Policy SA6: Land West of Strood

Object

Representation ID: 4385

Received: 19/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hubbard

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Strood’s Greenbelt proposal came out of the blue as the developing policies found in Reg 18 had seeming safeguarded all of Medway’s Greenbelt land. Strood’s Greenbelt land some of which is located in Gravesham BC, is bounded by the A289 (Halsted Road), and lays to the immediate Northwest of Strood’s current urban area. If developed would it increase Strood by nearly a third. This massive hit on Strood’s infrastructure is unacceptable and the removal of Strood’s green lung will cut off resident’s access to the countryside’s open and green spaces.

Support

Representation ID: 4438

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Sports England

Sport England is supportive of the principles of Policy SA6, however the NPPF paragraph 103 does not support standards it promotes assessments. Therefore the wording to the Fields in Trust Standards (2024), should be replaced reference to Medway’s Playing pitch Strategy recommendations for outdoor sport which may be available prior to the EiP for the Local Plan.

Sport England is in the process with Medway Council in preparing a playing pitch strategy and built facility strategy which should be commissioned in the autumn of this year, 2025, with completing around Easter 2026.

Object

Representation ID: 4510

Received: 04/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jason Tillman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

While we recognise the need for sustainable growth, we are deeply concerned about the direct ecological impact this scale of development will have on the biodiversity of Rede Common. The area provides vital habitat for birds, insects, small mammals, and other wildlife. Increased urbanisation at this scale threatens to fragment existing natural habitats and disrupt ecological networks.

Object

Representation ID: 4569

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Lucas

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The road infrastructure will not cope. Traffic is already bad on Rede Court and Brompton farm and accidents are on the rise.
As a teacher in the local school, we already have to take more than 30 pupils in a class and are over subscribed, yet no money for staff. It is the children who suffer.
It is impossible to get a local healthcare appointments already without having to travel.
Residents have a prescriptive right of way on the greenbelt land now termed greybelt.
Residents surrounding the greybelt have a right of light.

Object

Representation ID: 4590

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ann Buttle

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Traffic, roads, and Changes to Character and Community Objections

Object

Representation ID: 4617

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Kent

Agent: Mr Richard Thompson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Loss of green belt and BMV has not been properly evidenced. Development on brownfield land should be prioritised.
If it is demonstrated that loss of BMV has been evidenced and justified, yield should be optimised and an uplift made in affordable housing provision.
In accordance with the National Design Code ranges of 60-120dph should be applied. Once greenfields are built out they are no longer rural areas, so densities should reflect those of built-up areas.

Object

Representation ID: 4667

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Smith

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The lower order roads mentioned in 6B (Clinton Avenue and Beaufort Road) are not suitable for increased traffic from any development. This was acknowledged by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration at a public meeting who commented that access to any development would need to be via the Gravesend Road.

Object

Representation ID: 4684

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Mr john Kay

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The land was re-designated as grey belt without public consultation.
This development between Gravesham and Strood West will erode the green belt encouraging urban sprawl.
Local roads are regularly congested due to their proximity to motorways and major roads.
Strood already suffers from a lack of GPs surgeries and Medway Hospital, which also serves Swale, is under severe pressure, which has been highlighted by the CQC.
Medway suffers from a high number of people with respiratory disease further development will exacerbate this.
The impact on residents' mental and physical health will be profound, impacting further on the NHS.

Object

Representation ID: 4734

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Jackie Forrest

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

No room for further cars this development will bring wainscott bypass needs to be widen now

Support

Representation ID: 4779

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs AONB Unit

• Welcome requirement at 4a. for proposals to demonstrate a landscape led approach which takes account of, among other things, the setting of the KDNL.
• At 4b, we recommend that further clarification of the expectation is provided
‘b The structural landscaping will be planted at an early stage of the development and provide new habitats for priority nature conservation species and be appropriate to landscape character’.
• Request a requirement for 20% BNG delivery on this strategic site (Please see our response to Policy S2)

Object

Representation ID: 4821

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alison Stiling

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Inadequate infrastructure to cope.
Inadequate doctors.

Long term air pollution

Object

Representation ID: 4822

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Wiggins

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Inadequate infrastructure to be able to cope with so many new homes I.e. doctors and air pollution

Object

Representation ID: 4841

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emma Aldous

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to the change in use and reduction of greenbelt land.

Object

Representation ID: 4844

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Francesca Fox

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Objection to the Medway plans, particularly Policy SA6 (relating to Strood West), on the grounds that the proposed development is wholly inappropriate and contrary to both national and local planning policies relating to green belt/grey belt land. In the very simplest terms “very special circumstances” which are the only grounds for overriding green belt protection have not been demonstrated.

Support

Representation ID: 4881

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Poynter

In principle this seems sensible but the area is already bounded by a number of primary and secondary schools as well as football and rugby grounds. Why do you need to add extra ones in? With a falling birth rate, schools will not be needed.
It will be so close to Higham which should be considered the local centre, along with the Tescos at the junction. The developer money could be better spent on a mix of housing, more social housing and allotment plots to support the social housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4892

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This site was discounted at the Reg.18 stage when no requirement was identified to review Green belt boundaries. The sole justification now appears to be on the basis that neighbouring land in Gravesham may be allocated but that local plan has not progressed and the proposed extent of release of land in Medway extends beyond that proposed for Gravesham.

Object

Representation ID: 4921

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Harrington

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to the re-designation of SNF1–SNF3 from Greenbelt to ‘Greybelt’. National planning policy (NPPF) mandates that Greenbelt boundary changes require exceptional circumstances. The GreenBelt Review and Sustainability Appraisal doesn't convincingly demonstrate such circumstances, especially in light of brownfield-first alternatives. Furthermore, these parcels perform vital functions in preventing urban sprawl and maintaining the separation between Strood and Gravesend, and their release risks undermining landscape openness. Evidence for ‘greybelt’ status lacks sufficient transparency and independent validation. Lastly, although cross-boundary cooperation with Gravesham is noted, it should not alone suffice to justify boundary revision. Together, these grounds render the re-designation legally unsound

Object

Representation ID: 4933

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Lucy Morris

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The infrastructure requirements should be fully evidenced, and developers should only be required to pay for and provide infrastructure that directly arises as a result of the allocation. We do not consider that there is evidence to justify the level of education provision on site at present. We also object to the requirement for Gravesham to approve a masterplan. In its current form, the policy is not positively prepared nor effective.