Questionnaire

I came across this document by accident (its reference was included in a document forwarded to me by a friend for other purposes), but, as I live in Gravesham, and enjoy the Hoo Peninsular, I decided to have a look. I should explain that my background is a long career working for the railway in a variety of roles, including service and train planning. I retired some six years ago. I am very pleased to see that the importance of Chattenden Woods has finally been acknowledged by the Council. One of the things that drew my attention was the proposal for a station north of Hoo St Werburgh. My first reaction was that it would only work if there was further development from the present town out to meet the railway, which is, of course, included in the proposals (people are unlikely to move north in order to travel south and, in particular, east - to the centre of the Medway Towns). The second was that this is currently a freight-only railway, and is signalled accordingly (although the signalling was improved relatively recently, and the occasional special passenger train ventures down the line). As a single line railway, it has limited capacity (but the amount of freight north of the Cliffe aggregate terminal has dropped with the loss of intermodal traffic). It is not electrified. There would be a need for improvements to the line if a sufficiently-attractive service was to be offered. At this point, one has to consider what sort of service was to be provided (I suggest a 30 minute interval service would be the absolute minimum to attract sufficient numbers to justify the service). Would it be the intention be to provide a through service to London (if so, electrification would be highly desirable, and provision should be made for the operation of twelve-car trains - projection of Gravesend to Charing Cross services would be the obvious solution, but this would waste a lot of capacity in the trains for a significant part of their journey), or a shuttle to Gravesend, reversing in Platform 1 (which is signalled appropriately), or would a service towards the Medway Towns be preferred (the much-vaunted north-to-east curve at Hoo Junction would be essential, if the service was not to suffer an extended journey time reversing at the junction itself)? Would the journey time towards the Medway Towns be competitive? How far east would such a service run? Could it be fitted through the Rochester Bridge Junction - Gillingham bottleneck during peak times (accepting that the signalling is far less restrictive than when I was planning trains through the area!)? Would a combination of any of these options be possible or viable? Should the service be projected beyond Hoo towards Grain? Should a passing loop or terminal bay be provided at the new station to ease conflicts with the freight services? I suggest that much further work needs to be undertaken in this area before the viability of the proposed new station and any new service can be considered, and this needs to be done before the framework is signed-off. Sorry, I should have said that the type of service would dictate the type of train - which, unless it's a projection of the existing service from Gravesend, would probably require new build (or rebuild of existing) trains. It's interesting that you show a picture of a converted former tube train, some of which have diesel (no longer desirable) or battery capability - it's likely that running from Hoo Junction to Hoo St Werburgh would be easily within the range of one of these trains, with batteries charged from the third rail between Gravesend/Medway and Hoo Junction. These would not, however, be appropriate for a through service to London, because of speed and other limitations.

I consider that this to be an ill thought out plan for the future of Hoo Peninsula that has no consideration of the people who already live there , it would also be disgraceful to destroy acres of some of the most productive Farmland in the country maybe even in the world . It is just another reason to try to justify Medway Council penalising every body in Rochester Strood and the Península , there is already more than enough Brown Field Sites around to build more than enough to accomodate their so called targets . Furthermore they state that these houses are being built for local people of which some are affordable , if you cared to do a survey of the properties in Stoke Rd you will find non affordable and no locals , how is any of this being honest with the rate payer . You also state that there will be a new train station with trains that go no where , which is plainly stupid , I can see no logic to any of this apart from the destruction of Hoo Peninsula .

I do not think any houses should be built on Hoo or anywhere in Medway. We have had far too many houses already. Leave the green spaces alone. We need to keep trees, not keep replacing them with concrete. The obsession with building is ruining whole swathes of the country.

THE COUNCIL IS REFUSING TO SHOW CREDIBLE TRAFFIC INPUT DATA TO SHOW THAT PENINSULA A228 AND LOCAL PENINSULA ROADS CAN COPE WITH TRAFFIC-GENERATED FROM 10,600 NEW HOMES UNDER HOO DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PROPOSALS THAT WILL PRODUCE 60,000 PLUS NEW TRAFFIC TRIPS PER DAY USING ACCURATE DATA FROM DEPARTMENT OF TRADE DAILY TRIP FIGURES. Background Peninsula residents are extremely worried the council is determined and continuing to be silent and not giving any reasons for not showing any transparent information on Peninsula traffic modelling data inputs, particularly at public meetings including Local Plan, HIF, Hoo Future public consultation, Hoo Development framework meetings despite many requests. Residents are concerned the Council is being silent for fears the HIF £86m monies for road expansion and mitigation will have to be repaid by the Council because inaccurate traffic data submitted to Homes England will substantially exceed the Peninsula roads capacity. Under, the Hoo Development Framework, I am asking for reasons the Council is refusing to use or test against council input traffic modelling data credible Department of Transport figures submitted showing 33,910 daily vehicle trips under various headings per day at 2019 from 6,000 Peninsulas homes and businesses. The table also set out credible traffic projections of 94,082 vehicle trips per day from building 10,600/12,000 Peninsula new homes and expansion of Peninsula business as per Local Plan scenarios, HIF proposals and expenditure £170m and Future Hoo consultations. DfT's 2019 average daily trip figures using A228 (Full laptop screen needed) Pedal Cycles Two Wheeled Cars/taxis Bus/Coaches Light Goods Heavy Goods Total 7 269 26,649 143 5148 1,701 33,910 - 2019 Total DFT's daily traffic trip count - 6,000 Hoo Homes 14 269 53,000 155 7OOO 2500 62,938 2027 Total DfT projected daily traffic trip count plus 6,000 new houses - total 12,000 Hoo Homes 30 269 79,947 150 10,296 3,400 94,082 - 2035 Total DfT projected daily traffic count - plus 10,600/12,000 new Local Plan homes - Total 18,000 Hoo Homes The Council has not explained the reason they did not test ADMS road input data against accurate actual DfT vehicle trips per day statistics. Essentially, the Hoo Development Framework is allowing us to comment and to give approval on the order in which sections of the Hoo Peninsula natural environment is to be sacrificed and destroyed to make way for housing estates and give £900m massive profits to developers turning the Peninsula into one big building site for 20 years!! However, we were never asked in the first place whether we wanted any of our greenfield spaces to be destroyed for housing. We need local green field for food production to reduce pollution!!! The government’s estimates of housing requirements are outdated and questionable. The Office for National Statistics predicts that the UK population will increase by 3.9 million between 2020 and 2045. This works out as an extra 156,000 people per year while the government claims we need to build 300,000 additional homes every year - 3 times the number needed. Perhaps the intent is to provide the additional population with both a home and a holiday home Currently, the UK death rate and birth rate are more or less in balance. Every year, there are around 350,000 emigrants from the UK, so if this were to be balanced with a similar number of immigrants there would be no increase in population. The downside of this might be reduced profits for housing developers, making them less inclined to support democracy with their large donations to the Conservative party. The destruction of the Hoo Peninsula countryside for future generations needs to be subjected to proper public scrutiny and approval. This would be better achieved by holding a referendum on the Local Plan or, at least, requiring all candidates at the upcoming local elections in 2023 to set out their position on the reasons for building 3 times the housing needed for Medway population increases ? and why the need to build on prime agriculture land just to maximise profits of developers?

The Penninsular is already inundated with new housing estates. We do not have the infrastructure to support these without any more houses being built. We suffer from water shortages already in the South East and more houses will only make the problem worse. At a time when we need to be growing our own food more and more agricultural land on tyhje penninsular is being used for building houses. Four Elms Hill and the roundabout at the bottom are frequently blocked by traffic incidents, this is the main way in and out of the penninsular and these holdups can cause severe delays. It is difficult to get a Doctor's appointment already with out increasing the number of people using the surgery.

I was pleased to see that provision is made for added healthcare, shopping and school facilities, as at least the first two are already in short supply. Hopefully it will be stipulated that these are constructed early in the development to avoid what many developments see: the developers lose interest or funds to complete the work after the housing is built. The provision of an additional road in parallel with Four Elms Hill is vital. It is already often quite difficult to leave Lower Upnor safely when the traffic down the hill is substantially continuous, while the exit onto Berwick Way is similarly dangerous. I note that a new road is pencilled in, but its tortuous nature would probably mean that peninsular traffic would avoid using it unless and until Four Elms Hill was congested; this is therefore insufficient. I was encouraged to learn that a slip road is to be built for traffic leaving the A289 for the peninsula, but disappointed to hear that it is proposed to install traffic signals on Four Elms Roundabout. For much of the day, the present rights of way are easily able to cope with the traffic volume, and will be even better able to do so if the slip road is provided. Perhaps the installation of signals could be delayed until after the other road works were completed to determine whether there is then a need for signals. If signals are provided on Four Elms roundabout, please make them part time only. As stated, for much of the day there will be no need. As someone who regularly travels across Medway outside rush hours, I can testify that the most annoying aspect is having to wait at a red signal when there is clearly no need for signals at all, and a simple give-way on the side roads would suit users of both roads better. In Germany it has been usual for decades to switch lights to flashing amber outside peak times. While this will not work in all situations in UK, it most certainly would on roundabouts, and on junctions where there is a clear distinction between the main and side road. Finally, I was dismayed to note that it is planned to build houses directly to the north of the ridgeway footpath that runs alongside what is to be “Cockham Community Parkland”. This footpath presently affords wide views across the valley to the north, which will be lost forever if the proposed housing is built. This would clearly be a significant loss of an amenity. Regards

Whilst considering the key principles SSE Thermal would seek the Framework to continue to acknowledge that the Hoo Peninsula is of long-standing strategic importance, particularly for energy infrastructure. Its estuarine location and relative remoteness have supported the development of wharves and power plants, of regional and national significance for energy. The area remains important for energy supply and transportation, there are a number of infrastructure and utility services in the area, including SSE Medway Power Station that should be protected from constraining development. Whilst the Peninsula is in yet another phase of change, we would seek for any development in Hoo to not constrict the nationally significant SSE Thermal energy infrastructure on the Hoo Peninsula, and any future development should be managed to secure its future.

Neither agree nor disagree

Whilst considering the Overall Framework Plan SSE Thermal would seek that the Plan continues to acknowledge that the Hoo Peninsula is of long-standing strategic importance, particularly for energy infrastructure. Its estuarine location and relative remoteness have supported the development of wharves and power plants, of regional and national significance for energy. The area remains important for energy supply and transportation. There are a number of infrastructure and utility services in the area, including SSE Medway Power Station. SSE Thermal request that any development or obligations arising from the Hoo Development Framework do not constrict the nationally significant SSE Thermal energy infrastructure on the Hoo Peninsula.

As acknowledged within the Draft Hoo Development Framework the Hoo Peninsula is of long-standing strategic importance, particularly for energy infrastructure. Its estuarine location and relative remoteness have supported the development of wharves and power plants, of regional and national significance for energy. The area remains important for energy supply and transportation, there are a number of infrastructure and utility services in the area, including SSE Medway Power Station that should be protected from constraining development. Whilst the Peninsula is in yet another phase of change, we would seek for any neighbourhoods developed in Hoo to not constrict the nationally significant SSE Thermal energy infrastructure on the Hoo Peninsula, and any future development should be managed to secure its future.

Thank you for the opportunity for to comment on the Draft Hoo Development Framework. As acknowledged within the Framework the Hoo Peninsula is of long-standing strategic importance, particularly for energy infrastructure. Its estuarine location and relative remoteness have supported the development of wharves and power plants, of regional and national significance for energy. The area remains important for energy supply and transportation, there are a number of infrastructure and utility services in the area, including SSE Medway Power Station that should be protected from constraining development. Whilst the Peninsula is in yet another phase of change, we would seek future development in Hoo to not constrict the nationally significant SSE Thermal energy infrastructure on the Hoo Peninsula, and any future development should be managed to secure its future.

• Little detail or context is given with respect to the Hoo Peninsula Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study referred to. Whilst it is assumed this is the report previously provided as a draft intended for internal use only circa 2019, this is not clear and nor is it clear whether this was subsequently updated. Without such detail, it is impossible to understand the full logic behind each of the sensitivity conclusion or whether or not we could agree. • Notwithstanding the above comment, we are extremely surprised to see Land east of Hoo St Werburgh assessed as having a low/medium sensitivity to development given the existing topology and very little existing enclosure. • We note car ownership and usage rates on the Peninsula are much higher than the rest of Medway. As set out in our responses to the various HIF consultations, CPRE Kent strongly object to the principle of the Government spending £86 million pound to build traffic inducing new roads that facilitate building, or “unlocking”, greenfield sites. It is our view such government funding should be being redirected towards the regeneration and delivery of new homes on brownfield sites within the Medway towns. The benefits of new roads schemes are extremely over-stated and in reality, generate traffic above background trends by inducing traffic, which leads to permanent and significant environmental damage. Specifically, and as set out in our The end of the road? Challenging the road building consensus, March 2017 https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transport/roads/item/4543-the-end-of-the-road-challenging-the-road-building-consensus, the building of new roads to accommodate further growth is just going to significantly exacerbate the Peninsula’s accepted existing problem with ingrained car dependency.

Strongly disagree

CPRE Kent encourage the effective community engagement which must go alongside good placemaking. We do however believe the level of detail we and the public are being asked to comment upon ahead of being asked if there should be such significant focus of development on the Hoo Peninsula in the first place is causing confusion. That is, it would be entirely understandable for someone reading the current consultation materials to presume that the principle of the development has already been accepted. As it is, we have had people asking us what the point of commenting on this consultation is as Medway Council will just do what it wants anyway. Within the introduction to the consultation document, it is stated that comments gathered during the consultation will inform the ongoing work on the new local plan and will be considered in the next stage of formal consultation on the local plan. The recently published Local Development Scheme (LDS) confirms the intention is to undertake a Regulation 18 “Development of Alternatives” consultation next year, with overall adoption of the new plan not occurring until the end of 2025. Whilst we welcome the degree of clarity the new LDS brings with respect to timings, the current issues within Medway Council being unable to progress a Local Plan are well documented. Against this backdrop, we do remain extremely concerned that Medway is pre-determining its housing growth strategy outside of the considered assessment of the Local Plan process and have been raising this concern throughout the various HIF consultations. To us, it remains that the Council is purposely pushing forward on the detail of the individual elements of the proposed Hoo St. Werburgh Development in a piecemeal fashion with the intention of then presenting the housing upon on the Hoo Peninsula as something which has already been decided and cannot be changed within the emerging Local Plan. This concerns us as it is the Local Plan process alone which allows for the correct, democratic, and balanced consideration of appropriate growth strategies along with reasonable alternatives. In usual circumstances, CPRE Kent would be considering the detail of what is being proposed alongside the necessary context of the Local Plan and its accompanying evidence base. This would include full environmental assessments, sustainability assessments, transport assessments and other assessments as necessary, such as air quality assessments. On environmental matters alone, the Hoo Peninsula is a largely rural area, containing significant environmental constraints including ancient woodlands, SSSI’s, SAC’s SPA’s and RAMSAR sites. It is also predominately Best and Most Versatile agricultural land and has significant areas of intrinsically dark skies, the loss of which should be strongly resisted. The ecology upon the Hoo Peninsula is extremely sensitive, containing one of the largest breeding site in the UK for the nightingale population, highly protected water voles along with recently proven habitats of the rare purple emperor butterfly and a rare breed of dormouse. Medway also has at least six red listed rare birds sheltering in its boundaries including the Black Tailed Godwit, the Curlew and the Pochard and many more on the amber list. It is also the fact that the Four Elms Hill and Peninsula Way through Chattenden suffers significant levels of air pollution, hence it being designated a Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Without the wider evidence base and context that would accompany a local plan, it remains our view that it’s not possible to provide fully informed comments on the detail of what is being proposed. In isolation of this, we currently remain utterly unconvinced that the selection of the Hoo Peninsula for such substantial housing development would survive the Local Plan process. Our concern is that Medway Council is also fully aware of this and will therefore continue to actively avoid the scrutiny of a Local Plan process up until the point the Hoo Development can be presented as a done deal. CPRE Kent strongly object to such an approach and will continue to raise these concerns throughout this consultation, the wider Local Plan consultation and certainly any plans with come forward outside of the Local Plan Process. In particular, we will be scrutinising the approach the Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal takes. In view of the above, we maintain our overriding objection to the principle of the Hoo St. Werburgh Development and no comments/engagement with this consultation should be construed as support for the proposal.

• Whilst we note the “Garden Communities aspirations”, unfortunately this is now being used as little more than marketing guff across Kent and the rest of the country with what is being built/proposed now showing very little resemblance to the true original principles of the Garden City movement. Regrettably there is nothing within this consultation document that convinces CPRE Kent the Hoo Peninsula proposals would be any different. • Specifically, there seems to be very little real reference or aspiration to fundamental Garden City principle of self-containment through the provision of providing at least 1 job per household. Rather, the proposal seems to be the creation of a dormitory town primarily dependant on new road building to enable in/out commuting to resident’s places of work along with reliance upon the existing employment area at Kingsnorth. The lack of information with respect to self-containment, combined with the lack of vision or detail with respect to proposed on site employment provisions, currently seems to be a significant failing of the current proposal. • With respect to the proposed “neighbourhoods” generally, we have particular concern with those north of A228 (Chattenden, Deangate and High Halstow). In basic place making terms, we would have expected that the A228 would have acted as an obvious edge of the proposed development, not least as any real permeability beyond this obvious barrier will naturally be extremally limited. Rather, the temptation for future occupiers will remain to use the car to make those short journeys to the local centre. This is because they would be looking to either avoid dangerous crossings or having to take significant detours so as to use preferred routes that are intended to provide connectivity. High Halstow comes in for particular criticism in this regard as clearly is isolated from the rest of the proposed development and offers no real connectivity. • It is also the case that both Chattenden and Deangate are located within the most environmentally sensitive areas, abutting the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI. It seems a lost opportunity to not use the barrier that would otherwise be offered by A228 to minimise the likely significant impact this development will have on this particularly environmentally sensitive area. Likewise, the topography with respect to the Deansgate area means any landscape impact will be most acute here. • Whilst we note throughout the document reference is made to the fact the highest regard has been had for the SSSI, Ramsar and SPA designations, the selection of the Hoo Peninsula for such extensive development in the first place is a direct contradiction of this statement. If the highest regard was truly to be being had then you would not choosing to development right up to the boundary of these important designations. • For these reasons, as a minimum we consider those neighbourhoods north of A228 (Chattenden, Deangate and High Halstow) need to be removed from the proposal going forward.

CPRE Kent maintain our overriding objection to the principle of the Hoo St. Werburgh Development and no comments/engagement with this consultation should be construed as support for the proposal. Notwithstanding this point, we would far rather be sitting at the table trying to provide positive contributions to any future development than just shouting from the sides. That is, should a draft SPD for the Hoo development or similar be prepared alongside the local plan process so as to inform the proposed policy text for the allocation, we would welcome being part of that process.

No answer given

Strongly disagree

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

The proposed 'green corridors' are totally inadequate and will do little to maintain visual separation between existing settlements or improve the natural environment. The area would certainly benefit from a concerted effort to plant more trees but there is unlikely to be a specific policy to ensure that happens. The 'green corridors' are more likely to be relatively narrow strips of grass and shrubbery with odd bits of 'amenity land' scattered about between blocks of new housing. Of particular concern is the proposal for recent development to be extended even further on either side of Peninsula Way, up towards the ridge line. This would have a huge visual impact when approaching the peninsula from Four Elms Hill and, of itself, would undermine the professed environmental vision. There are already issues with air quality along the dual-carriageway. It makes little sense to build yet more houses in close proximity to this road, which will become even busier as new development proceeds beyond Hoo. The separation between settlements needs to be far more extensive i.e. no Deangate Ridge neighbourhood and, the proposed West of Hoo neighbourhood reduced in size by at least half so that it does not extend beyond the existing building line along Main Road. The transport proposals are vague. There is nothing in the framework document to suggest that the road network, already suffering from pinch points in several places, will be sufficiently upgraded to cope with the inevitable increase in traffic volumes. With regard to the proposed neighbourhood amenities, I would suggest the commercial elements 'within 5 minutes walk of residents' will mostly be economically unviable and/or will have a detrimental effect on existing provision. (I can think of at least one large estate not a million miles away where there were no takers for the constructed commercial space which then had to be converted to an alternative use). References to 'garden city' developments of the past is all very laudable but in reality how many modern housing estates actually come close to this ideal?

Strongly disagree

As already stated, the proposals constitute gross over-development with little or no regard for the current environment. I can see the logic of extending development to the East of Hoo to infill up to the proposed new passenger rail line - but is that really meeting local demand for housing or is it aimed at those escaping the relatively high property values of London and who will continue to commute in to the centre? (I would hope that the existing power lines will be taken underground through any new development parallel to the proposed passenger railway. A line of highly visible pylons will not do much for property values!).

As stated, the proposed Deangate Ridge neighbourhood should be abandoned entirely and the West of Hoo neighbourhood substantially reduced to create a much larger 'green corridor' connecting Lower Upnor/Medway riverside with an enlarged public space incorporating the former Deangate Ridge Gold Course on the north side of Peninsula Way. That should not then justify a suggested bridge halfway along Peninsular Way (which would in itself be a visual intrusion) since there would be no residential accommodation to either side and pedestrian access routes from Main Road and Bells Lane roundabouts would be sufficient. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the natural environment by creating a significant new Country Park to ameliorate the adverse impact currently posed by Peninsula Way, and which will only get worse with the additional housing proposed for the wider area, and to maintain effective separation between settlements. To end up with the usual hotch-potch of square boxes marching up either side of Peninsular Way would be an absolute travesty.

Hopefully common sense will prevail for the benefit of future generations rather than an ill-considered knee-jerk reaction to meet current targets imposed by Central Government.

1. Concerns that developers will push the buildings too close to areas of SSIs 2. Infrastructure is vital and usually comes after the houses are built. This has to come first. 4. Can the council guarantee that the builds will be attractive? In Cliffewoods Esquire properties are far better than Redrow.

Somewhat agree

Again, concerns about who will be in charge: the Council or the developers?

Concerns about increased traffic usage. Not only Four Elms Hill but High Halstow.

The promise of increased public transport is usually a sop which you have referred to as unattractive to potential residents. If a reliable, reasonably priced commuter service using minibuses were available at the times commuters need that might lure some in. Double decker buses are too large, too polluting and incredibly unattractive. This system could, at some point, use electric buses.

Generally supportive, however I do have concerns about the route of proposed new footpath/cycleway along the A289. This would run directly beside the existing fence of Wainscott Primary School (where my sons attends). I suggest this would pose a safeguarding issue for the school. Additionally the school, including the students, have nurtured the adjacent woodland for their Forest School - the proximity of the path would most likely increase environmental issues, such as littering and disturbance of the wildlife, which form part of the students studies.

Somewhat agree

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

1. Landscape-led development Trenport supports the key principles for landscape-led development and their proposals reflect that by utilising existing open landscape to provide large areas of recreational, semi natural open space and amenity green space throughout the development. This will provide for the existing local community and new residents, and contribute towards local ecology and the creation of habitats. 2. Accessible and sustainable communities Trenport supports the proposals to reopen the Hoo railway line and provide a new station. However, the opportunity should be taken to reopen other stations on the railway line in the western half of the Hoo Peninsula, in particular Cliffe Station, which would serve significant communities at Cliffe and Cliffe Woods, and help to enhance the viability of the line and maximise sustainable transport. There is no indication on programme for delivery. However, it is important that the rail improvements are delivered in an integrated manner alongside the road improvements to provide an overall improvement to transport accessibility. In addition to the reintroduction of the railway line, the document also identifies improvements for highways at the A289 and a proposed new bus link (2) towards Cliffe on Station Road B2000. Trenport welcomes both of these improvements. 3. Vibrant and sustainable communities Trenport supports the provision of new services and facilities including education, healthcare and community facilities and Commercial and Retail uses throughout the framework area. 4. Attractive and tailored built form Trenport supports the use of Design Codes to inform design of development and welcomes the principles of housing density directing all development to be placed near the fringe of development areas and adjacent to landscape or countryside to assist in the seamless integration of natural and built components should be supported throughout the peninsula.

Somewhat agree

As previously stated, Trenport supports the proposals to improve road and rail access infrastructure as identified in the Framework Plan. The proposals at Cliffe will support the aspirations of the plan and will benefit from the wider infrastructure improvements on the peninsula.

Trenport has no specific comment on the proposed character of each neighbourhood however it should be noted that they support the principle of new developments as an extension to the existing village with services and facilities in a neighbourhood centre that complement rather than compete with the existing centre as highlighted in the proposals for High Halstow.

No other comments

Our particular focus is on the practical application of principle 2, and its impact on principle 3. We are concerned that the short-term limitation of the Housing Infrastructure Fund allocation for rail is inhibiting the scale of intervention required to secure accessibility and sustainability at appropriate levels of quality and attractiveness for future residents, business and visitors.

Somewhat agree

While a new passenger rail station is essential, the level of service and choice of destinations which it offers will be fundamental for meeting the travel needs of the community most sustainably.

We endorse the narrative for the ‘East of Hoo St. Werburgh’ neighbourhood as the one adjacent to the proposed passenger railway station.

We compare the different rail transport outcomes between two similar-size new communities in different parts of the Thames Estuary. Barking Riverside has recently secured a new rail line extension and station served by a turn-up-and-go quarter-hourly service frequency, through the use of Grampian planning conditions and developer contributions. The Hoo Development Framework must in our view establish the pivotal role of rail as the transport mode of choice for incoming residents and businesses and as enabler of other key principles being secured. That policy commitment must then inform development management decisions and developer contributions, including innovative financial instruments such as land value capture – as pioneered on the freight-only Northumberland Line being upgraded for passenger use with six new stations – which can complement conventional planning agreements. New sources of finance independent of the national Exchequer can allow direct local partnerships to develop incrementally the full connectivity potential of the new transport asset. We are in a position to broker initial conversations.

The construction of a commuter railway to Sharnal Street will lead to a radical change in the Hoo Peninsula community. The huge increase in population, which will be from outside the region, will lead to greater demands for recreational activities and potentially for increased access to the Medway for leisure pursuits. The Medway is an SPA, Ramsar and SSSI site and is already subject to high levels of disturbance. There would inevitably be increased pressure on the surrounding area by the increased population and the important nature reserves.

Strongly disagree

The Hoo Peninsula is essentially a rural area with small villages and important farming community. The region provides a largely unspoilt rural landscape in contrast to the heavily built environment on the south side of the Medway. The farmland of the Peninsula is of county importance for red list and declining farmland bird species such as Skylark, Yellow Wagtail and Corn Bunting. The region also supports important designated areas of coastal marshlands and estuary habitats and woodland sites, including Lodge Hill SSSI. The proposals of the Hoo Development Framework would radically alter the Peninsula environment and effectively extend the Medway Towns into this rural lanscape with significant increased public pressure on many sensitive wildlife sites.

A major concern is the location of housing close to important wildlife sites. In particular, housing closer than 400 metres to the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI (a buffer zone shown to greatly reduce effects of wandering cats etc.) will lead to a significant negative impact on the nationally important Nightingale population.

It is the view of the KOS that the Hoo Development Framework outlines huge urban development in a particularly nature rich and sensitive region of the county, and that such development is wrongly sited.

Thank you for consulting Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) on the above document. Please note that this is an officer level response only, prepared by the Planning Policy team. GBC has engaged with Medway over a prolonged period on local plan issues, consistent with statutory obligations under the duty to co-operate. In this instance, the draft Hoo Development Framework has been produced in advance of any site allocations to be made within your emerging local plan, which we understand will now be progressed by consulting on a fresh Regulation 18 document next Summer. The consultation on the Development Framework and its status as a planning document is therefore still contingent on your local plan progressing to adoption following examination, notwithstanding the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) allocation to improve road, rail and green infrastructure to support such development. As the Development Framework is largely about layout and design of the future settlement and this is internal to Medway, GBC has no substantive comments to make on the document itself. However, it is noted that the green infrastructure related elements don’t appear to refer to the scale of provision of allotments or where these might be located and this may be helpful in guiding future development. It is also noted that whilst the document refers at 2.8 Environmental Designation Areas to the Thames Estuary and Marshes RAMSAR etc and that the highest regard will be had to such designation, there is no mention of the SAMMS system of payments agreed across the North Kent area with Natural England as a way of managing impacts of development. Other cross boundary strategic duty to co-operate issues applicable here relate to the transport impacts of developing the new settlement at Hoo. Whilst it is intended to enhance public transport; reintroduce passenger rail services on the Hundred of Hoo line; promote active travel; and provide local services to reduce car-based trips, it is clear that there will be increased traffic on the local road network – hence the improvements proposed to key junctions and links through the HIF proposals. However, very little supporting evidence has been made publicly available to date by which this impact and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation can be assessed. This is important to GBC as it progresses its own local plan, which may also load additional traffic onto the wider local road network in the area. There are also likely to be implications arising from development at Hoo as a result of people using rural roads within Gravesham as a means of avoiding the main road network, particularly should the Lower Thames Crossing progress with restrictions placed on routes during the construction period, as well as in the event of congestion on the A2 in the longer term. . Other cross-boundary strategic issues are also likely to arise in relation to service and infrastructure provision as both GBC and Medway progress their local plans. These will also potentially include GBC’s continued request for neighbouring authorities to consider meeting some of our housing need to avoid or reduce Green Belt release; meeting the needs of gypsy and travellers; and the potential for co-ordinating sustainable development options adjacent to Strood should Green Belt release options there prove necessary. GBC looks forward to discussing these and other issues with you through duty to co-operate meetings in the coming months in order that we can agree a Statement of Common Ground in advance of submission and examination of our respective local plans.

Principle 1. There will be little 'landscape' left due to the predatory and bad developments taking place currently. Principle 2. The HIF project (unlikely to happen) is totally inadequate for the 'Vision' stated in this consultation. Principle 3 and 4. Although good principles in their own right, due to Principle 1 and 2 above they are irrelevant.

Strongly disagree

If the HDF and SEMS relies on HIF for funding and the HIF project fails, what then? The overall Framework is flawed in most if it's detail to the extent that it is too complex and many local (stress 'local) people will be unwilling or unable to respond to this consultation. Medway Council must be aware that the overwhelming feeling of residents both old and new is that we do not want any further housing development in Hoo, Chattenden and High Halstow and do not accept that it is needed here. Improvements to roads and infrastructure, including services (medical facilities, sports centres, etc.) should take place for the current population and not just for a predicted increase in future numbers.

Refer to my previous comments.

NO

Homes England support the key principles identified within this document and have the following comments on the Key Principles section of the document: Page 52 – On Figure 3.5: • The green corridor/landscape buffer should be amended to avoid brownfield / previously developed land in the context of Homes England land interests, particularly Lodge Hill Camp (and on page 68). Homes England have previously promoted this land for potential employment redevelopment on this brownfield/ previously developed site. Homes England also consider it prudent that brownfield / previously developed land is shown (where known) on the proposed plans throughout the document. • Page 52: Bullet 4 should read “ Provide ecological buffers, as part of a wider package of strategic measures to address potential impacts from development on the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI.” This is important to enable flexibility of accommodating a variety of buffers to development around the SSSI. Page 53 – Figure 3.6: • The primary green route at the far eastern section of the Lodge Hill Training Area should not cut through the SSSI but exit and follow Dux Court Road. Access by the public will need to be managed carefully around the proposed ‘Primary Green route’ given the proximity of the SSSI, it is unclear whether this is proposed to be open to the public and it may not be appropriate for public use. • In relation to the land under environmental management to the west of Chattenden Barracks - this designation would need to be compatible with other requirements of this land (i.e. the potential need for SUDS ponds etc). Homes England also note that the SSSI is all under environmental management but that the annotation does not reflect the brownfield nature of parcels of land within the SSSI and that there can be an element of reuse of brownfield land / existing buildings. The ‘environmental management’ annotation on its own therefore is considered misleading. • The designation “Existing Settlement” should extend to all brownfield/ previously development land, including at Lodge Hill Camp. Page 54 – Figure 3.7 We note that on the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI designation it is shown as “Green Infrastructure”, Homes England suggest this should be removed as it is effectively previously developed land that has a SSSI ‘designation’. This should be amended throughout the document (also page 55). Page 59 – Figure 3.12 - The relief road only appears along a small stretch whilst the remainder is road improvement not relief road, is this correct? Page 60: • It is important that bus provision is included with good connectivity to education, including the proposed secondary school, services and facilities. • HE are keen to be involved in further discussions around bus provision, how it would be delivered and funded including the (indicative) bus link route along Kitchener Road. • More information on potential bus stop locations on new roads and expected level of frequency of bus services would be beneficial to understand. Page 61: As a high-level plan appears fine. More detail will need to be developed on crossing points and links across existing and new developed areas. The potential bridleway between the proposed horse gates at Lodge Hill Lane and Dux Court Road would need to align with a SSSI-wide access management strategy, with interpretation and awareness through signage. Pages 64 and 65: The exact provision at each ‘hub’ for new services should be proportionate, appropriate and deliverable having regard to the scale of development being proposed and correlate with what can be delivered on site. It is important that proposed hubs are ‘deliverable’. Page 68: Homes England seek flexibility to deliver appropriate densities relative to the site in context with its surroundings. We suggest a point is added that Medway Council would be receptive to higher densities by transport hubs/ local centres and key bus routes. This would give more flexibility / justification to boost the supply of housing (as per National Planning Policy Framework, para 60) and to contribute to Medway’s overall housing needs.

Somewhat agree

Homes England are supportive of the proposed allocation of residential uses at Chattenden Barracks and are supportive of these proposals to deliver housing on the Hoo Peninsula. A few specific comments are noted on the content of the proposals on the development framework and other pages: Page 73 (comments also relate to page 9) – Figure 4.2: • Homes England maintain that Lodge Hill Camp should be identified for employment / mixed-use development either within the Development Framework or as ‘other development sites’. This part of the site is brownfield/ previously developed land with existing buildings. Lodge Hill Camp and has previously been promoted in the SHLAA as an employment development site. Equally there are other land parcels across the Lodge Hill asset that could be repurposed / redeveloped to NPPF objectives relating to the productive use of brownfield land. • In relation to the land under environmental management to the west of Chattenden Barracks - this designation would need to be compatible with other requirements of this land (i.e. the potential need for SUDS ponds etc). • It would be helpful to have evidence in the document to demonstrate how many pitches are required as a result of the overall population growth? We note locations for ‘potential outdoor football pitches’ but defining need based on anticipated overall homes / population growth would help to evidence actual provision required. Homes England do not consider that formalised provision of recreation on the former Military Recreation Ground would not be appropriate due to the proximity of land to the SSSI. • Homes England seek flexibility to deliver appropriate densities relative to the site in context with its surroundings. • It is also important to show a footpath link / connection between Chattenden Barracks, the Community Centre and Lodge Hill Recreation Ground. Page 75 – Homes England are in high level discussions about SEMS provision on its landholdings. The impact on the SSSI will need to be considered in relation to public accessibility.

Homes England supports the overall aspirations to create new neighbourhoods, which will be an outcome of developing new housing on the Hoo Peninsula, a few specific comments are noted in relation to the section on Chattenden given it relates to the land owned by Homes England: Page 78 – Acknowledgement that the descriptions in following pages do not constitute policy requirements is important and welcomed. Homes England suggest that acknowledgement is also given that these aspirations will also need to be subject to detailed Masterplanning informed by detailed technical / environmental work. Homes England support in principle the ‘small-scale retail’ proposed at Chattenden noted in Figure 5.2. Page 80 – Note typo in second paragraph an “emphasis” not “emphasise”. • Para 3 - The comment that the magazine stores will be retained should not be categoric as all features are subject to ongoing consideration of all heritage assets and matters that is being considered by Homes England across the Lodge Hill estate. • Para 5 - Homes England note the ‘important links with Cliffe Woods for walking and cycling’ to be maintained and new pedestrian routes through Chattenden to Hoo St Werburgh will be created. Homes England consider that this should also be informed by a joined up Natural England and Medway Council perspective. Page 81 - Homes England are generally supporting of proposed densities and suggest these are shown as ‘indicative’ subject to more detailed masterplanning. In addition, HE note a specific area of ‘land under environmental management.’ This designation would need to be compatible with other requirements of this land (i.e. the potential need for SUDS ponds associated with proposed development of road etc.). It is also important to show a footpath link / connection between Chattenden Barracks and Lodge Hill Recreation ground. Page 82 - Figure 5.10: We note the comment that “Further detailed work is required to ensure the proposals meet the Local Plan’s open space requirements.” Clarification on term ‘neighbourhood parks’ is required as important not to confuse with NEAP provision. Page 83 - Figure 5.12: Homes England object to the provision of a public square on the site given Homes England are primarily considering a ground floor retail unit. A public square is not considered deliverable on Chattenden Barracks and it is critical for any proposed public infrastructure to have clear funding streams to ensure delivery and to be factored into an overall viability appraisal. Any future provision of non-residential uses should be proportionate and deliverable given the scale of the specific development proposals. Page 84 Homes England’s emerging proposals for Chattenden suggested indicative ground floor retail that would appear to relate to the “Commercial and Retail” icon to which the scale of development is likely to support. Homes England are concerned that any additional provision would not be deliverable on the basis of the scale of development being proposed at Chattenden Barracks and so cannot accommodate more that an indicative ground floor retail unit, and there is no evidence to justify any additional provision. Page 85 • Homes England are generally supportive of the proposed densities identified and weighted towards higher density around Lodge Hill Lane but are keen for flexibility as per other comments. • Key frontage facing open space will need to be considered in relation to site specific Masterplanning. Regards will need to be given to technical and environmental matters when considering whether key frontages will be feasible in the locations identified as they will be subject to various factors including, road layout, feasibility of frontages facing woodland. Ramsbottom Wood represents a key landscape asset and as such the design and layout of proposed surrounding residential development should respect and respond to it appropriately. Whilst in principle new development positively and sensitively fronting onto and overlooking the woods should be a key design objective and properties backing onto the woods in principle avoided, the specific design details of route hierarchy and typology, new landscape treatment, building massing and orientation, overlooking and natural surveillance of open space and streets, and plot boundary treatments will be determined through detailed design that addresses detailed consideration of factors including trees to be retained, interfaces with existing properties at Chattenden Lane, views and legibility through the site and the size/ typology of proposed homes. • Homes England suggest the active frontage on Lodge Hill Lane is removed as given the small scale of provision ground floor retail this may be restrictive in subsequent design development, other technical matters such as drainage may also impact design in this location and a bespoke approach to frontages and potential corner treatment / landmark will need to be considered. Keeping the active frontage as a ‘potential’ requirement for consideration through more detailed design is fine, subject to the above considerations. The landmark building could also be a residential building, for example without an ‘active frontage’ in retail / commercial terms, but with a suitable design response in massing and architectural design. • Note no item 3 for Low Density in Figure 5.15.

Homes England have a number of other comments on the document and provide these below: • On Page 6 it could be helpful to have more explanation as to how Medway Council / Gillespies have arrived at this document and it may be helpful for the commentary to explain the journey the Council have been on by outlining the previous stages that have led to this iteration of the Framework including: a) the stages Medway Council / Gillespies have been through (i.e. what consultation/workshops has taken place to inform the document): including individual engagement with stakeholders (developers), local residents (parish Councils) etc. b) Medway Local Plan considerations / options for growth in Hoo and how this will now inform the emerging local plan. c) whether the consultation on Blue and Green infrastructure (B&GI) has informed the document given the reference to B&GI on p54. • On Page 6 query whether ‘Chapter 1’ listed as ‘Executive Summary’ should be ‘Introduction’ given contents page? • Page 8 – Homes England note the 2055 end date and seek confirmation that this relates to the anticipated completion date of the proposed Hoo Development not the end of the new Development Plan period? Homes England suggest that the growth potential is reworded to enable the area to “grow by approximately 10,000 new homes over the next 30 years” to allow flexibility for additional future growth? • Page 16 - Figure 2.9 shows the Special Protected Area (SPA) / Ramsar designation rather than SSSI which needs to be corrected. The SSSI designation is in the key but not correctly shown on the plan. • Page 18 - Landscape sensitivity areas are quite general and do not necessarily reflect site specific characteristics. Homes England query whether Chattenden Barracks should be classified as within Hoo Farmland given its previously developed nature? • Page 19 Chattenden Ridge: o Water bodies are mentioned in the LCA and are subsequently described in the Development Framework as a strong landscape feature. However, no water bodies are shown on the later water plan (on page 23)? It would be helpful to have clarification on this point. o The second bullet point is not required if integration of designations is included in the final bullet point. • Page 23: o It would be helpful to have a description of what the Framework Area includes and excludes, for example does it just include new proposed uses etc. It appears to not include any of the HIF Road, Rail or SEMS areas. We note that the proposed residential at High Halstow is included and is not adjacent the other residential area, so other areas not adjacent to the main Framework Area could also be included, such as land to the far North of Chattenden (i.e. Lodge Hill Camp / Training Area) in its brownfield land capacity. o Homes England seek the identification of Lodge Hill Camp for development. This part of the site contains existing buildings. We request that it is identified as an “other development sites” or ideally incorporated into the development framework area. o In that the Lodge Hill Recreation Ground constitutes part of the Chattenden Barracks masterplan, this land parcel should be reflected as such in the framework plans. • Page 28: On commentary – Homes England understands that the Church (Bishop Gundulph) is closed permanently. Homes England agree that development at Chattenden needs to acknowledge and respect the role of the existing centre. • Page 40: Figure 2.65: The Hoo Stop Line could be seen as an opportunity rather than a constraint. • Page 43 – the ‘potential relief road’ only appears along a small stretch whilst the remainder is potential new road, is this approach correct? • Page 44 – Homes England consider that the proposed cycle link from Chattenden Lane to Great Chattenden Wood and the proposed new bridleway to the north of the Lodge Hill site should be informed by a joined up Natural England and Medway Council perspective. This potential cycle route and bridleway, would need to align with a SSSI-wide access management strategy (linked or informed by the SEMS network), with interpretation and awareness through signage. We would envisage that any proposed infrastructure such as this would be supported by a dedicated Access Management ‘Masterplan’ that identifies appropriate measures/ approaches for minimising recreational pressure on the SSSI. It would be helpful if proposed cycle and pedestrian routes in this direction are clarified in the context of this sensitive designation to ensure that the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI is not detrimentally affected, and we would welcome further engagement with you on this policy. o Query what potential new blue infrastructure annotation will comprise on figure 2.79. • Page 45 - Figure 2.82: Additional detail on the walkable neighbourhoods welcomed, the scale of the neighbourhood centres will be subject to scale of housing development and ability to deliver.

There seems very little evidence that peninsula collective feedback has been sought beforehand. This document looks like the house builders have had a large influence, more so than the residents!

Strongly disagree

Where are the projected traffic flow figures? The air at the top of Four Elms Hill is already polluted, the last thing the peninsula needs is more houses and hence more traffic!

Medway should listen to the government who are saying we should be growing more of our own food, NOT building on Grade 1 agricultural farmland.

Please have a good hard think about what you are doing. You know it is madness.

I write to you as a resident of the Hoo Peninsula for over 40 years and as a Church of England Minister for the last fifteen years. With my experience of the area and the peoples' needs I have been very interested in the way you are approaching the need for the peninsula to take its share of development in the Medway area. Sadly the area has over the years seen a decrease in services from the council which has left it much in need, especially, in the areas of medical resources, schools, bus services and the road system. My greatest fear is that although you propose some small increase in schools it will not be nearly enough to cater for such large developments. I know, as a Governor of St. James Grain school, that the rolls on the Peninsula schools are full and for us at Grain we are being asked to accept children from other villages which is highly impractical given the bus services. Therefore, my first comment would be that the council needs to put in place these educational resources before allowing any further development. This is the same in the area of medical practices and road structure. For myself and many of those I meet regularly across the peninsula the waiting times to see a doctor are very lengthy and often end up with difficult emergency journeys to Medway Hospital. Which we all know is highly over stretched! My second comment is that it is hard to feel you are talking seriously about this plan being 'sustainable' without a viable infrastructure in place before development begins. I feel strongly that the road situation will be made impossible by potentially 10,000 new houses which could mean possibly at least another 20,000 cars plus service vehicles on the road. (and in reality it is only one road in and out of the peninsula). We have already experienced the huge difficulties for emergency vehicles trying to reach the outlying villages when there is an accident on 4 Elms Hill. My third comment is that your very expensive plan for a train service to London via Gravesend supposes that most of the people coming to live in this area will want to commute to London and travel on an already over stretched and unreliable line into London (my experience). I cannot imagine that people having to get into their cars to go to the station will not turn towards Strood and catch a fast train to London! I know most people feel that the money could be so much better spent on a very frequent electric bus service from the peninsula to Medway. This would seem a step towards your plan's hope of 'well-connecting' the communities and reducing pollution ('respecting the area's environment'),as well as helping the poorer families who find the rise in petrol prices so difficult. I do not want my comments to sound completely negative of your draft plan as I know we will need more houses in the area but if we do not see the importance of the getting a good infrastructure in place to meet the needs of the population living here at present then we will only be confounding our problems with the proposed framework. I thank you for the opportunity to comment

On the whole I am impressed by the comprehensive nature of the plans, but anyone, like me, unable to get to the meeting on 5 November will have been stumped by the tiny maps which could not be enlarged on screen. My main concern is that everything depends on creating the infrastructure, yet experience tells me that usually happens after building work.. I have lived here for eleven years and in that time have seen considerable expansion of housing, not least on land between my flat and the river which I was told, at the time of purchase, was flood plain and not to be built upon. During that time I have seen no improvement in public transport, considerable increase in traffic, no improvement in health facilities, continued lack of provision of ,e.g. post boxes. You talk about accessibility, but I would make a plea for that to be a crucial element for people like myself, with mobility issues. That provision is already weak so it is essential that infrastructure should be first on the list of tasks for the new development, but I don't have the impression that is the intention. I suspect that I won't live to see most of this, but whilst recognising the concerns identified and the need for more people to live in Hoo, I am concerned for people, like me, whose property has already been devalued by developments. I used to have a lovely view of the river and could watch the river traffic, but there ae two new estates opposite me now and no view at all. What of the people living near the proposed station. Accessibility can be a great selling point, but there are beautiful homes near the line which will probably be devalued by noise from the track and increased road traffic accessing the station. My greatest concern remains the importance of setting up the infrastructure before more people come to live in Hoo Thank you for taking the time to read this.

No answer given