Questionnaire

1. Introduction 1.1 In January this year the Labour and Cooperative Group submitted comments on the Future Hoo Consultation – Second Round. We welcome the opportunity to submit further comments on the Hoo Development Framework and are using this opportunity to further refine our views on this fundamentally important development for Medway. 1.2 The community of Hoo St. Werburgh and the surrounding villages on the Hoo peninsula will be changed forever by these development proposals. As we made clear in our earlier submissions any development on this scale must be sustainable in terms of the existing community, the local economy and especially the local environment (the triple bottom line used as guide to sustainability). It is not possible to build 10,000 homes, and all the infrastructure that goes with them, without fundamentally changing the nature of the local community and if this is to happen these changes must be to the benefit of the current and future generations. 1.3 Our reading of the HDF document is based upon the understanding that the 10,000 plus homes will be built. We are, nevertheless, conscious that the current Government appears to be reviewing housing “need” calculations and the picture may change at any time. If this happens then we would expect there to be a new round of consultation based upon any new housing figures that are proposed. 2. Comments 2.1 Executive Summary – Vision 2.1.1 The framework will take 30 years to develop according to the current Council estimates and the HDF document has four guiding principles for this development. We welcome this approach but would like to see specific mention, in the Executive Summary, to the principles of sustainable development. In particular, the impact of this development in relation to our climate change emergency. 2.1.2 The increased population, which will be at least three times as large as the current 9,000, creates demand for new services which inevitably have a community, an economic and an environmental impact, all of which need to be addressed. The HDF document should recognise this from the outset. This position is further supported through our requirement to comply with the principles of the Social Value Act (2012) and it supplements, when providing infrastructure and services to the community. 2.1.3 There is some confusion over terminology in the HDF document when describing the future of Hoo St. Werburgh. In the executive Summary it is described as a “rural town” and a “small town”. In the section 3.2 it is referred to as a “Garden Community” and a “Garden Village”. Reference is even made to “Garden Cities”. 2.1.4 Bearing in mind scale of the development and its impact on the local community and the wider Medway community, we need to avoid any confusion on the part of the development companies as to our aspirations. Q. Can we have clarity as to what this means? Is Hoo St. Werburgh going to be a village, a town or a city? Is it a rural or a garden one? Is it large or small? 2.2 Context Analysis 2.2.1 Paragraph 2.2 of the HDF document describes the Medway Context of the development and refers to the historic towns of Strood, Rochester, Chatham, Gillingham and Rainham and the separation of Hoo St. Werburgh. Specific reference is made to the difficulty of accessing the Hoo peninsula without a car. 2.2.2 We are also asked to take into consideration the changes on the peninsula such as the decommissioning of the power stations and pressure to redevelop the former industrial sites. These points are important in relation to our comments below. 2.2.3 In paragraph 2.5 the HDF Document states that it is beyond the scope of the HDF to “deliver a comprehensive appraisal of the landscape sensitivity of the setting”. Nevertheless, the development of the SEMS was based upon such appraisals and there are detailed descriptions in this section of the report and in Part 3 (Vision and Guiding Principles) with references to the landscape led approach and the importance of strategic gaps and ecology buffers. 2.2.4 Based upon this analysis we would challenge the assessment made of the landscape sensitivity of the Chattenden and Deangate Ridges. In the HDF document this sensitivity is given as Medium/High and Medium respectively, while in fact they both should be High. The nearby Cockham Farm Ridge is assessed as Medium/High and the both the Chattenden and Deangate Ridges are significantly more important in landscape terms. Q. Can the landscape sensitivity assessment of the Chattenden and Deangate Ridges be changed to High? 2.2.5 Paragraph 2.9 discusses the vehicular movement on the peninsula. Car ownership and usage are much higher than the rest of Medway reflecting the poor connectivity and lack of adequate public transport. Cycling is mentioned, but again the topography and the roads discourage even the keenest cyclists. In addition, the bus network is described as “limited and unattractive”! 2.2.6 We would agree with this analysis. It is clear that there should be a sustainable transport approach to this problem. This is especially true regarding Four Elms Hill, the high quantity of HGVs accessing the Hoo peninsula, the inadequate road network, and the impact of the increased traffic the new developments will bring to Frindsbury and Strood. 2.2.7 Paragraph 2.11 describes the existing commercial and social facilities within Hoo St. Werburgh; the community infrastructure and employment opportunities. It is clear that there will be a significant increase in these as the local population rises. How these are managed and accommodated should be a key part of the emerging new Medway Local Plan. 2.2.8 Paragraphs 2.15 and 2.16 of the HDF Document summarise the constraints that we face with the HDF, and we would agree with these. Again, we would like to stress the importance of approaching these from a sustainable development point of view, taking into consideration the needs of the local community, the local economy and the local environment. 2.2.9 Paragraph 2.17 summarises the “opportunities” of the new housings estates. We would like to point out that these are not strictly opportunities but essential requirements for a very large-scale housing development. Specific reference is made to a “new relief road” taking traffic away from Four Elms Hill. Q. Could we have some clarity as to what this actually means? 2.3 Vision and Guiding Principles 2.3.1 The vision and guiding principles are detailed in Part 3 and in respect to the green and blue infrastructure have our full support. In fact, we have already expressed this through our support for the SEMS planning applications. The importance of landscape gaps and ecology buffers is well recognised. The need for the use of native, local species when landscaping with the new developments is also well recognised. 2.3.2 We have already referred to the confusion caused by naming the new developments as a “rural village” or a “garden village”, etc. We would reiterate our request for clarification as to what is meant by these terms, and which apply to the new developments. 2.3.3 There are two additional points we would like to bring in here. Firstly, the need to achieve significant biodiversity net gain in all new developments, over and above the standard 10%. 2.3.4 Secondly, the need to protect the landscape of the Hoo peninsula and in particular the strategic landscape gaps between the settlements and the main urban areas of Medway. 2.3.5 To this end we are proposing that that Hoo St. Werburgh and the surrounding peninsula and marshes to the North and East be designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 2.3.6 In 2020 a motion was put to the Council to start the process of designating the Hoo Peninsula and the marshes beyond as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We would strongly advocate this approach for a number reasons; • It provides protection at a national level for the landscape of this area, alongside the national and international protections the area enjoys for ecology and biodiversity. • It provides an opportunity to clearly define the landscape characters of the area so as to guide current and future development. • It provides a decision-making structure that has a focus upon the special nature and character of the area, especially for the local communities. • It provides a focus for the future challenges that the area will face in the light of climate change and especially sea level rise. • It will act as a focus for the development of new sustainable tourism opportunities in the area, not dissimilar to the north Norfolk coast. • It opens up new channels for funding opportunities for the area whilst not standing in the way of the Hoo peninsula playing its part in Medway meeting it housing requirement. These benefits form the basis for the aspirations of the landscape led approach described in the document. 2.3.7 Paragraph 3.4 of the HDF document refers to accessible and well-connected settlements and discusses the transport options for the new development. We have already seen how the road network is inadequate and we believe that a sustainable transport plan is the solution. 2.3.8 The original concept of a rail link into Strood has now been shelved. The new station at Sharnal Street and rail link into Gravesend will simply be a shuttle service. People will have to change trains to get to London and there is no indication as to when this will be delivered. The funding for this makes up a significant amount of the HIF and does not address the fundamental problems of connectivity between the communities on the peninsular and the urban areas of Medway. 2.3.9 It is our view that plans for the Sharnal Street station and shuttle to Gravesend be put on hold. Instead, this funding should be used toward the provision of an electric bus service. This would operate between the communities on the peninsular, from the new development to Strood, and even further into Medway. 2.3.10 We cannot rely upon private bus services to develop the level of infrastructure required for this. However, once in place we will have no difficulty in finding operators willing to be a part of this exciting project. The benefits of this would be huge; • Providing a carbon neutral, pollution free bus service between Hoo, the neighbouring settlements, and the urban areas of Medway. Creating better connectivity throughout our communities both existing and emerging, with much more flexibility as development moves forward. • Looking forward, the transport element of any s106 agreements would be targeted at this growing, flexible and sustainable transport network. • Providing links to the new employment centres within Medway. • Providing a school bus service for children to the new school in Strood. • Linking residents in Hoo with a much better rail service from Strood to London, Maidstone and the coast. • This will also open up the opportunity for Strood station to become a much more effective transport hub for Medway, as the Council owns the vacant land adjacent to the station. This would, in our view, be a much more effective and strategic way of using the HIF. In comparison the proposed rail shuttle is fixed, very expensive, and only goes to Gravesend. It would achieve the aim of providing a link to the national rail network whilst also giving a new and sustainable approach to transport within Medway. If the aspiration to develop the railway line from Sharnal Street to Gravesend is to be realised, this should be the responsibility of Network Rail and not Medway Council. 2.3.11 Principle 3 deals with sustainable communities and the idea that people should be able to live, work and socialise locally. In this respect we would welcome specific reference to the 20 minute neighbourhood as specified by the TCPA ( The 20-minute neighbourhood - Town and Country Planning Association (tcpa.org.uk) as a guide for developers. This approach is well researched and includes community cohesion and the sustainability concepts which we are striving for. It also allows us to preserve the best in existing local communities, allowing them to maintain their identity in the face of these huge new developments. 2.3.12 Principle 4 deals with Attractive and Tailored Built Form. The key issues within this principle should be dealt with by the emerging new Medway Local Plan and the details submitted with each planning application. Nevertheless, there are some basic concepts around sustainability and the climate crisis that should be applied. • All new builds should be carbon neutral, well insulated and low on energy for affordability • All materials used must sourced sustainably • All new houses should have EV charging + community charging spaces will be needed as well • All landscaping should use local native species and there needs to be a lot of trees to cope with the urban heating we are experiencing • Waste disposal should all be recyclable • Work from home capability is required in all new homes • Sustainable transport in all its forms It should be noted that even with existing technologies these are all achievable and certainly can be over the lifetime of the development. A good example of how we can achieve these ideals is seen in new Lower Thames Crossing, described as a pathfinder project, it will be carbon neutral (Environment - National Highways). 2.4 The Framework Plan 2.4.1 As stated above we believe that there needs to be a change within the Framework Plan that removes the fixed, inflexible and limited rail shuttle to Gravesend. This should be replaced with an electric bus service for the existing and new communities, that also runs down Four Elms Hill on a dedicated route to Strood station. 2.4.2 Strood station provides a much more effective rail link to London, Maidstone and the coast. There is sufficient land close to the station, in Council ownership, to allow for a new Transport Hub to be created. 2.4.3 This approach allows for a sustainable transport network to develop over time for the existing and new communities. It also opens up the opportunity to extend this into the main urban centres of Medway. 2.4.4 The Housing Infrastructure Fund was provided specifically for the new housing developments around Hoo St. Werburgh. The electric bus approach is flexible and will always have capacity for growth in a sustainable way to cope with all types of additional growth on the Hoo peninsula, including the redevelopment of the Kingsnorth site. 2.4.5 This will also include the anticipated growth in eco-tourism if the proposed AONB on the Hoo Peninsula and adjacent marshes were to go ahead. 2.5 The Neighbourhoods 2.5.1 We welcome the approach to the creation of distinctive neighbourhoods within the new developments. In this respect we would want the character and nature of the existing communities to be retained within the emerging neighbourhoods. 2.5.2 This approach needs to take in to account the TCPA “20 minute neighbourhood” concepts, as outlined above. In addition, the emerging, new Medway Local Plan, and its successor, must be the main guide for all new developments over the 30 year lifetime of this development. 2.5.3 Specific reference is needed to the development of the Chattenden and Deangate Ridges Neighbourhoods. This carries with it some controversial issues and will need further consideration and comment. One issue, as already referred to, is the protection of the landscape of these ridges. As stated we would want to see the assessment of theses to changes to HIGH. 3. Conclusion 3.1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Hoo Development Framework. We would like to emphasise that the Medway Labour and Cooperative Group will have further comments to make as the process goes forward. 3.2 We look forward to the feedback on our comments. In particular, the proposals for sustainable transport within the new development, the proposed AONB and further consultation on the impact of the developments on the Chattenden and Deangate ridges and the surrounding Hoo peninsula. 3.3 Key Comments: • That the landscape assessment of the Chattenden and Deangate Ridges be changed to HIGH to fully recognise their value in landscape terms. • The infrastructure and employment opportunities associated with the new housing developments should be part of the emerging, new Medway Local Plan, and not be allowed to come forward as isolated, speculative applications. • The climate emergency that was declared by the Council in 2019 requires us to address all the issues affecting our local and global environment. For example, the need to use native species in all landscaping, the need to achieve significant biodiversity net gain and the reduction of air pollution. The Council has a Climate Change Members Advisory Group, which should be consulted as the developments go forward, and a Climate Change Action Plan which should act as a key advisory document for the Council and potential developers. • That the landscape of the Hoo peninsula and the North Kent Marshes to the north and east, including Hoo St. Werburgh, is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. • That plans for the Sharnal Street station and rail shuttle to Gravesend be put on hold. Instead, the funding for this should be used toward the provision of an electric bus service. This would operate between Hoo St. Werburgh, the communities on the peninsular and a new Transport Hub at Strood station. • That provision is made within this new sustainable transport network to serve the rest of Medway as funding becomes available.

No answer given

Strongly disagree

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

There is a plan to include a pedestrian way and cycle lane alongside Wainscott Primary School. This will bring vulnerability to the security of the school particularly where the forest school area is. What is the proposal to ensure that this does not compromise the safeguarding of the pupils?

Neither agree nor disagree

No answer given

No answer given

The Head teacher at Wainscott Primary School is very concerned about the implications for her school of the proposed pedestrian ways and cycle lane and how it might affect safeguarding. The school is a member of The Primary First Trust and we support her concerns.

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.

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 four times that of some 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 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.

1. The Hoo Peninsula is recognised as having important wildlife protection areas. We also have prime agricultural areas that in light of climate change and need for food security need protection.ried and cost Medway Council are in danger of varied and costly legal challenges if they pursue this vision 2. There seems to have been little regard to Medway's "Housing Need Assessment. How, or example would those identified in the assessment access transport 3??? 4. If the government are to fulfill their pledges on carbon emission reduction all houses built will need expensive retrofitting with carbon reducing technology within the next few decades. Alternatively Medway Council could adopt building standards that meet Passive House standards

Strongly disagree

Everyone is entitled to a comfortable , safe home We need to reduce our dependence on imported food We need to protect wildlife We need to build the right houses in the right places ....those houses need to be the right size, the right number and "affordable" to the identfied "local need". They need to be on previously developed land and close to existing facilities and services Those houses need to be well insulated and economical to heat.

These Neighbourhoods are being built to meet the needs of volume house builders.

The office for National Statistics have long been saying that we only need half the number of houses proposed and the recent 2021 National Census supported this conclusion. Medway Council Officers should explain this reality to the elected council who in turn should be explaining the arithmetic to central government. Medway's population density is already 4 times that of some of our neighbouring authorities ! I did leave this to the last minute but not an easy site to use!! I lost my first response and had to start again.... sorry for typos!

As above . Please see letter from High halstow Parish council to Richard Hick

Strongly disagree

As question 1

Please see question 1

No answer given

It was announced in Parliament recently that there would be no more top down housing figures, it will be for local Councils to determine their area needs for housing. Is this the policy of the current Prime Minister also ? If so the development on the scale envisaged should not be necessary. I was unable to visit the exhibitions but wish to comment on what I have read. 1. In the Landscape & Sensitivity & Capacity Study it mentions ten land parcels are these incorporated in the Six areas shown planned for development? 2. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. 1.2 hope all 7 bullet points are observed especially 2,5 & 7. 3. In these troubled times the loss of Farm Land to housing is unacceptable. 4. To rely on Developers contributions for necessary infrastructure i e Dr Surgery, Shops etc. is not reliable as some of the money is not always forthcoming. 5. Why can't the Golf Club be reinstated ? With all the homes proposed surely some of the occupants would want the facility to play golf. Was pleased to read Deangate Ridge sports area has been saved. 6. I ask for no more housing development west of Dux Court Road/ North of Peninsula Way PLEASE. Buffers mentioned in the SEMS would not be adequate to safeguard wildlife especially the endangered Nightingales. SSSI land must be preserved . The area is needed for a buffer against pollution of air quality detrimental to life. Please protect the Lodge Hill area as you are treating the Capstone Valley. 7. KEY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE :- A shared user bridge will link up existing footpaths and bridleways! We in Frindsbury have been waiting over 20 years for the same to happen in Stonehorse Lane; a promise made broken !!! 8. RAILWAY:- Would hope the railway could have a connection with Strood; with over 2000 jobs coming online at the old Kingsnorth Power Station site it would be an advantage. With just a short new line to connect into the Higham line it would be possible, thereby relieving the roads. Just hope it does not entail loss of peoples homes.

As a resident of Hoo village for the last 59 years I view these plans with a lot of fear. The main road in Hoo is currently often jammed mainly by people involved with the Hundred of Hoo School and this has got much worse since you allowed all the housing alongside Bells Lane the restrictions on this road caused motorists to avoid it and drive through the village instead. At the very least the main road past the school should be widened and a footpath be provided on both sides. At the roundabout end by the last domestic properties the road should be widened and move to the left (leaving the village) so as to enable the pavements to be wide enough for prams and mobility scooters etc. on both sides. Moving on to the Four-elms roundabout at the very least a one lane each way flyover for light vehicles should be provided on the bypass (similar to the one provided on the A13 in London many years ago which is still in use now). I could find many more things to comment on but at the moment I don't have enough time. Life in the village has gone steadily downhill since we were included as part of Medway rather than as it was Strood District council. These comments are mainly about road infrastructure but additionally we need among other things more provision of a working health system the current facilities are totally overloaded.

My husband and I were unable to attend any of the last 3 public meetings as both had surgery. I tried to complete the form offered by clicking on the link but it only allowed you to complete sections regarding sections of the plan and if we agreed or disagreed etc. This was much too complicated and meant we would have had to read it all. So I’m now able to have our say via this link. My husband and I have resided in Hoo for over 30 years and have slowly watched it turn into an over developed village with no infrastructure to cope with the thousands of extra people residing here. The reason we oppose this is : At the front of our home (across from the Main Road) we can see fields and the last thing we want to be looking at is houses. This is not why we moved here. We enjoy and deserve our privacy and another important factor, is it would devalue the price of our house. Who wants that ! There would be considerably extra pollution especially living on the Main Road, Nothing can be done to improve that! At one time we saw a decrease in traffic (along our road) when the new Ratcliffe Highway was built. But now it’s back to being really busy again. When these thousands of houses are built it will be like an A road! The so called increased infrastructure will still not cope or help with the amount of traffic and people on the Peninsula. It took the GP’s, at Elms Medical Centre, months and months to recruit new GP’s. They said not many are prepared to travel out this far unless they live close by. We also know there are a lack of GP’s everywhere! So building new surgeries (you would need more than one!) is one thing but filling the posts will be another problem. We live near HOH school and the amount of traffic now at the start and finish of school, combined with the new primary, is ridiculous. The parking facilities are non existent for the amount of new pupils attending, resulting in cars parking on the roadside and still on the grass verges causing grass to be ripped up! It cannot cope with more pupils for this reason alone. New infrastructure was promised then. But as always it hasn’t happened. I also cannot see a new secondary school being built, complete with the hundreds of teachers needed, until thousands of houses have been built. Where will they all attend…….. HOH !! It’s been written that new infrastructure will be built as and when needed. It’s been needed for years when all the new developments were crammed together and built. Nothing has happened. So all lies !! We also believe that because of the large number of developments being built the Medway Council Parish Community Governance Review resulted in our home now coming under the ward of Strood Rural. Not made clear! So we are unable to vote for a Hoo Peninsula Councillor! How does this make sense !!! Had we understood it better we would have appealed !! Also where have all the funds donated by house building companies disappeared to. We haven’t seen or heard of anything. At the end of the day we have had our fair quota of extra houses when there are other areas (eg Rainham) that could be built on. Too many counsellors over there pushing it over here??! We chose to live in a village NOT a town. Please add this to the objections and I wait to hear from you in due course confirming this has been done and any feedback.

Thank you for giving Network Rail the opportunity to comment on the above consultation. Network Rail require additional time to review it in full and will submit any detailed comments, if required, as soon as possible. If it is too late to comment or there is a long-stop date, please do let us know. In the meantime, we set about below some initial comments. It is important that plans and policies reflect the aspirations of Network Rail and the wider rail industry as far as they are known at this stage and provides suitable flexibility to support future growth of the railway for both passenger and freight services. The railway network is a vital element of the country’s economy and a key component in the drive to deliver the Government’s sustainable agenda. The impact of new development on railway infrastructure such as railway stations and level crossing should be fully assessed. To ensure that Network Rail can continue to deliver a safe and efficient railway, Network Rail would expect financial contributions towards new or enhanced railway infrastructure to mitigate the impact of growth in the area. This could include funding towards improvement at stations such as cycle parking, improved customer information screens, new waiting shelters, lighting, platform extensions, new station entrances etc., and works such as new footbridges to enable level crossings to be closed. As part of Network Rail’s license to operate and manage Britain’s railway infrastructure, Network Rail have the legal duty to protect rail passengers, the public, the railway workforce, and to reduce risk at our level crossings so far as is reasonably practicable. New development can also have others impact on the railway. It is important that the risk to the railway from landslips and flooding are considered for safety and operational reasons, as well fencing, planting along the railway boundary, excavations etc. Please find attached some guidance from Network Rail’s Asset Protection team. If you have any questions on the above, please do get in touch with us. Yours Sincerely,