Questions: Retail and Town Centres
Yes, by considering the impact on existing centres, and ensuring that travel to/from outside centres is sustainable and in keeping with policy, unintended negative consequences on the town centres should be less likely.
yes
Mostly, yes, as this creates scope for more residential housing to materialise nearby, but I think the boundary should extend south to include the railway station.
yes, this will reduce the sprawl
No, as intra formally in rochester. If the objective is to move intra into Chatham, this should be reflected in the Chatham boundary.
No, the primary shopping area is far too small and not reflective of current shopping trends.
No answer given
No answer given
I would choose A + B, on the premise that the larger the centre is, the more room there is for regeneration under this plan.
no, strood struggles to maintain shops of any quality in the existing shopping area, primarily due to the cannibalisation from strood retail park. a bigger decision needs to be made about the size and shape of strood. The horrible road network running through it kills strood as a centre. if that road network is to remain, then letting strood centre turn substantially more residential would make more sense.
No answer given
No answer given
absolutely, yes.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Yes
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
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
not sure, more detail required.
yes...
yes
yes
yes
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No, it would not encourage sustainable travel patterns. As the Councils preferred option is for an Aldi/Lidi type of supermarket, and their reason is to reduce traffic on the A228 on Finsbury Hill, this will be too space to might a family shopping needs and more still mean that a larger supermarket will need too be visited, therefore not reducing travel. If a larger supermarket was development then this will, lead to a significant increase of car travel on to the Peninsular. Any new supermarket would lead an increase of car journeys around Hoo and the run down of the current village centre. If the aim is to provide more sustainable travel patterns, the encouraging and providing better access to the home delivery services is a much better solution, not build a supermarket.
yes
no
No answer given
no
yes
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
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
9.4 The supporting text of S22 Hoo Peninsula confirms the Council is collating evidence as part of the preparation of the Local Plan, which includes identifying the infrastructure and service needs linked to growth in this location. This evidence base will be a key document; it must undertake a capacity and needs based assessment to inform the emerging proposals for infrastructure and retail at the Hoo Rural Town, including whether the provision of a supermarket at Hoo is likely to be needed. CCE would welcome engagement with the Council on this evidence base to understand further the requirements for infrastructure to support the new Community. In the same way, CCE would welcome discussions with Medway on need, timing and location of other infrastructure including schools (see CCE’s response to question 42). 9.5 Allocation of CCE’s land at both east and west of Ropers Lane, would not only provide the opportunity for the delivery of a mix of much needed, high-quality homes (including affordable homes), but the opportunity to provide a sustainable mixed-use development, including education, employment and the opportunity for retail provision. Current illustrative concept proposals for development of CCE’s land east and west of Ropers Lane are provided at Appendix 3 and in the Vision Document. However, this is not fixed and, should it be decided that land to the east of Ropers Lane would be usefully allocated alongside residential use to provide retail provision, or other infrastructure to encourage sustainable travel patterns for existing and new residents at the Peninsula, then this could be explored in consultation with Medway, CCE, and the wider Hoo Consortium. 9.6 In preparing its evidence base and developing the Regulation 19 Plan, Medway must consider the changing nature of the retail market. A data-led approach should be adopted to assess the amount of retail space which would be economically viable given the calculated anticipated retail spend of the new population.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Sort of
Yes
Sort of
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yed
Yes
Yes
None
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rochester Riverside
Yes
No
Yes
Sort of
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Yes, we agree with the removal of the Go Outdoors/former Market Hall site from the Chatham Town Centre boundary.
Yes.
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
No answer given
No answer given
We agree that 142 Luton Road (former Elephant and Castle pub) should be included in the boundary of SP Luton Road, Chatham. However, we disagree with the proposal to include 1-16 Harnan Court. This new-build property is purely residential in use and does not offer any commercial or community functions. It does not meet the assessment criteria and as such should be removed from the boundary.
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
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No, as it would impact on local shops and business
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Yes
Yes
Do not agree or disagee
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
Is the impact on local businesses is to be taken into account before any supermarket and listen to the views of residents
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
I do not support the approach to manage ancillary development outside of centres as it currently stands. The proposed developments, particularly in areas like Allhallows, fail to align with the critical need for improved infrastructure and the existing lack of facilities. Building more houses without addressing these fundamental issues will only exacerbate the current problems. Instead, priority should be given to investing in infrastructure, local amenities, and community services to ensure that any development is sustainable and truly benefits the local population. Proper consultation with local residents is also essential to avoid missteps and ensure that developments meet actual needs.
I support the approach to protect Medway’s centres by requiring impact assessments as outlined in Policy T17. It is crucial to ensure that any new developments or ancillary projects do not negatively affect the existing centres, particularly in areas where infrastructure and local services are already under strain. Proper impact assessments will help to safeguard the vitality of Medway’s centres, prevent further strain on already limited resources, and ensure that developments are aligned with the community's needs and infrastructure capacity. This approach is essential for maintaining the balance between growth and the sustainability of local services.
I do not fully agree with the proposed Chatham town centre boundary. Expanding or changing the boundary without addressing the existing issues in infrastructure and safety may exacerbate current problems rather than resolve them. Before considering boundary changes, it's essential to prioritize substantial improvements to the town centre’s infrastructure and safety measures to ensure that any new development or boundary adjustments will benefit the community effectively.
I have reservations about the proposed Primary Shopping Area boundary. If the boundary is extended without addressing the significant problems already present, such as safety and infrastructure deficiencies, it may not provide the intended benefits and could worsen existing issues. It's crucial to ensure that any proposed boundaries are accompanied by a comprehensive plan for improving safety, infrastructure, and overall town centre quality to genuinely benefit the community.
I have reservations about the proposed Rochester district centre boundary. If the boundary is not aligned with the current needs and challenges faced by the area, such as inadequate infrastructure or safety concerns, it may not effectively address these issues. Ensuring that the proposed boundary supports meaningful improvements and reflects the actual needs of the community is crucial for its success. A thorough review and alignment with local priorities and infrastructure developments would be essential for a positive outcome.
I would likely question whether the proposed Primary Shopping Area boundary in Rochester district centre adequately addresses these issues. If the boundary does not align with the current infrastructure and community needs or fails to consider areas with significant challenges, it may not be effective. It is crucial that the boundary supports both the expansion of shopping facilities and the enhancement of infrastructure to ensure it benefits the local community and addresses existing shortcomings. Proper consultation and alignment with local needs are essential for the boundary's effectiveness.
I would recommend selecting an option or combination of options for the Gillingham district centre boundary that: 1. Expands the boundary to include underrepresented areas: This ensures that the district centre can cater to a broader range of needs and potentially attract more businesses and services. 2. Focuses on enhancing infrastructure: Any chosen option should account for the current limitations in infrastructure and aim to integrate improvements alongside boundary adjustments. 3. Includes community consultation: Engage with local residents and businesses to understand their needs and priorities, ensuring that the expanded boundary reflects their input and addresses local concerns. A well-considered boundary should balance growth with the existing infrastructure capacity and address community needs effectively.
I would suggest that the Primary Shopping Area boundary proposed within Gillingham district centre may need careful consideration. Given the issues with infrastructure and the current inadequacies in accommodating the needs of existing residents, any boundary proposal should ensure that it does not exacerbate these problems. The boundary should be set to support sustainable development, enhance local services, and address existing infrastructure deficits. Adequate community consultation is crucial to ensure that the proposed boundary aligns with local needs and supports the overall well-being of the area.
To choose the most appropriate option or combination of options for the Strood district centre boundary, consider the following: 1. Assess Infrastructure and Facilities: Ensure the boundary aligns with existing infrastructure capacity and future needs. Expansion should not outpace the ability of current services to support additional demand. 2. Community Needs: Consult with local residents to understand their needs and preferences. The boundary should reflect areas where development will be beneficial and enhance local services. 3. Sustainable Development: Choose options that support sustainable growth, balancing new development with the preservation of existing assets and community character. 4. Economic Viability: The boundary should be set to support local businesses and improve economic opportunities without overwhelming the area. Based on these criteria, opt for a combination of options that provides a balanced approach to growth, aligns with infrastructure capabilities, and considers community feedback.
To determine whether you agree with the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) boundary proposed within Strood district centre, consider these factors: 1. Alignment with Community Needs: Does the proposed boundary reflect the areas where there is genuine demand for retail and services? Ensure it supports the local economy and meets the needs of residents. 2. Infrastructure Capacity: Evaluate if the boundary aligns with the existing infrastructure and can accommodate future growth without straining local services. 3. Economic Viability: Assess if the proposed PSA boundary supports local businesses and encourages a vibrant retail environment. 4. Consistency with Planning Goals: Ensure the boundary is consistent with broader planning objectives and policies for Strood. If the proposed boundary aligns well with these considerations, then supporting it would be reasonable. If not, suggest adjustments based on the specific issues identified.
To choose the most appropriate option or combination of options for the Rainham district centre boundary, consider the following factors: 1. Current and Future Retail Needs: The boundary should reflect areas with high demand for retail and services, and be adaptable to future growth and changes in shopping habits. 2. Infrastructure and Accessibility: Ensure that the boundary encompasses areas with sufficient infrastructure and is accessible to the majority of residents. This includes transportation links, parking, and pedestrian access. 3. Economic Viability: The boundary should support existing businesses and encourage new investment, fostering a vibrant and economically sustainable district centre. 4. Community Impact: Consider how the boundary will affect local residents and businesses. It should enhance the area's functionality and appeal without negatively impacting surrounding areas. 5. Consistency with Planning Policies: The chosen option should align with broader planning goals and policies for Rainham. Review each option based on these criteria and select the one that best balances these factors to support a thriving and sustainable district centre in Rainham.
I have concerns about the proposed Primary Shopping Area boundary within Rainham district centre. The boundary should be carefully assessed to ensure it aligns with current and future retail needs, infrastructure, and accessibility for residents. Given the challenges in Medway, such as inadequate infrastructure and the need for more shops and facilities, the boundary must support local businesses and foster economic growth without exacerbating existing issues. It is crucial that the boundary reflects a comprehensive understanding of the area’s requirements and is reviewed in consultation with local stakeholders to ensure it meets the community’s needs effectively.
Providing a supermarket in Hoo could indeed be beneficial to residents by promoting sustainable travel patterns, convenience, and sustainable lifestyles. A local supermarket would reduce the need for residents to travel long distances for groceries, thus lowering their carbon footprint and supporting more sustainable travel patterns. It would also enhance convenience, allowing residents to shop locally and support the local economy. Additionally, having access to a nearby supermarket can encourage healthier lifestyles by making it easier to purchase fresh and nutritious food. Overall, a supermarket could improve quality of life and contribute to more sustainable community practices.
It seems important to ensure that boundaries for local and rural centres are set with careful consideration of current and future needs. If the boundaries and retention of these centres align with a realistic assessment of community infrastructure, economic viability, and the ability to support local services and amenities, then they could be supported. However, if they are based on outdated or inaccurate assessments, or fail to address critical issues such as insufficient infrastructure or inadequate local services, it may be necessary to reassess and adjust them accordingly.
Given the current state of infrastructure and local needs in my area, including Allhallows, you might consider suggesting the following local and rural centres for inclusion: 1. Allhallows: As a growing village with current infrastructure challenges, it could benefit from being designated as a local centre to better address its needs and improve facilities. 2. Stoke: Given its proximity to Allhallows and its own infrastructure needs, including it could help create a more cohesive plan for the area. 3. Hoo: As a potentially underserved area, including it could support the development of essential services and improve local accessibility. These suggestions aim to address existing gaps and ensure better service provision and infrastructure support for residents.
You might consider the following points when assessing the boundaries and retention of shopping parades and neighbourhood centres: 1. Evaluate Existing Needs: Ensure that the boundaries reflect the current needs of local communities. If areas like Allhallows or Hoo are struggling with inadequate facilities, their boundaries might need re-evaluation to better support local needs. 2. Infrastructure Capacity: Consider whether existing shopping parades and neighbourhood centres have the capacity to accommodate growth or if their boundaries should be adjusted to alleviate pressure. 3. Community Feedback: It's essential that local communities are consulted to ensure that their needs and concerns are addressed. The boundaries should align with residents' experiences and expectations. If the current boundaries do not align with these considerations or do not adequately address local needs, it may be worth advocating for a review or adjustment.
Considering the current needs and challenges in my local area, such as Allhallows, you might suggest including the following types of centres: 1. Allhallows Village Centre: Given the existing concerns about inadequate local facilities and infrastructure, expanding or enhancing the boundaries to include additional areas within Allhallows could address the shortage of shops and services. 2. Hoo Centre: If not already included, considering the potential benefit of a supermarket or additional amenities could make Hoo a more effective centre for local needs. 3. Smaller Villages: Areas like Stoke and other nearby villages that lack sufficient shopping and community facilities might benefit from inclusion, to better serve the surrounding communities. These suggestions aim to improve local access to essential services and support the overall sustainability and convenience of shopping and community services.
If the proposed boundary effectively encompasses key leisure amenities, provides adequate space for current and future developments, and integrates well with surrounding areas, it could be considered appropriate. The boundary should ideally support the growth of leisure activities, ensure accessibility for residents, and contribute positively to the area's overall development without negatively impacting other land uses or communities.
To evaluate the proposed percentage mix of uses, consider the following factors: 1. Community Needs: Does the mix align with the needs and preferences of the local community? For example, if there is a strong demand for retail, leisure, or housing, the mix should reflect that. 2. Economic Viability: Is the proposed mix likely to be economically viable? Ensure that the mix supports local businesses and attracts investment. 3. Sustainability: Does the mix support sustainable development? For instance, including green spaces or community facilities can enhance quality of life and environmental impact. 4. Infrastructure: Are the existing and planned infrastructure and services sufficient to support the proposed mix? If the percentage mix effectively balances these factors, it is likely to be a supportive approach. If it does not address key issues or does not align with community needs, adjustments might be necessary.
No answer given
Yes
Yes fully, these need to be conducted to ensure there are limited to no negative impact on the area and residents.
Yes
No as this takes out a portion of shops which would still be classed as part of Chatham.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The masterplan boundary is suitable
Yes
Masterplan
Yes
Yes as there are limited facilities on the Isle.
Yes
Not at this time
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No answer given