MM18
Object
HAAP: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33169
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: The Co-operative Group
Agent: Barton Willmore LLP
MM18 - New Paragraph following the Fifth Paragraph
14. The Co-op is concerned that reference is made in this paragraph to concern that a large retail unit (of unspecified size) would have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of the centre and will not be favoured, but may be acceptable subject to various criteria, including assessing its impact on Hockley and other centres.
15. Subject to the amendments to Policy 6 recommended at paragraph 8 above, this modification is
unnecessary as it is ambiguous and would merely duplicate the revised wording of Policy 6. If it is
considered necessary to retain the paragraph, it should be amended to make it clear that any application for retail development will need to demonstrate compliance with the Policy 6 criteria as proposed to be amended at paragraph 6-8 above.
Recommended Changes To The Hockley Area Action Plan - Main Modifications Consultation
16. For the reasons set out above, the Co-op maintains its objection to the AAP, as proposed to be
modified. The following changes are proposed in order to make the Plan 'sound':
* MM18 - either delete the paragraph in its entirety or amend it to make it clear that any application
for retail development will need to demonstrate compliance with Policy 6, as proposed to be
amended above.
1. We act on behalf of the Co-operative Group ("the Co-op") and have been instructed to submit
representations and objections to the Main Modifications consultation on the Hockley Area Action Plan
("the AAP"). This follows the submission of previous representations in January 2013, a Hearing
Statement dated August 2013 and appearance at the Hearing Sessions held in September 2014. This
representation should be read in the context of our previous comments.
2. The Co-op's previous comments focused primarily on the allocation of a circa 3,000 sq m gross foodstore on the Eldon Way Site, under Policy 6 of the emerging AAP. During the Hearing Sessions and in its Hearing Statement, no evidence was provided by the Council to demonstrate that the proposed allocation of a foodstore of up to 3,000 sq m gross was justified against the evidence base, or was consistent with the NPPF. It could not therefore be considered sound. This view was supported by the Inspector in his letter to Rochford District Council dated 17th October 2013 which found that the proposed Policy 6 was unsound as there was no justification for a foodstore of 3,000 sq m gross.
3. Against this background, we set out below our comments to the Main Modifications to the AAP, and the AAP's performance against the soundness tests contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 182.
Object
HAAP: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33242
Received: 15/01/2014
Respondent: Mr. Robert Schramm
Obviously this is a money issue- and all the small businesses will go- then what rates will be paid- look ahead please
Obviously this is a money issue- and all the small businesses will go- then what rates will be paid- look ahead please