Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

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?

Developments are proposed for:
"Rayleigh and Hullbridge" which are actually in Raweth;
"Ashingdon" which are in Rochford
"South Hawkwell" which are in West HawkwellThe CS is misleading to the public and mis-represents the proposals, which could lay it open to future legal challenge.
Several proposed sites (eg Rawreth, Canewdon) are not within easy reach of retail centres and do not have public transport.
Development along Rectory Road, Hawkwell . This will create a continuous urbanisation from Hockley, through Hawkwell, into Ashingdon and Rochford with no green corridors as required by RDC policy.
Railway bridges across the district provide numerous bottle necks. The traffic light controlled bridge by St May'' Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell is a particular concern. Delays there are likely to result in more traffic going through Hockley.

No consideration has been given to option of focusing development in a 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?

The CS proposes around 12 housing sites scattered across the district. No consideration has been given to option of focusing development in a 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?
Neither is any consideration given to future expansion, already proposed by ERRA/ECC. This is shortsighted and risks future problems.

35% affordable housing is proposed. The cost of building in expensive areas like Hockley and Hawkwell will make this target prohibitive apart from very small 1 bedroom flats which will be out of keeping with the area. Specific consideration should be given to where Affordable Housing will be provided.

The proposals recognise the need for infrastructure improvements but these have not been considered , costed, or funded.
Many roads are at or near capacity but no plans on how to address the extra traffic.

The Government's regional funding allocation has been cut to £80 million, which will have to be split across East Anglia. This is insufficient.

Once the CS locations have been accepted it will be difficult/impossible to change them. Infrastructure costs must be identified before agreeing sites.

Infrastructure proposals will be paid for by use of "standard charges" No details given of how this will work or likely levels. Costs may render small locations un-viable.

Page 97 identifies the need for additional youth facilities. 12 housing sites scattered across the District does not provide sufficient scale to pay for extra youth facilities.

Page 93 proposes a primary care centre for Rayleigh. Rayleigh has the best GP/patient ration in SE Essex; the largest GP practice has just significantly expanded; and the area has relatively lower numbers of additional housing.
No improvements are recommended for the Rochford area which has the worst GP/patient ratio in SE Essex and the most houses proposed.

Infrastructure proposals will be paid for by use of "standard charges". No details given of how this will work or likely levels. Costs may render small locations un-viable.
No consideration given to how standard charges will work in facilities required to support more than one site e.g. a health centre covering several locations or road improvements indirectly required because of development elsewhere

Housing to be scattered, mainly to West and North of District whilst industry will be concentrated in South East.

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 non-existant.