5.18

In the most part, except perhaps some of Rochester Riverside these were land areas that were brownfield. Chatham Docks is a thriving port providing skilled jobs to many local residents and should not be considered.

Support strategic regeneration of waterfront sites and efficient use of brownfield land for new development. This approach is preferable to the release of greenfield land.

If they were successfully transformed they would be carbon neutral or negative.

Urban regeneration is where the focus should be, absolutely not turning any patch of green space into housing. Medway is already being used as an overspill for London HA's please stop turning Medway into London

These have been very successful. Further waterfront development also a great draw from a marketing and external investment perspective.

However, much of the fabric of these developments is thermally inefficient, they have no renewable energy and do not realise the unique potential of the sites.

Success and housing numbers do not go hand in hand. More funding is required. Unoccupied sites could also be a win win.

Medway is still the river.
£170 mill HIF farce.
There is for too many single person developments, and not enough family developments. Family homes are being broken down into crap single flats at extortionate rates. There is no check on these slum developments from the council.

These comments relate to points 5.18-5.21.

Our client specifically supports the inclusion of the Site within the overview of potential sites for ‘Urban Regeneration’ and request that this be taken forward as an allocation in the future Local Plan.

Our client supports the Council’s starting point of regeneration and making the best use of vacant or underutilised brownfield land in accordance with the NPPF. The proposed development of the Site would fully meet this objective.

The Land Availability Assessment (‘LAA’) Interim Report was published in September 2023. The Site was identified within the LAA as Site ID GN6: ‘Gillingham No. 3 and 4’. The LAA provides details of the existing site and proposed development. It recognises that the Site is categorised as ‘Brownfield – previously developed land’.

Since the previous Call for Sites exercise, our client has progressed the initial concept proposals to establish an approximate mix of uses on Site. Following further review of the development potential, in terms of uses and capacity of the site, our client considers that the Site has the potential to deliver the following:

- Approximately 500+ homes, subject to further detailed assessment;
- Potential for an assisted living / care home and / or purpose built student accommodation (‘PBSA’);
- Commercial uses including a foodstore and a range of flexible commercial units; and
- Potential for the reprovision of a clubhouse for the Sailing Club.

Our client believes that the Site has the potential to achieve a greater number of homes than detailed within the LAA (2023), but fully recognises this subject to further work including discussions with Officers in relation to matters including technical, design, environmental and amenity considerations.

The design concept includes the potential for a proportion of the proposed homes to be dedicated to assisted living / care home purposes or PBSA. Our client would welcome discussions with the Council as further work on the potential development of the Site, including the proposed uses and number of homes, evolves.

Our client continues to support the inclusion of the Site within the LAA and further consultation documents and requests that the Site be formally allocated for future development for the range of uses as set out above, within the future Local Plan.

References to ‘the Site’ mean Site Ref: GN6 (Gillingham No.3 and 4) identified in the Land Availability Assessment 2023 and as fully detailed in our letter of representations submitted to the Council.

Medway has not been successful in transforming its urban waterfront. The fabric of the developments is thermally inefficient, they have no renewable energy and do not realise the unique potential of the sites. I visited one development in preparation for a TV interview and questioned whether the developer’s designers had actually visited the site.

Waterfront developments have been very costly. Rochester Riverside required huge sums of public investment to make it possible to develop, as has Strood Waterfront which also failed to get commercial interest due to the cost. Chatham Waters will struggle to make any return on investment. The developers for Chatham Maritime failed to deliver the vast majority of jobs promised at the outset and later requested to reduce S106 contributions due to higher costs, but they are putting forward similar promises for Chatham Docks, which is even more complex to develop! The council should learn from experience, not repeat the errors.

Looking at the Urban generation map, the largest area for development under this category appears to be Chatham Docks. This is definitely not a given proposal and until recently the council and local MPs were set against this proposal. There is definitely not enough infrastructure in this area to support this proposal.

Urban regeneration should be preferred as infrastructure such as roads, public transport, etc are already in place.

I think that Chatham Docks should be used for housing development as the existing docks are no longer suitable for large vessels and the area could provide good quality housing with access to the river.

Applying density thresholds on identified ‘Urban Regeneration’ sites restricts the most efficient and effective use of suitable, available, and achievable sites (key criteria for Stage 2 of the LAA) without giving full consideration to its development potential through the development management process.
The number of dwellings achievable on a site should, of course, only properly be judged as part of the development management process through the submission of a planning application and as such a capped threshold approach should not be set through the Stage 2 process of the LAA – particularly in the case of ‘Urban Regeneration’ sites.

Medway states that it is committed to urban regeneration and is identifying underused sites that could make better use of brownfield land for development. While this should form an important part of Medway’s strategy, it would not deliver the visions and goals of the Plan when relied upon singularly. The cases of Chatham Dockyard and Strood Waterfront highlight the difficulties in delivering such
brownfield land in set timeframes. These ultimately fail to contribute to the Council’s pressing need for market and affordable homes. Land contamination, heritage, demolition and higher cost all act as constraints on the redevelopment of these sites which can affect viability and often lead to the slow delivery of schemes, or indeed never being completed. Medway’s recently awarded £4m from
government for unlocking unused brownfield land (for approximately 372 dwellings) highlights the significant investment required to deliver homes on brownfield land.

The Reg.18 document itself acknowledges that some of the urban regeneration sites have not been put forward by landowners and may not be available or deliverable. Indeed, the Medway Land Availability Assessment Interim Report (October 2023) provides a map that shows that quite a few of the brownfield sites identified in the Regulation 18 Plan are not available. Availability is a key tenant of deliverability identified within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and therefore any sites not available, should not be relied upon to meet the Council’s housing need.

Based on an understanding of the constraints in the District and the review of the availability of sites identified in the LAA Interim Report (October 2023), it is considered that the Council can only realistically delivery approximately 6,000 dwellings from urban regeneration schemes, which is 5,151 homes less than identified in the Reg. 18 Plan.

In addition to the sites assessed under the Land Availability Assessment Interim Report (September 2023), our client (Telereal Securitised Property GP Limited) would like to inform the Council that their land holding at the Medway Telephone Exchange, Best Street, Chatham, ME4 4AB, will become available for residential-led redevelopment during the Medway Local Plan 2040 plan period. As set out in our separate document submitted via email on 31 October 2023, the site constitutes brownfield land in a sustainable development location, is under single ownership and expected to be surplus to operational requirements by 2028-2031. The site is available, achievable and suitable for redevelopment as set out in our submission.

Existing Use: Telephone Exchange (Sui Generis)
Site size: c. 0.54 ha
Relevant Planning History: A review of the Council's online planning register did not identify any planning applications relevant for a future redevelopment of the site.
Proposed Site Use: Residential (C3)
Other uses not currently considered viable.
Site Availability: 5-8 years
Is the site suitable for residential development? No significant constraints affect the suitability of the site for residential-led redevelopment. The site is located in a sustainable development location, constitutes brownfield land and has excellent links to the strategic transport network (Chatham station, c.400m; local bus stops) and other social infrastructure, and is therefore in a suitable location for residential-led redevelopment.
The site is in Flood Risk Zone 1 (with a low probability of flooding), neither locally nor statutorily listed, and not subject to any TPOs.
The site’s proximity to a number of heritage assets is noted and will need to be factored into any future redevelopment proposals.
There are no known contamination constraints (which could not be overcome via a suitable remediation strategy). The site further has access to key utility services.
Note: The site has not been subject to any active marketing at this stage.
Commentary and Reasons for Site Promotion (for inclusion in next iteration of the Medway Local Plan), including its achievability and availability: The site is subject to a strategic asset review undertaken by our client and expected to become available / surplus to BT’s requirements by 2028-2031.
Whilst located in close proximity to a number of heritage assets, it is our understanding that the site is neither statutorily / locally listed nor subject to any other significant designations or constraints which would affect its potential for future redevelopment.
To date, no capacity testing has been undertaken. However, taking the existing scale/massing (and topography) of the Telephone Exchange into account as well as the key constraints and designations set out above, it is considered that approx. 80-150 new homes can realistically be delivered on this site, subject to detailed feasibility testing and depending on unit mix, tenures, height/massing, and layout. This assumes a flatted redevelopment which is considered acceptable given the site’s location in the urban centre of Chatham.
The site therefore has the potential to make a significant contribution to the Council’s identified housing need of up to 29,000 homes (see Para. 5.12 of the Reg. 18 Local Plan).
Recommendation: The decision for the site to become available by 2028-2031 has been made following the Council’s original Call for Sites in February 2023. However, given the ambitious housing targets Reg. 18 Local Plan, recent delivery rates in Medway Council, and the brownfield nature of the site in a sustainable development location, it is considered that the site can make a significant contribution to the Council’s evidenced housing need over the Medway Local Plan 2040 plan-period.
The fall-back position would be a vacant, unallocated former telephone exchange site which by 2028-2031 is no longer serving any meaningful purpose, resulting in a significantly underutilised brownfield site in a sustainable development location.
As such, it is recommended to consider the site for inclusion in the emerging Medway Local Plan 2040 in the form of a Site Allocation for residential-led redevelopment.
Our client is willing to cooperate with the Council in the next stages of the plan-making process to ensure a future site allocation meets both the Council’s as well as our client’s objectives and ambitions.
Site Location Plan: Title Plan provided as separate file.

Medway has not been successful in transforming its urban waterfront. These are poorly designed and constructed developments (one can see them already decaying) and the fabric of the developments is thermally inefficient, they have no renewable energy and do not realise the unique potential of the site.

Most are unaffordable for local people and have little infrastructure in places for the new people who have moved to Medway to live in them, in short poorly thought through and executed developments .

The building of dwellings that are not thermally efficient and have no renewable energy does not equate to my criteria of success,

Approve of this.

Strood is proving to face a large scale redevelopment as outlined in the image linked, especially close to the town centre. I hope there will be an emphasis on public transport, green spaces and infrastructure improvements as well as a holistic approach to compliment the history of the 'gateway' town to Medway. Instead of funnelling more traffic down the A2, Strood could be the start of a better connected intertown public transport system reducing the car dependency which brings Rochester bridge to a near constant gridlock.

I think it is dubious to say that "Medway" has been successful at transforming these sites. Much of the work on St Mary's Island was done before Medway Council existed. The newer developments such as Chatham Waters and Victory Pier are less visionary and very dense. The development of Rochester Riverside has been very slow.