MM7

The changes made are missing the point regarding Transport Assessments. Each individual planning application will have negligible effect on the traffic issues at any of the bottlenecks on the Hockley highways. The Transport Assessment needs to be for the overall effect of additional traffic related to both HAAP and, more importantly, the Core Strategy. Traffic issues due to increased housing developments in Hawkwell, Rochford, Ashingdon, Canewdon and Stambridge will bring the Hockley Road to a standstill at peak times, especially at the Spa roundabout. Modifications to Hockley Road and Spa Road railway bridge will not be feasible without major investment.

Still no proposals to deal with highways issues.

Does not take into account highway issues

The traffic situation in Hockley is paramount. There are already high volumes of traffic going through the village and existing roads would not be able to cope with any extra. The Sainsbury store in the village is an example of creating traffic hazards we do not need anymore.

Support.

Object:
No plan to develop Hockley centre should be without a Transport assessment as has clearly been demonstrated by the permission being granted for the Sainsburys outlet that has had a severe impact on traffic and parking.

The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With an emphasis on smaller, boutique, businesses there is no longer any guarantee that any such strategic planning applications will be made, or be consistent if they are made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a
U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller boutique businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such strategic planning applications will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. smaller DEVELOPMENTS MAY ALSO MITIGATE AGAINST MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENTS. a CLEAR COMITMENT TO A FULL TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

we object.There is enough traffic.

The change of wording from "the requirement for a transport assessment" to "strategic planning applications" is not convincing of any commitment to a much needed full transport assessment to deal with the various highways issues. (chapter 3, Policy 3)

The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to "strategic planning applications". With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such "strategic planning applications" will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-urn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such "strategic planning applications" will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.

MM7 -
The revised wording dilutes the requirement for a Transport Assessment to 'strategic planning applications'. With the emphasis on smaller 'boutique' businesses, there is no longer any guarantee any such 'strategic planning applications' will be made. There are therefore no effective proposals or evidence to deal with highways issues (Chapter 3, Policy 3) and the council has consistently misled residents and undertaken a U-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of the HAAP. Smaller developments may also mitigate against meaningful improvements. A clear commitment to a full transport assessment is required.

MM14 -
The Inspector's changes correctly and appropriately reflect the findings of the Retail & Leisure Study 2008 but the changes will impact on the project finances and there is absolutely no evidence that the revised overall proposals are financially viable. The original viability analysis, as presented in the submission copy of the HAAP contained a major error (omitting land assembly costs) and the plans for more offices are contrary to their own expert's advice (see Evidence Base letter from GL Hearn). The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

MM16 -
The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre. This change of character has not been consulted on (but responses to previous consultations show it is heavily opposed.) The scale of change is relatively huge but little benefit and none of the key issues resolved - a poor plan which will damage Hockley.