Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Search representations
Results for Hawkwell Residents Association search
New search New searchObject
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Representation ID: 28894
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Representation ID: 28895
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Representation ID: 28896
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Representation ID: 28897
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
Policy 8 - Encouraging leisure opportunities
Representation ID: 28898
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
5.1 - Working in partnership
Representation ID: 28899
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
5.2 - Financial viability
Representation ID: 28900
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
5.3 - Community infrastructure
Representation ID: 28901
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
Object
Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document
5.4 - Monitoring change
Representation ID: 28902
Received: 21/01/2013
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Hawkwell Residents Association Response to the RDC HAAP 2013
1.1 The big picture
Comments: Producing a heavy weight document that prevented printing and general distribution and expecting the public to fill in a complicated online response for a third time is an unfair method of consultation. We believe the public now have consultation fatigue and will not respond in sufficient numbers.
Comments: Explain and include your residents in any decisions. Councils are supposed to foster localism but the Parish Plan produced by the residents has been completely ignored.
1.2 Working with our community
Comments: This is a lie; the Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored. Consultation has been minimal to avoid the confrontations that were produced by HAAP1. All RDC want to do is finance this plan by letting a developer build a large (up to 3,000 sq m) supermarket that residents do not want or need in the middle of our village. A large supermarket development will also cause the demise of our local shops causing them to struggle as they do in Woodham Ferrers. This will cause unacceptable amounts of traffic on the already overloaded B1013 bring traffic in our village to a complete standstill making it almost impossible to get in and out of Hockley village by car.
Changes: Keep changes to a minimum as requested by the majority in the Hockley Parish Plan produced by the Hockley residents.
1.3 Working with our partners
Comments: We do not know who these partners are but they certainly are not the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Associations and as for localism RDC do not understand the meaning of the word. Very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with thereby avoiding confrontations.
1.4 The AAP area
Comments: At present there are fewer empty shops (one out of around 40 to 50) in Hockley than any other village we know. The plan to build a large supermarket will make that situation far worse. We currently have 3 small to medium size supermarkets in Hockley village and we believe that is enough for local residents.
Changes: If additional shops are necessary Hockley can take it but don't include a large supermarket.
2.1 The Hockley Context
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.2 Place profile
Comments: The Hockley Parish Plan produced by the residents has almost been completely ignored.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.3 Policy context
Comments: There are a number of proposed changes on parking, planting trees, improvements to the spa roundabout etc and some of these items are desirable but they are completely reliant on finance from the developer. The only way this will be achieved is by letting a developer build a large supermarket in Hockley that residents do not want and do not need. We believe this is not legal as this would be against localism and the published Hockley Parish Plan.
Changes: Work within the Hockley Parish Plan and include local people at all stages of the process.
2.4 Retail issues
Comments: In 2008 Hockley only had one supermarket and now has three. We believe the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. A large supermarket would probably mean the demise of one or two of the current supermarkets we have reducing the choice residents have once again. We do not believe a developer of a large supermarket would finance all the improvement measures already stated plus enhancing the current shops. We believe that what RDC is proposing is not possible and therefore not legal.
Changes: Include local people at all stages of the process.
2.5 Employment issues
Comments: RDC are using a study that is 5 years old and we believe this is unacceptable and not legal.
Changes: Cary out an up to date study.
2.6 Land ownership context
Comments: It is not stated but we believe the term Hockley Trading Estate includes Eldon Way and The Foundry Estate. We are informed that these areas are not owned by the same owner. RDC is stating that the Hockley Trading Estate is largely owned by a single land owner, which we believe is not true and therefore not sound.
Changes: Statement made is too vague and should be investigated before publishing them.
2.7 Property market overview
Comments: It would appear that by referring to the 2007 credit crunch some 6 years ago, that most of the information stated is out of date. Since that time we have had two additional supermarkets in our village. Eldon Way is holding up very well despite having the blight of the HAAP hanging over it. RDC have stated that Eldon Way offers a good opportunity for residential development. As most of the units are occupied this is not true and therefore not sound. The main area that has empty units is local to the currents shops and could form a natural extension to the shopping area. We do not believe there is any demand for offices, there are plenty of empty ones already.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.8 Movement issues
Comments: There is no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas, only enhanced crossing facilities is mentioned. Some of these improvements are worthy but removing guardrail along Spa Road is crazy, as the local police meetings are requesting additional guardrail outside Sainsbury's. This highlights how out of touch RDC are with local requirements making these statements unsound.
Changes: Use up to date information not statements that are no longer true.
2.9 The Sustainability Appraisal
Comments: There are proposals to make changes to the Spa roundabout but no mention of improvements to the Spa Road junctions with Eldon Way and the Foundry Estate that would be required if additional use was made of these areas. The appraisal is not comprehensive enough and in our opinion therefore not sound.
Changes: Make a more comprehensive appraisal.
3.1 What makes for a sustainable Hockley?
Comments: Hockley may need additional housing but not at the expense of a thriving trading centre. The current trading centre is sustainable as the majority of its work force live in our village and can walk to work. Moving the trading centre out of our village would result in additional travel to work and hence make this proposal unsustainable and unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is.
3.2 Vision & objectives
Comments: 1) Hockley now has three supermarkets competing with each other, which means most food shopping can be carried out locally. 2) In our opinion Hockley does not need a new public space. 4) We do not see how this is compatible with building an additional supermarket and housing in this area, which makes this statement unsound.
Changes: Leave the trading centre where it is. This area is unsuitable for housing accept for some flat above shops near the current shopping area.
3.3 Arriving at a framework
Comments: It is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague but we do not believe a large supermarket is required in our village (which is not a town centre), as we currently have three. If the Foundry Business Park has been upgraded we had not noticed it as it still looks a complete mess. If RDC want to keep the current trading area we fail to see where new housing would be built as this is not made clear in these proposals. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 1 - Hockley Area Action Plan framework
Comments: As we have stated in 3.3, it is very difficult to make a full assessment as these proposals are too vague. The drawing provided is unclear and we believe has many errors on it. Some of the parking is show in Eldon Way where access ramps to existing building are at present. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
4. Proposals plan & area-wide policies
Comments: The area show on the drawing marked as Eldon Way Opportunity Site is where the majority of employment is currently. This would imply that this area would be redeveloped, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Clarify the proposals.
Policy 2 - Delivering environmental improvements
Comments: We do not believe Hockley requires an additional public space. We consider a raised entry on Woodlands Road would be dangerous as they give a false sense of security. There is no street clutter to speak of and trees planted near existing buildings could undermine foundations and add to street clutter. We believe the Spa roundabout could be improved by adding extra lanes but with the limited space available we cannot see how pavement could also be widened. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Most of these proposals are unnecessary and undesirable.
Policy 3 - Promoting better movement
Comments: We do not believe that a developer would do any of this work unless it could make a massive redevelopment of the area including a major supermarket and mass house building, which Hockley does not want or need. This would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There are no estimated costings, which we believe would cost many millions of pounds. Some of these proposals would be on railway property, which are notoriously difficult to deal with. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 4 - Increasing the availability of housing
Comments: Again this would mean redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. We believe this light industrial area it completely unsuitable for housing. In other sections this document talks about increasing parking, which goes against building on the car park in Plumberow Avenue that we believe belongs to the railways. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Change to more realistic proposals.
Policy 5 - Protecting jobs
Comments: We do not believe there is a demand for offices. Offices were planned near the airport and were cancelled and there are many empty ones in and around the village at the moment. It appears that this proposal is based on a 5 year old study that we believe to now be unsound. If the Foundry Estate has been upgraded it is not obvious from the outside of this asbestos roofed building. We do not believe any of these proposals will protect jobs and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 6 - Improving retail choice for local people
Comments: Hockley now has three supermarkets and we now have sufficient choice for our village. We do not require an additional supermarket up to 3,000 sq m as the current supermarkets do not get a massive turnover during weekdays and do not need the competition of a large supermarket on their door step. We believe a new large supermarket could lead to closure of one or more of our current ones and hence give us less choice. Again this has been based on a 5 year old study and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date studies.
Policy 7 - Ensuring a healthy centre
Comments: As this item is based on a 7 year old plan and a 5 year old study we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Use up to date plans and studies.
Policy 8 - Encourage leisure opportunities
Comments: If the previous proposals mentioned in other items go ahead some of the current leisure facilities will be replaced by housing and CJ Bowling would be surrounded by shops and homes. This is completely unclear on the drawings provided and we therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Give clear information and drawings.
5.1 Working in partnership
Comments: We believe this will be a very complicated as we do not believe that most of the area proposed for redevelopment is largely in the control of a single land owner. There is no telling what ECC Highways will propose. One thing that seems to have been completely overlooked is the bottle neck under the railway bridge. In our opinion this needs to be widened by providing a separate pedestrian tunnel as in Wickford and Shenfield. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Working in partnership is easy to say but not so easy to achieve. As we have said on previous items we cannot believe a developer will take this on without a major development project. We believe some of this work would only be achieved by not using a developer but by obtaining government funds as they do in Southend and other places.
5.2 Financial viability
Comments: This again means redevelopment of Eldon Way, which contradicts the previous statements of retaining Eldon Way as a trading centre. There is no mention of what happens to all the current businesses using this area, all the job losses if they cannot afford to move to other premises and the travelling miles that would be required if they moved miles away from Hockley. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially plan.
5.3 Community infrastructure
Comments: These costings seem on the low side especially the Spa roundabout upgrade, which we believe would be in the order of £1 m alone. Nothing has been allowed for the bottle neck under the railway bridge. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Make a more sensible financially costings.
5.4 Monitoring change
Comments: We do not believe RDC have complied with the Localism Act 2011 as very little attempt has been made to include the local residents in this process, they have certainly not included the Hawkwell or Hockley Residents Association. They say they have included items from the Hockley Parish Plan but we see no evidence of this. We therefore believe this proposal to be unsound.
Changes: Include local people at all stages and get something that the majority agree with to avoid confrontations.
