H1 - Alternative Option

No consideration has been given to an alterative option of single site.

The CS proposes around 12 housing sites scattered across the district. No consideration has been given to option of focusing development in a single or few locations The CS process errs in not considering the option of a few sites and risks future legal challenge.

The Seaside/Colonnade proposal for housing east of Rochford, and other planning applications for this area, represents a valid alternative option which needs to be addressed. Why have RDC not considered this option?

Scattering ouses across the District is simply not sustainable.

The district has long suffered from lack of investment in the infrastructure. Scattering houses across the district cannot be cost effectively supported by sufficient investment to enable adequate improvements.

Housing to be scattered across 12 or more sites, mainly to West and North of District whilst industry will be concentrated in South East at airport The impact of thousand of extra car movements each day is unsustainable. Roads like the B1013 are already at near full capacity and the railway bridges across the district are pinch point which will difficult and expensive to circumvent. This approach contravenes government policy PPG4.

PP4 says: "encourage new development in locations that can be served by more energy efficient modes of transport". The CS does the opposite with housing mainly in West and North. Bus services are virtually non-existant.

The CS process errs in not considering the option of a few sites and risks future legal challenge.
The Seaside/Colonnade proposal for housing east of Rochford, and other planning applications for this area, represents a valid alternative option which needs to be addressed. Why have RDC not considered this option?

retain any development to brownfield/existing developed sites. however when building houses/accommodation, extra services will need to be added too. dentists, doctors, hospitals, schools, youth services etc are all needed now let alone with more housing.

additional housing/people means better transport. already the roads around the district are busy and congested. rail is already extremely busy too.

I am concerned that all the 330 houses could be centered in one place changing the nature of the village, we believe it would be better to spread them throughout the Hawkwell area.

Concentrating development on 'sustainable' towns & villages has led to unsustainable infrastructre pressures (principally character, transport and roads) on larger sites, and neglect in providing a sympathetic development plan accross the district for the benefit of all residents.

I agree in principle but the final sentence should read "remaining housing should be on appropriate sites on the edge of existing settlements and which would enhance the lives of existing residents

No clear explanation of 'alternative uses' in the first option, while the two alternative options to some degree oppose each other except in regard to size? 'Cramming' may be more noticeable re previous comments where intensification of smaller sites is used as an option?