Local plans set out a

Object

Representation ID: 4379

Received: 19/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hubbard

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I welcome the Reg 19 draft local plan in all aspects bar one. It is an excellent piece of work, put together by a dedicated team of highly professional council officers. The flaw in the plan is the naming of the Strood’s Greenbelt as a council approved Residential-led Site Allocation for a major housing development.

That flaw includes an error in the Residential-led Site Allocation numbers. It excludes the 130 residential dwellings at Commissioners Rd Pit, Strood. See my comments at the end below. There may well be other such errors. The plan’s Site Allocation (residential-led) requires a full review.

Object

Representation ID: 4386

Received: 19/07/2025

Respondent: Miss Danielle Johnstone

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The land in question is an important green space that contributes significantly to the rural character and visual appeal of our area. Its development would cause irreversible harm to the natural landscape and erode the countryside setting that makes this community unique and peaceful.
The farmland is home to a variety of wildlife including birds, bats, and small mammals. Development would likely destroy these habitats.
Additional housing will bring a substantial increase in vehicle traffic along roads that are already narrow and not designed for heavy use. This raises serious concerns , particularly for pedestrians, and children.

Object

Representation ID: 4416

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Glenn Chambers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Strood as a town won’t be able to cope with the infrastructure as it’s already saturated. Us residents don’t need anymore developments. No one has explained why they need to build

Object

Representation ID: 4425

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Barnes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

the council has not been compliant because it has changed its position in terms of its greenbelt policy and without fully justifying this or consulting with residents about this change.

Object

Representation ID: 4427

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Barnes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

When the council sets out a framework and policies it must stick to those and not change its position without transparent and robust justification.

Object

Representation ID: 4432

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Aarron Danes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Ok

Object

Representation ID: 4446

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Mcnaught

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I feel that residents are not having a say in these plans, there seems to be nothing in place for the increase in traffic, lack of schools and a strain on healthcare.

Support

Representation ID: 4450

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Trenport Investments Ltd

See attached documents

Object

Representation ID: 4452

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Woolmington

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Peninsula has one major road in and out, and by increasing housing and potentially more industrial units the excessive volume of traffic will not cope with the existing road layout. More schools, doctors, supermarkets etc will also add to the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 4453

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Farndale

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Plan falls short of prioritising brownfield redevelopment, despite national policy guidance and local expectations. Strood and Medway contain numerous underused or derelict industrial and urban sites that should be developed first. Sacrificing Green Belt land, particularly in Strood West, undermines sustainable planning.

Unfair Focus on Strood West
While I welcome the long-overdue progress toward a new Local Plan, I urge Medway Council and the Planning Inspectorate to reconsider the flawed and unjustified proposals in Policy SA6. This plan would cause irreversible damage to our community, environment, and quality of life without a compelling case or sufficient infrastructure planning.

Support

Representation ID: 4493

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Jackie Forrest

Needs to be in place so no more development without infrastructure in place first

Support

Representation ID: 4547

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Rob Sibley

Medway needs an up to date and appropriate Local Plan. The council should progress this with all speed.

Object

Representation ID: 4559

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Charlesworth

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Green belt land reclassification to Grey belt - no proof or documentation to support downgrade.
Redesign of boundaries west Strood - does not support urban sprawl.
Poor transport links to West Strood.
Poor infrastructure in Medway - Hospital is over capacity already.

Object

Representation ID: 4560

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Charlesworth

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Green belt land is being reclassified as grey belt land in west Strood. This is not acceptable and there is no supporting evidence. This is class A greenbelt farming land and home to much wildlife, such as bats, badgers and bees which have been documented. Hospital needs not met, aswell as local infrastructure such as, water ,roads, power and drainage. Local Schools and GPs are under strain already. This is a natural boundary between different districts and building on this would add strain and pressure to the already struggling communities, services, roads and wildlife.

Support

Representation ID: 4685

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Christine Curtis

I broadly support the need for a local plan in principle as there has not been one for over 20 years. It does not mean I support all of it particularly policy SA6 relating to "Strood West" and I have serious concerns in other matters

Support

Representation ID: 4703

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Jackie Forrest

Need a plan to protect areas and improve others and plan for the future

Object

Representation ID: 4798

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mr William Burvill

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Medway Local Plan at Regulation 19 fails to address the impact of the upcoming Local Government Reorganization (LGR). With changes in governance, funding, and responsibilities, the plan risks becoming outdated and disconnected from future decision-making structures. It lacks clarity on how development will be managed across new authorities and does not ensure infrastructure and services can keep pace. Without accounting for LGR’s effects, the plan may undermine effective local representation and coherent growth management, putting Medway’s communities and environment at risk

Object

Representation ID: 4910

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Renou

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I would like to see provision for investment into Rochester high street, a plan to clean up the street, replace rusting dustbins, broken benches, paint bollards, ensure that buildings do not have peeling paint. I do not see any provision for investment into the high street in the plan. As a major tourist attraction to Medway, Rochester and its high street need to be attractive and welcoming to tourists.

Support

Representation ID: 4934

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Boyd

I Believe it is important to have propoer planning taking in residents needs and considering the environmental impacts on the areas selected

Object

Representation ID: 4950

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr robin teslar

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Your consideration for impending flood risks for the Medway area is based on very old data and a study ca 5 years ago (when commissioned). We tax payers are all to aware of how our climate has across the UK has changed for the worst in that period. It is imperative that the Council revisits this issue forthwith before proceeding with budget disbursements or else face future potential legal liabilities for negligence.

Object

Representation ID: 4969

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Sarah Oatley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to the proposed housing plan.
This area of green belt is supposed to be a barrier between Gravesham and Medway, to prevent urban sprawl.
Also the Medway area does not have the infrastructure the support the extra 4000 dwellings. Our Doctors and dentist are overwhelmed and we are unable to get appointments at the moment. Our Schools are at capacity. Pollution will increase. Environmentally this is a grade A farming land which should be protected. Along with all the wildlife that will be destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 4989

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Wade

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Too much development is proposed for good productive agricultural land which is used for food production or animal husbandry. This includes that classified by the council as suburban as well as rural. By the way, I do not agree with the classification of suburban. Capstone and Rainham areas will only become suburban by the realisation of these developments. You state 40% of new housing is urban but 8500 is not 40% of 24,540 it is 34% so if you can't get the maths right what else that you are telling us is wrong?

Support

Representation ID: 5007

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Pickard

Medway needs a coherent vision for the future; with any future developments & infrastructure improvements to be assessed based on their contribution to meeting that vision.