set out our comments and in particular our objection to the Draft Local Plan and its performance against the soundness tests contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 182.

REPRESENTATION

Chapter 2 - Hockley in Context

2.4 Retail Issues

4. This section of the AAP provides a very brief summary of the Retail and Leisure Study (August 2008) prepared by WYG ("the Study").

5. Reference is made in this section to Hockley's retention of 8.1% of food expenditure. This is not the case as the Study shows that this relates to main food convenience expenditure only. For top-up shopping, the Study shows that Hockley retains 42% of expenditure. The AAP is therefore misleading as it does not provide an accurate representation of the Study.

6. Whilst not set out in this section of the AAP, the Study identifies capacity or 'need' of 300 sq m net convenience goods floorspace in Hockley up to 2026, based on the sales densities of the 'top four' operators. For discount operators (e.g. Aldi and Lidl), the capacity equates to 890 sq m net up to 2026. The district wide 'need' in 2026 is between 1,250 sq m net (based on the 'top four' operators) and 3,000 sq m net (based on discount operators).

7. It should be noted that since the Study was published, a Sainsbury's Local store has opened on Spa Road. With a sales area of circa 208 sq m net, this will meet the majority of the convenience goods need identified for Hockley up to 2026, leaving a residual capacity of just 92 sq m net convenience goods floorspace for a 'top four' operator. On the basis that there is minimal need for additional convenience goods floorspace, it is not considered necessary to promote a new foodstore at Eldon Way. We comment on this in more detail in respect of Policy 6 below.

8. The Study concludes that the scale of need identified in Hockley does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food expenditure. The Study considers it more appropriate to focus on enhancing the existing offer, potentially through store extensions rather than new retailers which may duplicate the existing offer, or promoting a smaller independent offer. In particular, paragraph 10.29 sets out its recommendations for Hockley and states:

"...we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths, rather than retail expansion".

9. There is no justification for significant additional retailing in Hockley and no robust evidence to justify a 3,000 sq m gross foodstore.

10. Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the evidence base is now out of date being based on a household survey undertaken in March 2008. The Co-op therefore has significant concerns over the use of it in seeking to justify the proposed allocation of the Eldon Way site.

Chapter 3 - A Framework for a Better Hockley

Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan Framework

11. Policy 1 proposes new retail development on the Eldon Way site, as part of a mixed-use development. The supporting text to the policy (page 32) recognises that the site is not owned by the Council and is dependent on private landowners.

12. Given the ownership position, there is no certainty that the redevelopment of the site can be delivered. This has implications for the AAP, as recognised on page 32 which states that many elements of the framework are dependent on the successful mixed-use redevelopment of the Eldon Way Site. This raises significant concerns over the delivery of any scheme and in turn the AAP.

13. Whilst Policy 1 does not specifically refer to the proposed foodstore at the Eldon Way site, for the reasons set out below in respect of Policy 6, it is clear that the inclusion of a circa 3,000 sq m foodstore is not justified. Any reference to 'shops' at the Eldon Way Opportunity Site should therefore be clarified as being for small scale non-food / independent retailing as recommended in the Council's evidence base.

Figure 13 - Hockley AAP Framework Plan

14. The Co-op is particularly concerned that Figure 13 identifies an area for 'New retail development potential' which includes the site of its existing store and appears to be part of the wider Eldon Way proposals. The Co-op objects to the identification of its store for development and has no intention to redevelop its existing site.

Chapter 4 - Proposals Plan & Area-Wide Policies

Figure 14 - Hockley AAP Proposals Map

15. The Co-op supports the identification of its store within the Town Centre Boundary and Primary Shopping Frontage for Hockley, reflecting the important role it performs as an anchor store for the rest of the Town Centre.

16. The Co-op does however object to the inclusion of its store within the Eldon Way Opportunity Site for the reasons set out above. The inclusion of its store within the Opportunity Site has not been justified by the AAP and raises significant doubts over the delivery of any scheme at Eldon Way. On the basis that the evidence base does not justify the proposed development of the Eldon Way site, there is no need for the Co-op's store to form part of it.

Policy 6 - Improving Retail Choice for Local People

17. Policy 6 sets out the specific aims for the Eldon Way site, including the provision of a 3,000 sq m gross foodstore.

18. The allocation of a foodstore is not justified by the LPA's retail evidence base. Notwithstanding that this is now out of date, the evidence base only justifies an additional circa 92 sq m net convenience goods floorspace in Hockley (allowing for the recent opening of the Sainsbury's Local store). On this basis, there is no need for a foodstore of 3,000 sq m gross in Hockley.

19. Reference is made in the supporting text to Policy 6 (page 48) to the district-wide convenience goods capacity of 3,000 sq m net in 2026. It should be noted that this level of floorspace relates to a 'discount' operator. The need for a 'top four' operators equates to 1,250 sq m net across the district in 2026 (and would equate to a store of circa 2,000 sq m gross). This alone does not justify a store of 3,000 sq m gross in Hockley or indeed anywhere else in the District.

20. Notwithstanding that there is a lack of District-wide need for a foodstore of 3,000 sq m gross, in any event it is not appropriate to meet the needs of Rochford and Rayleigh in Hockley, as it is clearly a separate settlement with different characteristics to those locations. Residents in these towns are highly unlikely to shop in Hockley. This is clearly recognised in Core Strategy Policy RTC2 (Sequential Approach to Retail Development), as follows:

"...When applying the sequential approach to retail development, the settlements of Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley will be acknowledged as distinct areas - retail needs in one settlement cannot be met by development in others..."

21. Therefore, reference to the District wide need in seeking to justify additional floorspace in Hockley is contrary to the Core Strategy.

22. The provision of a new store appears to be based on the aim to claw back leakage of convenience expenditure outside of the District. However the Study shows that the most popular store for Hockley residents is Tesco Extra, Westcliff-on-Sea. With a floorspace of circa 9,400 sq m gross it is considered highly unlikely that shoppers at this store would change their shopping patterns and instead shop at a store in Hockley less than a third of its size. The suggested clawback aims of the proposed foodstore would not therefore be achieved.

23. Page 48 of the AAP states that the capacity study establishes a store of up to 3,000 sq m gross is the largest that could be accommodated on the site. We assume that this does not refer to the capacity or need identified in the Retail Study, but is instead a reference to physical capacity. This should be clarified for the avoidance of doubt.

24. In addition, it should be noted that the Co-op is investigating the potential for an extension to its existing store. Such a proposal would be fully in accordance with the Council's objective to improve the retail offer and attraction of the Town Centre, would be in line with the Council's evidence base recommendation to focus on enhancing the existing convenience offer through extensions to existing stores and importantly would be of a scale commensurate with the identified need for the locality. This should be supported by the AAP.

25. On this basis, the proposed allocation of the Eldon Way site for a foodstore of 3,000 sq m gross cannot be considered sound as it has not been positively prepared, is not justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is not consistent with the Council's evidence base and the rationale behind it is contrary to the Council's Core Strategy. The allocation of the Eldon Way site for a foodstore of circa 3,000 sq m gross should therefore be deleted.

Recommended Changes To The Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document (November 2012)

26. For the reasons set out above, the Co-op objects to the AAP in its current form. The following changes are therefore proposed in order to make the Plan 'sound':

* Amend Policy 1 to specifically exclude a new foodstore as part of the proposed retail uses, as this is not justified against the evidence base.
* Amend Figure 13 to exclude the Co-operative Food store from the area identified for 'new retail development', as this is not justified against the evidence base.
* Amend Figure 14 to exclude the Co-operative Food store from the Eldon Way Opportunity Site as its proposed development is not justified by the evidence base and the AAP does not demonstrate that it is necessary.
* Amend Policy 6 to remove any references to the proposed development of a foodstore at the Eldon Way site, as this is not justified by the evidence base and the rationale behind it is not supported by the Council's Core Strategy. Policy 6 should be specifically amended to support the growth and expansion of existing premises in the Centre, as set out in the Council's evidence base.

BARTON WILLMORE LLP, 22nd JANUARY 2013