There’s a planning application in for a new takeaway in Spa Road Hockley, in a new unit. You can download the full report here (100k) – it’s the second item.
Officers are recommending approval – they don’t see any strong policies reasons for refusal, bearing in mind it is a new , additional unit. However they recommend controls on fumes and operating hours from 7:00am to 11:00pm Monday to Saturday and 8:00am to 11:00pm Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays.
Hockley Parish Council make no objections, but want limits on operating hours and noise controls.
Hockley Residents Association object –
”
o Key issue – The new narrow lorry entrance is closer to the zebra crossing and will be dangerous and cause delays to other road users. This will be dangerous, as well as delaying traffic whilst lorries try to manoeuvre. It is also very close to the Somerfields (Co-op) car park entrance causing further problems.
o Hockley already has too many take-aways. Any further take-aways must conform to restrictions on opening hours, smell and noise controls
o The village will loose valuable parking spaces whilst, at the same time, there will be additional pressures for short-term parking from people using the shop.”
Several residents are very disturbed about this. A typical comment is “Village has enough fast food outlets and needs to see other business ventures take hold. Hockley is losing its village atmosphere.”
The link to the report does not seem to be working.
We already have enough fast food shops, its time to encourage another type of small shop to add to the village scene (while not adding to the street cleaning bill!)
Admin – thanks for correcting the link. Its very hard (impossible?)to find these on the RDC site without a link. Is this deliberate?
Disappointingly, no mention is made in the Weekly List’s summary of the fact that the plans include introducing a new delivery entrance about 1 – 2 metres from the zebra crossing. Instead the summary is mainly based on the fact that the site has previously been approved for a bookmakers, which did not include a delivery entrance.
The new entrance is closer than the existing entrance and we are very concerned at the safety implications of lorries turning into a narrow entrance so close to a zebra crossing.
We have written to ECC Highways asking them to review the H&S implications and hope a concerned councillor will support this by calling in the application.
Brian, it might be worthwhile doing a separate post explaing how planning applications are dealt with at RDC and how you can find them on the website. (You probably know most of it already though)
Thanks Admin – thought I knew how the system operates but couldn’t find the Weekly Summary when I tried this morning. Others may also benefit from an explanation, though, so worth doing. Good idea – Thanks.
Must confess, its also frustrating when the summaries produced by RDC seem to regularly exclude the most salient facts e.g. in this case, possible H&S issues. Wouldn’t mind if they disagreed but do not believe it is right to ignore them. The recent HAAP summary somehow managed to omit the 2 key facts that emerged in the consultation i.e. the proposals for Eldon Way are against government policy and that RDC’s own Retail & Leisure Study recommended that Hockley be reclassified as a “district centre”. Strange how RDC summaries somehow always manage to omit facts that do not support RDC policy!
Am I the only one who thinks that RDC’s planning process is not open and transparent?
Brian I find the planning process fairly easy to deal with, but then, if I can’t manage after 26 years I should be kicked out!
There have been some planning reports in the past that I’ve had serious issues with, but I’ve not had cause for concern for quite a while. However your knowledge of Hockley is better than mine.
I find it hard at times to write short articles and website posts with precision; officers have to write 5, 10, 15 page reports and sometimes that ain’t easy. Planning officers are human.
One of the GOOD things about RDC is that it’s pretty transparent in that all 39 members are on the Development Committee, and we have some public speaking. It’s a LOT more transparent, than, say , the Local Development Framework, or anything under the apparent control of the cabinet.
We have to ensure the overlap between planning applications and the LDF i.e. big housing applications and traveller sites , is kept transparent and fair.
I too support all cllrs being on the Planning Committee but do question the quality of info they get.
The Pizza takeaway only had a relatively few replies, so not difficult to extract the key issues. Instead a lot of effort is made stating the case that a takeaway should be approved because a bookies was previously. They are entirely different operations and I’ll wager a pound to a penny that delivery vehicles will park on the zig-zag pedestrian crossing lines outside the proposed shop. But no mention is made of this, or the lorry delivery access which is immediately adjacent to the zebra crossing.
As I said, fine if RDC disagree with us but lets be open about it so all 49 cllrs can make informed decisions!
Chris you are right about overlaps with the LDF .We have the travellers site up for approval or otherwise in the next couple of weeks.This is a preferred option on the LDF ,there are so many issues with that site that i hope it will get a proper airing at the planning committee .I know you could not possibly comment as you will not make your mind up until you all have properly debated and digested all the facts .It would make a mockery of the authority of RDC if this is allowed through with the various enforcement orders served over the years none of which are carried through .We now have three permanent dwellings plus varied numbers of permanent mobile homes .I have no trouble with their way of life but there is a perceived inequality in the village that the settled inhabitants have to jump through hoops to get small inprovements to their properties and they see inaction on site.This builds up resentment and will do nothing for community cohesion .Purely on planning grounds it should be refused.
Cllr Keith Hudson tells me he has called this application in, so we hope the H&S aspects of this unwelcome proposal will receive a full and proper debate.