Questionnaire

NOT ENOUGH THOUGHT ABOUT WATER, DOCTORS SCHOOLS

Somewhat disagree

NEW ROAD WILL AFFECT AIR QUALLTY NEAR SCHOOL

No answer given

No answer given

I can't see how any of the 4 principles apply; the current reality is a gritty edge of industry small community which is not coping with the level of traffic, thanks to the poorly planned and managed Amazon depot and its local impact. Your so -called 'employment area' directly impacts 4 substantial residential homes and I am not yet aware of any compulsory purchase orders.

Strongly disagree

You need to go back to the drawing board.

Way too many houses on what is essentially an agricultural landscape.

I doubt if any of the development planners or officers have spent unto an hour every day getting through the 4 Elms roundabout on their daily commute. If the planners can't plan a substantial road junction on the edge of the community, there is absolutely no confidence that they have any understanding of local needs.

You can put as much spin on the plans but it still does not take away the fact that you are taking a lifestyle away from people and damaging nature and environment.

Strongly disagree

Loss of lifestyle, more pollution, loss of nature. This plan is a travisty.

HORRDENOUS. Stop ruining peoples lives, this plan is a disaster for envirnoment and a way of life.

NO! NO! NO!!!!!!!!! Environment and people, no profit. SHAMEFUL!!!!!

Accessibility plans impact on local primary school and pose a safeguarding, noise and pollution risk

Somewhat disagree

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

I would agree with the key principles, but do not think that this vision delivers on that. By building on Deangate Ridge, you create yet another split community, like Chattenden that is split by the Peninsula Way. Without knowing if the HIF is going to be delivered then we cannot know if the community will be sustainable or accessible.

Strongly disagree

Much for the same reasons as Q1. This is not just Hoo, but the Peninsula as a whole. Development on this scale will completely change that area and no doubt led to further development in more years to come. We need to be able to feed our own communities, and by taking away farmland will have a negative impact on that, leading to imports, which in turn is not environmentally suitable for the whole of the planet. What work has been done with other small villages on the peninsula to see if they would like some very small scale development to help their existing facilities remain sustainable and ensure their primary schools remain open.

Unhappy that the proposed railway station will not take trains directly into Strood, into Medway. If we are talking about neighbourhoods we should be making those neighbourhoods easy to travel between.

I am surprised at this being the last question. the questions being asked with this consultation are very disappointing and do not reflect what has been said about this consultation as a whole. We are expecting to hear what residents think about what has been proposed with this HDF but there are no in depth questions, just very vague questions about the vision. Why not ask "What do you think about the proposed location of the Leisure Centre?" "What do you think should be included within the Leisure Centre?" "What retail would you like to see?" "What additional health facilities do you think are needed on the peninsula?" Do you think you are currently be serviced well? So many detailed questions that could have been asked. I will be very surprised if this consultation manages to capture the views of resident of the Peninsula.

The question is irrelevant, and should perhaps come after a Local plan has been adopted . When local residents have had their say. We should not be developing on green field sites.

Strongly disagree

the framework plan should come after a properly evidenced local plan . Medway are putting the cart before the horsepresenting the framework before the local plan has been approved.

I've lived here since 1980 having moved from Cheshire. In all that time, medway have done nothing to benefit the neighbour i live in. I lived in strood prior to High Halstow there is very little there for community either. Medway have knocked down their offices and the amenity it provided and almost deliberately run down strood to where it is today a relatively poor place to live.

With the building going on at the moment in Hoo High Halstow Chattenden Strood and Cliffe and the proposed 12,000 extra planned here. There is more house building this side of the river than on the south side of Medway with considerably less infrastructure. Why are the council preempting the local plan. They are selling the idea of housing with all the leaflets from Redrow and Gillespie's. not doing their job of producing a Local plan.

1 Landscape-led development • The Hoo Peninsula is an area of incredible natural beauty, wildlife protection areas and prime agricultural land that has in the recent past been marred by inappropriate developments. • During the brief and damaging interlude in our history when we became slaves to fossil fuels, the Peninsula was scarred by petroleum storage tanks and a polluting coal fired power station. • Latterly, when we became slaves to materialism, the Peninsula has been marred by the construction of a Distribution Depot for online purchases at the end of a road to nowhere with consequential heavy disruptive polluting lorry traffic. • Now, it is proposed to concrete over several square kilometres of grade one agricultural land and call it a Landscape-led development. This is the latest insult to somewhere that is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in all but name. • A large part of the Hoo Peninsula comprises Special Protection Areas for wildlife in the form of areas of Special Scientific Interest and a RAMSAR site. • These sites have national and international protection and are likely to be impacted adversely by the proposals in the Hoo Development Framework ‘Vision’. • Such sites are also protected by millions of private individuals who are members of the numerous organisations that take the protection of our wildlife, biodiversity and future of our planet very seriously. • Medway Council, by pursuing their ‘Vision’, are likely to meet with many and varied costly legal challenges to their proposals, which Medway rate payers need to be aware of. 2 Accessible and well-connected settlements. • More than half the residents of Medway need social or other supported affordable accommodation. Ref: Medway Local Housing Need Assessment 2021. • If people on low incomes are to be housed in a remote rural area, they will need transport and they don’t by definition have the funds for expensive unreliable public transport or their own vehicle. • There is of course a proposal for a passenger rail service to Gravesend but how this will help local residents or Medway businesses and shopkeepers isn’t clear. • Very little attempt has been made to improve accessibility and connectivity within the existing settlements. • There are already many parts of Hoo St Werburgh where it is dangerous to either walk or cycle. • The Hoo Development Framework doesn’t seem to address this question. 3 Vibrant and sustainable communities. • The Hoo Peninsula already has vibrant and sustainable communities, that are uniting to resist the bland and unsustainable over-development evident in the Hoo Development Framework. • The Hoo Peninsula has been inhabited for several thousand years and no consideration has been given to the possible existence, for example, of the remains of Bronze Age Settlements. 4 Attractive and tailored built form. • The notion that a volume house builder will produce an attractive and tailored built development is an insult to peoples’ intelligence when all they see around them is standard badly designed, cramped and poorly insulated houses with no thought given to orientation, location or outlook. • If the Government is to fulfil the pledges it has made on carbon emission reductions, every one of the houses built will need expensive retro-fitting with carbon reducing technology within the next few decades. • These same volume house builders, that will be bringing the ‘Vision’ to fruition, have been instrumental in fighting against every attempt to improve national heating and insulation standards. 4 Attractive and tailored built form. • The notion that a volume house builder will produce an attractive and tailored built development is an insult to peoples’ intelligence when all they see around them is standard badly designed, cramped and poorly insulated houses with no thought given to orientation, location or outlook. • If the Government is to fulfil the pledges it has made on carbon emission reductions, every one of the houses built will need expensive retro-fitting with carbon reducing technology within the next few decades. • These same volume house builders, that will be bringing the ‘Vision’ to fruition, have been instrumental in fighting against every attempt to improve national heating and insulation standards. 4 Attractive and tailored built form. • The notion that a volume house builder will produce an attractive and tailored built development is an insult to peoples’ intelligence when all they see around them is standard badly designed, cramped and poorly insulated houses with no thought given to orientation, location or outlook. • If the Government is to fulfil the pledges it has made on carbon emission reductions, every one of the houses built will need expensive retro-fitting with carbon reducing technology within the next few decades. • These same volume house builders, that will be bringing the ‘Vision’ to fruition, have been instrumental in fighting against every attempt to improve national heating and insulation standards.

Strongly disagree

• Everyone is entitled to a secure, safe and comfortable place to live, whatever their circumstances. • At the same time, we all need to eat and must conserve our farmland and reduce our dependence on imported food. • We also share our environment with a multitude of plants and creatures that all add to our well-being and need our protection. • We believe we must build the right houses in the right place. • What are the right houses? 1. Houses of the right size. 2. In the right numbers. 3. At the right price. 4. Well insulated and economical to heat. AND • What are the right places? 1. The right places to meet local need. 2. On previously developed land. 3. Close to existing facilities and services. • The Framework Plan is a good example of proposing to build the wrong houses in the wrong places.

• The proposed neighbourhoods are sited where recently there had been crops growing and animals grazing. • Volume house builders encouraged by the Hoo Development Framework have taken out options to buy the farmland identified in the consultation documents. • Many of these farms are now abandoned, there are no crops, no animals, and no jobs for the people who, until recently, had dedicated their lives to growing our food. • The damage to people, our local community and national food security is immense.

• At the time the ‘Vision’ was being formulated, we had a Prime Minister who went round touting a need to build 300,000 houses a year in England. He was using a house building target, created with out-of-date statistics, by Homes England as part of something called the ‘standard method’. • The standard method uses a formula that relates the predicted increase in the number of households to average house prices and average incomes in an area, to assess their affordability. • Bizarrely, the formula suggests that the less affordable the houses, the more would then need to be built. • The ‘standard method’ is known in the construction and planning professions as the ‘mutant algorithm’ • The Office for National Statistics have long been saying that we only need half the number of houses to be built and they have since been proved correct by the results of the 2021 National Census. • The current Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak is evidently better at arithmetic than his predecessors and on Wednesday 9th November 2022 stated in the House of Commons that there would be no more government-imposed housing targets and that local housing need would be assessed and decided locally. • So how many dwellings do we actually need when our population density is already three or four times that of some of our neighbouring local authorities? The Office for National Statistics says Medway’s population is increasing by 0.6% a year. This means that our existing 111,458 households (2021 census) will also increase by 0.6% giving us a baseline of around 669 dwellings annually. To this we need to add an allowance to reduce the existing Council House Waiting List, to arrive at a realistic figure closer to the 2003 Local Plan housing target of 867 dwellings. • On Wednesday 26th October 2022 Rishi Sunak stated that all new house building would be on brownfield sites and that we would protect our precious green spaces. • The whole foundation upon which the ‘Vision’ for Hoo was created is now no longer government policy. • But fortunately, Medway has ample brownfield sites. • Medway has ‘previously developed land’ in stunning locations that other local authorities can only dream of. • Unfortunately, so far, little imagination has been used re-developing these sites and the results are depressing. • The Medway Local Housing Needs Assessment 2021 investigated at great length and in great depth the housing unaffordability issue for Medway residents. • The Local Housing Need Assessment report stated that they were forced to adopt the ‘standard method’ to assess local housing need, so it wasn’t actually an assessment of the real situation. • Unfortunately, all that work will now need to be done again, but that must be part of the Local Plan process. • The lack of a Local Plan and the fact that the ‘emerging local plan’ has been going backwards rather than progressing, such that it is still at an early stage, is significant. • The ‘Vision’ for the Hoo Peninsula relied on the granting of a Housing Infrastructure Fund Award from the public purse. • There are four eligibility criteria to get the funds awarded, the bid must: 1. Require grant funding to deliver physical infrastructure and provide strong evidence that the infrastructure is necessary to unlock new homes and cannot be funded through another route. 2. Support delivery of an up-to-date plan or speed up getting one in place. 3. Have support locally. 4. Spend the funding by 2020/21 Medway’s Housing Infrastructure Fund bid fails on three out of the four criteria. Happily, the Housing Infrastructure Fund money will no longer be necessary. • However, houses are currently being built at Hoo St Werbugh and the existing infrastructure for sewers, stormwater drainage and flood protection is being over-whelmed, with resulting widespread pollution and risk to health. • Medway Council must stop all building work until the existing infrastructure has been rectified and improved, paid for by the developers. • Please contact the Medway Green Party for more details.

It's not landscape-led, it's money-led! The document makes no attempt to consider the relationship of any new developments with other parts of the Hoo peninsula that will be affected. This section is flawed because this development has been largely influenced by house builders with very little input from local communities.

Strongly disagree

This document has no established evidence base. Where are the ecology and environmental impact assessments for the local communities to consider? Where is the projected traffic and pollution assessments? This is a flawed document!

Neighbourhoods should not be built on. Since leaving EU, the government have already stated that we should be growing more of our own food. So why is Medway Council even considering building on Grade 1 agricultural farmland. This whole plan/document is bonkers!!!

With Local Plan now back at Reg.18, that surely means the HIF money won't be available. This plan/document should be put back in the drawer and looked at again when the new Local Plan has been adopted.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly disagree

No answer given

STRONGLY DISAGREE. This proposal PRE-EMPTS the Local Plan. The local plan needs to be in place and to have considered all locations in Medway for development. Wait for the Local Plan.

Medway Council are proposing the Hoo Development Framework BEFORE the Local Plan is in place. The due process needs to be followed - we must have the Local Plan first, which needs to have considered all areas of potential development across Medway. This consultation PRE-EMPTS the Local Plan. The Hoo Development Framework MUST be rejected until the Local Plan is in place.

Do not build on prime agricultural land that has taken centuries to develop from alluvial silt until we are able to feed our country with little in imported food. Not only the land lends itself to growing food but so does out micro climate People can live in many places but food does not grow so prolifically everywhere

Strongly disagree

Sensitive to the environment is not building on prime alluvial silt matured over centuries in a perfect microclimate for food growing People do not need to live on the Hoo St Werburgh Peninsula. Be green for our planet save food transport costs and environmental costs for transporting food. Save our heritage. People need to live near hospitals, shops and transport not on an agricultural amazing space, which they have no interest in

No development no transport infrastructure needed. No lights needed in the countryside. All people living here moved knowing what countryside was like. We do need arable land used for food, to use our facilities of microclimate caused by two salt water rivers and alluvial silt for good growing well. We can't make these things again so think of the bigger picture and the planet, advertise how "green" the Hoo St Werburgh peninsula is and what it is doing for our country.

Why would you think initially of building on prime agricultural land? Why would you waste resources on damaging centuries of prime alluvial silt now tailored to the Peninsula ? Why would you not take note of our micro climate, prime for crop growth? Why would you want to pollute the area? Why would you want to increase our countries "food miles" to feed our country? Where would you build new hospitals? No houses no pollution no transport infra structure needed a green space with crops. You are treating our peninsula as others are treating the rain forests, why?

Who ever thinks that this will be a well connected and accessible development needs to try opening there eyes, the current road cannot cope at times with the traffic at current levels, the new minor road connection shown on the plans will not be able to act as as a relef road when the current road is closed for the large trucks using the current road, and with junctions shown on the map any traffice using the road will polute the air with in the new development, with such a large short fall in avalable money for this development such things as the new rail and bus services to the development will be the first thing to be dropped, with the railway station and service about the same cost as the short fall in money, the upgrade to the current freigt rail line and the need for a passing loop at the station theres no justification for so much money to be spent for just one train in the morning and one in the evening.

Strongly disagree

There has been no thought given to services needed to for suce a large development, at the events held in and around Hoo there was no people from the utilatys there to answer questions about water supplys and waste water disposal, and nowhere on the plans was there shown a new water treatment plant, while care was taken to show thiings like sports hubs and a new super market there are no new Ploice or amblance station planed in to this development and with rual crime on the increase that will only get worse.

In all the information I can see no mention of thses "Neieghbourhoods" being made to be climete freindlly ie: all having sloping roofs that face east west and fitted with solar pannels. and if the large amounts of green spaces shown are left I would be supprised given the goverments requarments for number of houses per acre, and the greed of house builders.

One question not answered at the events held in and around Hoo, is why does all of the medway councals new house builds need to be in one place, why are there no other large developments on the other side of the river where theres is far more land and medway councallors living? in section 1.1 Hoo development framework background. its stated that The Hoo Peninsula is a special and distinctive area, so why does medway councal want to distroy it? section 1.1 also states "Future Hoo Housing Infrastructure Fund bid, which is bringing investment into new transport and environmental programmes" yet all that is proposed is one highly dubious rail link due to costs, a bus hub for bus routes thats are being cut back, and one small minor road that is there just for the new houses and not sutable for a didvertionry route the wides area.

The over development of Hoo is absolute outrageous. But my main concern at the moment is the potential cycle path alongside Wainscott primary school

Strongly disagree

Hoo will be overpopulated. Very pleased about the railway tho!

Please don’t add a cycle path alongside Wainscott primary school

No answer given

It is biased towards North of the River. All new homes will be on grade 1 farmland and green spaces. It is corrupt in all forms.

Strongly disagree

It is all a politically motivated piece of corrupt local Government.

None of this should go ahead. It's Alan Jarrett's way of avoiding any building in his own ward. Scrap it all.

It is all politically motivated and controlled by the chief bully and dictator named Alan Jarrett.

1 Landscape led - FAIL majorly. River and ridge are the key dominants - = trees and shoreline; neither visible for most residents. 2 Connections - FAIL. 1 Unimproved road in and off peninsular will not serve and if blocked = chaos. The Authority has failed to sort 4 Elms roundabout in many years and a minority improved relief road for 4 Elms Hill does not solve the problem for the majority. 3 IF more provision is not made for lorries in the enlarged "Kingsnorth employment area" [read industrial estate] then the area will continue to be blighted by parked lorries - this problem has NOT gone away and will be exacerbated in future unless major changes enforced in the proposals submitted so far. 4 Attractive neighbourhoods - all "eyewash" unless economically sustainable and twin hubs do not work in practice. One of the two will wither and die and become a vandals paradise. Where in western europe is there such a place working successfully of similar size??

Strongly disagree

The first failure is the fundamental principle of twin hubs for Hoo. The second is failure of the green corridors when transected by a busy dual carriageway. The third is the lack of alternative routes in emergency times if Peninsula Way is for any reason blocked, especially at the western end. The authority does not have a good track record in the provision of infrastructure/enforcement of planning conditions or negotiations with developers over community benefits/contributions. They would prefer to take the rates from an area without providing democratic equity of representation or infrastructure improvements. That is why there is a movement for the secession of the Hoo peninsular to Kent CC.

I refer to the failure of "twin hubs" for one village/small town. Where in the whole of western Europe is there such a place? One will thrive and one will die.

There is much fancy verbiage in what should be a very practical document much of which means nothing; eg Paper pamphlet P11, column 2 Para 3 transport. Read it and if says anything except [we will encourage.........NOT we will provide (anything other than signage!)]. The rest is pure optimistic, at best, verbiage and wishful thinking. I am emphatically not against any and every development; I am in favour of expanding the Kingsnorth industrial estate BUT it needs infrastructure provision at the start, adequate enforcement of parking provision for cars and lorries and improved access via 4 Elms or an alternative route. The new schools, medical practice facilities and leisure opportunities should come before the development - expensive in advance - yes, BUT necessary. It starts with water and cabling for electricity and broadband.

Dear Medway Council, This is a representation in response to the Hoo Development Framework consultation and should be recorded as such – the consultation ran between Friday 23rd September and Friday 25th November 2022. I strongly object to the Hoo Development Framework and what is proposed. This objection is split into two parts: the first is fundamental issues and concerns with the rationale behind the Hoo Development Framework and the second is strategic issues and concerns with the contents of Hoo Development Framework itself. Fundamental issues and concerns with the rationale behind the Hoo Development Framework and pre-empting the supposedly objective and fair Local Plan process. The Council has recently issued a new Call for Sites and will be carrying out a Regulation 18 consultation in Summer/early Autumn of 2023 on “Alternative Development Options”. This new consultation suggests that a range of development options and locations will be fairly assessed, including promoted sites in Capstone Valley and around Rainham – referred to as urban extensions. With this in mind, the Council should also be carrying out development framework consultations for those areas as they may potentially be taken forward in the same regard as the Hoo Peninsula option. The scale of housing development envisaged in the Hoo Development Framework is dependent on this spatial strategy being selected as the most sustainable and deliverable option once the Local Plan process has concluded – this process will include a public inquiry and the independent examination by an Inspector. The Hoo Development Framework is enabled by the Council’s failing £170m taxpayer-funded Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) Project, which is critically required to increase transport infrastructure capacity, effect a fundamental transport modal shift from road to rail and mitigate environmental harm caused by this scale of development in the most environmentally sensitive part of the borough. The Council can’t make firm decisions on the location of large-scale housing development, with the Hoo Development Framework, without properly assessing and considering other reasonable alternatives first. These options are less environmentally impactful and have better access to existing infrastructure, such as major motorways and mainline railway links, as well as existing employment areas and services. These options also don’t require £170m of taxpayers’ investment. The Council’s planned “Alternative Development Options” Regulation 18 consultation is seen as acceptance that there has not been proper consideration to date of reasonable alternatives to large-scale development on the Hoo Peninsula. The consultation and adoption of the Hoo Development Framework, prior to the Local Plan concluding, is not acceptable and predetermines the outcome of what is supposed to be an objective and fair process. At present, because of a lack of crucial supporting evidence, there is no credible explanation or justification for such a significant and disproportionate amount of development allocated for the Hoo Peninsula. This is particularly compounded by the fact that developers in areas such as Capstone Valley and around Rainham appear to not be receiving the same level of consideration for their proposals as developers on the Hoo Peninsula – If they were, there would be consultation on development frameworks for their proposals. An explanation for the Council’s approach to date is the political reality of the situation, whereby a majority of elected Medway Councillors, who predominately live in and represent wards in Chatham, Gillingham and Rainham, would never sanction a development framework consultation or significant allocations in a Local Plan for their own areas – despite these options being a more sustainable approach. Strategic issues and concerns with the Hoo Development Framework itself that are unacceptable or would not be acceptable elsewhere in the borough. Chattenden Barracks: The fact that Homes England is promoting this land for housing development (500 homes) is very concerning when they the fund the Council’s HIF Project, to increase infrastructure capacity – which enables this specific development site to come forward. The proposed HIF Project road and 500 homes will harm the Lodge Hill National Nightingale Bird Sanctuary SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), due to their close proximity to the protected wildlife site. These two proposals are contrary to policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Organisations such as Natural England and the RSPB have recently raised concerns with the Council about other development proposals adjacent to the SSSI, as well as the Council’s general approach to housing development on the Hoo Peninsula in previous consultations. The allocation of 500 homes, and the proposed HIF Project road, need to be removed from the Framework. As has been mentioned by the RSPB, it may be more acceptable to place non-residential development in this location such as a non-emergency hospital to take pressure off Medway Maritime Hospital. Deangate Ridge: The entire site of the former golf course needs to be allocated as a country park, with an element of Golf sport, for the benefit of Hoo Peninsula residents and residents in Strood and Rochester – a country park predominately for this side of the River Medway and borough. It would not be acceptable to develop such a large Council/community-owned asset in other parts of the borough, so why is it acceptable on the Hoo Peninsula? Pedestrian and cycling access needs to be improved and made safe from the top of Bells Lane, along Dux Court Road and into Deangate Ridge. Similar to the Chattenden Barracks development and HIF Project road proposals, the proximity of housing development to the SSSI has raised significant concerns with organisations such as Natural England and the RSPB. Deangate Ridge is very unlikely to be developed due to the environmental sensitivities of the adjacent SSSI. The Council will also need to adopt the long-advocated 400m minimum buffer between the SSSI and new housing development. This buffer will exclude many of the housing allocations in the Framework – these allocations can be sited in less environmentally sensitive locations across the borough. Chattenden Valley: Despite the Framework wanting to protect open countryside on the Hoo Peninsula, the existing green lung and corridor between Chattenden and Hoo will be entirely consumed by the development allocations and a new spur road proposed in the Framework. There won’t be a clear and acceptable green separation of local communities as the Framework amounts to urban sprawl and urbanisation. This scale of gap removal between two settlements would never be acceptable in other parts of the borough, particularly Capstone Valley. In fact, the development proposed in Capstone Valley, as a worst-case scenario, does not envisage consumption of the entire gap as proposed here in Chattenden Valley. Along with the 400m buffer mentioned above, a large number of development allocations will need to be removed from the Chattenden Valley between Chattenden and Hoo. The new spur road was not originally part of the HIF Project and has come about since the original bid because of later consented commercial/industrial development at Kingsnorth – this consented development has worsened the local transport capacity and effectiveness of the proposed infrastructure schemes. This new spur road needs to be removed from the Framework as it visually harms and urbanises the Chattenden Valley. Railway station area: A large concentration of development is envisaged around the proposed HIF Project railway station, with ugly and tall electricity pylons running right through the middle of this new proposed community – will prospective new residents be attracted to live in this area? The Railway Scheme is unlikely to succeed and come to fruition, therefore this concentration of housing development, and supporting services, around the station needs to be removed from the Framework. Although the Council and Framework intends to protect the green lung and corridor between Hoo and High Halstow, this is not convincing when considering that the placement of a railway station itself on the outskirts of Hoo will highly likely result in further housing development proposals coming forward next to or near to the station. With the Chattenden Valley being destroyed by development, what is referred to as the Sharnal Valley between Hoo and High Halstow will also be destroyed in due course with further housing development as a result of the railway station. Kingsnorth expansion: The expansion of the Kingsnorth Industrial Estate into surrounding high-grade and productive agricultural land is unacceptable. The green lung and corridor that currently exists between Kingsnorth and the built-up area of Hoo will be completely removed by the Framework – housing development is envisaged to expand eastwards from Hoo and industrial development is envisaged to expand westwards from Kingsnorth – with no green lung or corridor between the two. It’s also difficult to see how prospective new residents will be attracted to live right next to an industrial estate. The expansion of Kingsnorth Industrial Estate needs to be removed from the Framework and this type of commercial/industrial development should be constrained to the footprint of the existing very large brownfield site. A green lung and corridor must exist between the built-up area of Hoo and the Kingsnorth Industrial Estate. Vicarage Lane: The Framework places new community and sports facilities east of Vicarage Lane in isolation. This is unacceptable for a visually sensitive and generally inaccessible location. Instead, such facilities should form part of a housing development site and be placed in a more suitable and accessible location. Cockham Community Parkland and Hoo Wetlands Reserve: Both of these proposals intend to mitigate the environmental harm caused by allocating such a large concentration of housing development on the Hoo Peninsula. The proposed sites will also attract and attempt to satisfy recreational pressure from such large-scale housing development. The location of the parkland and reserve is very concerning when considering the recreational disturbance that will be caused to the internationally and nationally protected wildlife site to the south of Hoo. The Council recognises the serious issue with recreational disturbance to the Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and RAMSAR site which is the Medway Estuary and Marshes but offers no detail or evidence of the mitigation required. At least, both of these proposed Strategic Environmental Management Scheme (SEMS) sites need to be removed from the Framework and the land should remain as productive agricultural land. This agricultural land itself currently provides a buffer, with very little recreational use, between the protected estuary and marshes and the built-up area of Hoo. New large parklands and recreational areas should instead be placed in the Chattenden Valley (with links to Deangate Ridge Country Park), away from the protected and sensitive estuary, acting to separate Chattenden and Hoo with green infrastructure. Lodge Hill Countryside Site: It’s not entirely clear what the purpose of this specific SEMS site is. It appears that what is being proposed here is non evidenced based compensatory Nightingale habitat due to proposed development of Deangate Ridge that threatens the SSSI. In other words, the Framework is attempting to shift the Nightingale’s habitat further North in order to try and develop Deangate Ridge to the South. Similar to Deangate Ridge, pedestrian and cycling access needs to be improved and made safe from the top of Bells Lane, along Dux Court Road and into Deangate Ridge. Unlike the SEMS sites close to or adjacent to the protected estuary, which is sensitive to recreational disturbance throughout the whole year, seasonal access can be applied here in order to protect the integrity of the Lodge Hill National Nightingale Bird Sanctuary SSSI. This is so local residents can benefit from recreational use of the sites around the SSSI, for most of the year, without harming or causing disturbance to the SSSI itself. Doubling the size of Chattenden, High Halstow and Hoo: The Framework intends to double the size of Chattenden, double the size of High Halstow and more than double the size of Hoo. It would not be acceptable in other parts of the borough to double the size of existing communities so why is it acceptable to do it here on the Hoo Peninsula? The level of growth envisaged and placed upon Chattenden, High Halstow and Hoo will be most dramatic change in the shortest amount of time in their history. The Framework needs to scale down the proposed development around Chattenden, High Halstow and Hoo and instead allocate this excess development elsewhere in the district on more suitable and sustainable sites – as part of the objective and fair Local Plan process. The Hoo Peninsula can play its part in contributing to the spatial strategy of a Local Plan, and supporting the need for housing, with a general dispersed pattern of development across the entire borough (as suggested by the previous Inspector of the Core Strategy) – prioritising the least sensitive and most sustainable sites first, supported by a strong and justified evidence base. What is currently being proposed on the Hoo Peninsula is clearly unsustainable, unworkable, biased and outlandish, but also very divisive – turning one part of the borough against another. Until these fundamental and strategic areas are addressed I can’t comment on the more detailed elements of the Framework. IN ADDITION THE IMPACT ON THE WAINSCOTT BY[ASS WILL BE HUGE. THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF EXISTING WAINSCOTT RESIDENTS, WHO WILL HAVE TO ENDURE INCREASES IN NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION,HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. TRAFFIC WILL INCREASE ENORMOUSLY AS MOST NEW PROPOSED RESIDENTS IN HOO WILL HAVE TO COME AWAY FROM THE AREA TO WORK. LOCAL ROAS SUCH AS HOLLYWOOD LANE WILL BECOME RAT RUNS AS DRIVERS SEEK ALTERNATIVES TO THE BYPASS AS IT SNARLS UP WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC Kind regards,

Strongly disagree

See previous responses. I strongly disagree with this plan as it will ruin the lives of existing residents and make the area another London suburb as Dartford is becoming. We need more doctors surgeries, dentists and at least one hospital to cater for existing residents, let alone the vast increase in population prosed.

see previous response

Existing residents are not being considered. This was a rural area. It has prime agricultural land, SSSi's. ancient woodland and a village feel. Gradually being concreted over, it will become one generic housing mass

I disagree. The pathway will no doubt cause litter and effect the wildlife. Also will a danger for the children having a public pathway so close to an area they are encouraged to explore

Strongly disagree

As stated in q2

No thoughts on this

As stated in question 2

Ref to my previous answer There will be nothing respectful to surround areas nor the impact on Medway at large about this development

Strongly disagree

There is no additional development needed. Medway is already undergoing development in Rochester/Chatham and Gillingham with infrastructure already being crippled. Public transport cannot cope, the hospital cannot cope and yet rather than the council address any of these already struggling features the answer is to simply build MORE houses!

See previous answers

See all previous answers! This proposal is a disaster for all surrounding villages and towns in Medway!

Vibrant and sustainable villages already exist and to expand to the proposed level is not acceptable. Development of high grade agricultural land and countryside is a no-no. There are many brownfield sites around Medway still undeveloped where the infrastructure is already in place

Strongly disagree

The overall framework plan is a vision created by developers without any evidence

The proposed neighbourhoods are urban and not a typical village and in no way would it enhance village life

We need a local plan evidence based and not influenced by developers, Deangate should remain as a community recreation space as originally intended and should not be built on. The proposed relief road for the A228 is totally inadequate. A new road should not pass over virgin land north of the A228, but the Ratcliffe highway should be upgraded from Bells Lane to the Main Road roundabout

Re vibrant and sustainable communities. For this to work there has to be employment for the occupants of the new houses. Where is this employment to come from? Cheap jobs in local warehouses? The moment a person has to get into a car to go to work the scheme loses all credibility as far as 'eco friendly' is concerned.

Strongly disagree

I think the whole plan is unacceptable in its present form. The pathetic efforts to solve the already overcrowded road system is appalling. The rail link is a complete red herring and huge waste of money. The link only goes to Gravesend where it joins the already crowded north Kent line. A fleet of electric busses running a shuttle service to Strood/Rochester would be far more useful and cheaper by far.

Who is going to pay for all the pie in the sky facilities?

Enough said really. I think the whole scheme is a poorly thought-out way of dumping more houses in the wrong place.

Principle 1. The Trust supports landscape-led approaches and in particular welcomes any opportunity for landscape-scale conservation work. More information on this can be found on our website: https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/landscape-scale-conservation/ Principle 3. Incorporating existing and providing new green infrastructure, including trees and hedgerows, should be part of any sustainable development. More information on this can be found in our publication 'Residential developments and trees' https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2019/01/residential-developments-and-trees/.

Neither agree nor disagree

No answer given

no comment

Ancient woodland: The Woodland Trust will oppose any proposals that threaten loss or harm to ancient woodland and veteran trees. We look to Medway Council to uphold the NPPF protection for ancient woodlands and for SSSIs. Development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. Where ancient woodland or veteran trees are lost or damaged there will always be net loss of biodiversity and it is impossible to secure net gain. It is important that any construction is located and designed to avoid damaging ancient woodland, that it includes adequate buffers for designated sites and protects connectivity between wildlife habitats. Further information is available in the Trust’s Planners’ Manual for ancient woodland (2019) https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2019/06/planners-manual-for-ancient-woodland/ Green infrastructure: We welcome proposals for a green bridge over the Peninsula Way. We are keen to see better connectivity between existing areas of woodland, including Chattenden Wood and Lodge Hill SSSI, the woodlands to the south including Cockham Wood, and the coastal SSSIs. We welcome the integration of tree planting into new neighbourhoods and along walking and cycling routes, to provide shelter and shade and to maximise the potential of these new green corridors for habitat connectivity. Trees and hedgerows can deliver wider social and environmental benefits such as: barriers to noise; mitigation for water and air pollution; flood alleviation; enhanced landscapes; carbon sequestration; and assist in climate change adaptation and resilience by stabilising the soil.

- The process of developing a draft Local Plan has been interrupted. so that the whole process has to be virtually restarted. It makes no sense, at this moment in time, to continue working on any "Development Framework" whether it is for the Hoo Peninsula or any other part of the Medway Towns. - The Hoo Peninsula is the most environmentally protected area in the whole of the Medway Towns. In light of the above two points, this is why I "Strongly Disagree". Any proposals for development need to be included in an evidence-based, adopted Local Plan.

Strongly disagree

- The process of developing a draft Local Plan has been interrupted. so that the whole process has to be virtually restarted. It makes no sense, at this moment in time, to continue working on any "Development Framework" whether it is for the Hoo Peninsula or any other part of the Medway Towns. - The Hoo Peninsula is the most environmentally protected area in the whole of the Medway Towns. In light of the above two points, this is why I "Strongly Disagree". Any proposals for development need to be included in an evidence-based, adopted Local Plan.

- The process of developing a draft Local Plan has been interrupted. so that the whole process has to be virtually restarted. It makes no sense, at this moment in time, to continue working on any "Development Framework" whether it is for the Hoo Peninsula or any other part of the Medway Towns. - The Hoo Peninsula is the most environmentally protected area in the whole of the Medway Towns. In light of the above two points, this is why I "Strongly Disagree". Any proposals for development need to be included in an evidence-based, adopted Local Plan.

- The process of developing a draft Local Plan has been interrupted. so that the whole process has to be virtually restarted. It makes no sense, at this moment in time, to continue working on any "Development Framework" whether it is for the Hoo Peninsula or any other part of the Medway Towns. - The Hoo Peninsula is the most environmentally protected area in the whole of the Medway Towns. In light of the above two points, this is why I "Strongly Disagree". Any proposals for development need to be included in an evidence-based, adopted Local Plan.

One of the major reasons we moved to Hoo was the truly country appearance with all the green areas and the view we get of the river from our home. The landscape for us will dramatically change with fields and the river changed to housing! I can’t understand how Medway council have closed Deangate ridge, a golf course in a beautiful surrounding with the ability to offer meals to both golfers and non golfers. With no other golf general course in the immediate area now Gravesend has closed along with the popular restaurant’The Windmill’, it may be worth considering reopening. The main infrastructure is already there and with a few change’s to maybe allow for the general public to also walk and enjoy the views it could be a great success. To now consider building on this site confirms all the talk saying Medway closed it to develop houses. The new railway station is the only benefit to the area which I was told is being applied for separately.

Strongly disagree

The new railway station is the only benefit to the area which I was told is being applied for separately. I have moved from Essex and worked in Canvey. When there is too much development it can become dangerous as the increase in population leads to a increase in traffic and more bottle necks. This then has an increase of pollution which has already been highlighted, showing around the Wainscot roundabout. A new supermarket would be useful, but it is not essential. I can’t see how the concentrated development in a very close proximity to existing housing can retain a rural character and feel the required housing should be more evenly distributed over all of Medway.

The housing which would be built in our view seem to be over 3 levels having a dramatic impact over our outlook of the fields and river. Although their is a public bridle way to reduce our impact it would not be enough to preserve the view.

I would highly recommend that this plan is amended to dramatically reduce the impact on the environment and the wonderful current outlook from this beautiful countryside.

Landscape-led development sounds like the most fanciful jargon I have ever heard. Of course it will have to be landscape led. As we have marsh land and areas that are current nature areas in their own right. If you respected the areas environment you would not be attempting this framework. People are currently able to move about easily. And the settlements are currently well connected. More traffic and housing is not going to assist this. One bridleway loop and a few extra footpaths is not going to help. Especially if there is more traffic and pollution which they will have to navigate on their attempts to get out and be healthy. I am not sure what a vibrant neigbhourhood is. But a sustainable one to me would be one where there is cottage industry. Agricultural and other products grown, harvested and sold locally. And where there is improved access and investment into healthcare and education. And vision for how these areas would be increased and supported. Current development only makes proffesionals and others want to move away and leave the area instead of being able to remain and improve the area. I guess time will tell on principle 4. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It would be great if current building was beautiful and well built. As I am sure this adds to the health and well being of those living there. How about eco housing. Will the housing be built in a sustainable way? How can this be incorporated. And perhaps pioneering like the housing introduced like those housing model villages introduced by King Charles 3rd. How can what is built add to and not leach from the local area?

Strongly disagree

Really disappointed by the framework plan. It still seems really vague and non-specific. Alot of the ideas need further fleshing out. Why not look to current needs and work on meeting those before more building. Really feel like we do not need more housing in this area.

How about improving current neighbourhoods first.

Please do not build more housing estates in this area.

As mentioned 1 or 2 more developments I feel can be added however they will bring cars. More pollution, more traffic and nothing to counter it. Landscape lead developments...sadly you have proposed to build so much in this one area you will loose much of that "attractiveness". Also is should be environment led not what it looks like climate change needs thought here.

Somewhat disagree

I agree the area needs development but again I go back to previous comments there is too much of it. Deangate ridge should be no where near any plans for development neither should the farmland on either side of Ropers lane. People move to the countryside for it to stay countryside. But also shooting ourselves in the foot as a country and building over farmland is not the way forward. What will eat? We cannot eat bricks and nicely laid out gardens

Again with the influx of people I see no big plans to cope with the amount of pollution that will come and how to keep children safe from it. There is still only one road in and one road out so how will the traffic stop getting bottlenecked? Will Medway council be providing people with green energy grants so they can upgrade to electric cars? How will you stop litter and dog fouling? I see no mention of Dr Surgery either. There is too much housing being added to one area.

I just don't think it is very well thought out. You have current developments being touted as "country living" when in truth it is not going to be that in a few years time. The plans are too house heavy and again the issue of building over much needed farmland cannot be overlooked. It seems you are thinking about theoretical residents over the current ones and what they want to see and have for their own homes and places they live. I was bought to the area under the premise that it was the countryside and when I bought my house it was, however these plans simply disintegrate what I was sold. Whilst I do not think there shouldn't be ANY further development I think you have way too many houses in your mind and you should work on the current infrastructure before you think of adding any more and destroying valuable farmland and sites of important environmental interest.

Principles are fine however you should introduce a 5th related to safety and more specifically safety of children.

Strongly disagree

I cannot agree with a plan which places children at risk by introducing the footpath / cycleway adjacent to Wainscott primary school. Whoever thought that this was a good idea is seriously mistaken and massively misjudging public opinion.

N/A

Remove the footpath / cycleway from adjacent to Wainscott primary school and i would have no objection to the proposal at all. Everything else looks fine. The footway / cycleway is a ticking timebomb and issue waiting to happen. Someone needs to see sense here and have it removed.

Widening the carriage way Wulfere way is not needed I have lived here for 8 years that would mean the already noisy road would get closer to my house, I have children with sensory issues and will not be able to cope. This will also devalue my house and many more. Then to put a walkway/cycle route alone side wainscott primary forest school where is is out of sight who the hell though of that talk about Paedophiles playground. I have two children that attend this school I strongly disagree with the proposal. It is not needed so why put it in and put child at risk and making them vulnerable. If this was to go ahead and something happened to one of the child this will be on your head an legal advice would be taken as you were made of the risks

Strongly disagree

For the part that effect me as expressed in previous page

Already said me piece

Think about the risk to children at wainscott school you are making them twice as vulnerable to predators. This does not need to happen

The proposed cycle path along Wainscott Primary School - forest school area is inappropriate. Firstly, it will affect the wildlife in the forest school area. There is also concern with people throwing rubbish along the way. More importantly, there are children using that area including very young children and a cycle path will raise safety concerns.

Somewhat agree

More measures need to be taken for development of the area.

No answer given

No answer given

Overall, these are a good set of proposed key principles, but it will be important to ensure that they actually get put into practice.

Somewhat agree

The Overall Framework Plan sounds lovely in theory and will attract many people to the area and help relieve pressure on housing in other parts of the Medway towns. Again promises about transport infrastructure and local amenities will need to be kept to ensure this plan is realised.

Lok good and well thought out.

My main concern is that the proposed upgrade of transport links will not be implemented as outlined, leading to further bottle necks in the area. For my own part, I would not currently wish to live in the Hoo area due to poor transport links. I would like to bring to the attention of Medway Council the model of Land Value Capture as a means of financing rail infrastructure. LVC is being pioneered with the Northumberland Line, also restoring a freight-only line for passenger use, with six new stations and c.30% of the project cost financed through Land Value Capture. Higher land values in West Oxfordshire have indicated that c.80% of the cost of a new branch line off the North Cotswold Line to Salt Cross garden village, Witney and Carterton (by RAF Brize Norton) could be LVC-financed.

1 - I love nature & have seen no new developments that have enough green areas or trees planted. 2 - Maintained footpaths are key. Through areas of nature or alongside country lanes/main roads to encourage walking, running & cycling. 3 - Sustainability is important. Make electric vehicle ownership easy by building driveways for charging at home. 4 - All recent new build estates look the same! Maybe ask a local designer to help!

Somewhat disagree

As per previous concerns.

No answer given

Remember, whatever the final decision; wide roads, lots of parking, good footpaths, lots of trees!

1. The plans and documents shown at the exhibition have obviously taken a considerable time to produce, my questions are as follows. 2. How many people were on the design team who live on the Hoo Peninsular and what qualifications have they to add to these plans. ? 3. How is part of the former Army camp at Lodge Hill, now become available when it was designated a site of SSI. What has happened to change this ? 4. The general impression of the plan is focused on giving people open space, when the open spaces exist at present and lots of “ open spaces are designated to be concreted over “, is this not a contradiction ? 5. Where are the facilities for indoor meeting points, the plans show a lack of halls and clubrooms and public houses / restaurants etc for meetings and sports for young teenage and old are needed. How are you providing these and how is it expected to incorporate the new influx of 10,000 homes and therefore 25000 plus people and form a community of people ? 6. Where are the medical facilities, a site of this size needs a small hospital, where is it ? 7. Lastly transport. The railway station is a con trick, I am sorry but presenting it to serve Medway is a farce ! Travel to Strood via Gravesend, does that make sense ? 8. Why is the cost of building the railway station coming out of the infra structure fund and not the railway company, as it’s only purpose is to serve as a commuter line to London. This proportion should be spent on and in the area, please explain. 9. Finally I would like to highlight the transport links, and this is why I questioned the expertise at the beginning. Any one living in the area knows the road system is at maximum capacity mornings and evenings, with the main arterial A228 the one and only road to the Peninsular subject to complete chaos if an incident occurs, The submitted plan does nothing to change this, and the reliance on Woodfield Way ( which is Army owned and controlled ) and Islingham Farm Road, (which a small one lane road ) as an escape route is unbelievable. 10. I have submitted for your consideration, an alternative major as route shown on the attachment. I realise this would cost more money and an application would be needed, but what is the point of spending money on schemes which are out of date before they start. My suggested route would also help part of the B2000 road to Cliffe which is another small and dangerous road. The plan is for a ring road around the new proposed Hoo Development Site, from the A289 at the B2000 junction ( which would remove the need for the A289 roundabout changes ) to Ropers lane roundabout on the A228. This would remove all the heavy vehicle movements and speed up the travel times for the commercial traffic which goes to Kingsnorth and Grain etc. An added advantage would be for the existing main A228 to be altered as required more easily for local proposed housing and amenities. 11. I have read your consultation document and I would appreciate your consideration of my alternatives.