Section 3.2 – Preferred spatial growth option
3.15 BDW does not agree with the Council’s preferred spatial growth option and fears it will fail the tests of soundness set out under paragraph 35 of the NPPF (December 2023).
3.16 As set out previously within these representations, the Plan period should be extended to 2042 and land for a minimum of 1,658 additional dwellings be sought, with the overall need increasing to 28,186 dwellings across the plan period. The preferred spatial growth option must ensure that this quantum of housing can be actually delivered in the plan period. This is likely to necessitate those sites where there are uncertainties over delivery within the plan period to be identified as having the potential to be brought forward within the plan period, but not as committed numbers in the delivery pipeline. At present, it is not apparent that the Council has undertaken the research necessary to determine the capacity of the chosen sites and whether the spatial strategy can deliver the number of homes suggested.
Reasonable alternatives
Housing target
3.17 Notwithstanding the above, the Regulation 18 Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report (June 2024) which accompanies this consultation only considers two “reasonable alternatives”. Option 1 meets Medway’s Local Housing Need and Initial Objective Assessment of Employment of 22,643 homes and 274,663sqm of employment land across the plan period. Option 2 delivers the same level of employment land and 2,000 additional homes of Gravesham’s Unmet Housing Need.
3.18 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that sustainability appraisals are integral to the preparation and development of local plans. Paragraph 11-018-20140306 of the PPG requires reasonable alternatives to be “sufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made”.
3.19 The two options assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal are not considered to encompass all reasonable alternatives which should be assessed, nor are they sufficiently distinct. Option 2 does not assess a different level of employment land provision to Option 1 and includes only an 8.8% increase in housing numbers based on neighbouring unmet need.
3.20 Option 1 is stated as being chosen due to it placing less pressure on transport, social infrastructure and lesser impacts on the environment. Option 2 would deliver only an additional 2,000 homes across a 16-year plan period, a marginal increase. The Sustainability Appraisal does not adequately consider the ability of development to mitigate these impacts nor the ability of development to make a positive contribution to infrastructure which goes beyond benefits to new residents but also to existing communities. Neither does it propose an alternative level of employment land provision.
3.21 When taking into account the anticipated supply of housing from windfalls and extant planning permissions, the Council is proposing a total supply of 27,854 across the plan period until 2041. This allows just under a 5% buffer to allow for market flexibility. Notwithstanding our belief that the plan period should be extended to 2042, it is not considered that this allows for a sufficient buffer in the event of delays to the delivery of strategic sites, or those impacted by viability. The housing target proposed in the emerging Plan should therefore allow for a higher buffer of between 10% and 20% more homes. In order to be positively prepared and justified, the Council should, as a minimum, account for this within the reasonable alternatives.
3.22 Further, in order to be positively prepared and justified, the Sustainability Appraisal should consider a more ambitious higher growth scenario which will contribute towards the Council’s Vision of strengthening the District’s economic position regionally as well as increasing housing choice for mixed and balanced communities.
3.23 Therefore, in order for the emerging Plan to be considered sound, the Council should revise the Sustainability Appraisal to consider and assess an option with a sufficient buffer and also additional reasonable alternatives which achieve more ambitious levels of growth.
Employment driven housing need
3.24 The level of employment land assessed under both reasonable alternatives has not been adequately evidenced, nor is it justified. The Sustainability Appraisal refers to an Initial Objective Assessment of 274,663sqm of employment land. However, the Council has not published any evidence as part of this consultation which would indicate where this assessment of need has come from.
3.25 The Employment Land Need Assessment – Update (October 2020) notes a need for 293,112sqm of employment floorspace, higher than the level tested in the Sustainability Appraisal under Options 1 and 2. This Need Assessment notes that historic growth in manufacturing indicates considerable potential for future growth and diversification. Similarly, logistics and distribution are identified as a strong growth area given Medway’s geographical positioning with access to a considerable population. Further, the Lower Thames Crossing (which is due to be determined by 4 October 2024) is noted as having the potential to provide a significant new driver to the local market.
3.26 The all points to the ability of Medway to realise the vision of strengthening itself as being regionally important economically. However, as set out in paragraph 7.2.1 of the Regulation 18 Local Plan, the Council admits that it has not carried out the necessary evidence gathering to determine the employment needs of the District. This information is critical to determining whether the emerging Plan is firstly delivering the levels of housing growth which can support economic growth, and secondly, whether the spatial strategy, through allocating existing employment land for housing, is jeopardising economic growth.
3.27 Without this information, the Sustainability Appraisal cannot be considered to be positively prepared, justified, evidenced or consistent with national policy.
Unmet need from neighbouring authorities
3.28 Historically, local authorities in Kent have agreed not to take need from other neighbouring authorities, with need to be met within each local authority area. However, this has caused issues with inspectors at examination (for example, Sevenoaks). Whilst Medway’s housing need under the revised LHN has decreased marginally, neighbouring authorities have seen increases in their LHN and, when compared with current deliver rates, these authorities will struggle to deliver their need without cross-boundary collaboration.
3.29 Local Authority 3.30 Existing LHN 3.31 New LHN 3.32 Current delivery
3.33 Gravesham 3.34 661dpa 693dpa 3.35 363dpa
3.36 Maidstone 3.37 1,220dpa 1,344dpa 3.38 1,379dpa
3.39 Swale 3.40 1,040dpa 3.41 1,061dpa 3.42 900dpa
3.43 Tonbridge & Malling 3.44 820dpa 3.45 1,057dpa 3.46 446dpa
Figure 2: Table showing the existing and revised local housing need of neighbouring authorities against current delivery.
3.47 Whilst it is not clear what the most up to date figure for Gravesham’s unmet need is, given that there is no statement of the Duty to Cooperate nor a Statement of Common Ground with Gravesham, it is clear that Gravesham is a heavily constrained borough and the SA has already considered a scenario where Medway can assist in accommodating some of this unmet need.
3.48 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council is in the process of preparing a new local plan and is a borough which is constrained by the Green Belt and the Kent Down National Landscape. Tonbridge and Malling’s housing need is set to increase significantly, by nearly 450dpa through the revised Standard Method. As such, the Council will need to engage with Tonbridge and Malling to determine whether these needs can be accommodated within Tonbridge and Malling, or if Medway can assist in meeting any unmet needs.
3.49 The Government is clear that local planning authorities need to work together in a productive and pro-active way to ensure that housing need is met in full within regions. Therefore, Medway will need to engage meaningfully with neighbouring authorities, including Gravesham, to take any unmet need. This should be reflected in the next iteration of the Sustainability Appraisal and emerging Plan. The Council should update the Sustainability Appraisal to consider a wider range of growth options, including higher levels of housing delivery.
Spatial Growth Options
3.50 The Sustainability Appraisal then goes on to set out 12 “spatial delivery options” and from these, three spatial growth options have been formed.
3.51 “SGO1 - Urban Focus” seeks to maximise development on brownfield sites in urban centres and waterfront sites through increased density. The Council acknowledges that there are not enough brownfield sites to deliver against the LHN and, therefore, limited greenfield development adjoining larger settlements has been considered, including Strood, Rainham, Lordswood and Hoo.
3.52 The Council considers that this option raises issues with conflicts with design guidance such as the Chatham Design Code and the negative impacts of high-density development on heritage assets.
3.53 One of the areas for housing growth is the redevelopment of existing employment sites at Chatham Docks and areas of Medway City Estate. However, it is noted that there are potential issues with viability on brownfield sites and reliance would limit range of housing types to meet needs, including delivering family homes.
3.54 “SGO2 - Dispersed Growth” allocates more limited land through regeneration and excludes Chatham Dock and some town centre/waterfront opportunity sites as they have not been actively promoted.
3.55 Instead, this option proposes a higher release of greenfield and Green Belt sites including Hoo Peninsula, North of Rainham, Medway Valley and sites close to sensitive environmental areas. The Council highlights that this creates sustainability issues through a higher reliance on car-based transport and greater loss of good quality farmland.
3.56 “SG03 - Blended Strategy” is the preferred option presented by the Council as it blends land for regeneration and greenfield development. The Council state that this option will deliver a brownfield first focus with regeneration in urban centres and waterfront locations and range of sites in suburban and rural areas. Half of development is proposed to take place on brownfield land.
3.57 The Council state that this will deliver a range of housing types and densities, with heights in regeneration areas able to reflect design guidance and heritage constraints.
3.58 Whilst BDW does not disagree with the principle of the chosen strategy of a “blended” approach, there are a number of significant concerns which call into question whether the spatial strategy has been positively prepared, is justified and effective, and consistent with national policy.
3.59 The Council has acknowledged that there are not enough brownfield sites to deliver the number of homes required in the Plan period and there is a requirement for some greenfield land to be released. Further, the Council acknowledges that overreliance on brownfield sites can negatively impact the range of homes delivered due to land constraints and viability concerns. BDW agrees.
3.60 Spatial Growth Option SGO1 is noted as the redevelopment of existing employment sites at Chatham Docks and Medway City Estate. At Table 5.1 of the Sustainability Appraisal, we can see that development in these locations is also proposed for the preferred Spatial Growth Option SGO3. It is unclear how the redevelopment of existing employment sites helps contribute towards the Council’s Vision of strengthening Medway’s position economically in the region and also the delivery of employment land as set out under Option 1 of the Sustainability Appraisal.
3.61 In addition, without having prepared an up-to-date Employment Land Need Assessment, the Council does not know how much land it needs for employment uses and how the allocation of existing employment sites for residential development will impact this.
3.62 Spatial Growth Option SGO2 also notes that Chatham Docks and some town centre and waterfront opportunity sites have been excluded due to the sites not being actively promoted. Notwithstanding this, Chatham Docks and all Urban sites are included in the preferred option SGO3.
3.63 The NPPF at Annex 2, states that for sites to be considered deliverable (i.e. brought forward within five years), the site should be available for housing now. For sites to be considered developable (i.e. beyond five years and within the plan period), there should be a reasonable prospect that the site will be available.
3.64 Tables 8.14 and 8.15 of the Sustainability Appraisal provide a list of development sites and the reasons why they have been selected or rejected as part of the development strategy. When comparing this with the October 2023 Land Availability Assessment (“LAA”) Interim Report, there are a significant number of sites selected for development which are either not in the LAA or have not submitted for consideration as part of the Call for Sites.
3.65 Without publishing an update to the October 2023 LAA, it is not possible to fully interrogate the site selection as part of the chosen spatial strategy to determine whether they are available. In addition, without a housing trajectory, it is not possible to determine whether the Council can maintain a rolling five-year housing land supply and the deliverability of individual sites. Further, without evidence to the contrary (and as alluded to by the Council itself), a large number of sites cannot be considered available and suggests that the chosen spatial strategy is not deliverable, effective or positively prepared.
3.66 The Council has also not provided any detailed information which underpins the capacity of the brownfield sites chosen as part of the spatial strategy. Without this, it is not possible to determine whether the estimates of housing numbers can be considered accurate or sound.
3.67 In addition, a large proportion of the sites set out in tables 8.14 and 8.15 are noted in the October 2023 LAA as having extant planning permission. It is not clear whether these sites should be considered as being commitments rather than allocations and included within the 5,363 homes of existing supply commitments and anticipated windfall supply set out at paragraph 3.2.1 of the Sustainability Appraisal, or within the required yield of 22,491 homes. If they are to be considered as allocations, then there are questions as to why these sites have not already come forward for development if they benefit from planning permission. In order for the Plan to be considered positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy, this should be clarified and further evidence produced which allows for sufficient interrogation of the sites selected.
Housing Trajectory, Deliverability and Supply
3.68 As previously noted, the Council needs to produce a detailed housing trajectory of all the sites chosen for allocation in order for them to be scrutinised sufficiently to be considered sound. This detail needs to be provided in order to determine whether the Council will have a five-year housing land supply upon adoption of the Local Plan, and can maintain this throughout the plan period.
3.69 This is crucial given the Council’s historic record of delivery and supply. The most recent Housing Delivery Test results (published December 2023) show that the Council is only delivering 79% against its current need. Whilst this is up from the previous monitoring years, it shows persistent issues with delivery within Medway. The Council’s Acton Plan (June 2024) predicts that the Council will not pass the Housing Delivery Test before the adoption of the emerging Local Plan.
3.70 This is particularly pertinent given that the Council’s latest published housing land supply shows that as of 31 March 2023, the Council can only demonstrate 3.3 years of housing land supply. Further, the housing trajectory contained within the 2023 Authority Monitoring Report (“AMR”) at page 32, shows a significant tailing off in housing delivery post 2026/27.
3.71 The Council’s Housing Action Plan (June 2024) notes that a third of the land within Medway is designated as international or national importance for the environment, which presents a significant constraint on development. In additional, it notes that development on brownfield sites has taken longer to build out.
3.72 At paragraph 2.10, it states that there has been a notable decrease in permissions granted, with only two sites over 100 dwellings being permitted in the monitoring year 2022/23 and that this trend is expected to continue in 2023/24. This will mean that delivery rates are likely to also decrease without consenting sites which can deliver early on in the plan period.
3.73 Perhaps indicative of the issues Medway has had with building on brownfield sites are St Mary’s Island which was first identified back in 1988 and planning permission granted in 1996. A total of 1,629 homes out of the 1,760 consented homes were completed by March 2021. Similarly, Rochester Riverside was also identified in 1988, with just 73 units built in 2012. The remainder of the 1,473 homes could take 20 years to build out.
3.74 Despite the incredible amount of time that these two sites have taken to come forward with new homes, the Action Plan at paragraph 3.48 notes that the Council plans to allocate additional sites of similar size through the emerging Local Plan. This raises significant concerns about the selection of brownfield land for housing delivery within the early stages of the plan period to address the chronic housing delivery and supply issues which Medway faces. As noted previously, the Council has not presented any detailed evidence which sets out the capacity of these brownfield sites, clearly showing the constraints and how these constraints are to be overcome in order to deliver homes consistently across the plan period. Without this information, the Plan cannot be considered sound.
Viability
3.75 The Viability Assessment published as part of this consultation has not been updated since 2021 and is based on a version of the emerging Local Plan which was not published. The Council notes in the explanatory note, that the policies contained within this Plan are very different to what is being consulted on as part of this Regulation 18 consultation.
3.76 The information within this Viability Assessment has very limited, if any value, in understanding the viability of the emerging Plan and the viability of the proposed Spatial Growth Option. The information within it is very outdated and is not able to take into consideration the substantial increases in interest rates and construction costs, issues with the supply of materials and labour, or the in-practice costs of delivering biodiversity net gain.
3.77 It is critical that the Viability Assessment is updated to test the potential spatial growth options put forward in the emerging Plan, particularly the ability of urban sites to deliver a mix of housing and affordable housing, and for larger sites to deliver infrastructure. Without this information, the spatial strategy cannot be considered sound.
Hoo Peninsula
3.78 SGO3 also allocates development towards the Hoo Peninsula. It is noted as being “partial” rather than “full” as set out in SGO2. The Hoo Peninsula spatial delivery option is stated as being the worst performing spatial delivery option assessed within the Sustainability Appraisal. From the policies map, it appears that the Council is still intending to allocate significant levels of development in this area through SGO3 (including Cockham Farm HHH12, Angel Farm HHH22, and land either side of the A228 including HHH3, HHH6, HHH8 and HHH11).
3.79 If the Council is still intending to bring forward development in this location, then it is unclear how it aligns with the Council’s Vision or strategic objectives, given that this spatial delivery strategy scored so poorly against these objectives in the Sustainability Appraisal.
3.80 The Viability Appraisal shows significant costs relating to the delivery of the Hoo Peninsula, principally, section 106 costs are assumed to be in the region of £225 million, working out at £27,557 per unit. This is significantly higher than the other strategic sites which are assumed to require a contribution of £5,600 per unit. In addition, the Viability Assessment notes that the money which had been provisionally secured through HIF bid had been deducted from this £225 million. The £170 million fund for the Hoo Peninsula was pulled in February 2024 meaning the cost per unit is likely to be significantly more than £27,557 per unit and this calls into question whether the proposals in this location can be considered viable and deliverable.
Land North of Rede Court, Strood
3.81 Land North of Rede Court, Strood was included within both SGO1 and SGO2, however, it was not included within SCO3. It is not clear as to why the Site was considered suitable for both an urban focus and a dispersed growth spatial strategy, but the Site, along with all other sites north of Strood, were removed as part of the blended strategy.
3.82 As set out within these representations, the removal of the Site from the Green Belt and its allocation for residential development would constitute sustainable development and would support the Council’s Vision and Strategic Objectives.
3.83 The Site was rejected through the Sustainability Appraisal due to the loss of Best and Most Versitile (“BMV”) agricultural land, its location within the Green Belt, the potential for coalescence between settlements and the Site being beyond a reasonable walking distance to current public transport services.
3.84 The Site’s contribution to the Green Belt is dealt with in our responses to Questions 7 and 8 of this Consultation. However, it is considered that the Site does not perform strongly against the purposes of the Green Belt and would make a logical expansion to the settlement of Strood.
3.85 The detailed assessment of the Site at Appendix C of the Sustainability Appraisal scores a minor negative for the Site in terms of its agricultural land classification. The Agricultural Land Classification Map London and the South East (ALC007) shows that the vast majority of land within Medway is within Grades 1-3. The loss of BWV also needs to be balanced careful with the other benefits such as contributing towards sustainable development and mixed and balanced communities. The map provided by Natural England is also at a large scale and is not always up to date, meaning that the Site may have a different agricultural land classification.
3.86 Further, the Site does have connections to public transport services and development would have the potential to enhance active travel through pedestrian and cycle connections into Strood. In addition, the detailed assessment of the Site at Appendix C of the Sustainability Appraisal shows that the Site performs positively in terms of access to a bus stop, pedestrian and cycle connections and local services. Access to public transport is noted as neutral. As such, it is not considered that connection to public transport is a justified reason for dismissing the Site as an option for development.
3.87 The Site only scores one major negative within the Sustainability Appraisal after mitigation (pollution and waste), however, it is not considered that impacts from the A289 nor Gravesend Road could not be adequately mitigated so as to be considered acceptable.
3.88 The assessment of North of Strood as a Spatial Delivery Option within the Sustainability Appraisal is considered to be unduly negative, and does not take into account the ability of this option to deliver a range of housing early on in the plan period.
3.89 The Hoo Peninsula scores negatively against almost every strategic objective within the Sustainability Appraisal, however, it is chosen as a preferred spatial delivery option. The urban spatial delivery option alongside Medway City Estate and Chatham Docks also score relatively negatively against most of the strategic objectives, however, they are given positive assessments against the economy and employment objective, despite the substantial potential loss of employment land. Further, the assessment does not recognise the that the ability of these sites to deliver a range of housing types within the first five years of the Plan is severely inhibited.
3.90 Overall, it is considered that the assessment within the Sustainability Appraisal is not justified in terms of the assessment of both North of Strood as a Spatial Delivery Option and the Site itself under SNF1. The North of Strood and SNF1 should not have been discounted and should instead be considered as a preferred option for development.

Please refer to our full submission for further details.