Chapter 14 – Site

Object

Representation ID: 4346

Received: 06/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Hofford

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Please see my existing comments on the destruction of green belt and prime agricultural land and the adverse impact this has on the well being of existing residents

Object

Representation ID: 4381

Received: 19/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hubbard

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Referring to the Land West of Strood Policy SA6 found in section 4.10.

The Green Belt policy is significantly changed from the Medway Council’s previous policy position expressed during in the previous drafts of the Medway Local Plan, at Regulation 18 and earlier. That previous policy position was supported by studies and other documentation.

Object

Representation ID: 4833

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Squires

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The parcels 1-4 in Strood that have been selected cover a large remaining portion of Strood that is left as Greenbelt. Why have those been selected for development over other areas of the borough that have lots of green belt areas that could be built on. If these areas are built on and then Gravesham builds right up to the boundary, Strood sit right next to Higham and will become a concrete jungle. Thus not preventing urban sprawl that we all hear or heard so much about previously and that seems to now be a redundant term!

Support

Representation ID: 4914

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: F D Attwood and Partners

Agent: Hume Planning Consultancy Ltd

The strategic allocation and indicative masterplan for the Capstone Corridor is supported. The majority of the allocation is in single control by the Attwood family and offers the opportunity of comprehensive masterplanning. It should also be recognised that after brownfield opportunities and riverside development the Capstone corridor should be prioritised as it is the most sustainable and least impactful spatial option for meeting Medway's development needs in comparison with other components of the spatial strategy including other suburban alternatives, growth at the Hoo Peninsula and Green Belt releases, most of which will also have longer lead in times for delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 4974

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Morgan

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I object to policy SA6.
Please see attached Model Representation Form

Support

Representation ID: 4998

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jill Peet

It’s really important we take a proactive and comprehensive approach to meeting our housing needs and ensuring development does not occur in a piecemeal way.
Thank you for all the work, research and collaboration the council has done to get the sites and the plan overall to this stage. These site allocations represent areas where my own children might live in the future and I fully support the approach.

Object

Representation ID: 5006

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Pickard

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The development area identified in the proposed plan as SA6 does not meet NPPF criteria for re-designation to grey belt land. This is because Medway Council have published no justification for why stated positions in previous adopted plan/published studies no longer apply.
Section 9.1.1 of proposed plan states "Crucially, new development must not reinforce historic travel patterns or car dependency"- how this will be achieved is not stated wrt site SA6. Medway’s recent LCWIP (March 2025), highlights other key routes, but excludes links from this site to Strood. No public transport infrastructure improvement is proposed.