5.17

I feel the maps are not clear particularly when enlarging them for a closer look.
Hopefully attention to the quality of forthcoming presentations will ensure this is resolved.

Each of these sites should include the number of homes or businesses each specific site could potentially provide. Maybe a maximum and minimum number would be useful.

Some of the sites included on the various maps have already received a level of planning permission. It would be very helpful if each site is colour coded to identify any site that has already received some level of planning permission. A good example of this is the proposed East Hill development along North Dane Way in Lords Wood. This has already received planning permission for the first 100 of a potential 800 homes, although I understand this now on hold.

I presume there is a standard planning categorisation that could be used for the colour coding.

Medway Council - Don’t build housing on Capstone Valley and its surrounding farmland if you want to: - Protect endangered wildlife, including owls and water voles. - Save Medway’s last rural green space. - Prevent Medway from being an overly oppressive and depressing concrete landscape to live in. - Protect an outdoor green space that people who have no choice but to live in poor urban settings can easily escape to and enjoy some peace and tranquility. - Avoid near total reliance on car journeys because any housing in Capstone Valley will be miles from any train station.

Very concerned about the amount of development around Frindsbury and Upnor - the road system is overloaded already and we have high levels of air pollution

The former Medway Council office block (demolished) in Strood has remained vacant. Does a flood barrier solve the issue?
Has flood plains been investigated in parallel with proposed housing provision. Medway valley Park housing continues. It has not been included in the mapping. With climate change flood plains and reinforcing barriers has also to be included in the Plan.

Please show an overlay with future flooding over a 100 - 200 year time frame, it is the professional role of Council Planners to protect their inhabitants over the long term. It is also their role to protect local assets from short-term speculative exploitation, Chatham Docks must not be closed and re-developed.

COMMENTS ON MAP 1

We note that the Chatham Docks site has been marked for regeneration on the Map 1 as a potential regeneration site for housing.

ArcelorMittal objects to this designation.

Peel L & P – freeholder of Chatham Docks – has promoted Chatham Docks as part of the Call for Sites consultation for residential use stating that the existing dock operation is unviable. This is incorrect.

Evidence has been submitted to the Council on behalf of ArcelorMittal – long leaseholders at the docks - and confirms that Chatham Docks is viable and has an important and significant role in Medway and the South-East.

In particular, the submitted economic and financial assessment of Chatham Docks by Independent Port Consultants concludes that ‘in view of the cost estimate, financial viability and impact on jobs and revenue if the operation is made to close, ending the operation to render the land available for alternative uses does not make economic sense.’

ArcelorMittal also submitted representations to the Call for Sites consultation requesting that Chatham Docks be retained as a working, vibrant dock and be promoted for development for continued port use in line with current Local Plan policies ED1 – Existing Employment Areas and Policy E9 – Chatham Docks.

As demonstrated in the submitted technical evidence, Chatham Docks is a thriving industrial dock. The docks employ over 800 people – many of whom are local. There are also existing jobs in the supply chains. Overall, there are over 2000 jobs dependent on the docks.

There are approximately 180 ship movements a year taking advantage of the non-tidal docks – it is a very sustainable operation taking full advantage of the dockside access. The dock use cannot be re-located, there is no other suitable site in Medway for its operation.

The Local Plan cannot state in one place that it will support local businesses and existing employment, but then designate a thriving business employing many local people for housing development where that existing use will then be lost.

Chatham Docks must continue to be both supported and protected in the new Local Plan and not allowed to be lost to the detriment of people living within this Borough and their existing jobs at the docks.

Urban regeneration is supported and should form an element of the emerging Plan. There are great opportunities for regeneration across the urban areas of Medway which can assist in addressing some of the identified issues currently being experienced, including deprivation, providing homes and affordable homes, and supporting high streets.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy that will work across the Medway towns which each have their own unique characteristics, issues and constraints.

Please don't develop Chatham dock. This is an area that should be kept for industry and as a working port

Very unhappy with the proposal to change the land designation of Chatham Docks to mixed use. This will force out the companies in Chatham Docks as they will be unable to work alongside residential dwellings. What is the employment proposal of that area? Why is a Port Company not doing what they say they do and provide ports. This has happened in other areas. We should be protecting this area as otherwise will be forcing businesses and many jobs out of not just Chatham Docks, but Medway. As they need the river to function.

I OBJECT to the Chatham Docks housing development proposal. The council are creating yet more demands on an already over subscribed Medway. Insufficient capacity in the local hospital, waiting lists for GP's and Dentists. Secondary schools simply cannot cope with the yearly rolls and then the appeal processes for all the families that 'ideally' would like their child to be enrolled in; several schools are running a 'waiting list' for places.
The roads are an absolute disgrace. Again infrastructure is not sufficient and even if it were, the development of some 20k+ homes throughout the Medway area, would result in equally, if not more, cars on the road causing yet more traffic congestion.
You mention greenspace, what green space if you keep developing on it.
Public transport is a joke, when I have had to use the bus, I find that it either runs late or doesn't turn up at all, plus the cost of a ticket now. Garden of England is not a term I use anymore sadly.

Urban regeneration should be the focus of development. New developments should not just be about building more homes. They should also be about enhancing existing communities and areas. They certainly should not make communities and environments worse.

Rainham centre could take some of this development- the precinct could be reimagined- the car park is huge! what a waste of space when we could have a nice 3-4 or 5 storey grid of kentish apartment style buildings with active ground floor and a proper town square.