MM14

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.

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing
around 2/3rd 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!

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing
around 2/3rd 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 have lived in Hockley since 1970 when it has changed from a relatively small village to as it is today. It is still a very pleasant and peaceful village to live in and may it still continue, unchanged, to be.

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 came to Hockley over 50 years ago. Spa Road was a pleasant village street then and still is. Please do not despoil it.

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 wholesale change of Hockley is not justified by any benefits this change for changes sake.

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 do not wish our village to change. The proposed plan will not benefit our village at all. We live here because of its charm and do not wish it to turn into urban sprall - we like it just the way it is. Maybe a free car park or at least one hours free parking would no doubt encourage many more local people to use the high street thus encourage more businesses to come into our high street.

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.

Do not wish any changes to high street thank you.

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. Spa Road needs upgrading if the Council intends any development at all.

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! Hockley is a village. There is no need to destroy it with larger buildings. The infrastructure will not take and builders who undertake rarely complete it. Leave us with a village, a buffer between towns. The reason people moved to Hockley - just because it's a village. You as our representatives are betraying us. Please keep development in keeping with the character.

I am not stupid - I was born and raised in Rayleigh and Hockley and received a sound education. This form is appalling - poorly laid out with no use of layman's terms or language. I will be astonished if you receive any legible or useful responses. A wasted opportunity of this costly mailshot. Good luck 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 are happy with the village feeling in Hockley and do not want it compromised by disproportionate planning.

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 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.
Evidence:
The HAAP states 'This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demsonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable'. So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land assembly costs are included. However, the actual, source Viability Assessment paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are not!). No evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further the letter dated Sept 2012 from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case. As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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 can see no benefit at all. Infact more traffic in and out of Hockley will cause even more delays on Main Road.

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 see no reason to change 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 like Hockley as it is.
 

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing
around 2/3rd 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!

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing
around 2/3rd 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!

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3rd 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!

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing around 2/3rd 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.

Totally agree with this statement as said in previous correspondence I sent to you. Please leave Hockley as it is.
 

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.

Hockley is a village - The access roads are very narrow and one broken-down or badly parked vehicle cause massive traffic jams. The road structure will not support the enormous impact of larger delivery vehicles.

Hockley is a village - the residents respect and use the small businesses here. We have a village community spirit which we share with our well known and well used local shop keepers. We do not want (or need) a mega store.

The Government supports plans to assist small businesses. How can Rochford District Council disregard this practice? Hockley residents enjoy the environment as it is. That is what we pay our rates for - the Council should really listen to the people who have voted for them, and upport their opposition to this major change to a pleasant community.
 

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.

As Hockley residents we mainly object to the reasons in MM16. We do not want another supermarket. Also we like the small shops we already have but would like a butchers and an independant greengrocers.

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.

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing
around 2/3rd 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!

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. The changes may well impact the financials and an updated viability analysis is required.

Evidence:

The HAAP states: "This analysis adopts realistic and robust assumptions, including
construction costs based on standard building indices and the project team's
knowledge of comparable schemes, and takes into account the potential cost of
land assembly. It also relates to a scheme that would help to meet the Council's
aspirations for the AAP area. Broadly speaking, the viability analysis demonstrates that the proposed redevelopment of the Eldon Way Opportunity Site is currently financially viable".

So the HAAP recognises the financial analysis is marginal but states that land
assembly costs are included._ However, the actual, source Viability Assessment
paper states land assembly costs are NOT included (as indeed they are notl). No
evidence the plan is financially viable.

The revised HAAP designates Hockley as a prime location for the provision of new
office space in the District. There is no evidence to support this proposal - recent
demand for offices has been poor and in August 2013 the council approved a
planning application to convert existing offices in a commercial property (Warren
House), located in the village centre, into flats. Further, the letter dated Sept 2012
from GL Hearn (on the Evidence Base) confirms there is little demand: "Office
development in Hockley would be seen as a secondary investment and as such
it would be very difficult to secure private sector funding for any speculative
office development in the short term and it is unlikely to be viable in any case.
As a result of this weak demand profile, office provision in Hockley is limited at
present. In summary, given the current economic climate and secondary nature of the Hockley office market it is unlikely that development would prove viable without significant cross subsidy from higher value uses or public sector support".

The existing industrial premises in Eldon Way currently provide a significant source of business to the adjacent shopping area. If demand for offices is low (as per the GL Hearn report), this trade will not be replaced and there will be a loss of business.

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.

Evidence:

A Freedom of Information (Fol) response from ROC 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 Fol response revealed work has started on assessing highways issues. The outcome of that work has never been made public - a ROC Fol 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 ROC 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. Fol responses show ROC'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 81013 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 SPO but has not done so.

MM16

The proposals will materially change the character of Hockley by demolishing
around 2/3rd 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.