5.52

If this were to happen, you need to improve public transport i.e. bus services to these areas.

Agree that where needed it should be strategic and provide new services. Though greenbelt land in Medway should be protected rather than built on. If you need land in Halling why not use the remaining parts of the cement works that have formed most of st Andrews park?

How will the affect Medway residents?

The location of potentially 1,100 houses in this section of the development is likely to have an adverse impact on the North Downs Way and local ancient woodland in terms of landscape, noise and light pollution.
Given the existing problems of traffic flow at peak times through Halling, Cuxton to the M2, it would be reasonable to suggest that any housing development must be much smaller than the maximum of 1100 houses proposed.

This does not address any of the real issues facing Medway residents.

The development of over 1000 properties in this area would have an adverse affect in the North Downs Way and ancient woodland regarding noise, landscape and light pollution there are exiting problems of traffic through Halling and Cuxton to the M2 this development must be a lot smaller. A

The NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt and its fundamental aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Whilst the Green Belt is not an environmental designation, it is a strategic planning tool which was introduced to manage the growth of urban areas. It is therefore wholly appropriate to revisit Green Belt boundaries when development requirements justify this.
Richborough do not consider it necessary for an authority such as Medway, with only 5% of its land as Green Belt, to propose the removal of Breen Belt parcels for residential development as exceptional circumstances are unlikely to be demonstrated. While Medway is also constrained by ecological designations, the Green Belt in Medway plays an important role in maintaining the strategic gap between local settlements, including Strood and Higham, Cuxton and Meopham and Snodland and Rochester.
The possible cross authority development sites and emerging allocations on the boundary of Medway are coming forward in the context of Gravesham, Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling being heavily constrained by Green Belt. The Green Belt sites in Medway, as referenced in the Consultation Document, also include significant swathes of the Kent Downs AONB. These designations are afforded national policy protection, and the loss of these sites are to be avoided wherever possible. Paragraph 176 of the NPPF states “Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues…”
There is sufficient land outside the Green Belt in Medway, brownfield and greenfield land, to meet housing needs. Richborough do not consider the possibility of providing a cross authority development an exceptional circumstance to justify Green Belt loss when suitable sites, such as Site SR17, are available. Paragraph 141 of the NPPF confirms before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.

How would this address Medway's housing needs ?

No- not needed. The Green Belt is there for a purpose and no part of it must be released for development.

This should be a basic as developments have a wide impact than their immediate locality.