The plan's vision is to

I have 2 points the 1st being that the Council should give assurances that any plans that are passed are what the region requires and not what the developers want for their biggest profit.
The 2nd point is that details of all the supporting infrastructure should be published and put in place before planning permission is granted for large scale building projects.

I think the bit about 'Investment in new services and infrastructure....' is not strong enough and suggests housebuilding comes before these services and may not happen at all if the 'investment' doesn't materialise. Services and infrastructure such as schools and healthcare should be the first consideration for housing plans and developers should be required to build these things first rather than an afterthought.
Should we also go further and imagine a Medway where residents are in housing sufficient for their needs - for instance older residents in larger properties are encouraged/supported to downsize for both energy efficiency and to provide houses for growing families.
The vision should also go further on waste and explain what is meant by the waste hierarchy as most won't understand this. We should be envisaging a Medway where people are encouraged/supported to re-use and share items rather than just buy and chuck them away. Residual waste levels reduce and we have streets free from litter and other types of antisocial behaviour.

As a long term resident I feel we need better transport links and tap in tap out technology to make it easier to use public transport. More social housing. Closing loopholes so landlords are responsible for their properties, keeping side and rear access actually accessible. Aim for a Marlowe type theatre to bring big productions into our thriving arts community. More greening, encourage businesses to make their premises more appealing, flower troughs, appropriate signage. Fill vacant spaces with pop up shops start up entrepreneurs or exhibitions. Better lighting for safety. Develop a proper night time economy like any student town.

Perhaps you can explain the point.you totally disregarded public opinion on Red Route.so obviously you wont listen now will you.Rainham is totally overpopulated. Hospitals. Doctors. Dentists Schools.Roads its full.yet you still keep building houses.bury your head in the sand .
I've lived here for 50 years its ruined.
Back to redroute its nothing to do with parking its ammount of traffic and chaos caused at Mierscourt lights.
All this was discussed at council meeting I attended.but you still choose to ignore

Medway is not a city. Rochester was our city please apply to reinstate

There is no improved bus service to the Hoo peninsular. They are never ontime and are totally unreliable
There is no improvement to health services or access to doctors.

What I see is an area that has/is slowly being strangled to death since I moved to the Medway Towns in the early 1970’s. Too many houses being built within an infrastructure that can’t cope.Hospital struggling to cope, doctors arrangements struggling to cope, roads woefully maintained, schools just not delivering. I feel badly let down by what has happened and what the council propose for the future. That is just cram more and more houses into an already over populated area.

England is the most densely populated major country in Europe, four times as many people per square km than France and Portugal. Kent is in the top ten most densely populated counties in England; we are already over populated and need to limit new housing. Where absolutely necessary, focus on urban and brownfield sites. The stunning rural area of the Hoo Peninsula must be protected at all costs and kept for agricultural land, which is absolutely necessary for food sustainability and security.

I agree with the above vision.

I am pleased with the considerations.
Have commented on the over building and development on the Hoo peninsula. Am pleased this may now have been overturned. Farming land should be supported so we can be more self sufficient as a country.
The consideration of the green spaces to aid mental wellbeing is a must, which also goes along with the protection of nature and their inhabitants in theses places.
Hoo, I feel could be helped with the opportunity to travel by train. An additional station on the existing line would reduce carbon emissions, something you seem keen to challenge.

I don’t get it. Pollution and issues worse than much of London, and you want to seriously consider infilling Capstone Valley - which is the last remaining piece of green abutting Maidstone’s boundary. Maidstone - who themselves are looking to build thousands of houses abutting that remaining piece of green?

London has green spaces aplenty… Why ruin what remains of the green space here?

With Developer Highway Infrastructure income not being spent promptly the sustainability aspect needs an overhaul. Urban UTC should be extended to the periphery to help bus services, to monitor traffic flows and throttle when necessary. The Advance Electronic Digital Highway signa are also not being used. With food retail to local shopping parades suffering a more positive approach to change of use should be brought into policy. Business parks (out of town) that now have retail is also impacting upon the town centre. The centre is becoming a coffee shop. The parking in the old bus station is on hold.

Sustainable housing should preserve Medway's green lungs like Horsted Valley, Capstone Valley (already threatened by Maidstone's housing quota), and all new-builds should have roof-water collection and south-facing roofs with solar heat-exchange or photovoltaic panels. Sustainable transport plan should include subsidised bus transport for all school and college students and a new, walking/cycling bridge connecting central Chatham (bus/rail stations, shopping/catering businesses) with businesses on the Medway City Estate, which commuters currently queue to reach and leave via Medway Tunnel and Rochester Bridge, causing pollution and congestion. Don't waste the budget on vanity projects like unnecessary fountains outside the Pentagon Centre!

I used to proud to be part of an area known as the "Garden of England"! Unfortunately, our roads are now overpopulated with too many people in one area. The Plan is short sighted and lazy. Stop building new houses in areas that can't sustain them. People are moving away from Kent because our roads are just too busy. Look around you, see what you're doing to the future of England, if you want to build, build where factories once were, brown sites. Don't build on land that can be used again to grow crops, don't build on land that was once Green Belt but now down the road, for some reason has managed to become usable for your "Plan". 5 per cent of land in Medway is designated as Green Belt! I would be interested to know how much land in Medway was designated as Green Belt 20 years ago! That's not a boast, that's shocking statistic to a once beautiful area!

Keep our green spaces green and only allow developments on brown fields once we have the infrastructure and a new hospital in place.

All future developments in medway should be for medway people only and affordable so that the average medway person can afford to get a mortgage and buy a property.

I am totally against this plan, I live i Hempstead and we have narrow lanes past capstone and also a lot of traffic congestion around Hempstead already. By building more houses the infrastructure can’t cope and the emissions will cause pollution.

Rochester is the city, the area is the Medway Towns.
Medway is a river that runs through Kent.
The Towns cycle paths system is a disgrace.
The paths are deplorable.
Pedestrian provision is dangerous on Chatham & Gillingham High Street.
Local citizens cannot afford to live in the area.
The bus system is a farce.
New development quality of the 1980's.
The last major infrastructure for expansion for the water and drainage system is Rat Bay pumping station.
The £170mill HIF debacle.

There is no need to focus on Medway as a regional city. Should not force something that it is not. Rochester is the natural city of the area, so if we do want to have city “status” then I feel it would be better to put out efforts into this. Medway council should instead allow each town to keep its unique identify.
All other aspects would agree with. A thriving economy and residents enjoying a good quality of life, while addressing climate change are all great things to aim for.

The vision sounds nice, in particular for better walking, cycle and public transport. The current cycle lanes are rough and out of date, unsuitable for skating, and are discontinuous which makes them much more dangerous. All the current bus routes go through chatham which also increases journey time and burden unnecessarily. Council tax is already very high and these changes should be considered within current budget restraints without additional burden on local tax payers. Accessible paths (wheelchair friendly) should be included in planning routes to make use of the riverside. Very Supportive of new river travel!

A commendable vision, written using all the in vogue, flavour of the month buzz words. In fact, the " distinct character of it's (Medway's) different towns, neighbourhoods and villages" is being continually eroded.
Much more emphasis needs to placed on a bus service that is efficient, reliable, clean and a pleasure to use.
Developments taking place at the moment are expensive and restrictive - far too many flats. Placing people in boxes in the sky. Far too many single properties being given planning permission to convert to homes for multiple occupants. We are building future slums.

The Consultation states:
“The plan’s vision is to establish Medway as a leading regional city, connected to its surrounding coast and countryside; with a thriving economy, where residents enjoy a good quality of life and there is a clear strategy for addressing climate change and strengthening natural assets.”

A fundamental part of the overall Vision for Medway should be a positive and proactive approach to support new development.

It is acknowledged that the Vision for Medway has been established through the recognition that there are marked differences in health and wellbeing across communities in Medway. The Vision places people at the centre of the Plan, and places importance on Medway being a healthy place to live, including high quality, well designed housing. Essential to this is providing for the diverse communities by taking into account the needs of different sectors of the community.

Our client supports the Vision and wishes to reiterate the important contribution that the future development of the Site can make toward achieving this.

In relation to housing delivery, our client supports the vision for ‘providing for healthier and more sustainable choices of homes’. However, we believe the Vision should go further, and proactively encourage and support the delivery of housing based on meeting the existing and projected needs as a minimum. We also believe that the Vision should be clear in the priority being for housing to be located within the existing urban areas, with specific concentration on making effective use of land. The Vision should be clear in the importance of giving substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, in accordance with the aims of the NPPF .

The Vision identifies the importance of the urban waterfront and states that there should be continuous paths with attractive and healthy connections, and the development of the Site can assist in achieving this aim.

The Site intends to provide a mixed-use scheme which will allow for daily needs to be met within the development, in line with the aims of the Vision.

The overall Vision will also need to be reflected in both the strategic and detailed development management policies of the future Local Plan, as it progresses.

The Consultation states:
“The plan’s vision is to establish Medway as a leading regional city, connected to its surrounding coast and countryside; with a thriving economy, where residents enjoy a good quality of life and there is a clear strategy for addressing climate change and strengthening natural assets.”

A fundamental part of the overall Vision for Medway should be a positive and proactive approach to support new development.

It is acknowledged that the Vision for Medway has been established through the recognition that there are marked differences in health and wellbeing across communities in Medway. The Vision places people at the centre of the Plan, and places importance on Medway being a healthy place to live, including high quality, well designed housing. Essential to this is providing for the diverse communities by taking into account the needs of different sectors of the community.

Our client supports the Vision and wishes to reiterate the important contribution that the future development of the Site can make toward achieving this.

In relation to housing delivery, our client supports the vision for ‘providing for healthier and more sustainable choices of homes’. However, we believe the Vision should go further, and proactively encourage and support the delivery of housing based on meeting the existing and projected needs as a minimum. We also believe that the Vision should be clear in the priority being for housing to be located within the existing urban areas, with specific concentration on making effective use of land. The Vision should be clear in the importance of giving substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, in accordance with the aims of the NPPF .

The Vision identifies the importance of the urban waterfront and states that there should be continuous paths with attractive and healthy connections, and the development of the Site can assist in achieving this aim.

The Site intends to provide a mixed-use scheme which will allow for daily needs to be met within the development, in line with the aims of the Vision.

The overall Vision will also need to be reflected in both the strategic and detailed development management policies of the future Local Plan, as it progresses.

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

Whilst there are currently lots of open rural spaces in Medway, these will be reduced significantly by ongoing housing plans, particularly on the Hoo Peninsular. Would it be better to repurpose existing buildings for housing in urban areas rather than continuing to spread into rural ones.

The infrastructure of the area does not support housing growth and the impact on already stretched services and the environment will be significant.

Public transport has improved but is expensive therefore car use is unlikely to be reduced, again impacting on the environment.

The plans are very positive but possibly unrealistic.

5.1. The NPPF (paragraph 20), sets out that strategic policies should ‘set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision for [amongst others]:
a) housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development’;
5.2. Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) requires that in order to boost housing supply, local planning authorities (‘LPAs’) should identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5-years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 20% where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing.
5.3. The consultation report highlights in paragraph 5.4 that “It has to be recognised that there is a housing crisis, particularly regarding affordability and there is an absolute need to provide the right homes in the right places to meet Medway’s growing needs and the requirements for those desperately needing a good quality home”. It goes on to acknowledge that many existing residents are living in over-crowded and / or sub-standard housing conditions.
5.4. It is important that the protection of the intrinsic character and qualities of a site or an area are considered, but these qualities can be protected when new housing development is delivered, through good design and by improving the sustainable networks and access to places and services. Rather than seen as negative, new housing development should be seen as an opportunity to improve the area for the current and future residents delivering the types and quantity of homes that are desperately needed. On this basis, respectfully, reference to ‘housing delivery’ should be made in the vision.
5.5. It is submitted that the development of the site, either delivered in solo or in conjunction with the adjoining proposed development sites could form a primarily housing-led scheme which could be an option to deliver not only the existing elements of the vision for Medway, but could also deliver important housing numbers in the Medway area early-on the plan period. The site is both available and the development of the site is achievable.

I object to the plan on the grounds that we are over populated in Medway and cannot sustain further development without substantial infrastructure improvement, water, sewage, medical, roads, schools all need to be in place before this kind of development is allowed.

How will City status for Medway help the poorest residents who are struggling to feed themselves and their children? How will it help the homeless and all those residents of Medway that are least able to help themselves? The ambition of having a City of Medway appears as an expensive vanity project, and distraction from the real task in hand, which is to focus on people. The very notion of establishing Medway as a city undermines the distinct character and unique history of the towns and villages that presently make up the Unitary Authority of Medway.

The Climate Response Team welcome the inclusion of climate change within the overall vision. The planning system has a significant role to play in designing places that cut carbon emissions and build resilient communities. In addition to this being an opportunity to refresh the vision and objectives of the Local Plan in line with the council’s ambitions, this is also an opportunity to establish the Local Plan as a fundamental driver for a range of solutions to the climate crisis.
We have the following specific feedback on this section:
• Paragraph 2 - The new Local Plan should be a key delivery tool in achieving net zero carbon emissions for Medway. This section should make it clear that the vision is for a net zero carbon and adaptation framework which needs to be ambitious. Consider rewording to say, “Medway will have achieved a significant reduction in carbon emissions (well on its pathway to net zero by 2050) aided by developments which have adopted high sustainable buildings standards (not just in construction but use and refurbishment too) and are achieving ambitious net zero carbon targets. Alongside this, adaptation is an essential component of all development and Medway is well prepared for its long term future adaptation needs”.
• There should be a commitment to use evidence to set local carbon reduction targets (for example through SCATTER or Tyndall tools) for the Local Plan so that its success, and that of its associated policies, can be can be measured.
• The vision around energy is lacking and yet emissions from domestic energy currently make up 38.99% of all Medway emissions compared with 29.4% from transport. Consider saying, “Medway is delivering against a strong local energy plan and communities are harnessing the results of their direct involvement in decision making on community owned, local energy infrastructure”.
• Paragraph 3 - Not sure that everyone will understand the term “green growth” – is there another way to explain what this means?
• Paragraph 3 - Where flooding is mentioned, risk of overheating, drought and soil erosion should also be included. These are noted elsewhere in the document but not captured here. Linked to this should be a greater explanation of the role that new and protected natural assets will play in carbon sequestration and adaptation and the co-benefits this brings of enhanced biodiversity, good air quality and improved public health.
• Paragraph 3 - Remove “with a clear path mapped out to reaching net zero” as this should be in place now (well before 2040) and significant achievements realised by 2040 (see first bullet point above).
• The vision jumps around a bit and may benefit from some restructuring. For example, the mention of Medway transitioning to a low carbon economy in paragraph 3 doesn’t tell us much, the details follow in paragraph 9.
• There is currently no mention of minimising the need for travel although this is possibly inferred in paragraph 6 where it says “people can meet most of their daily needs in their local area.” Reducing the need to travel is the first step in the transport hierarchy and will be key to achieving a reduction in emissions. It is mentioned in paragraph 9 in terms of commuting. Again, an example of where the vision jumps around a bit and could be stronger if slightly restructured.
• Paragraph 7 - “Older properties have been retrofitted to improve sustainability”. The word sustainability is vague. The challenge here is to retrofit them for energy efficiency and adaptative measures to make them less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Consider re-wording to say “Property owners have felt sufficiently supported to retrofit older properties to make them more energy efficient and less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change such as overheating.”
• We welcome the mention of a low circular economy but the vision could be more meaningful, for example: “A significant reduction in emissions from waste (including water) is achieved through provision of infrastructure and services which support people to reduce waste and reuse more. The circular economy is embedded into business models and applied to developments.”

COMMENT ON PARA. 1.2
ArcelorMittal strongly supports the Council’s ambitions for boosting jobs and investment in Medway in the new Local Plan - particularly in considering the future of Chatham Docks.

Chatham Docks is a 400-year old commercial port and is a vibrant, working dock operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The docks employ over 800 people – many of whom are local. There are also existing jobs in the supply chains. Overall, there are over 2000 jobs dependent on the docks.

Chatham Docks must be both supported and protected in the new Local Plan.

A raft of documents has previously been sent to Medway Council for Officers to consider as part of its consideration of this new Local Plan including the following:

- A Viability Report prepared by Medway’s leading accountants, Crossley Group, into the economic conditions surrounding commercial tenancy at Chatham Docks that concludes that the return on Chatham Docks is ‘above industry expectations and is therefore economically viable from a capital perspective.’
- A report by marine consulting engineers and ship surveyors, ABP Marine Limited, into the costs of repairing the existing lock gates at Chatham Docks. This report concludes that it would only require a capital outlay of £3.5 million to repair the lock gates rather than the £30 million suggested by Peel L&P.
- An economic and financial assessment of Chatham Docks by Independent Port Consultants concludes that ‘in view of the cost estimate, financial viability and impact on jobs and revenue if the operation is made to close, ending the operation to render the land available for alternative uses does not make economic sense.’

For your convenience we re-submit these reports again as part of these representations on behalf of ArcelorMittal. These representations and a copy of the reports have been emailed to: futuremedway@medway.gov.uk

COMMENT ON PARA. 1.4
ArcelorMittal notes that this consultation does not detail policies or identify those sites preferred by the Council for new development and notes that details relating to specific sites will come in the next stage on the Local Plan.

ArcelorMittal submitted representations to the Call for Sites consultation requesting that Chatham Docks be retained as a working, vibrant dock and be promoted for development for continued port use in line with current Local Plan policies ED1 – Existing Employment Areas and Policy E9 – Chatham Docks.

It is a thriving industrial dock. The docks employ over 800 people – many of whom are local. There are also existing jobs in the supply chains. Overall, there are over 2000 jobs dependent on the docks.Chatham Docks must continue to be both supported and protected in the new Local Plan.

Technical evidence has previously been submitted to the Council on behalf of ArcelorMittal in support of Chatham Docks continued operation which must be taken into consideration when reading these representations.

We have re-submitted these technical reports again as part of these representations and they have been emailed to: futuremedway@medway.gov.uk

COMMENT ON PARA. 2.7
The new Local Plan must strike a balance in identifying new sites for housing but not to the detriment of existing jobs and existing important employment generating uses employing local people within the Borough.

Chatham Docks is a vibrant, working dock operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The docks employ over 800 people – many of whom are local. There are also existing jobs in the supply chains. Overall, there are over 2000 jobs dependent on the docks.

Chatham Docks must continue to be both supported and protected in the new Local Plan.

COMMENT ON PARA 3.1
ArcelorMittal notes that ‘Medway is a leading economic player in the region.’ Therefore, future housing development in Medway cannot be at the expense of existing viable employment generating sites.

Chatham Docks is a 400-year old port employing over 800 people. There are existing jobs in the supply chains. Overall, there are over 2000 jobs many of which are local and dependent on the docks.

Chatham Docks must continue to be supported and protected in the new Local Plan.

1. It is considered that the terminology used in this vision is potentially misleading. The use of the term ‘regional city’ has extremely loose connotations with no established academic definition. In essence, it could be read or interpreted differently by different readers and so fails to provide a clear intent or direction for Medway. It seems likely that Medway are seeking to become established as a ‘city region’, although such terms are typically more suited to academic circles. To ensure this Local Plan has a clear vision for all residents to understand, it is suggested that ambiguous terms should be avoided.

2. 'By 2040, Medway is responding and adapting to climate change, providing for more sustainable and resilient development'.
The above timescale is not considered suitable for a ‘vision’ as stating ‘by 2040'’ provides little if any ambition. Climate change is an immediate concern and so the Vision should be phrased accordingly. For instance, ‘Medway is responding and adapting to climate change to ensure more sustainable and resilient development during the plan period and beyond’. Using ‘by 2040’ effectively means the Council has almost 20 years to begin to ‘respond and adapt’ and so a simple phrasing change addresses this point.

3. 'All sectors and ages of the community can find decent places to live'
Given this is part of the ‘Vision’ for Medway, it is considered that the phrasing should be more aspirational. The supporting text of this consultation acknowledges the need for the Plan to ‘plan positively’, which is also set out in the NPPF. For instance, para 15 of the NPPF states ‘Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area’. It is suggested that the Medway Vision should not utilise terms such as ‘decent’ but should seek to provide greater aspirations for the area such as offering residents ‘a choice of high quality homes that meet a wide range of needs’. The use of the word ‘find’ implies a degree of difficulty or need to search. A Vision should not expect or allow for such a challenge. Choice is fundamental and the supply and quality of homes should seek to achieve this goal.

But these plans are building entirely in greenbelt land complete the opposite to a green and sustainable message and to make matters worse is eating into the countryside the local people go to relax and get into nature. The areas you are planning to build require cars as there is no local train station within walking distance and bus services are not regular. Indeed even in major routes busses are often less than hourly. It is not realistic to think there won't be major car use. Looking at these plans there is little provision for this.