4.1.1

Object

Representation ID: 4348

Received: 09/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Thomas Phillips

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There must be in the area Grey-land that could be used and brought back for the benefit of the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 4639

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Smith

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is contradictory to emphasis the environmental quality of the draft plan while re-designating productive agricultural land with boarders that support wildlife as grey belt for the development of houses and their associated pressure on the environment e.g air quality and traffic congestion.

Support

Representation ID: 4657

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Hopkins

I support the plan, but it must include adequate provision for allotments, parks and gardens.

Support

Representation ID: 4763

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs AONB Unit

General Comment: There is a lot of overlap between policies in this Chapter. For clarity, we suggest that Policy S6 Kent Downs National Landscape is moved to sit immediately after Policy S3 in order to reflect the hierarchy of international and national designated landscapes in Medway, and that Policy S7, for similar reasons, would sit better earlier on in the chapter rather than at the end as is currently drafted, where it appears adrift from the other strategic policies.

Object

Representation ID: 4807

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alison Stiling

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Changing medway green belt policy. Causing urban Sprawl. How has the land been changed to grey belt without consultation and against national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4808

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Wiggins

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Medway Green Belt boundaries have been changed without clear indication or consultation against National Planning policy