Questions: Natural Environment
Not building on Farmland
Yes
South of the River Medway, there is already too little left in the way of greenfield sites.
No comment
Yes
Capstone Valley - always been considered as Medway’s green lung for a reason. Gillingham and Rainham riverside - as mentioned elsewhere, an important fruit producing area, and part of the character of lower Rainham and Gillingham. Darland Banks - again, an important part of the local landscape.
Yes
I don’t know.
I don’t know.
Only if it seeks to increase green belt areas in consultation with local residents.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
The North Downs way is of great natural significance in Surrey and Kent. If we do not offer it the highest degree of protection, we cannot be seen as an aspirational town/city in the England. For talented people to want to live in Medway, we need to develop our brownfield sites and preserve our nature.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No, as there is an abundance of brownfield sites that not only can be developed, but should be developed to maximise the economic prosperity of Medway residents.
The Local Nature Recovery Strategy (Making Space for Nature) should set priorities for the county and local area and these should be used in setting local development permissible and non-permissible criteria. If Medway has less green area than country average this should justify not losing more. Green belts should be no go if this means loss of greenspace between communities. Farm land should not be lost unless it can be recreated/replaced with new farm land.
Yes, absolutely especially as we are in a densely populated with areas of ecological and heritage importance. the 10% appears to only look at the build and not all the disruption during in the local area through road closures, increased traffic, construction materials manufacture and delivery of, etc..
Not a development, but road changes such as the Stockbury roundabout have caused congestion and road issues far and wide in the area, adding to air pollution, wear and tear and increased road use on more rural routes such as Boxley. The change of the landscape in the area, impact on routes and homes. I don't believe the current 10% covers would cover this. The system is still quite new and subjective, so a generous overage would show commitment to best practise.
This system is good basis to start on but should perhap not be the only or limited to approach. There should be limits and boundaries set that may change if any detrimental changes are seen. The system may also consider restrictions on developments that ensure protection or enhancement of protected sites.
Medway Council should have the ability to designate additional local value sites based on knowledge and/or application process from the community that meet a set criteria. This should provide a strong case against any governmental targets and rules that do not consider the whole system as intimately as the local council and community. Whilst the goverment may set some target criteria that should recogonise anomalies across different landscapes and communities.
Accessibility to green space for all. Habitat connection. Unique buildings of cultural, historical or community value. Places like Darland Banks do not appear shown as AONB, but the value of this Nature Reserve is irreplaceble as is the Capstone Park area. Woodland areas such as those bordering the Bredhurst area.
Yes, these support and hopefully can gain funding for future improvements. These should be a minimum standard and we should not be afraid to go above and beyond these objectives as the LNRS will identify with NE support for local priorities.
Appreciate the complexities of the system, so tend to agree the focus is correct.
Yes, updates should be incoporated.
Exceptional circumstances may require review, but these should be open and with public consultation.
We so many important habits, this would be a good spot to ensure that this special environments are protected.
Yes, the Council should aim for 15% increase of BNG.
Developments over the last 15 years have not taken in to account the loss of habit and therefore and uplift is required to compensate for this.
No, there should be no development within 6KM of designated areas. the tariffs will prove ineffective and will not protect the designated areas.
No answer given
No answer given
yes
Concerns of forte sea level raises and how this will affect flooding, especially as there is currently no long term commitment from the Environment Agency to maintain flood defences beyond 2030.
No answer given
no
We strongly support the measures included within the draft Local Plan for the mitigation of climate change. We would support their broad adoption across policy for all types of site, for example across policies T10 and T11 to help reduce the risk of negative environmental impacts arising from new development. Water efficiency: The South East region incorporates many environmentally sensitive areas and is classified as an area of ‘serious water stress’. Significant challenges and environmental improvements need to be addressed, while at the same time enabling some of the highest rates of growth in the country. This together with the increasing impacts of climate change expected over time mean we need to significantly reduce our water use. Tackling water scarcity requires a multi-faceted approach and there is an opportunity for the planning system to play a part by ensuring policy requires new development to meet the highest standards of water efficiency possible at the time. For water efficiency in the design of new homes, the current Building Regulations standard1 for water stressed areas is to design for a maximum use of 110 litres of water per person per day. We support the inclusion of the Building Regulations optional standard for water efficiency in policy DM6 of the plan. However, targeting a more efficient standard makes sense in design, in order to ensure that actual use conserves water resources. We would therefore ideally like to see tighter water efficiency targets in the design of new homes. This is in line with Southern Water’s ‘Save a Little Water’ programme to consume no more than 100 litres per person per day across our region. Also, the Government plans to tighten2 the Building Regulations standard. 1 Water_stressed_areas___final_classification_2021.odt (live.com) 2 https://database.waterwise.org.uk/knowledge-base/building-regulations-water-efficiency-review/ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ambitious-roadmap-for-a-cleaner-greener-country High standards of water efficiency in new developments also equate to greater long-term sustainability, future-proofing our communities to the impacts of climate change. Surface Water management and sustainable drainage: Southern Water supports all policy requirements which seek to ensure that surface water is appropriately managed, as close to source as possible. We need planning policy to consider carefully the measures called for in response to the climate crisis, and ensure sustainable development is central to the local planning framework for planning applications coming forward. This is also in line with the requirements of paragraph 167(c) of the NPPF (2023). Measures should support the attenuation of flows of surface water run-off from rainfall, as well as surface water infiltration into the ground wherever possible in the local environment. Please see our policy on Sustainable Development here: https://www.southernwater.co.uk/media/ny0nb3qu/our-policy-statement-on-sustainable-development-a4.pdf Southern Water is strongly supportive of sustainable urban drainage solutions (SuDS) as these will be essential to establishing community resilience to the impacts of climate change into the future. Whilst we appreciate there may be a need for some flexibility, Southern Water considers SuDS essential for all development to ensure mitigation of climate change impacts into the future and ask that this be reflected throughout the Local Plan. Currently paragraph 4.8.18 emphasises the need for SuDS in relation to sewer capacity, where this emphasis could simply be placed on the resilience of communities into the future - as suggested in our proposed changes below: SuDs measures are of particular importance also for new developments within areas where there may be sewer capacity limitations. Increased take up of SuDs will improve resilience of Medway over the Local Plan period and beyond and contribute towards climate adaptation. Building Regulations H3 provides a drainage hierarchy whereby surface water should first discharge to a soakaway or other infiltration system where practicable, with discharge to the combined sewerage system a last resort. Development will not be allowed to drain surface water to the foul sewer, and Southern Water will resist new connections of surface water to the combined sewer, this is in line with our surface water management policy: https://www.southernwater.co.uk/media/l23dbon0/surface-water-management-policy-120724.pdf For effective and sustainable surface water management, we need to ensure the fullest range of SuDS options remain viable to developments, in appropriate locations, to: • Secure the resilience of our communities into the future by enhancing surface water management in the most sustainable way whilst protecting the natural water cycle. • Minimise future connections of surface water to foul/combined sewers. • Ensure policy is enforceable whilst mitigating the risk of rogue behaviours by requiring appropriate levels of treatment in SuDS designs only where the conditions warrant it. Southern Water has produced ‘SuDS in SPZ guidance’* to support developers and policy makers when considering SuDS design. *https://www.southernwater.co.uk/media/ooubtggs/suds-in-spz-guidance.pdf We welcome the reference in paragraph 4.8.15 to Environment Agency guidance for the protection of groundwater quality, and ask if the Plan could also refer to this additional guidance (above link) that Southern Water has produced for sustainable urban drainage solutions within source protection zones? We also ask that for infiltration SuDS within source protection zones, as part of their planning application Developers should provide evidence of having consulted the statutory water company responsible for the SPZ, to confirm the proposed SuDS design is appropriate to this sensitive hydrogeological location. We have made separate representations making this request. Whilst we appreciate that not all water companies will want to work in the same way, Southern Water needs planning policy wording to help ensure Developers consult Southern Water on their infiltration SuDS designs within SPZ. This will help to ensure infiltration SuDS designs remain as viable as possible per site, whilst being appropriate for their location. In terms of future flood risk, better rainwater management through SuDS is the preferred approach to avoid placing added pressure on drainage networks during heavy rainfall. We therefore strongly support the requirement to include SuDS within all development. This is also in line with the requirements of paragraph 167(c) of the NPPF (2023) that requires: 167(c) using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management) Whilst some parts of the wastewater network were originally designed to accommodate surface water, the expansion of towns and cities, and ‘urban creep’, contributes to increases in surface water run-off. As stated in Water UK’s 21st Century Drainage Programme; “The country’s built environment is constantly changing and “urban creep” – home extensions, conservatories and paving over front gardens for parking – can all add to the amount of water going into our sewers and drains. Green spaces that would absorb rainwater are covered over by concrete and tarmac that will not. In fact, studies show that “urban creep” results in a larger increase in predicted flooding than new housing, because it adds more rainwater to these systems’. As set out in Defra’s Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan “Water companies must remove rainwater from the combined sewer system as part of effectually draining their areas. This should include limiting any new connections of surface water to the combined sewer network, and any new connections should be offset by disconnecting a greater volume of surface water elsewhere within the network". This aligns with Southern Water’s work to address problems caused by excess surface water in our sewerage network in order to protect water quality in rivers and sea. For more information please see – https://www.southernwater.co.uk/our-performance/storm-overflows/storm-overflow-task-force and https://www.southernwater.co.uk/media/7459/stormoverflows_faq.pdf Even as we deliver this work, development continues to increase surface water run-off. For communities to be resilient to the evolving impacts of climate change into the future, we need planning policy to ensure that development does not increase flood risk elsewhere.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Campaign groups ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth, and Good Law Project had argued that the government’s revised strategy was unlawful because it provided too little information on the government’s assessment of the risk of policies not being delivered. They filed three separate claims heard together by the court.The groups also raised concerns about the reliance on technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which is expensive and has yet to be proven at scale anywhere. This is from May 2024: https://www.ft.com/content/f57e608b-f230-44c9-97f8-44c5c60f3ccb
Yes if they have the choice. It benefits everyone.
1-- Contact with nature (access to natural spaces) has been proving to be good for physical and mental health. If nothing else matters other than money, this is a way to save money on healthcare. 2--This can create new jobs and opportunities if managed right 3--The best cities to live, year after year, are chosen partly on the basis of having access to natural spaces.
I honestly think you should form a panel of biologists, botanists, ecologists, etc and follow what science says rather than us, easily manipulated and frequently ignorant non-experts.
Yes
The potential for conservation and the potential for regeneration over time
Yes
Please form a panel of scientists to work with and do listen to them. Asking non-expert, random citizens probably not good for some issues like this one
I lack the contest to answer this question.
Yes: the strain on our ecosystems and the level of garbage they have to cope with (courtesy of many years of austerity) is unsustainable.
Agree
Yes.
No answer given
No answer given
Yes
No answer given
Yes
Appears to
The Green Belt is important to ensure urbanisation is stemmed. Therefore would support any increase in its expanse.
Exceptional circumstances will always exist and if justify increasing the green belt then yes.
Given the lack of available local water supplies, the council should go beyond the national standards for water efficiency and offsetting. Similarly, the increasing encroachment into migration corridors increases the need for alternative lighting and tree cover. The need for this is due to the measurable decrease in biodiversity and wild areas. We would suggest increased use of natural water purification (e.g swaps and marshes), which can also reduce flooding impact, and longer wavelength lights for streets, coupled with increased tree coverage with a wider range of tree species used.
Yes.
We have lost 19% of natural species. CDP-2024-0101 from the UK House of Commons Library indicates a reduction of almost 50% of natural England. Also, State of Nature Report (2019) indicates 13% decline in wildlife abundance.
No. It requires a holistic approach from multiple agences.
Yes. There are local smaller areas that need preservation.
These are green corridors that are important for wildlife and locals. Areas along New Road Chatham for example.
Yes
Yes
Yes boundary should be increased and not decreased.
No. There should be no situation where the green belt is developed on.
[TO BE READ ALONGSIDE FULL REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON 06/09/24] 3.33 Catesby Estates does not consider this to be a sound approach. Local standards which differ from national standards and requirements can lead to bespoke approaches needing to be applied. This can impact viability and the ultimate delivery timescales of sites. It is considered that policies can encourage betterment, however, standards should be based on those at a national level. Should the Council wish to set local standards a viability assessment would need to be conducted, and the Council would need to confirm how it has introduced sufficient flexibility to account for changes in technology.
[TO BE READ ALONGSIDE FULL REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON 06/09/24] 3.34 Catesby Estates does not consider this to be a sound approach. The statutory minimum biodiversity net gain of 10% has been derived following detailed evidence and is widely accepted nationally. Policies can encourage the betterment of the statutory minimum but it should remain as the baseline.
[TO BE READ ALONGSIDE FULL REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON 06/09/24] 3.35 In support of this, the Planning Practice Guidance states the following: “Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented."
[TO BE READ ALONGSIDE FULL REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON 06/09/24] 3.36 A tariff to support the delivery of the SAMMS programme should be sufficiently evidenced in order to justify: The need for the tariff; The type of development that the tariff applies to, The location of the development; and The amount of the tariff. 3.37 Should the evidence justify that such a tariff is required, it should be tested within the viability assessment to ensure the inclusion of the tariff does not impact the delivery of the development.
[TO BE READ ALONGSIDE FULL REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON 06/09/24] 3.38 Paragraph 180 of the Framework sets out that planning policies should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. Part of this is to protect and enhance valued landscapes. There is therefore no requirement for the Council to specifically designate landscapes of local value. 3.39 The Council must also be mindful of the designations that are already in place, such as the statutory Kent Downs National Landscape designation, Special Protection Areas, Local Nature Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites, and consider whether the introduction of another designation would benefit or inhibit the planning process.
[TO BE READ ALONGSIDE FULL REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON 06/09/24] 3.40 Should the Council decide to designate any areas, the following criteria set out within the Guidance for Assessing Landscape Designations (Natural England 2021), is considered relevant: a) Sufficient evidence should support the designation of any area specifying the landscape qualities of the area. b) Ensure the correct area is designated and not a blanket designation c) Provide clear guidance for how development can come forward within these areas to ensure that the vision and needs for Medway are deliverable
[TO BE READ ALONGSIDE FULL REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON 06/09/24] 3.41 Catesby Estates supports the inclusion of Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework Standards within the LP2041. Notwithstanding, sufficient flexibility should be provided to ensure that where the framework is not applicable, or where the framework changes over time, allowance is provided within the Policy. 3.42 In relation to sites AS18 and AS22, the accompanying Vision Document demonstrates the intention incorporate a network of greenspaces that are connected to one another and to those outside of the sites. The associated open space will provide a variety of benefits to both existing and future residents.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
None should be the answer
What's BNG? Sounds like a negative thing so no probably not
Why should I need to? It's all there in front of you
No
No, not at all
Brown field sites, save our green belt and recycle land
It shouldn't be involved or included
Yes but it won't be delivered
Yes, no areas of natural beauty like valleys etc should be built on
No and there's nothing to make them justified
No answer given
5.3 The view of CCE’s appointed ecologist, Ecology Solutions, is that the planning policy in the Reg 18 B Plan is pitched correctly – to ensure compliance with the 10% national legislative standard. For many sites (particularly intensely farmed arable), whilst it may be possible to aim for and indeed achieve more than 10%, this should be explored on a site-by-site basis, rather than written into Policy. A higher target in the Local Plan across Medway would be overly prescriptive and could result in deliverability or viability issues, noting that BNG assessment work is complex and varied .
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
5.4 The approach put forward is pragmatic and aligns a number of key elements, including aspects that can deliver BNG, wider ecological benefit and other elements of schemes important for ecology (such as informal recreational areas) and other disciplines (drainage, landscape, design).
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No development would be best. Keep to urban areas only not green belt or fields.
No
No answer given
No not enough, there should be NO development at all in these areas
Yes, should consider rural areas with sites of local importance no build zones
Areas of natural beauty and areas with eco systems and wetlands and bird migration and habitats for wildlife etc
Yes
No, doesn't encompass all the significant areas more research is required.
Yes
Yes
No development would be best. Keep to urban areas only not green belt or fields.
No
No answer given
No
Yes
No answer given
Yes
No answer given
Yes
Yes
1) Section 5.4 Policy DM6-Sustainable Design and Construction is mostly about water/energy efficiency and use of recycled materials. No mention is made of how any development is going to incorporate wildlife, e.g.bird boxes, insect hotels, ponds. For example some developers now build in swallow/swift/house-martin in-built nest boxes in new homes. Section 4.4.5 mentions a Bird Wise scheme which might provide partners that you can work with to obtain more answers to the questions above. The evidence that I think would justify this approach is that the scale of the development will really negatively impact climate change because the plan is to destroy prime bird habitat (and habitat for other wildlife) within 6km of the marshes on the Hoo Peninsula. The standards will be additional mitigation or infrastructure creation appropriate to whichever form of wildlife or habitat will be destroyed. And the developers should be legally obliged to build the required items onsite with no get-out and not cheaply either. 2) The Council could set the standard that local jobs and infrastructure are created first. The evidence for this approach is to be had from lessons learned from the recent housing estate developments at Hoo which haven't worked. It has resulted in awful not particularly environmentally sustainable urban sprawl with many people commuting to work off the peninsula wholly or partly by car resulting in negative impacts on the environment e.g. traffic congestion at Four Elms hill and poorer air quality. If you managed to create some local jobs, you'd then be in a position to adopt the appropriate infrastructure for the industry sector. 3) The Council could go for greater numbers of Self Builds and/or Custom Builds. I would prefer not to have the uninspiring housing estates currently being built everywhere. The Council could demand for the best sites (whatever that means) that the most beautiful innovative highest quality homes are built to the most environmentally sustainable standards possible.
Yes
I think the Council is obliged to do everything it can because of the colossal impact on climate change and the natural environment that the scale of this proposed development will have. I think in the case of this development, the proposals are going to change the Hoo Peninsula in particular from a rural area into an urban area which is an exceptional circumstance.
Yes and no, as too much wildlife, farmland and other habitat will be destroyed for any mitigation or financial recompense so it's not really effective in that sense. No amount of money will reduce the environmental impacts that occur because of this habitat being destroyed. The only use for it is if it deters the development of this land.
Yes
One of the criteria should be aesthetic, e.g.: Views across the Hoo Peninsula - I can only speak about those around Allhallows, others may exist. Some of the best views across to the Thames and Medway will be destroyed. There is one particular part where you can see both rivers from one point (the Coastguard cottage at Homewards Road junction with Ratcliffe Highway), and another from Binney Road where you can see the gas tanks at Grain and the River Medway and the fog rising in the morning across the fields. Both of these locations are proposed sites on the plan. In the document in 4.5.7, you say 'The European Landscape Convention recognises that every landscape forms the setting of the lives of local people and the quality of those landscapes can affect everyone's lives'. The views, the space and the sense of remoteness is probably why many people choose to live there more so than the homes themselves. The analysis 'D.5.7 - Views experienced by local residents' in the Lepus Consultancy document classified it only as a minor negative impact but it is most certainly major for me and my mental health and will fuel the decision of whether I continue to live in Medway or not. I believe that the Medway LDP greatly underestimates this factor. The views on the Hoo Peninsula are as important to preserve as much as in the Kent Downs AONB because they are of equal value - they are as fabulous. I'm sure there are other particular features of landscapes that should be included as well, possibly similar criteria as for an AONB, but I'm not an expert.
Yes. I think the scale of this development will be so catastrophic for the natural environment, the Council needs to do everything it can. I read some of the Appendices written by Lepus Consulting and was horrified at the amount of woodland that would need to be felled and open mosaic habitat etc that is going to be lost on multiple proposed sites. The most important thing is to lobby for changes to the planning system so that developers do not renege on their commitments to providing mitigation measures. I'm not an expert in this field and have no knowledge of the detail of Natural England's Green Infrastructure Framework but have heard stories locally where it was promised that they would build cycle parks or play parks but never did and there appears to be very little accountability on the part of developers.
No answer given
No answer given
Exceptional circumstances do exist, such is the scale of development and the number of houses required. I agree with the aim of keeping the distinction between Medway and London as separate entities with distinct identities. However, I went to the planning meeting at Hundred of Hoo school and learned from Planning Officers that 50% of the new house-holders that have moved into Medway were from outside Medway, mostly London so we are becoming an extension of London and coalescing across the green belt. Also in the light of Labour's policy to re-classify some parts of the Green Belt as Grey belt, perhaps it might be an idea to review the boundary. It might come out worse in that we lose Green Belt as part of the review, i.e. the belt boundary narrows which would be a negative impact but it may also identify sites within the green belt that are grey belt or brownfield sites and more suitable for building on than the green fields of the Hoo Peninsula.
The devastating effects that we're experiencing in Medway, such as flooding, justify all new builds requiring solar panels and specialist boilers to minimise harmful emissions.
Yes, absolutely, as we are rapidly losing all natural environments to building.
Look at a map. If Capstone Valley is built on, there will be very little green space left on this side of Medway.
Yes, all means necessary must be used to protect these areas.
Yes, in particular, Capstone Valley but also the natural landscape which has developed at the Albemarle end of North Dane Way.
Are they valued by locals? Is there evidence of additional wild life, plants, insects, bats, birds, etc which would lose their habitat if the area was destroyed/ built on? Capstone Valley. The natural space which has grown where the North Dane Way ends which is a haven for local wildlife, walkers, etc.
Yes
It needs to be stronger so it includes protecting Capstone Valley.
N/a
N/a
Blue Flag bathing waters, Green Blue RYA commitment.
Yes
The difficulty in finding lack waste pump out facilities.
Yes,
Yes, keep every bit of parkland or children’s play area we have or replace at developer cost
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Leave areas to nature rather than destroy it only to try to recreate it in designated areas. What is the contingency plan for potential legal action taken against local for the inevitable increase in death rate attributed to poor air quality level? Is local government going to publish the statistics for CO levels in pregnant women? This can be used to justify reducing the scale of development. Local government could use statistics on mental health and the benefits of having access to a natural environment. Local government could use the recent evidence of air, water and light pollution to validate a reduction in development.
Yes this should be increased.
No answer given
Yes
Yes
Leave areas to naturally develop biodiversity.
Yes
No, has not addressed wildlife species under threat from development and the benefits of leaving areas to increase biodiversity naturally.
Local government should ensure that all green belt areas in Medway as they exist are protected despite recommendations.
See answer to question 7. Ensure protection for all existing green belt areas in Medway.
I think it is unreasonable to expect residents to read all the documents highlighted below and to reference them in answering this question. Not only are there time constraints but also these documents are difficult to decipher, even for those that are well educated. I cannot help thinking that this is a deliberate attempt by the council to deter people from making reasoned arguments. It would be appropriate for local government to set addition standards to national policy if there were particular areas that required special consideration. For example, as a major route for distribution of goods coming in to the country through the port of Dover there is a special case for considering any increase in vehicular traffic coming to or passing through Medway. That increase may come from increased foreign food imports, that are inevitable if we concrete over our farmland, or an increase in local traffic from an inflation in housing stock.
I think the council should go beyond the statutory 10% increase wherever possible.
BNG can: improve quality of life, have a positive impact on mental health, improve air quality improve quality of life increase agricultural yield capture carbon increase tourism thereby having financial benefits support rural communities promote habitat conservation and enhancement Having said the above though, it is important that BNG cannot be sort through development of food producing land. It is not feasible to rely solely on parks situated within and urban setting. People expect to see and enjoy the open countryside as well as isolated green spaces within heavily built up areas.
Again, this is a question which requires reading and understanding of the documents linked below. It is unreasonable for the council to expect residents to read and inwardly digest these documents in order to make a reasoned argument.
Yes, I do think the council should identify landscapes of local value as an additional designation. There are many places within Medway that residents value for numerous reasons. .
There are many places within Medway that residents value for numerous reasons. You only have to look at the decade long fight by local residents against development of the Capstone Valley including Gibraltar Farm and the fight now being taken to the high court by local residents against the development of Lidsing. For people to raise in excess of £70,000 by small donation and fund raising events makes a statement saying how locals value Lidsing, Capstone Valley, and strategic gap between Medway and Maidstone. I believe the area from Luton Recreation ground by the Waggon at Hale, through Capstone Road and Lidsing Road to Bredhurst and Boxley plus Ham Lane and Sharsted Road through to North Dane Way should be considered for inclusion. The area is much enjoyed by locals and beyond for: 1. the open aspect of countryside as you leave the Medway Towns 2. the enjoyment of using these lanes for walking, running and horse riding 3. mental health purposes of escaping the hustle and bustle of the Towns. Unfortunately, Capstone Park also becomes very busy at times due to its trying to support an increasing population 4. support of local agricultural workers and businesses 5. restrictions on widening these lane making them unsuitable for supporting large scale development
Yes, I do but not only should the council be greening our urban areas but also conserving our existing green areas especially those currently being used for food production or other agricultural use of importance. My concern with councils proposals is that there is great emphasis put upon creating 'artificial' green spaces e.g. parks within the urban setting and not enough emphasis put upon those existing green spaces and open countryside.
As I have said in other comments, the council has provided guidance on strengthening green infrastructure but not enough has been done to consider existing agricultural land and too much consideration given to the creation of green spaces. The Nature Recovery Network must include our food supply alongside other benefits. We must maintain our ability to grow our own food on a larger scale not just at the individual allotment. There are young people in our community who would like to pursue a career in farming but by not addressing this we are denying them the opportunity. It would be great if Medway could lead the way in England in developing and base for the agricultural and skilled craftspeople. The King has created such an opportunity in Scotland for local young people to train in farming, rural skills and traditional crafts such as stone masonry. Medway is ideally situated to be home to such a centre of excellence. With the existence of many local historic sites providing employment for trainees and the qualified we could guarantee employment long term for our local population instead of outsourcing.
Again, you are asking people to read a legal document which is tie consuming and may be difficult to understand. By doing this you are restricting the number of people that can reply to you with their opinion e.g. the illiterate. Not having read the 2018 Green Belt document, it is my belief that the green belt should be maintained at all costs. There must be a curtailing of the urban sprawl that would connect Medway to London. In the 20th Century there was considerable absorption of Kent districts/towns/ villages into the urban sprawl of London and are now considered part of London e.g. Bromley, Orpington
Yes, I do. The outskirts of London appear to be ever expanding thereby narrowing the Green Belt. In order to maintain the strategic gap between London and Medway it may be necessary to extend the Green belt further into Medway and to expand the gap between Medway and other areas within Kent such as Maidstone and Sittingbourne.
To justify setting local standards for development that exceed national policy in addressing climate change, evidence should include the ongoing environmental issues in Medway, such as frequent flooding, water main leaks, and deteriorating air quality. For example, in Allhallows, building on a floodplain exacerbates flooding risks, while inadequate infrastructure worsens air quality due to increased vehicle emissions. Appropriate local standards could include stricter flood resilience measures, improved green infrastructure to mitigate pollution, and enhanced energy efficiency for new developments. Tailoring these standards to local challenges ensures that Medway's development is resilient and sustainable, effectively addressing its unique climate and environmental issues.
Yes, the Council should aim to exceed the statutory minimum of a 10% increase in Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Given Medway’s unique environmental challenges, such as habitat loss and pollution, setting a higher BNG target would better support local biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. By going beyond the minimum requirement, the Council can more effectively address environmental degradation, enhance habitat connectivity, and contribute to a more sustainable and thriving natural environment. This proactive approach would align with the goal of safeguarding and restoring Medway’s ecological health, ensuring long-term benefits for both wildlife and local communities.
Yes, the Council should aim to exceed the statutory minimum of a 10% increase in Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Medway faces significant environmental challenges, such as habitat loss, increased pollution, and frequent flooding, which necessitate more ambitious measures. A higher BNG target would not only help to mitigate these issues but also support the restoration and enhancement of local ecosystems. This proactive approach would create more resilient habitats, improve biodiversity connectivity, and strengthen ecological networks. By exceeding the minimum requirement, the Council can address the specific needs of Medway’s unique environment, ensuring long-term benefits for both wildlife and local communities while demonstrating leadership in environmental stewardship. This commitment would foster a more sustainable future and help Medway adapt to ongoing climate and ecological pressures.
Yes, the tariff-based strategic approach applied to development within 6 km of designated areas, supporting the Bird Wise SAMMS programme, represents an effective means of addressing the potential impact of recreational disturbance on the SPA and Ramsar habitats of the Thames, Medway, and Swale Estuaries and Marshes. By implementing a financial contribution mechanism, this approach ensures that developers contribute to the management and mitigation of recreational impacts on sensitive habitats. This strategy helps fund necessary conservation measures and supports habitat protection efforts, which are crucial for maintaining the ecological integrity of these important areas. The tariff-based approach aligns development with environmental stewardship, balancing growth with effective conservation.
Yes, Medway Council should consider identifying landscapes of local value as an additional designation in the new Local Plan. Recognising these landscapes would help protect areas that are not only important for their natural beauty but also for their cultural, historical, or recreational significance to local communities. This designation would enhance conservation efforts, ensure that local landscapes are preserved for future generations, and support sustainable development that respects these areas. It also fosters a sense of community pride and engagement, contributing to the overall quality of life and environmental stewardship in Medway.
The criteria for designating landscapes of local value should include: 1. Natural Beauty: Areas with exceptional scenic or aesthetic qualities. 2. Cultural or Historical Significance: Landscapes with important historical or cultural connections to the local community. 3. Ecological Value: Areas that support diverse wildlife or unique ecosystems. 4. Recreational Use: Landscapes that provide significant recreational opportunities for residents. 5. Community Sentiment: Places that hold strong sentimental value for local people. In Medway, areas like the marshes and estuaries along the Thames and Medway, and specific rural landscapes around Allhallows could justify this designation. These areas offer scenic beauty, cultural significance, and recreational benefits while supporting local wildlife and reflecting the community's heritage. Identifying these landscapes helps ensure they are protected and valued within the new Local Plan.
Yes, the Council should promote Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework standards in the Medway Local Plan policy. Adopting these standards would ensure that green infrastructure is integrated effectively into development plans, enhancing environmental quality, connectivity, and resilience. The framework provides a comprehensive approach to planning and managing green spaces, which supports biodiversity, improves public health and well-being, and contributes to sustainable development. By aligning with Natural England’s standards, Medway can enhance the ecological and social benefits of its green infrastructure, creating more vibrant and sustainable communities.
The draft Medway Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework has identified several key issues and assets, but its effectiveness in strengthening Medway’s green infrastructure depends on its comprehensiveness and applicability. It should address critical issues such as habitat connectivity, pollution control, and flood resilience, while also recognising valuable assets like natural reserves, waterways, and urban green spaces. Effective guidance should include specific strategies for improving green infrastructure, ensuring it supports biodiversity, enhances public access, and integrates with broader environmental goals. If the draft framework comprehensively covers these areas and provides actionable recommendations, it can significantly enhance Medway’s green infrastructure.
Yes, the Green Belt boundary should be revised in line with the recommendations in the 2018 Green Belt Assessment. The assessment provides valuable insights into the current effectiveness and constraints of Green Belt boundaries, helping to ensure that they continue to meet their intended purposes, such as preventing urban sprawl, protecting the countryside, and preserving local character. Revising the boundaries based on these recommendations can help address areas where the Green Belt may no longer be serving its purpose effectively, ensuring that it remains a robust tool for sustainable development and environmental protection.
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify a review of the Green Belt boundary depends on specific factors affecting Medway. Exceptional circumstances might include significant pressure for housing and infrastructure development, especially if current boundaries hinder meeting essential needs for housing, economic growth, or public services. However, any review should be carefully considered, weighing the benefits of development against the importance of preserving Green Belt land. Comprehensive evidence should demonstrate that alternative solutions are insufficient and that revising the boundaries is necessary to achieve sustainable development while protecting the Green Belt’s core functions.
Medway does not exist in a bubble and gold standard policy will be meaningless if the rest of the South East doesn't do likewise. I'd like to see more regional cooperation.
No
In my opinion thisxwill be unsustainable in the short term and meaningless unless we have a specific plan for what we want to achieve. This can't be left to developers unless the Council can enforce their compliance.
Only if you get the money up front
Yes
I don't think you can look at landscape in isolation. For example, Brownfield sites do not look pretty but they support jobs - the economic life of Medway is essential to address poverty. I'd like to see more trees planted in brownfield/ urban areas.
Yes
No. I don't think this is the approach will work. We need greening everywhere not just in pockets or pathways - as a demonstrably effective method of handling climate change
Yes but again, this can't be done in isolation. It has to be done sympathetically so that the new development is seen as an asset not an unnecessary drain on the area. Developers have to be held to account on this so there will need to be clearer information on changes to plans so that local people have a proper say in what is being proposed
Yes
The Council should absolutely go above those standards. Can we look to European standards.
Yes
Climate change is the biggest threat to us all
Minimal
Yes
Ask local communities
Yes
I think so
Yes
No
This needs to be in line of the current needs of the area and these could include more requirements of developers to introduce community focused services/buildings as part of their plans above and beyond that of requirements and S106 funding.
Yes, the amount of land being repurposed for housing significantly reduces the biodiversity of the area where the new properties are located.
The increase of biodiversity will also support the farming by having more wild meadows leading to more bees and butterflies in turn improving crop yield and therefore economic growth.
Yes as long as this is enforced and is not something developers can find a loop hole such as supplying S106 funding etc.
Yes, there are other elements of the local area which are important to residents over the development of more housing.
Areas of local heritage, such as the hop farming industry, the dock working era and other areas which may not be identified in the current plan. Areas where residents visit frequently and serve multiple purposes, for example Rochester.
Yes
From what can be seen on the map - yes
Yes, the information we use must be following all recommendations from current assessments
It would be beneficial to ensure we review this if there are other recommendations which we have not considered or accounted from in the current proposed plan.
You haven't provided any sample ideas of what you are considering so it is difficult to comment.
Perhaps. To what level? What would that likely entail? Hopefully not a green roof.
No answer given
Just don't build near these areas. The tariff system is just a buyoff like ULEZ. For example, paying £25 to drive through London doesn't make the air any cleaner. In the same way, getting developers to contribute money to schemes to allegedly compensate for the damage to the existing sites does not actually mitigate the original loss and damage and certainly for migratory birds this can be very detrimental.
Yes
Whether it is a historic landscape, well known and loved by generations. Whether it is part of the identity of a place, such as how Rochester Castle defines Rochester and is and instantly recognisable landscape. And if it is a structure of signficant historical or archeological value.
Yes
I am not sure at this stage, there is more reading around the subject to complete.
Only where enforcing green belt protections and environmental and heritage considerations are maintained or improved.
Not if these exceptional circumstances require housing to be built there.