5.2 - Financial viability

The Submission Copy says that the Viability (Financial) Assessment "takes in to account the potential cost of land assembly".
However, it actually says "It is important to highlight that although the viability analysis undertaken as part of the process produces a positive land value this does not take in to account the cost of acquiring third party land and buildings to facilitate development".
The Submission Copy is therefore inaccurate and misleading.

DETAILS

Chapter 2 para.2.3 Hockley Parish Plan 2007 reported locals stressed during consultation that affordable starter homes are provided as part of any new development.

Chapter 3, para. 3.2 Submission DPD (3) Recycle developed land for housing reports "there is a pressing need for housing across Rochford District. District is required to provide 250 new dwellings per annum". This is presumably according to the Regional Spatial Strategy (scheduled to be rescinded at some ungiven date). It may have been imposed by East of England Regional Authority (does it still exist?).

But at Chapter 5, para. 5.2 Affordable housing relying on Core Strategy suggestion that rule of 35% Affordable housing on developments in excess of 15 units might be relaxed if it would be economically unviable for developer, council will negotiate proportion of affordable units on that basis, so locals' earlier views in HPP are ignored. Traffic implications are also ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 imposing a two-tier consultation process which 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 until 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. (This in addition to specific objection raised about the Spa Roundabout under ref 28390).

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

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

1) There have been 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.

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.

) 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.

General Comment

1. Hockley's major problem is traffic congestion and lack of local jobs. This plan will worsen the traffic situation by building more houses and reduce jobs by its impact on the trading estate.

2. We do not need another supermarket. The three existing supermarkets are more than sufficient. A huge supermarket will finish off our local shops and destroy the 'village' atmosphere in Hockley.

The HAAP needs to be completely re-thought along the lines of scrapping the supermarket and new houses in favour of smartening up the High Street, solving traffic congestion and providing more easy-access car parking for the existing Co-op and Sainsburys supermarkets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

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

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

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

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