Policy SA8: Hoo St Werburgh and Chattenden

Support

Representation ID: 4440

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Sports England

Sport England is supportive of the principles of Policy SA8. It should be noted that 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. This should inform the level of contribution and formal sports provision required to create a sustainable community.

Object

Representation ID: 4459

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Dutton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Hoo St Werburgh has rapidly grown over the past 25 years, more than doubling in size. Why further rapid expansion required? It seems disproportionate to the natural increase in population, unless there is a further planned mass influx of people from outside of the area.
It is also disappointing that there are plans to further build on yet more of Hoo's greenfield sites and valuable farmland.
Hoo should remain semi rural and not become another town.
Infrastructure is at breaking point particularly Doctors Surgeries. The road network is also under strain, with one main road serving the population

Object

Representation ID: 4576

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: RSPB England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The RSPB remains seriously concerned that new residential development within 400m of the SSSI could have an adverse effect on the nationally important breeding Nightingale population that forms a key interest feature of Lodge Hill SSSI. Experience from elsewhere suggests that, for species such as Nightingales that nest on/low to the ground, acute urbanisation impacts (including cat predation and recreational disturbance) are unlikely to be mitigable where new housing is located in close proximity to breeding sites. In addition to the lack of a clear policy approach for the SSSI, we have concerns about two of the proposed allocation sites.

Support

Representation ID: 4603

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Bloomfields Ltd

Providing a retail-led site is supported. However, there is a concern that restricting uses to just E(a) and E(b) use could cause difficulty in filling the units in the future.
It would be a preference to allow for a less restrictive policy overall, which would be delivered through market testing, and understanding the market conditions and demand at the time, and then providing a masterplan to best meet this position.
It is not clear from the evidence base, whether the split between employment and retail on the site has been well-explored, and whether these combined uses would work well together.

Object

Representation ID: 4607

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Bridget Fox (Woodland Trust)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Site HHH12 includes ancient woodland. Site HHH26 is adjacent to ancient woodland. Both should have detailed policies requiring suitable buffers to be compliant with NPPF para 193c protections of ancient woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 4619

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Kent

Agent: Mr Richard Thompson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Loss of BMV has not been properly evidenced. Development on brownfield land should be prioritised.
If it is demonstrated that loss of BMV and impacts of this functionally linked land has been evidenced and justified, the 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.
Development will not be sustainably located as delivery of bus and rail options are unlikely to be deliverable.

Support

Representation ID: 4741

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Jackie Forrest

Less houses needed

Object

Representation ID: 4749

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Jackie Forrest

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Too over developed

Object

Representation ID: 4845

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emma Aldous

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to the over development of an area that has a community that is one of the last remaining rural areas of Medway.

Object

Representation ID: 4878

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alison Heine

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Opportunity exists to incorporate an allocation for at least one Gypsy Traveller site as part of this extensive development.

Support

Representation ID: 4893

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Kitesfield Estates Limited

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

This representation supports the inclusion of the site known as ‘Parcel south of Ratcliffe Highway’, within the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan, which has been allocated as a site suitable for residential development with an indicative capacity of 25 dwellings. This site has been included under site reference HHH41 in Policy SA08 ‘Hoo St Werburgh and Chattenden’.
This representation also provides comment on other wider topic policies which are considered to be important in ensuring site delivery and where we consider that clarity or improvements to their drafting would support the wider objectives or delivery of the plan in general.

Support

Representation ID: 4897

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Kitesfield Estates Limited

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

Site HHH41, provides a positive development opportunity for the residential development of a brownfield site in the Hoo Peninsula. The site is located on the main Ratcliffe Highway route, which directly accesses the Peninsula Way between the settlements of Hoo and Chattenden. It is served by good public transport services and a wide range of services/facilities. There are no perceived constraints that could not be overcome to facilitate development of the site.
Availability. The site is available, achievable and deliverable in the first 5 years of the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 4901

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Kitesfield Estates Limited

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Notwithstanding our support of site HHH41 and the the Local Plan in general, we wish to highlight concern regarding the ambiguity within the policy drafting of development sites in the Hoo Peninsula. Specifically, the HDF, does not form one of the background documents to the Local Plan, and therefore the wider intentions of the area and how this relates to site HHH41 are not fully understood. This position means that we have been unable to respond fully to the consultation.
It's important to our client that there is certainty in the expectations of the site and the Hoo Peninsula area.

Object

Representation ID: 4904

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Kitesfield Estates Limited

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We support the inclusion of site HHH41 within policy SA8 as a site that could deliver 25 residential units. However, the site should not be constrained or delayed by the delivery of a HDF and the policy should clearly acknowledge that there is a difference between the major and minor sites in respect of their constraints and potential approaches to their delivery.
We would object to delays in delivery of the HHH41 site that could arise from long and protracted discussions regarding master planning, the creation of a development framework and the delivery of infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 4907

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Kitesfield Estates Limited

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

The provision of site HHH41 as a residential led housing development is supported. However, we highlight that the Local Plan could be improved, by early delivery and production of the HDF. For sites located in this area it is important that the guidelines and aspirations for development are clear early on so that planning and implementation of site delivery can be factored in. Despite this, we look forward to working with the Council in order to support and deliver the site known as HHH41, and would be keen to understand the role of the Hoo Consortium further.