5.44

These designations should not be seen as a problem but as important and essential protection. It may not be what certain Councillors have wanted but the Council MUST protect for the future.

Greatly support this, good environmental planning now will protect Medway into the future and provide a good quality environment for future residents.

The Peninsula's marshes and mudflats do indeed have a sense of place and remoteness. Significant built development of any kind (including for renewable energy) would ruin this. West of Allhallows, the views are magnificent. Canary Wharf and the City, and The Shard, are often visible, a striking contrast to the wide open green fields of the c.11km. of marsh there (east to west). Their ecological value is also high, over the entire south Thames marshes from Grain to Cliffe, and the north Medway saltings - as indicated by the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar designations, and various environmental grants.

This requires great caution by trained staff.

1. Land adjacent to Dux Court Road, unsuitable as it 'doesn't fit' anywhere. Land east of High Halstow is an imposition. Neither should be considered for development.
2. Council must adhere to the Government policy to protect agricultural land. Who knows what the future worldwide political outlook will be as well as distant wars and pandemics.
3. Land containing high voltage power lines cannot be used due to maintenance requirements, and flashover potential to street furniture/aerials etc. There are also concerns about the long term ingestion of charged particles. Also the lines are noisy given the correct weather conditions.

Medway Council is neither equipped or qualified to assess the potential impacts of possible development on land that it doesn’t respect, appreciate or understand.

The Woodland Trust previously commented on the HIF programme proposals for the Hoo Peninsula. We were broadly supportive of plans for increased green infrastructure and new areas of woodland to buffer and reconnect SSSI and ancient woodland sites. The need for such buffering and connectivity remains vital to protect the landscape and delivery nature recovery goals.

Development which would result in the loss of ancient woodland, aged or veteran trees should not be permitted. The Woodland Trust would object to the allocation for development of any sites which have a direct impact on or are adjacent to identified areas of Ancient Woodland.

The Ancient Tree Inventory (ATI) for the area may be incomplete. We recommend an exercise to complete the ATI (which lists ancient, veteran and notable trees outside woods) across sites allocated or proposed to be allocated for development, in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF for the protection of irreplaceable habitats.

Im not convinced this strategy would address my concerns

AGreed

The RSPB would like to see a strategic approach to protecting Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI with protection of the existing nightingale population as a key objective, including the stipulation of a default minimum 400m buffer around Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI within which no residential units would be added. This buffer zone, designed to ensure the nightingales are protected, has been our consistent position for many years and is based on the best available evidence from comparable situations elsewhere, such as the Thames Basin Heaths. The RSPB’s primary concerns relate to indirect impacts of cat predation and recreational disturbance impacting nightingales on the SSSI and the direct loss of undesignated scrub which supports breeding nightingale. This strategic and landscape-scale approach would be an effective, sustainable, coherent and readily implementable policy approach that allows necessary development to continue to come forward in the wider area, while protecting the vulnerable, nationally important nightingale population. Crucially, it would offer clarity for developers and protect Medway Council from a deluge of applications for inappropriate development.

Given suitable light pollution controls and other wildlife-friendly designs, the RSPB is not necessarily opposed to non-residential development within 400m of the SSSI. For example, site HHH1 is proposed for non-residential development, and we would therefore not object to this scheme in principle should it progress, although we would still need to examine the details of any application to understand its potential impacts on the SSSI. Developers may need to coordinate their plans to adjust for the buffer zone. This could also be done within large allocations that partly overlap the 400m buffer: the closer areas could be for non-residential, with those parts of the allocated site that are beyond 400 metres allocated for housing. This clear policy would help ensure the protection and conservation of Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI for the future.

The RSPB is keen to see the wildlife interest of the SSSI and other sites promoted and celebrated, as a positive asset that will boost pride in the area, as opposed to the notoriety of losing the country’s most important site for nightingales if these concerns are not heeded.

We have looked at all of the HHH prefix sites around Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that are partly or entirely in close proximity to the 400m buffer that the RSPB considers necessary to protect the nightingales for which the SSSI is designated. If all the current potential sites, such as HHH3, HHH6, HHH7 and HHH14, were to be taken forward, this would place around 1,500-2,500 new houses within 400m of the SSSI, which would create a permanent threat to the nightingale population by placing a population of 3,600-6,000 people within the immediate area, with c26% of the new households owning at least one cat i.e. this would represent the unsustainable potential addition of over 500 cats to the immediate vicinity of the SSSI and the nightingale population, i.e. within 400 metres. We consider that the revised SA required needs to recognise the impacts of these sites individually and cumulatively on the SSSI, and only those that can be effectively mitigated should be taken forward to the Reg 19 draft.

A large site identified in High Halstow at Britannia Road, HHH26, is close to High Halstow National Nature Reserve (NNR) and in close proximity to Northward Hill RSPB reserve and SSSI. We consider this creates extra pressures on the wildlife and the maintenance of the site, in the form of increased recreational disturbance from people, including dog walking, vandalism and other urban impacts. There also a few other smaller sites with the HHH prefix identified which are close to these designated sites that will likely add to the recreational pressure. The RSPB has not yet been able to agree a suitable mitigation strategy with the applicant of the Britannia Road site and we would therefore caution allocation of this and other sites in the area until measures can be identified that would ensure the effective protection of the Northward Hill SSSI, High Halstow NNR, and other wildlife interests in the area.

The land to the SE of Cliffe Pools, Site SR6 – potentially up to 600 homes (Form Submission 167, p.840) - raises concerns of exacerbating recreational disturbance impacts to RSPB Cliffe Pools (part of the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar site) that may not be mitigable through RAMS/Birdwise due to proximity and numbers. We also note SR2 landfill waste (Form Submission 194, p.826) - we would need to see evidence from the Council to demonstrate that harmful impacts could be avoided or adequately mitigated before the site is put forward for allocation. The revised SA should address both of these sites and their potential impacts on the SPA/Ramsar site.

There are several possible allocations to the south of Riverside Country Park where the RSPB has concerns regarding cumulative recreational disturbance impacts that may not be mitigable through RAMS/Birdwise. The RSPB is particularly concerned about site RN26 (Form submission ID: 185, p.651) for housing near Riverside Country Park as it is immediately adjacent to Nor Marsh and Motney Hill RSPB reserve and within Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA, Ramsar and SSSI. This development would have potentially serious impacts on the reserve and its waterbird assemblage through increased recreational disturbance.

Potential site allocations RN 1-10 and RN16, RN21 are close to Riverside Country Park and Nor Marsh and Motney Hill RSPB reserve – in combination, the recreational pressures on the coastal habitats and waterbird population from dog-walkers and visitors would be considerable and difficult to mitigate and we would need to see evidence from the Council to demonstrate that harmful impacts could be avoided or adequately mitigated before these sites are put forward for allocation.

All sss's and spa's and natural reserves RSPB ETC. mUST BE GIVEN A wide breath so as not to have a detrimental effect on any of these sites.

The only sensible Local Plan would accept that there has been far too much overdevelopment on the Hoo Peninsula in close proximity to areas of special ecological significance and this must cease immediately.