Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document

The council twice picks out C J Bowling alley as a special case - why?

The voluntary youth club next door is a better candidate for special treatment, and the children's playground on the other side equally worthy of merit. How does the council justify the 'special' treament?

Manipulation of consultation results

This section relates to a separate formal complaint made in 2011. It is included to demonstrate the incredible (and frankly rather bizarre) lengths the council will go to manipulate this consultation and also the way in which it repeatedly covers up its actions.

In February 2011, in the DPD Allocations consultation, the council's proposals for Hockley were unanimously rejected by all 496 respondents (many of whom used a standard 'pro-forma' form of response).

Bizarrely, the council then manipulated the consultation by diverting 460 legitimate responses to a section other than that for which were clearly marked and properly intended ("TC7/9"). The council correctly recorded the comments under Section TC7 but, for unknown reasons, posted the comments to Section E10 instead of the specified TC9. This was despite the very clear heading and the fact that Section E10 was not mentioned anywhere in the objections.

Their action denied those 460 people (including myself) their democratic right to have their valid objection recorded as intended. They repeatedly refused to correct this and gave numerous, different, conflicting reasons for its actions. None of the responses remotely suggests an appropriate reason for posting the comments to section E10 and resulted in the HRA making a formal complaint.

The council eventually acknowledged overriding residents' clear instructions by posting objections to a different section, but still have not accepted that their policy was inappropriate. The varying and contradictory explanations clearly demonstrated a corporate 'cover-up' mentality, further discouraging any confidence in the consultation process. The final review undertaken by the then RDC Deputy Chief Executive, Graham Woolhouse (GW), appears to have been very superficial and another 'whitewash'.

It is clear that RDC has been repeatedly abusing the consultation process by ignoring and/or manipulating consultation results during the wider Core Strategy process

The Council's responses:
1. "Each representation can only be placed against one policy / section of the document to which it is made against (although a single response may contain multiple representations)." (Sam Hollingworth (SH), Project Leader, 11 August 2010).

Comment: This was totally inappropriate as the responses had already been registered twice!
* GW's response makes no reference to the clear designation expressed by all 460 respondents and suggests he did not even examine the original submissions (likewise for Mr Scrutton's response).
* GW also states "Nevertheless, I must reiterate that the respondents have the opportunity to request that the way in which their representation has been registered be changed." This seems oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what I was complaining about i.e my request to change had been repeatedly refused! So, in essence, his response totally agrees with my complaint whilst still rejecting it!


2. "all the comments received are shown; all are registered against options / sections chosen by respondents (including your representation on the Hockley town centre boundary which you yourself registered against Option TC7) or, if not specified, comments were registered against what was felt to be the most appropriate option / section" (Sam Hollingworth (SH), Project Leader, 11 August 2010).
Comment: This was totally inappropriate as the designated option was clearly specified!

3. "when a resident submits comments in this way, they must choose which section / policy / option their comment is to be registered against. However, if representations are submitted by post or email and the response gives no information about the specific sections or policies to which the representation is intended to apply, then Officers inputting the information to JDi must decide which policy / option / section they are registered against" Shaun Scrutton, Head of Planning 25 August 2010.
Comment: This was totally inappropriate as, again, the designated option was clearly specified!

1. "In terms of determining how responses are registered on the system, in cases where responses are received in a form other than through our online system, Officers must make a judgement as to which section of the document they best relate to" (Graham Woolhouse, Deputy Chief Executive 27 August 2010)
Comment: Confirms residents' wishes are not material but at least this response appears to accurately represent the way the council actually views consultations!

2. "I could see no particular reason why a generic response could not be posted to multiple locations just so long as the comments contained therein were relevant to that section. It transpired that the software that the council had at its disposal did not facilitate this concept; I then encouraged our officers to discuss this dilemma with the providers of the software and a method of cloning was subsequently devised." Cllr Keith Hudson 8 September 2010. Comment: This response suggests that the problem was a software issue and contradicts the officers' assertions that they were following standard procedures. We believe that this is probably the closest to the truth.

3. "Whilst you may personally disagree with the decision to register the text in question against Option E10, the Council is of the view that - having regard to the content of the representation and that of Option E10 - such action was entirely appropriate."
The final review undertaken by the then RDC Deputy Chief Executive, Graham Woolhouse (GW), appears to have been very superficial and another 'whitewash' because: Clearly he finds nothing wrong with this overriding of clear, specific and appropriate instructions from respondents.
Comment:
* GW's response makes no reference to the clear designation expressed by all 460 respondents and suggests he did not even examine the original submissions (likewise for Mr Scrutton's response).
* GW also states "Nevertheless, I must reiterate that the respondents have the opportunity to request that the way in which their representation has been registered be changed." This seems oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what I was complaining about i.e my request to change had been repeatedly refused! So, in essence, his response totally agrees with my complaint whilst still rejecting it!

Failure to consult properly

No analysis was initially undertaken of the public's responses to the previous (i.e. second) HAAP consultation. Why?

It is also contrary to the council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (see
http://fs-drupal-rochford.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/planning_sci_statement_comm_invol.pdf) which states the council will provide "feedback as to how people's views have been taken into account and have influenced the decision making process".

The council has admitted that they haven't taken the consultation into account before deciding the way forward. (Email from Natalie Hayward, Senior Planner, 280612 - "We have not produced an analysis of the consultation as yet, and as such this is not available. However, the full responses to the consultation can be found on our website at the following link: http://rochford.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=173)".

The Council subsequently published a 'summary' of the last consultation. See:
http://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/rochford.gov.uk/files/documents/files/planning_HAAP_responses_0.pdf
Its styled a "Summary of Responses" but is simply 31 pages of extracts from responses with no analysis or even an indication of volumes. So no idea if one person makes 100 comments or 100 people make one comment. Useless!

The report goes someway towards acknowledging this and starts:
"A detailed analysis of the responses will be prepared and published later in the plan-making process as part of the evidence base supporting the pre-application version of the plan."

The report is not dated(!). We asked the council for both its date and when the next stage will be available (remembering that the contract required the next stage report to be completed by September 2012). No response.

Whilst the report is undated, and the council has avoided giving us a production date, but it was posted on their web-site on 2 July 2012. This was just 4 days after the council (Natalie Hayward, 28 June) told us no analysis had been prepared. It was after the Invitation to Tender was issued in June and it was not mentioned in the Council's response dated 1 August to my formal complaint.

By itself, the summary is a meaningless collection of comments and suggests a knee-jerk reaction to my enquiry. However, it does confirm the fact that the council proceeded to the next stage of the HAAP without analysing the previous responses, contravening its SCI and suggests it was conscious of its error.

Despite the lack of analysis, it is clear that the responses are overwhelmingly against major redevelopment and want to retain Hockley's village character.

It should also be remembered that whilst the first set of proposals was sub-standard, the responses were never-the-less clearly also against major redevelopment and council has also seen the results of an impartial survey undertaken in 2009 which also shows that the majority of residents are clearly against major redevelopment.

There is a clear, consistent trail of evidence that the majority of residents want to retain the character of Hockley and keep it as a village. They are against major redevelopment but the council has simply ignored these findings and has not demonstrated that they have taken them in to account as required in their SCI. Although they have (unintentionally) fulfilled another part of the SCI - "Cynicism towards the process - feeling that their views will not be acted upon"!

It is clear that RDC did not consider the earlier consultation before proceeding to the next stage.

The Council's response: It stated: "Consultation and community involvement was undertaken throughout the production of the Core Strategy. There has been considerable community involvement in the Hockley Area Action Plan and there will be further engagement before it is finalised. The responses to the consultation can be viewed online."

Comment: Avoids the issue - a 'non-response'.

Under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI), residents obtained a copy of the council's contract for the current stage of the HAAP and were dismayed to discover that the council had already secretly predetermined their requirements from the study.

"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 three area action plans.
(See http://hockleyresidents.co.uk/Other/ (HAAP Contract 2944, Consultancy)

Page 10 states (inter alia): " The pre-submission HAAP must conform to the Rochford District Core Strategy (2011), with particular regard had to Policy RTC6. In summary, consultants will be expected to produce a plan which will deliver .................:
 Redevelopment of Eldon Way / Foundry Industrial Estate for a variety of uses more appropriate for a town centre location, including residential, commercial, employment and leisure.
 A public space within a defined centre".
Thus there are clearly pre-defined, major deliverables - deliverables which are contrary to the clearly expressed views in the previous two consultations and in responses to Core Strategy consultations. The council has ignored all these consultations. This is confirmed by the absence of any analysis of the last HAAP consultation (see 3.4.1 below), despite the volume of responses, making a mockery of the consultation process.

It should also be noted that, in this case, the council has in fact 'pre-determined' the outcome, which is contrary to what it told us when we asked it to "highlight" highways issues. The council cannot have this both ways!

The council has confirmed that the decision (to prescribe a solution) was based on the concept of redeveloping the industrial area (Eldon Way/Foundry Estate), as set out in the Rochford District Core Strategy, and that the details of the redevelopment are being explored through the preparation of the Hockley Area Action Plan.

It is a core part of the council's position that the Core Strategy authorises them to define the outline requirements. Residents strongly argue that this is not correct. This was made clear in two specific amendments to the Core Strategy at the council's Full Council & ECM respectively on:
 9 September 2009 when it passed a revision, relaxing the existing proposals stating: ""Replace ..."Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estate will be redeveloped for housing" because "....There is concern that the initial wording could be interpreted as being overly definitive in terms of the redevelopment of employment sites"
 14 October 2010, changing policy H1, to state "In the case of Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estate, the nature of any redevelopment will be determined through the HAAP".


The council argues that their specific requirements were approved in its Core Strategy but this is not correct. This was made clear in two specific amendments to the Core Strategy Submission document, approved by votes at the full council's meetings on:
 9 September 2009 - when it passed a revision, relaxing the existing proposals at that time: "Replace ..."Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estate will be redeveloped for housing" ....There is concern that the initial wording could be interpreted as being overly definitive."
 14 October 2010 - changing policy EC3, to state "In the case of Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estate, the nature of any redevelopment will be determined through the HAAP".

The fact that the council has specially voted twice, a year apart, to make two specific changes to the Core Strategy, to make clear that the HAAP will determine the future for this area, totally undermines its current assertions that the exact opposite is true.
The fact that the full council has voted twice, a year apart, to make two specific changes to the Core Strategy, to make clear that the HAAP will determine the future for this area, totally undermines its current assertions that the exact opposite is true.

What the Core Strategy actually states:
(http://fs-drupal-rochford.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/planning_cs_core_strategy_submission_document.pdf)

Page 135, 12.39 & 12.40
"Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estate in particular, has been identified as a potential opportunity site given its location in proximity to Hockley centre and the train station, and the potential for industrial uses to be accommodated in more appropriate locations within the District, as examined within the Economic Development section of the Core Strategy.

The Council will explore the above issues and potential in detail through the development of an Area Action Plan for Hockley centre".

and (Page 57, Appendix H1):
"Contribution towards Hockley centre regeneration to be determined through development of Area Action Plan, including:
− Public transport infrastructure improvements and service enhancements
− Healthcare facilities
− Public open space - landscaping and street furniture
− Pedestrian links between centre and train station, linking residential development to both
− Early years and childcare facility
− Youth and community facilities
− Local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements, including Spa Road/Main Road junction improvement"

The wording of the contract with the consultants for the 3rd review actually uses the same wording as the 090909 Core Strategy Submission document, ignoring the two specific amendments passed at two separate full council meetings. So it is very clear that HAAP should determine the way forward, not the CS as the council stated. This means the decision to prescribe redevelopment was based on an incorrect basis and is fatally flawed.

The Council's response: The council stated "Policy RTC6 of the Core Strategy provides the policy for redevelopment to be explored through the area action plan it does not specify the details, scale, uses or specific sites. It will be for the Hockley Area Action Plan to determine such issues, as well as the detailed policies relating to the rest of Hockley centre."

Comment: This endorses my view and is the one part of the council's response that is correct but it is not what the council has actually implemented. As the ECM specific amendments make clear, the HAAP should determine the actions not the other way round as specified in the contract with the consultants.

There is considerable factual evidence to show that the council has:
 acted unethically in ignoring previous consultations and secretly prescribing the way forward, creating a discriminatory two-tier process;
 misled residents as to what can and cannot be included in the HAAP;
 misrepresented, and ignored, the both the views residents and of its own experts;
 Whitewashed' residents complaints and undertaken knee-jerk cover-ups.

It appears intent with implementing its own preferred solution at all costs. The only outstanding question is "Why"?

Accordingly, the current HAAP review needs to be aborted and restarted in due course on a proper grounding, which takes proper account of the views of experts and residents.

The council lacks transparency and integrity. It is therefore also essential that a thorough review is required to ensure that RDC's ongoing policies and practices are fully appropriate, transparent and the public can have confidence in them.

The Submission Copy says that the Viability (Financial) Assessment "takes in to account the potential cost of land assembly".
However, it actually says "It is important to highlight that although the viability analysis undertaken as part of the process produces a positive land value this does not take in to account the cost of acquiring third party land and buildings to facilitate development".
The Submission Copy is therefore inaccurate and misleading.

There is insufficient parking for both shops and, particularly, the station where existing parking is more than halved!

The Viability Assessment shows a plan of 211 supermarket parking places and 72 for station users. A manual count of the existing car parking has shown that there are approximately:
- Existing Coop car-park: 31 standard spaces+1 permit holder+1 disabled+1 child+1 delivery van = total 35 (+ existing back-street ad hoc parking, say 15), = total 50
- Railway main car-park NE of railway line : 144 slots + 3 disabled = 147 plus small car-park SW of railway line: (4 short term+2 taxis+3 disabled+3 staff = total 12) = overall 159

A new 3,000 sq m supermarket will be about 5.5 times as large as existing, which suggests a pro-rata need for around 275 car parking spaces for shopping, meaning the new proposals are very tight. Railway parking, however, shows a huge reduction of 87 spaces - over half! - and at a time when hundreds of new houses are being built in the area, creating more demand in a commuter town. This will have a 'knock-on' effect in Rochford and Rayleigh as well as pushing parking in to surrounding housing estates.

There is no evidence to support the council's proposals for a new "medium size" supermarket.

The Retail & Leisure Study 2008 recommends that Hockley is downgraded to District centre status; focusses on a boutique culture, and also states (inter alia):
10.26 Despite its low market share in convenience goods, Hockley is identified as having a need for between 220 sq m and 650 sq m convenience floor space in 2008, with a long term requirement of between 300sq m and 890 sq m in 2026. However the scale of
need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.

10.27 In this respect, we consider it more appropriate to focus on enhancing the existing
convenience offer, potentially through extensions to existing stores, rather than the
introduction of new convenience retailers who may duplicate the existing offer.
Alternatively there may be opportunities for promoting smaller, independent
convenience retailers (ie, a butchers or fishmongers).

10.28 Our assessment of comparison goods trading in Hockley indicates that the centre is
significantly underperforming, achieving an average sales density of some £2,275 per
sq m. There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space. While capacity is
identified in the future, this is likely to be overstated having regard to the apparent
degree of undertrading.

10.29 With this in mind, we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's
existing strengths, rather than retail expansion. Hockley presently benefits from a good
mix of independent traders with a well maintained pedestrian environment. The size of
Hockley itself and its location relative to the larger town centres of Rochford and
Rayleigh, and Southend beyond, lessen its attractiveness to multiple nationals.
Collectively, these suggest there may be considerable scope to develop Hockley as a
boutique shopping destination populated with smaller independent high quality retailers,
to be complemented with a range of leisure and service retail uses.

10.30 While there has been an increase in vacant units within the town centre since 2006, this is not in itself indicative of poor health. However, certain areas do require attention to
prevent creeping decline. Section 5 identifies a range of opportunities for environmental
enhancements which could increase the attractiveness of the centre, especially should
a 'boutique' approach be adopted.

10.31 The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as
defined by PPS6. Moveover, we have identified that it a very small catchment
population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a
town centre to a district centre. This is not to say that Hockley does not have the
potential to be a 'town centre', although this would be subject to expansion of its existing
retail offer and catchment to meet the definition set out in PPS6.

10.32 Local Plan Policy SAT1 sets out the Council's sequential approach to new retail
development within the District, with focus firstly on the town centres, followed by edge
of centre locations and then district centres. We consider this policy approach to
dovetail with the recommendation to focus on Hockley's existing strengths, rather than
retail expansion.

-----
Since the R&LS in 2008, two new supermarkets have opened (Sainsburys and Costcutter), so a significant increase in space and competition has already occurred. There is no evidence more space is required.

The council's paper "Overview of the approach to Rochford's three Area Action Plans" dated 11 Dec 2012 makes clear "that relating to future retail capacity, which was identified through in the 2008 Retail and Leisure Study" was the driver for extra capacity. This is a false representation and undermines the whole credibity of the HAAP.

This is a poor plan, with very limited vision, which does very little to take Hockley forward. The key issue of Highways has not been addressed and the proposed changes will make it harder to improve traffic issues in the future.

Despite numerous repeated commitments (the latest being at Full Council on the 17 July 2012) to include highways issues in the HAAP, the council now states that it has not undertaken a transport assessment, in order to save money, and that it will be undertaken by any developer at a later stage, This has a number of implications.

Highways issues have been been considered critical and highlighted at every stage of the HAAP. There are two key considerations, one at each end of the high street::
1) the existing need to deal with the bottleneck at the Spa mini-roundabout, which will no doubt be exaggerated in the future by extra traffic volume from the increased number of shoppers, as well as from the hundreds of new houses to be built in the surrounding area.
2) the potential new problem created by the council's recent decision to move the station carpark to the Eldon Way site, thus reversing existing flows through the narrow railway bridge, which often requires one-way traffic flows when a bus, or large vehicle, is trying to pass through the bridge.

Plans to more than halve the size of the station car park may well also exacerbate both problems.

Thus failure to determine the way forward may well have a significant impact on the viability of the whole AAP. If potential developer(s) are unwilling to meet the resultant financial costs, the whole HAAP will 'stall' and regeneration will be impacted. Or, possibly, options such as moving the station car park may need to be discarded, restricting the scope of any changes.

Even if the HAAP goes forward as currently proposed, the most that is achievable within the current layout/space is a 'fudge' on highways - minor improvements at best, which do not really resolve the underlying issues, which will become even more intractable. The current proposals simply will not move Hockley forward and a more holistic approach is required.

Deferring the transport assessments also effectively suggests that the whole redevelopment will need to be undertaken as a single project. Otherwise different companies could come up with different, contradictory or partial highways proposals. Based on the financials in the Council's viability assessment, a single project would be an extremely large undertaking which would increase the risks to the council's ability to manage the developer effectively.

We also note that RDC do not seem to have addressed the outstanding highways issues from the Core Strategy and there is no district Transport Assessment, in to which the Hockley context can be fitted.

Highway issues are integral to the overall success of the project and as such need to be addressed at this stage

The council have performed a last minute U-turn and excluded highways' considerations from the HAAP. No assessment of road improvements required has been made for either (i) the Core Strategy or (ii) the HAAP.

(i) There is no mention of any highway improvements as there is no Core Strategy Transport Assessment from Essex County Council or elsewhere. An Integrated Transport Assessment should be made for the Core Strategy as a whole and incorporated into this document detailing the improvements to all roads in the District
required by the development of these sites. On 21 December 2012, Alastair Southgate Transportation Strategy Manager wrote in an email to Cllr John Mason "On a local level every strategic development proposal is accompanied by a transport assessment, the scope of which must be agreed with the Highway Authority. This assessment considers the impact the proposed development will have on the highway network and includes industry standard forecasted growth (TEMPRO) to ensure a comprehensive approach that accounts for present traffic conditions (including any new and committed development) and future traffic growth." Any improvements required should be completed before the development or at least as the first units are occupied. Where Essex County Council would be responsible for any upgrades improvements should take place prior to the commencement of any development.

(ii) Improvements to the Spa road/main Road roundabout have always been an integal part of the HAAP. The Core Strategy Policy T2 - Highways Improvements - states
"The Council will work with Essex County Council Highways Authority to ensure that highway improvements are implemented to address issues of congestion, road flooding and poor signage. In particular, highway improvements to the following will be prioritised:
* ....................
* Spa Road/Main Road Roundabout Hockley"

That commitment has been repeated at regular intervals. The latest was at Full Council on 17 July 2012, when Cllr Hudson stated "that part of the remit of the Area Action Plan was to consider roads and junctions throughout Hockley ".

Despite these numerous repeated commitments to include highways issues in the HAAP, at the last minute the council now states that it has not undertaken a transport assessment, in order to save money, and that it will be undertaken by any developer at a later stage, The only Transport Impact Assessment required will therefore be developer funded and relate only to te HAAP, without taking into account either highway issues or other developments in the district. .

Especially given the long delay in undertaking the Core Strategy Transport Assessment, appropriate, integrated Transport Assessments at district and local levels should be an integral part of the HAAP, or the opportunity will be permanently lost.