HAAP: Schedule of modifications
Search representations
Results for Rochford District Residents search
New searchObject
HAAP: Schedule of modifications
MM15
Representation ID: 32804
Received: 08/12/2013
Respondent: Rochford District Residents
I support the Modification you require but I am concerned that the actual wording put forward might unintentionally to give the Council an option to only give lip service to other retail mix options which would run contrary to your intentions and be against the principles of natural justice. Some form of publicly exhibited due diligence, independently audited and verified, with formal public consultation needs to be added by you to this Modification. In other words if a single supermarket is proposed because there is no other viable commercial option then that must be proven independently and in public.
Mr. Smith. I attended Day 1 of the HAAP PE. Whilst I support the principles of the Modification you require I am concerned that the actual wording put forward might unintentionally to give the Council an option to only give lip service to other retail mix options which would run contrary to your intentions and be against the principles of natural justice. Some form of publicly exhibited due diligence, independently audited and verified, with formal public consultation needs to be added by you to this Modification.
I understand you to be stating that a 3000 square metres food store is unsound and should be replaced with "overall additional retail capacity of 3000 square metres".
I recall Ward Members for Rayleigh speaking in Development Committee regarding the Asda Supermarket in Rawreth Lane saying that in Rawreth residents expected lots of small retail outlets selling food, comparison goods, electricals, butchers, bakers etc,. But in Rawreth residents ended up with a single ASDA store selling the usual comprehensive range of goods with competition only on other brands and pricing determined by ASDA. In other words a single supermarket.
The Modification you put forward for Hockley could be interpreted by a developer and the Council to still mean a supermarket with a gross floor area not exceeding 3000 square metres. This is what the Council originally put forward of course.
I think that the Council still believes that "an anchor store" is a proven necessity for any shopping centre to thrive but it would seem that Residents and you do not agree.
I believe that you need to add the requirement for the Council to conduct a professional Due Diligence with Evidence, independently audited and verified, presented to public scrutiny in a further public consultation to ensure that the previous policy is not delivered without proper and exhaustive investigation and promotion of the Modification. In other words if a single supermarket is proposed because there is no other viable commercial option then that must be proven independently and in public.