MM7

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.

I am writing to object to major development in Hockley. Further housing and retail units in Eldon Way will only add to the already awful traffic problems in the village. Traffic jams created by allowing lorries to unload every morning outside Sainsburys cause serious problems to those of us who have to commute by car to work. I understand the need for housing but in the middle of a quiet village is not the place, and this is not a case of NIMBY but I worry about the lack of decent transport links, lack of school places, doctors, dentists etc

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.

People do online shopping for heavy/large shopping, so no need for a bigger supermarket. It will be a waste, completely unnecessary.

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.

Increased volume of traffic will cause parking issues for local residents and congestion in the small town centre.

Hockey's road system is not sufficient to cope with extra traffic or larger lorries

The traffic problems in Hockley are not going to be helped in any way by building a supermarket that is not required.
Sainsburys new shop in Hockley (Not needed by residents) is already causing congestion to Spa Road with gigantic delivery lorries.

I strongly support a full transport assessment being carried out and I hope that due consideration will be given to the avoidance of making Hockley centre a bottle-neck and being unable to provide a free-flow of traffic.

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.

Evidence:
A Freedom of Information (FoI) response from RDC acknowledged Transport Assessments had been undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but refused to release them. What happened to them and why was one not undertaken for Hockley?
Another FoI response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a RDC FoI response denied receiving any output from this work - and presumably kept by the external consultancy. What happened to it and why has it been suppressed? Residents should be able to view the work that RDC commissioned - what are they hiding?
The council has consistently mislead residents by repeatedly stating at every stage, highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, excluded them.
There is no evidence to support proposals to insert slip lane and widen pavement for 3 extra slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are viable and have not been properly researched, despite previous promises. FoI responses show RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
Proposal to raise access to Woodlands Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
The B1013 was assessed many years ago (Sept 2008) by ECC Highways as nearing capacity but no updates despite much increased traffic volumes. Why haven't capacity updates been undertaken?
No Transport Assessment has been undertaken for Core Strategy (as well as the HAAP). 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.
The council committed to produce a Transport SPD but has not done so.

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 that 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 misles us , the residents and undertaken u-turn on repeated commitments to undertake a Transport Assessment as part of thye 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.

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.