MM16

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.

The above says all we would want to say (probably better wording!) We moved to Hockley 7 years ago and were attracted by the atmosphere at its centre. It still retains a feel of being a village. Please don't destroy this!

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 you on the proposals of the HAAP. The Hockley Village should remain what it is, a village, which has a close community. By demolishing around 2/3 of the village centre, these proposals will change the character of Hockley, we do not need a maximum 3000 square meter food supermarket nearly the size of the Rayleigh Asda, we just don't it. (More cars, more jams). We are served very well by the Co-op supermarket, the Sainsbury supermarket the Spa newsagents and convenient shop, plus we have a very good supermarket in Costcutters, opposite the Hockley Methodist Church, so I really think we do not need a giant supermarket in Hockley village!
I agree that a full transport assessment is required on any proposals to do with the HAAP.

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 wish Hockley to maintain its village atmosphere - MM16 will take away this village feel completely.

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.

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.

As one who is unfamiliar with legal language, I am totally confused by Council jargon when discusions are reported to local taxpayers. The current document is a case in point.

However, I take this opportunity to express utter dismay at plans to change Hockley, especially to put a supermarket in Eldon Way. We moved here to get away from built-up areas. Small shops will suffer.

If more thought is given to the use of Bullwood Hall, may I suggest the Felmore Prison inmates are transferred to Bullwood where there is room for them. Alternative but if more houses are needed could this not be used for flats, or the grounds for houses?

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.