14.11.5

Object

Representation ID: 4455

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Patricia King

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Destroying this prime agricultural land for housing is insane. The infrastructure to support this development is not in place. Roads, access to site, public transport, health services totally inadequate. None of this is fit for purpose for the current population. The reasons plans were rejected in 2021 still stand and the situation has become worse since as no significant improvements to the problems highlighted then have been made. Resolve existing problems rather than adding to them, particularly enlarging Medway Hospital to cope with the existing population in its catchment area.

Object

Representation ID: 4485

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It makes no difference that the proposal comes from SMEs. The proposed developer has confirmed verbally during the consultation process that the development will take up to 10 years regardless. The development will not be entirely different to that rejected at appeal in 2021. 750 homes is less than 1250 homes but will still be 750 homes, a blot on previously agricultural land that will be lost forever. The strains on the transport system will also be significant with the addition of those homes and a huge secondary school and primary school.

Object

Representation ID: 4645

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Russell Smith

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

No more houses should be built in this area. The road system will not cope with more houses - the roads are breaking up constantly due to the current volume of traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 4675

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Dyke

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This may be a smaller proposal than that dismissed at appeal, but it will still mean the removal of thousands of trees and a fundamental change to the character of the area. There will be a decrease in air quality, increased light pollution and noise, it will add to water stress loosing trees which absorb rain and replacing with houses which increase run off and loss of water to the soil. This development will add to problems leading to increased climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 4894

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Poynter

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Why is it not being considered as an extension of Lower Rainham? It will not be a separate village so why does it have a separate name?
This does nothing but alienate local people and further enhance bitter feelings.