Policy SA10: Lower Rainham

Object

Representation ID: 4458

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Patricia King

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Nothing meaningful has changed since the original plans for this site were rejected in 2021. None of the problems highlighted have been resolved. It was and still is the wrong place for a housing development. The land needs to be preserved as agricultural.

Object

Representation ID: 4596

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.
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.
No reference to proposals demonstrating a landscape-led approach, as is the case with policies SA6, SA7 and SA8. Is this an oversight?

Support

Representation ID: 4597

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: AC Goatham & Son

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

The inclusion of the site is supported, but it seems that having the aspirations for the site split across two policies could cause confusion as there is no single defined policy for the site.
The Local Plan needs to create certainty and without the Hoo Development Framework to progress, and without a single policy there could be unwarranted delays in site delivery.
The current position of quoting a document that is not yet available (the HDF) could potentially be an unsound position for the Local Plan and creates a level of risk for our client and future investment.

Support

Representation ID: 4608

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: AC Goatham & Son

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

This representation supports the inclusion of Pump Farm and Bloors Farm (RN9) within the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan, where it is proposed that Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) housebuilders will deliver Rainham Parkside Village under policy reference SA10 ‘Lower Rainham’.

However, we wish to provide comment setting out how the policy could be improved. These are set out in the full text of the submissions

Object

Representation ID: 4693

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ray Holton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Lower Rainham Road is effectively a country lane, yet is already very busy due to recent developments. This part of the plan will only lead to more traffic congestion, more accidents and the loss of green areas. You are trying to turn Rainham into a medium-sized town, on top of recent additions (last 20 years). If I wanted to live in a busy town I would have moved to one, not to Rainham.

Object

Representation ID: 4801

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Thompson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

1. Near elimination of green spaces in Rainham
2. The untenable impact the proposal, particularly the secondary school, will have on traffic
3. The negative effect that will have on our already poor air quality
4. Wildlife and diversity - the developer will be under no obligation to improve diversity in Rainham itself
5. Waste water management
6. The pressure it will put on Rainham's already stretched services
7. It greatly increases the chances of the remaining orchards being built on effectively eliminating the gap between Rainham and Twydall, another step towards turning Medway into a single conurbation.

Object

Representation ID: 4879

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alison Heine

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The concept plans are v poorly reproduced in this documents-they are just a blur
I am struggling to understand why so much time, money and effort was spent evicting Travellers from land they owned and occupied off Lower Rainham Road near Riverside Country Park when the Council is now proposing that Lower Rainham be earmarked for new development
Why could provision not be made for a Traveller site?
Why can the council not now admit that the land they cleared has potential for a Traveller site?

Object

Representation ID: 4891

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We find the inclusion of this specific site difficult to understand given the previous refusal and dismissal on appeal with an inspector recognising that development of this site would have a sever residual cumulative impact on the local highway network. Whilst the quantum has been reduced no major infrastructure proposals are included to overcome the previous upheld concerns.
The supporting SA evidence also seems to lack the true justification for the site despite previous concerns in the Reg.18 version

Object

Representation ID: 4902

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Poynter

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan does not address the loss of versatile agricultural land and transport links.
The planned transport junctions will create carnage each day and the planned schools will intensify the carnage. The current Lower Road is regularly impacted with gas and water leaks, as well as loss of electricity to nearby houses.
Twydall has a primary school with falling numbers and we have 4 local high schools in close proximity.
Lower Bloors Lane and Lower Twydall Lane are heritage lanes and lead nowhere so widening should be totally unnecessary.
Twydall has a good shopping centre already.