5.30

Comment

Representation ID: 427

Received: 06/10/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jill Norton

But we should not accept any green belt development

Comment

Representation ID: 460

Received: 16/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Robert French

It is understandable that one developer is actively promoting the Capstone option. The area around Capstone and Hempstead are popular places to live precisely because of the open space around them. Market demands should not be the be and end all of decisions which affect quality of life.

Comment

Representation ID: 484

Received: 18/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Ray Dines

Development on greenfield sites are generally less sustainable than appropriate brown field sites in or adjacent to existing development and local transport hubs. Ease of building on greenfield sites must not be seen as an excuse for unsustainable development or unnecessary encroachment on the Countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 503

Received: 19/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Keith Swaden

Just because these suburban sites are easier and cheaper to develop is not an excuse for prioritising them. In fact what these proposed suburban and rural developments will do is the opposite of the plans stated aim of Medway benefiting from being a network of centres that reflect the distinct character of its different towns, neighbourhoods and villages. There will be no gaps between neighbourhoods, just a sprawling urban development spreading out from Chatham to Medway's borders. The possible exception to this is the Isle of Grain but this potentially will just be an urban sprawl emanating from Hoo.

Comment

Representation ID: 688

Received: 26/10/2023

Respondent: Ms Catriona Jamieson

No greenfield sites anywhere in Medway need to be built on. They are part of the Medway residents’ green future, and must be protected.

Comment

Representation ID: 746

Received: 26/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Dan Dickinson

In doing so turning Medway into the place that people who desire these homes want to move away from

Comment

Representation ID: 757

Received: 26/10/2023

Respondent: Denise Harris

You can't keep building housing on green field sites and preaching about improved transport infrastructure when you give the green-light to developers who pack in as many houses as possible without local amenities such as convenience shops, services, healthcare. This forces people to get in a car and travel.
Building on any green field site should be an absolute last resort - especially given you mention we are in a "climate emergency".

Comment

Representation ID: 793

Received: 27/10/2023

Respondent: AC Goatham & Son

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

Edge of settlement sites, including Bloors Farm, could be delivered quickly and early-on in the plan period because it is not subject to the constraints often seen on brownfield sites. On this basis, we support the intentions of paragraph 5.30.

Comment

Representation ID: 881

Received: 28/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Keith Harrison

No greenfield sites in Medway need to be built on as they are part of Medway residents’ green future, and must be protected.

Comment

Representation ID: 965

Received: 29/10/2023

Respondent: Mrs Alison Wells

Developers are promoting land in this area ... on green field sites ... would be expected to be built out quickly responding to market demand ... - this is a frightening paragraph. The Local Authority should be valuing our green field sites as green fields and insisting that development takes place on brownfield sites first. Developments should not be allowed on green sites because it it easier for developers (and better for their profits).

Comment

Representation ID: 1015

Received: 29/10/2023

Respondent: Carl Kroon

The will be car orientated developments because the council couldn't be bothered to get a better bus system in place when they had a chance.
The cycle network is a farce.

Comment

Representation ID: 1094

Received: 30/10/2023

Respondent: Medway Green Party

No greenfield sites anywhere in Medway need to be built on. They are part of the Medway residents’ green future, and must be protected.

Comment

Representation ID: 1264

Received: 30/10/2023

Respondent: Mrs Sue Harwood

Greenfield sites should only be used if no brownfield sites remain. The damage to the environment and wildlife would be too high a price to pay if this vital green landscape is destroyed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1529

Received: 31/10/2023

Respondent: Richborough

Agent: Pinnacle Planning

Richborough supports and agrees with the statement that greenfield suburban sites can be developed quickly and respond to market demand, particularly where landowners have confirmed the land is available and being promoted for development. Typically, greenfield sites are not restricted by viability and are capable of meeting the aims and policies of Local Plans in respect of contributions to infrastructure, the delivery of affordable housing and meeting technical requirements in respect of sustainable construction and dwelling standards.

Comment

Representation ID: 1591

Received: 31/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Alexander Cameron

NO - should not be part of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1621

Received: 31/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Martin Hardy

The large towns and neighbourhoods in the south and east of Medway are popular places for people to live because of the good compromise between access to town centre and transport hubs whilst having very close proximity to green open spaces. If the indicated areas were developed as described here then the large towns and neighbourhoods in the south and east of Medway would be seen as less attractive places to live.