Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28353
Received: 11/12/2012
Respondent: Hockley Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
RDC have misrepresented the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 (RLS) and exaggerated the potential in Hockley misleading residents. The RLS actually states that Hockley has limited potential. This needs to be factored into the proposals.
The Core Strategy sets the background for the HAAP. P135, 12.38 states "The Retail and Leisure study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS does not say that!
The RLS actually states:
"Hockley is by far the weakest of the three town centres, to the extent that we do not consider it to meet the definition of a 'town centre' as set out by PPS6"
"We have recommended that Hockley be reclassified as a district centre" [Note: This option was belatedly included as an option in the Allocations DPD consultation in April 2010 and heavily supported.]
"We recognise that Hockley lacks suitable larger retail premises for prospective traders and is unlikely to attract national multiples due to its size and proximity to larger centres. We have therefore suggested that encouragement of niche and specialist businesses could assist in the creation of a 'boutique' town centre".
"We recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths, rather than retail expansion."
The council has deliberately misrepresented their own experts' report, thus misleading the HAAP study, which is consequently based on inappropriate economic grounds. This can only undermine the chances of success.
The original RLS report can be found in the council's evidence base at
http://fs-drupal-rochford.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/planning_evi_base_retail_leisure_study.pdf
but it is a fragmented, difficult read. We have therefore extracted all the references to Hockley and they are provided at
http://hockleyresidents.co.uk/Other/ (HAAP Retail Leisure Study extract.doc
The Council's response: It stated "You made this same complaint in respect of the Core Strategy at the examination in public which was not accepted by the Inspector who found the Core Strategy 'sound' in respect of its approach to the HAAP."
Comment: Noticeably they have not disputed the misrepresentation but defended their action simply on the grounds that the Planning Inspector did not object to it. We did raise this with the Inspector during the Core Strategy process and imagine she took no action as this was because she deemed it was not a material consideration in the context of the much wider Core Strategy. However, surely it cannot be right for the council to make proposals for an Area Action Plan based on a complete fabrication of their own experts' report and, hence, inappropriate economic conclusions? This can only result in economic suicide!
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28354
Received: 11/12/2012
Respondent: Hockley Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
No rational for stated requirement for a new 3,000 sq m supermarket, 6 times the current size. Two new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP started and not even mentioned!
No rational for stated requirement for a new 3,000 sq m supermarket, 6 times the current size. Two new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP started and not even mentioned!
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28379
Received: 16/12/2012
Respondent: SE Essex Organic Gardeners
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"
The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable
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.
Support
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28385
Received: 21/12/2012
Respondent: Ms Jean Townsend
"Fully integrate with Spa Road" means replacing the atrocious buildings there. The stylish new housing and supermarket will be anomolous, and will not be "integrated" if Spa Road retains the existing shops and supermarkets which are like brick cowhseds. A new supermarket is worthy of support if RDC can ensure the best stonework, metalwork, bricks and aesthetics in its design.
"Fully integrate with Spa Road" means replacing the atrocious buildings there. The stylish new housing and supermarket will be anomolous, and will not be "integrated" if Spa Road retains the existing shops and supermarkets which are like brick cowhseds. A new supermarket is worthy of support if RDC can ensure the best stonework, metalwork, bricks and aesthetics in its design.
Support
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28388
Received: 21/12/2012
Respondent: Ms Jean Townsend
The biggest eyesore in Hockley is the row of shops in Broad Parade on the Broadlands estate. Improvements in Eldon Way/Spa Road should include that development. The ground all round Broad Parade needs resurfacing but complete redevelopment would be the 'sound' solution.
The biggest eyesore in Hockley is the row of shops in Broad Parade on the Broadlands estate. Improvements in Eldon Way/Spa Road should include that development. The ground all round Broad Parade needs resurfacing but complete redevelopment would be the 'sound' solution.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28404
Received: 04/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Richard Pryor
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
As the current Sainsburys is causing traffic problems in Spa Road, what will the traffic flow be if a larger supermarket is sited within Eldon Way. This uses the majority of available land in Eldon Way reducing the options for small firms to start up, so providing additional work for local people in a variety trades rather than a single low skilled trade. If the Supermarket is to make a profit they must be expecting a high level of foot fall which will increase the volumn of traffic along Spa Road. A speed limit of 20mph needs to be enforced.
As the current Sainsburys is causing traffic problems in Spa Road, what will the traffic flow be if a larger supermarket is sited within Eldon Way. This uses the majority of available land in Eldon Way reducing the options for small firms to start up, so providing additional work for local people in a variety trades rather than a single low skilled trade. If the Supermarket is to make a profit they must be expecting a high level of foot fall which will increase the volumn of traffic along Spa Road. A speed limit of 20mph needs to be enforced.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28422
Received: 09/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Paul Sealey
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This document now proposes a much larger supermarket than the issues and options report but offers no evidence for this new size. It ignores residents feedback in the issues and options report that clearly showed they do not want a large supermarket in the village.
Far from improving the retail choice, this proposal will deter other smaller retailers from setting up business in Hockley and may well force existing businesses to close in the face of such competition. This will be contrary to Government guidance that plans should 'promote a diverse retail offer '
Para 2.7 of this document is the first to raise the idea of a large supermarket on the basis that there "There may be demand from operators for a food store of between 2,000 and 3,000m² (net) within the centre". However, it offers no evidence that this may be the case and no reason why just because an operator may ask for it, the council should give in at this point. Previous options reports have not suggested such a large supermarket should be built. Indeed feedback in the issues and options report novemer 2010 shows that residents explicitly reject the idea of one large supermarket (Page 9 first point under shops and leisure) and at that stage the options suggested such a unit should be no bigger than 1370 sq m (Page 52 - Site 3 proposed areas)
A supermarket of this size could actually reduce retail choice in the village as other smaller specialist shops would be deterred from opening and existing businesses forced to close due to the pressures of unfair competition. This would be contrary to the NPPF guidance quoted in para 2.3 "promote a diverse retail offer".
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28429
Received: 10/01/2013
Respondent: MRS JANE KEMSLEY
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I believe a retail premises of the size proposed will cause chaos.The road network will not be able to sustain it.Already the village centre is struggling with Sainsburys deliveries at 10.am.This causes traffic congestion and danger for pedestrians crossing at the nearby crossing.We simply do not need another supermarket.It will destroy the small village feel Hockley residents on the whole desire.Hockley residents like the smaller type retailers, if we require more choice we do not have to travel far to find major supermarkets and industrial shopping parks.
I believe a retail premises of the size proposed will cause chaos.The road network will not be able to sustain it.Already the village centre is struggling with Sainsburys deliveries at 10.am.This causes traffic congestion and danger for pedestrians crossing at the nearby crossing.We simply do not need another supermarket.It will destroy the small village feel Hockley residents on the whole desire.Hockley residents like the smaller type retailers, if we require more choice we do not have to travel far to find major supermarkets and industrial shopping parks.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28442
Received: 13/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Kelvin White
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
dont need a third supermarket. rayleigh has two supermarkets (sainsburys and asda). southend tesco is also nearby.
dont need a third supermarket. rayleigh has two supermarkets (sainsburys and asda). southend tesco is also nearby.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28458
Received: 15/01/2013
Respondent: Mrs Susan Vincent
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
There is no call for a large supermarket as there are 3 already and a convenience store giving choice for the shopper. The supermarket could in fact cause the opposite to what is intended by taking custom from the other shops already here and causing them to close.
There is no call for a large supermarket as there are 3 already and a convenience store giving choice for the shopper. The supermarket could in fact cause the opposite to what is intended by taking custom from the other shops already here and causing them to close.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28461
Received: 15/01/2013
Respondent: Ms Jean Townsend
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The new Eldon Way will not 'fully integrate' with Spa Road if the latter is not redeveloped at the same time. The new retail/housing should be top quality building and will be inconsistent with the shoddy property in Spa Road. Similarly, the redevelopment should replace the shabby premises further down Spa Road, one of which has for long been boarded up ('Ironing Parla' and Shead Estates). This lower area of Spa Road was designated as part of the 'core' Hockley and should not be omitted.
The new Eldon Way will not 'fully integrate' with Spa Road if the latter is not redeveloped at the same time. The new retail/housing should be top quality building and will be inconsistent with the shoddy property in Spa Road. Similarly, the redevelopment should replace the shabby premises further down Spa Road, one of which has for long been boarded up ('Ironing Parla' and Shead Estates). This lower area of Spa Road was designated as part of the 'core' Hockley and should not be omitted.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28469
Received: 16/01/2013
Respondent: Mr William Sillett
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I oppose the expansion of retail shops to include a large supermarket. The attraction of Hockley is that it is a village away from the usual array of supermarkets and chain stores. It is unique and quiet and I want it to stay that way.
Also the services provided from Elgin Way - especially CJs and the creche are excellent and I want them to be retained where they are.
You should stop trying to fix something that is fine as it is.
I oppose the expansion of retail shops to include a large supermarket. The attraction of Hockley is that it is a village away from the usual array of supermarkets and chain stores. It is unique and quiet and I want it to stay that way.
Also the services provided from Elgin Way - especially CJs and the creche are excellent and I want them to be retained where they are.
You should stop trying to fix something that is fine as it is.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28478
Received: 03/01/2013
Respondent: Ms G Yeadell
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
DETAILS: SUPERMARKET
At Policy 6 b, in spite of locals' objection to original proposal in 2009 HAAP Issues/Options of a supermarket reported by an officer as "3 times the size" of then Somerfield existing one (now Co-op), nevertheless in Submission document one is proposed of c.3000 sq. m. - c. 6 times the one cited earlier. This is in excess of Hockley needs: even 2 more modest ones have now been opened. Therefore even larger proposal than earlier, already objected to, is unsound. This monster will clearly take business away from existing shops and become a monopoly. One might conclude RDC intend Hockley centre as a hub of national multiples to serve a densified combination of Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon, regardless of local opposition. It is also not compliant with promises of consultation in RDC Statement of Community Involvement, as another sign of ignoring locals' responses.
DPD says "..it's important that any food store..would complement other retail uses and not dominate Hockley centre" - but that's just what one this size would do!
Incidentally, though Policy 5 (and elsewhere) says supermarket is proposed for Eldon Way, Figure 13 is unclear - it could be interpreted as including that area of Spa Road backing onto relevant part of Eldon Way, which causes uncertainty for current supermarket, with flats above, and other adjacent shops. Policy 6 says new store must "fully integrate with Spa Road". Does this mean 'communicate with' or fully 'incorporate' that area of Spa Road? This is unsound as not positively prepared, justified or effective and lack of clarity is worrying.
DETAILS: SUPERMARKET
At Policy 6 b, in spite of locals' objection to original proposal in 2009 HAAP Issues/Options of a supermarket reported by an officer as "3 times the size" of then Somerfield existing one (now Co-op), nevertheless in Submission document one is proposed of c.3000 sq. m. - c. 6 times the one cited earlier. This is in excess of Hockley needs: even 2 more modest ones have now been opened. Therefore even larger proposal than earlier, already objected to, is unsound. This monster will clearly take business away from existing shops and become a monopoly. One might conclude RDC intend Hockley centre as a hub of national multiples to serve a densified combination of Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon, regardless of local opposition. It is also not compliant with promises of consultation in RDC Statement of Community Involvement, as another sign of ignoring locals' responses.
DPD says "..it's important that any food store..would complement other retail uses and not dominate Hockley centre" - but that's just what one this size would do!
Incidentally, though Policy 5 (and elsewhere) says supermarket is proposed for Eldon Way, Figure 13 is unclear - it could be interpreted as including that area of Spa Road backing onto relevant part of Eldon Way, which causes uncertainty for current supermarket, with flats above, and other adjacent shops. Policy 6 says new store must "fully integrate with Spa Road". Does this mean 'communicate with' or fully 'incorporate' that area of Spa Road? This is unsound as not positively prepared, justified or effective and lack of clarity is worrying.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28493
Received: 12/01/2013
Respondent: Mrs L Laing
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28497
Received: 12/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Will Laing
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28501
Received: 13/01/2013
Respondent: Mrs Kerry Mason
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28505
Received: 13/01/2013
Respondent: Mr George Mason
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28509
Received: 13/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Steve Tong
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28551
Received: 20/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Graeme Dell
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
A large Supermarket will not improve retail choice for local people and the financial input to the project that it would provide restricted any reasonable consideration being given to the requirement to satisfy objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.
2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The main emphasis of the Retail development would appear to be a large new supermarket which seems to have no community support and is contrary to the Retail and Leisure Study document. The HAAP stated that many Hockley residents drive out of town for their main (supermarket) shopping. Whilst this is probably true, most people drive to a large supermarket of choice and consequently would continue to do so. It would only be people that were already customers of the particular brand that would benefit but any reduction in traffic would be offset by others coming into the area for that particular brand. The proposed size of the new supermarket is also out of proportion to the village concept. It would overwhelm existing retailers and reduce competition. It is therefore impossible to envisage how this proposal is seen as advantage to Hockley and it's residents and is considered an appropriate strategy. The proposal seems to be based on financial input from a large organisation (which in the current economic climate may well not happen) which has drowned out any reasonable consideration being given to the requirement to satisfy objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28555
Received: 20/01/2013
Respondent: Mr A James
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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. I 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 I therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
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. I 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 I therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28573
Received: 20/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Peter Symes
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Not another foodstore see previous comments
Not another foodstore see previous comments
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28604
Received: 22/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Hawkwell Parish Council questions the need for such a large supermarket, 3000 sq metres, plus shops which will dominate Hockley and reduce the viability of the Village centre. Also question whether it is possible to accommodate all the proposed uses: supermarket, shops, housing, leisure, offices, employment and public space. Also, will there be sufficient car parking even allowing for the statement in the HAAP that the District Council will be prepared to reduce the requirement for parking because it is a Town centre location.
Hawkwell Parish Council questions the need for such a large supermarket, 3000 sq metres, plus shops which will dominate Hockley and reduce the viability of the Village centre. Also question whether it is possible to accommodate all the proposed uses: supermarket, shops, housing, leisure, offices, employment and public space. Also, will there be sufficient car parking even allowing for the statement in the HAAP that the District Council will be prepared to reduce the requirement for parking because it is a Town centre location.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28637
Received: 13/01/2013
Respondent: Mrs Christine Thomas
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28643
Received: 15/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Christopher Dunnage
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28649
Received: 23/01/2013
Respondent: Mr Philip Martin
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Do not build a new food store but provide retail space for independent businesses. The village is well served by the major supermarkets, Sainsburys in Rayleigh, Tesco on the A127 and Asda in Retenden.
Providing a new food store, will take trade away from the current Co-op and Costcutter stores and leave the village centre a poorer place to shop. The village is well served by Sainsburys in Rayleigh, Tesco on the A127 and Asda in Retenden. The new Sainsburys Local store was an unnecessary addition. What the village needs is to provide retail space that will not be taken on by the big four supermarkets to the exclusion of independent businesses. The village has recently lost a butcher and greengrocer. What we do not need is a monopoly for the supermarkets and a line of charity shops.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28699
Received: 24/01/2013
Respondent: Ms Jean Townsend
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Focusing on Eldon Way RDC evades the issue of shoddy buildings in Spa Road. RDC lacked vigilance when the Spa Road retail was allowed in the 1950/60's and should make amends now. Spa Road will "integrate" with Eldon Way if it is redeveloped at the same time.
Consider: (1) the retail in Rayleigh High Street containing Phones4U/New Look/Santander demonstrates what can be achieved; (2) the sympathetic development in Rochford housing the Co-operative supermarket; and (3) the character building in Spa Road containing Paragon and Blue Meringue. Quality and character like this should be replicated in EldonWay/Spa Road.
Focusing on Eldon Way RDC evades the issue of shoddy buildings in Spa Road. RDC lacked vigilance when the Spa Road retail was allowed in the 1950/60's and should make amends now. Spa Road will "integrate" with Eldon Way if it is redeveloped at the same time.
Consider: (1) the retail in Rayleigh High Street containing Phones4U/New Look/Santander demonstrates what can be achieved; (2) the sympathetic development in Rochford housing the Co-operative supermarket; and (3) the character building in Spa Road containing Paragon and Blue Meringue. Quality and character like this should be replicated in EldonWay/Spa Road.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28707
Received: 15/01/2013
Respondent: Mr J Butcher
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.
Support
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28799
Received: 25/01/2013
Respondent: Mrs Susan Martin
To be a sound proposition for Hockley, any proposed large retail unit should be of a size which would integrate well and attract good quality smaller independent shops into the development rather than completely overwhelm our valued existing traders.
To be a sound proposition for Hockley, any proposed large retail unit should be of a size which would integrate well and attract good quality smaller independent shops into the development rather than completely overwhelm our valued existing traders.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28822
Received: 25/01/2013
Respondent: Cllr Michael Hoy
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
A 3,000sq m supermarket will not be beneficial to consumer choice or to the befit of making Hockley a good place to live. it will encourage additional car use and vehicle movements on an already crowded road close to the Spa Roundabout will be problematic. Parking for local shops is already limited and additional spaces created would only to be of benefit to the supermarket..
No thought has been given to attracting independent shops to the area by attracting a large name other than a supermarket.
A 3,000sq m supermarket will not be beneficial to consumer choice or to the befit of making Hockley a good place to live. it will encourage additional car use and vehicle movements on an already crowded road close to the Spa Roundabout will be problematic. Parking for local shops is already limited and additional spaces created would only to be of benefit to the supermarket..
No thought has been given to attracting independent shops to the area by attracting a large name other than a supermarket.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 28852
Received: 15/01/2013
Respondent: Miss Nicola Pullen
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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.
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.