This is an important stage

Support

Representation ID: 4433

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Aarron Danes

Although plan making is important the evidence needs to be proved

Object

Representation ID: 4473

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Unsound: Regulation 18 activities allowed 8 weeks for consultation. The regulation 19 activities have been rushed through in 6 weeks during summer holiday season. The regulation 18 plan included 3 options, two of which did not include development at the orchards off Pump Lane (SA10). The council stated a preference for option 3 which again did not include development SA10. The development has previously been rejected by both Medway Council and Secretary of state. The people have therefore made it very clear in previous consultations that they do not want this development.

Object

Representation ID: 4700

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Duncan Cawte

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I do not think that the proposed house building development is realistic. This is primarily on the grounds that insufficient investment or planning is in had for essential infrastructure, for example hospital facilities. The land use is also inappropriate, especially the proposal to build housing on the Docks site.

Support

Representation ID: 4705

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Jackie Forrest

Better assessment planning required overall

Object

Representation ID: 4995

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Wade

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The local presentations felt very much like a ‘tick box’ exercise i.e. this is MC’s way of satisfying their obligation to consult the public but there is no actual consulting going on. Those employees sent to answer questions couldn’t answer anything. There was much ‘I understand totally your point of view, and ‘I don’t have that information with me ’, alongside ‘that isn’t my department’. The council may have the evidence from assessments etc but they have disregarded anything that didn’t fit in with their preconceived plans. The maps were terrible with street names greyed out and the orientation unclear.