Skip to main content
Working hard. Keeping you heard.District Councillor for Downhall & Rawreth ยท Rayleigh Town Councillor for Sweyne Park
JAMES NEWPORTDistrict Councillor for Downhall & Rawreth
Rayleigh Town Councillor for Sweyne Park
Rochford District Council ยท 20/06/2025

Are Hockley Residents Being Shortchanged by The Foundry Flats?


Are Hockley Residents Getting a Fair Deal from The Foundry Developments?

Two major planning applications are moving forward in Hockley โ€“ Building A and Building C at the Foundry Business Park on Station Approach. These proposals will bring a combined total of 64 new apartments and commercial floorspace into the area. But while developers stand to profit, are local residents seeing a fair return in the form of infrastructure improvements?

The answer lies in the Section 106 (S106) agreements โ€“ legal obligations used to mitigate the impact of new development. On paper, contributions have been agreed, but dig a little deeper and serious questions arise about whether these go far enough.

๐Ÿ—๏ธ 

Building C โ€“ 50 Apartments and Commercial Floorspace

Govey Homes Ltd is proposing a large mixed-use scheme for Building C: 50 apartments above new ground-floor and mezzanine commercial units. For a development of this scale, infrastructure pressures are inevitable.

Their S106 obligations include:

  • ยฃ99,817 for off-site affordable housing (well short of the 35% on-site policy target).
  • ยฃ25,600 for local NHS capacity.
  • ยฃ3,890 for libraries.
  • ยฃ21,690.18 for upgrading two nearby bus stops with real-time displays.
  • ยฃ7,838 as a habitat mitigation fee (RAMS).
  • A pedestrian link to Eldon Way and long-term management of drainage, parking, and public space.

While these payments may sound generous, itโ€™s worth noting:

  • The affordable housing contribution is based on financial viability assessments rather than actual need.
  • Thereโ€™s no money for school places, youth provision, or community facilities.
  • The scale of residential development โ€“ five storeys plus roof terraces โ€“ will significantly alter the areaโ€™s character without equivalent investment in local services.

๐Ÿงฑ 

Building A โ€“ Conversion to 14 Apartments

Building A (Kilnfield House) is a more modest development, converting existing employment space into 14 flats over four storeys. Despite its smaller size, it too will add pressure on local infrastructure.

S106 contributions for Building A include:

  • ยฃ7,000 for healthcare.
  • ยฃ2,372.30 for habitat mitigation.
  • ยฃ1,089.20 for library services.
  • Biodiversity and monitoring fees totalling over ยฃ1,200.

Again, we see no mention of education, highways, or public realm contributions โ€“ despite a growing population in a constrained part of Hockley.

๐Ÿค” 

So, Whatโ€™s Missing?

  • No education funding, despite families being likely occupants.
  • No youth or play space investment, contrary to planning policy.
  • No strategic transport improvements beyond two upgraded bus stops.
  • A reliance on S106 monitoring fees to Rochford District Council and Essex County Council, rather than visible, resident-facing benefits.

๐Ÿšจ 

Why It Matters

Hockleyโ€™s infrastructure is already under pressure โ€“ from traffic congestion to GP waiting times. New housing must come with real, tangible investment. Section 106 agreements are a tool to achieve that, but in this case, residents may rightly ask: is this really delivering for our community?


The developments are not yet built โ€“ and now is the time for residents and councillors to scrutinise whatโ€™s being promised, and push for more.

>