Hockley Area Action Plan Submission Document

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.

1) Process Failures by RDC resulting in a failure to consult properly i.e. NOT "legal"

RDC has consistently manipulated the HAAP consultations, misleading residents and denying their democratic rights, with the sole aim of implementing the council's own predetermined policies. Failings include:

1.1 Misrepresenting evidence (including that of its own experts, thus distorting and undermining the whole economic rational for redevelopment) and contradicted itself. RDC have stated that "The Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) indicates that Hockley has great potential." The RLS actually says that Hockley has limited potential! RDC has also stated that the HAAP must conform with the Core Strategy despite passing two specific motions in Full Council to the contrary.

1.2 Imposing a two-tier consultation process which discriminates against Hockley. The council "accelerated" the HAAP and imposed a two-tier consultation system which discriminates against Hockley by:
* restricting public consultation;
* pre-defining the outcome;
* limiting the time available
compared with similar, Area Action Plan studies for Rochford and Rayleigh, which were included in the same contract. The parallel action plans for Rayleigh and Rochford have been allowed more time and more consultation opportunity, despite the potential impact on those areas being much smaller. Traffic assessments have been made for Rochford and Rayleigh but not for Hockley.

1.3 Manipulating and ignoring public consultations (contravening RDC's own Statement of Community Involvement). RDC have demonstrably determined the next step of the way forward before analysing the outcomes of earlier consultations, thereby rendering those consultations meaningless.

1.4 Misleading residents by repeatedly stating highways issues would be included in the HAAP but, in fact, not including them (although they have undertaken Traffic Assessments for Rochford and Rayleigh).

1.5 Misleading residents by holding an exhibition in Jul/Aug 2012 which used 2010 proposals which had previously been consulted on and were "not current thinking".


2, Failures in the HAAP proposals resulting in it not being "sound"

The plans as presented in the HAAP are simply not viable

2.1. Parking (Chapter 3; Policy 3 )
* A new supermarket nearly 6 times the size of the current Co-Op will require adequate and appropriate additional parking, which has not been provided.
* Proposed parking space insufficient even without proposal to move station carpark
* Supermarket developers will require adequate parking; without it proposal is not viable.

2.2 No effective proposals to deal with highways issues. (Chapter 3, Policy 3)
* Plans for 3 slip-lanes at the Spa roundabout are not viable (due to the narrow pavement outside the Spa) and have not been researched, despite previous promises. Transport Assessments undertaken in Rochford & Rayleigh but not Hockley - why?
* Proposal to insert slip lane and widen pavement outside Spa not viable and RDC's own experts have expressed reservations
* Other problem areas such as the railway bridge and Eldon Way junction are not even mentioned.
* Impact of moving station car park on highway under railway bridge not assessed
* Proposal to raise access to Woodpond Road likely to cause delays on main road and endanger pedestrians.
* A Traffic Assessment is also required to ascertain the impact on Hockley of the 3,500 additional homes to be built across the District as part of the Core Strategy.

2.3 Retail (Chapter 3, Policy 6)
The proposals are largely focussed on developing a new supermarket, despite the fact that 2 new supermarkets have opened since the HAAP process started. No mention is made of these. The size of the new supermarket is out of proportion; may overwhelm existing retailers, reduce competition, and is unlikely to take Hockley forward.