5.47

Comment

Representation ID: 389

Received: 02/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Dowling

Given that between them, the urban, suburban and rural areas have a capacity for 35,567 homes it should be that with a focus on sustainable locations that Medway Council should be able to find 19,000 homes (53% of the above capacity) within the Urban suburban and rural areas. There should therefore be no need to allocate housing within the areas designated Green Belt in the local plan. Therefore with respect to the Medway Local Plan we support the protection afforded the Green Belt in the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 475

Received: 17/10/2023

Respondent: Sports England

It is important to ensure there is a suitable formal informal sporting infrastructure available to support the development in the green belt This will in part be driven from the evidence base provided by playing pitch and sports facility strategies.

Some of these sports could be equestrian, water sports, shooting, fishing and cycling and motorsports. Sports which are not easily accommodated in the urban settings.

Comment

Representation ID: 493

Received: 18/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Glen Cook

Greenbelt release is an absolute joke. What you actually mean is greenbelt destruction.

Comment

Representation ID: 629

Received: 25/10/2023

Respondent: Mrs Daniela Baylis

Green belt land is there for a reason. It should be protected at all costs and should be a last resort when considering development. The NPPF requires wholly exceptional reasons for development in the APNB and green belt land. Given that Medway has sufficient housing supply land in non green belt areas these should not even be considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 694

Received: 26/10/2023

Respondent: Ms Catriona Jamieson

Green Belt should NOT be built on. Where do we stop if this is not protected?

Comment

Representation ID: 788

Received: 27/10/2023

Respondent: AC Goatham & Son

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

Support- The national position advocated in the NPPF, where the development of Green Belt sites should be a last resort and only considered once other sites have been considered first. This would align with the “exceptional circumstances” test set out in national policy.

Larger scale development (for residential and employment purposes) should, in the main, be prioritised in areas not within the Green Belt or within AONBs, although due regard must be had to where this is development that supports the preservation of such a landscape through land management – again, immediately at the site or in the wider domain.

Comment

Representation ID: 897

Received: 28/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Keith Harrison

The Greenbelt must be protect from development and any brownfield sites used instead.

Comment

Representation ID: 1117

Received: 30/10/2023

Respondent: Medway Green Party

The Green Belt is there for a purpose and no part of it must be released for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 1383

Received: 31/10/2023

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Iceni Projects

Based on the assessment of Green Belt sites, we consider that a more realistic figure of 1,500 dwellings is more appropriate from Green Belt sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 1593

Received: 31/10/2023

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Stone

I understand the difference between green belt and greenfield.

Comment

Representation ID: 1612

Received: 31/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Alexander Cameron

Noted

Comment

Representation ID: 1749

Received: 31/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lawrence

There should be no building on greenfield or greenbelt until all other available land is exhausted.
Greenbelt should only be built on as a very last resort
Development should be kept small to avoid overwhelming existing residents