Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document

Addtiional cycle parking proposed but nothing on cycle access. The narrow railway bridge is a serious obstacle to cycling in Hockley

Report proposes reduced parking levels (below standard). Developers are unlikely to invest in a supermarket with inadequate parking.

Report proposes extra housing "north of rail line" by consolidating car parking in Eldon Way but inadequate parking proposed.
No Traffic Assessment (TA) to assess impact on traffic having to go through railway bridge bottleneck.

Insufficient parking levels result in Capacity Study being undermined.and inaccurate.

Capacity study results skewed by inadequate parking space

The Core Strategy sets the background for the HAAP. P135, 12.38 states "The Retail and Leisure study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS does not say that!

The RLS actually states:
 "Hockley is by far the weakest of the three town centres, to the extent that we do not consider it to meet the definition of a 'town centre' as set out by PPS6"
 "We have recommended that Hockley be reclassified as a district centre" [Note: This option was belatedly included as an option in the Allocations DPD consultation in April 2010 and heavily supported.]
 "We recognise that Hockley lacks suitable larger retail premises for prospective traders and is unlikely to attract national multiples due to its size and proximity to larger centres. We have therefore suggested that encouragement of niche and specialist businesses could assist in the creation of a 'boutique' town centre".
 "We recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths, rather than retail expansion."

The council has deliberately misrepresented their own experts' report, thus misleading the HAAP study, which is consequently based on inappropriate economic grounds. This can only undermine the chances of success.

The original RLS report can be found in the council's evidence base at
http://fs-drupal-rochford.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/planning_evi_base_retail_leisure_study.pdf
but it is a fragmented, difficult read. We have therefore extracted all the references to Hockley and they are provided at
http://hockleyresidents.co.uk/Other/ (HAAP Retail Leisure Study extract.doc
The Council's response: It stated "You made this same complaint in respect of the Core Strategy at the examination in public which was not accepted by the Inspector who found the Core Strategy 'sound' in respect of its approach to the HAAP."

Comment: Noticeably they have not disputed the misrepresentation but defended their action simply on the grounds that the Planning Inspector did not object to it. We did raise this with the Inspector during the Core Strategy process and imagine she took no action as this was because she deemed it was not a material consideration in the context of the much wider Core Strategy. However, surely it cannot be right for the council to make proposals for an Area Action Plan based on a complete fabrication of their own experts' report and, hence, inappropriate economic conclusions? This can only result in economic suicide!

No rational for stated requirement for a new 3,000 sq m supermarket, 6 times the current size. Two new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP started and not even mentioned!

Additional pubs and cafes proposed but insufficient policing levels to police area (particularly in evening). We have 1 Pc and 2 PCSOs to 30,000 residents.

This report allows for £2-300K for Spa Roundabout. The council states it has not assessed the changes but the same proposal in the Core Strategy allowed up to £2m. What has changed to justify this reduction?

The council's own expert reported that there is restricted space for improvements. Why have council reached a different conclusion and what evidence to support their conclusion?

Unfair, discriminatory two-tier consultation approach adopted

At 'The Executive' on 14 March 2011, the council agreed to "accelerate" the HAAP timetable.

Subsequently RDC contract 2944, "Consultancy - Pre-submission drafts of the Hockley, Rayleigh & Rochford Area Action Plans (AAP's)" details the council's requirements for the next stage of the area action plans for the three towns. In doing so, it created a two-tier process, which heavily discriminates against residents in Hockley.

At that time, all three AAPs were at exactly the same stage, and all included in the same contract, but Hockley is being treated very differently.
 The deliverables for Rochford & Rayleigh are much more open and not prescribed.
 They are also smaller in scope and impact but much more time is being allowed for their development.
 No time was allowed for consultation in Hockley, whereas it has in the other towns, although all three area plans are, of course, starting from the same point of time and the Hockley proposals are likely to have a greater impact.

Why did the council opt for this two-tier consultation approach that discriminates against Hockley and why will Hockley not be consulted on these imposed major changes? Was it just to prevent public discussion in Hockley of an imposed, unpopular policy?

Following a question on this at Full Council on 17 July 2012, the council implemented a knee-jerk reaction. Soon after, on 14 August 2012, it introduced a short 10.5 day exhibition at the Public Library, and on-line. This suggests that our complaint was valid. There was minimal advance notice. I got my notification 4 working days before hand but most did not hear until after the exhibition had started. The entry on the council's website is dated 21 August - halfway through the consultation.

Despite this small concession, Hockley is still disadvantaged compared to the other two towns and the council has never responded on why they adopted a two-tier strategy.

The Council's response to my Formal Complaint: The council stated: "The overarching policies in relation to Hockley centre were determined through the Rochford Core Strategy, specifically in Policy RTC6. The Core Strategy was subject to considerable community involvement, appraisal and examination in public. You submitted representations on Policy RTC6 at the pre-submission stage and as part of the Core Strategy examination you attended and spoke in person at the hearing on 20 May 2010. No decision has been reached on the final contents of the Hockley Area Action Plan."

Comment: Avoids the issue. A non-response which clearly does not address the issues raised about the two-tier approach.

Since then we have discovered that Traffic Assessments have been completed for Rochford and Rayleigh AAPs confirming the discrimination. In an email, Cllr Hudson stated " both the RoAAP and the RaAAP are expected to be released for public consultation in March 2013 when they will contain a similar level of highways implication assessment as did the Hockley Area Action Plan". As the HAAP contained no highways assessment (apart from a single statement that councillors "consider" 3 slips lanes can be added to the Spa Roundabout), Cllr Hudson's statement somewhat bizzarely means that the 2 completed, and presumably paid for, TAs for RoAAP and RaAAP will not be used!