The plan's vision is to

We must protection the natural ,historic and culturalheritage of the hoo peninsula

It is noted that the “Vision” seeks to provide more sustainable and resilient development, strengthen and enhance the character of Medway including supporting green infrastructure, creating a healthy place in which to live and work, and providing decent places to live for all sectors and ages of the community. It further highlights Medway as a leading economic player in the region where it can support the business space attracting new investment. Alongside development, there should also be the provision of improved travel choices and infrastructure provision.

However, the “Vision” is silent on its intention to meet its identified housing needs. It is similarly silent on its intention of addressing economic/employment needs. Indeed, the overarching principles for the “Vision” fails to identify housing at all (para 3.1) as forming an important component of the Plan.

Whilst the “Vision” talks in general terms about how development is to be provided, central to the “Vision” must be “how much development is provided” as a matter that is fundamental to the framework for growth and spatial strategy as a determinative matter. This is a significant failing, considering the “Context” identifies “the supply of new homes is central to the Local Plan” (para 2.7).
NPPF (para 15) states that:

The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings.

In the absence of the “Vision” setting out its intention of how much development is to be delivered, specifically housing development, it does not provide a positive framework for addressing housing need contrary to the NPPF (para 15). This failing is further perpetrated by the “Strategic Objectives” (see Section 3 of this Statement), which also does not address the scale of housing provision that should be delivered, also contrary to the NPPF (para 20). This underlines the importance of the” Vision” setting out the intentions for growth.
The “Vision” as set out at para 3.1 must be amended as follows (new test in red):

The policies and growth strategy in the new Plan will deliver the vision for what we want to achieve for Medway by 2040. Our thoughts for what this vision could look like are set out below. The vision encompasses all aspects of policies in the new Local Plan, including housing, transport, environment, retail, employment and waste and minerals.

Allied to this, a new paragraph must be added, or existing paragraphs amended as part of the “Vision” clearly setting out the intention of the Local Plan to meet identified housing and employment needs. The 7th paragraph (un-numbered) could be amended as follows:
The Plan will seek to deliver 28,500 new homes to ensure the needs of all sections and ages of the community can find decent places to live. The quality of new development has enhanced Medway’s profile, and driven up environmental standards in construction, and older properties have been retro-fitted to improve sustainability. Custom and self-build housing has provided new living opportunities for residents. Investment in new services and infrastructure, such as transport, schools, healthcare and open spaces, has supported house building to provide a good quality of life for residents.

The proposed change aligns with the “Development Needs” (para 5.4), which as set out in Section 4 of this statement the Plan must seek to deliver on.

The outlined changes are essential to ensure the Plan is “Positively Prepared”, “Consistent with National Policy” and therefore “Sound” (NPPF, para 35).

I was very disappointed when I read through the above documents as local resident and horse owner /rider I felt that there was very little in the plan for us.
Firstly there was only footpaths mentioned no bridleway or byways etc nearly all the proposed housing is on green fields and open spaces 28500 new houses will cause a huge increase traffic in these rural areas which are probably Medway's best rural areas
There is very little in the plan for addressing these problems equestrians are already poorly served by the exciting rights of way in Medway and the plan has done nothing to address this
Whilst walkers have 100% of the public rights of way (PROW) network, nationally horse riders have just 22%. Within urban areas, equestrians often have substantially less and so inclusion in safety initiatives for vulnerable road users helps to keep them safer.The data for horse and rider injuries or deaths are increasing annually .It is vital that any opportunity to create extra multi user paths and behind hedge paths especially when they can join up excising bridleways
The Plan proposes a increase in housing by 1667 per year and with about7% of this number will want to ride and may want to keep their own horse locally this bring a huge increase to the local rural economy ie livery vets farrier feed and bedding supplies
The majority of horse riders are female and are 0ver 45 this may be the only sport we do we don’t use council run pitches sport centres or cycles tracks and the plan stated improving community facilities this should include provision for equestrians such as increase in rights of way space for livery yards and competition centre

Having a sense of community and belonging is important.
Medway should be proud of its history and encourage the appreciation of its past. ie the forts, dockyard.
The river is important. We should have a riverside walk.
The wildlife we have needs protection.

The “Vision” for Medway encompasses broad policy principles for the future emerging Local Plan covering transport, employment, the environment, retail, waste and minerals.

It is noted that the “Vision” seeks to provide more sustainable and resilient development, strengthen and enhance the character of Medway including supporting green infrastructure, creating a healthy place in which to live and work, and providing decent places to live for all sectors and ages of the community. It further highlights Medway as a leading economic player in the region where it can support the business space attracting new investment. Alongside development, there should also be the provision of improved travel choices and infrastructure provision.

However, the “Vision” is silent on its intention to meet its identified housing needs. It is similarly silent on its intention of addressing economic/employment needs. Indeed, the overarching principles for the “Vision” fails to identify housing at all (para 3.1) as forming an important component of the Plan.

Whilst the “Vision” talks in general terms about how development is to be provided, central to the “Vision” must be “how much development is provided” as a matter that is fundamental to the framework for growth and spatial strategy as a determinative matter. This is a significant failing, considering the “Context” identifies “the supply of new homes is central to the Local Plan” (para 2.7).
NPPF (para 15) states that:

The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings.

In the absence of the “Vision” setting out its intention of how much development is to be delivered, specifically housing development, it does not provide a positive framework for addressing housing need contrary to the NPPF (para 15). This failing is further perpetrated by the “Strategic Objectives” (see Section 3 of this Statement), which also does not address the scale of housing provision that should be delivered, also contrary to the NPPF (para 20). This underlines the importance of the” Vision” setting out the intentions for growth.
The “Vision” as set out at para 3.1 must be amended as follows (new test in red):

The policies and growth strategy in the new Plan will deliver the vision for what we want to achieve for Medway by 2040. Our thoughts for what this vision could look like are set out below. The vision encompasses all aspects of policies in the new Local Plan, including housing, transport, environment, retail, employment and waste and minerals.

Allied to this, a new paragraph must be added, or existing paragraphs amended as part of the “Vision” clearly setting out the intention of the Local Plan to meet identified housing and employment needs. The 7th paragraph (un-numbered) could be amended as follows:
The Plan will seek to deliver 28,500 new homes to ensure the needs of all sections and ages of the community can find decent places to live. The quality of new development has enhanced Medway’s profile, and driven up environmental standards in construction, and older properties have been retro-fitted to improve sustainability. Custom and self-build housing has provided new living opportunities for residents. Investment in new services and infrastructure, such as transport, schools, healthcare and open spaces, has supported house building to provide a good quality of life for residents.

The proposed change aligns with the “Development Needs” (para 5.4), which as set out in Section 4 of this statement the Plan must seek to deliver on.

The outlined changes are essential to ensure the Plan is “Positively Prepared”, “Consistent with National Policy” and therefore “Sound” (NPPF, para 35).

The electors in Medway (as with the entire UK) have not been consulted as to whether they support the notion of Net Zero and the undoubted associated costs of this green tax and industry. Carbon and carbon dioxide are an essential component of existence. Plants require CO2 to photosynthesise. Net Zero is the new 'ice age' of the 1960s, ozone hole of the 80s and has become a cult religion. Let the people decide if they wish to be shackled to the requirements of this fear factory. My advice is don't build on a flood plain.

Improved and expanded use of the river Medway which is a natural, convenient resource would provide a boost to businesses, transport options and leisure activities. Public transport is poor, in particular access to the Medway City Estate. Could river transport and pier access be improved to facilitate access to the Medway City Estate for freight, commuters and customers?

In order to connect to the countryside, countryside settings should be preserved, preferably not built on. Where development does take place, it should enhance connections to countryside. e.g. Public footpaths should not be reduced to the bear minimum of access. An example of a bad outcome is the GB12 path that links Rainham High Street (A2) to Moor Park Close. This footpath is a narrow alleyway between two residential developments. It is unwelcoming and unsafe. Public footpaths should maintain a rural feel, they should be accessible and welcoming and provide a safe and enticing route to the wider countryside.

The “Vision” for Medway encompasses broad policy principles for the future emerging Local Plan covering transport, employment, the environment, retail, waste and minerals.

It is noted that the “Vision” seeks to provide more sustainable and resilient development, strengthen and enhance the character of Medway including supporting green infrastructure, creating a healthy place in which to live and work, and providing decent places to live for all sectors and ages of the community. It further highlights Medway as a leading economic player in the region where it can support the business space attracting new investment. Alongside development, there should also be the provision of improved travel choices and infrastructure provision.

However, the “Vision” is silent on its intention to meet its identified housing needs. It is similarly silent on its intention of addressing economic/employment needs. Indeed, the overarching principles for the “Vision” fails to identify housing at all (para 3.1) as forming an important component of the Plan.

Whilst the “Vision” talks in general terms about how development is to be provided, central to the “Vision” must be “how much development is provided” as a matter that is fundamental to the framework for growth and spatial strategy as a determinative matter. This is a significant failing, considering the “Context” identifies “the supply of new homes is central to the Local Plan” (para 2.7).
NPPF (para 15) states that:

The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings.

In the absence of the “Vision” setting out its intention of how much development is to be delivered, specifically housing development, it does not provide a positive framework for addressing housing need contrary to the NPPF (para 15). This failing is further perpetrated by the “Strategic Objectives” (see Section 3 of this Statement), which also does not address the scale of housing provision that should be delivered, also contrary to the NPPF (para 20). This underlines the importance of the” Vision” setting out the intentions for growth.
The “Vision” as set out at para 3.1 must be amended as follows (new test in red):

The policies and growth strategy in the new Plan will deliver the vision for what we want to achieve for Medway by 2040. Our thoughts for what this vision could look like are set out below. The vision encompasses all aspects of policies in the new Local Plan, including housing, transport, environment, retail, employment and waste and minerals.

Allied to this, a new paragraph must be added, or existing paragraphs amended as part of the “Vision” clearly setting out the intention of the Local Plan to meet identified housing and employment needs. The 7th paragraph (un-numbered) could be amended as follows:
The Plan will seek to deliver 28,500 new homes to ensure the needs of all sections and ages of the community can find decent places to live. The quality of new development has enhanced Medway’s profile, and driven up environmental standards in construction, and older properties have been retro-fitted to improve sustainability. Custom and self-build housing has provided new living opportunities for residents. Investment in new services and infrastructure, such as transport, schools, healthcare and open spaces, has supported house building to provide a good quality of life for residents.

The proposed change aligns with the “Development Needs” (para 5.4), which as set out in Section 4 of this statement the Plan must seek to deliver on.

The outlined changes are essential to ensure the Plan is “Positively Prepared”, “Consistent with National Policy” and therefore “Sound” (NPPF, para 35).

The Medway New Local Plan should factor in the well-being of existing and future residents, and preserves the heritage and beauty of our environment. Many communities and residents feel that the proposal to build 28,500 homes in Medway without adequate infrastructure to support such volume needs to back to drawing board. Notwithstanding, I welcome the steer for a third of these development to take place in urban areas, However, the proposal to put 3,600 flats at Chatham Docks would lead to overpopulation and overcrowding in the area, causing strain on local services in St Mary’s Island and Chatham Maritime.

This includes a significant increase in housing numbers, which some feel is not adequately planned for, given the already existing high demand on local infrastructure and services. These concerns represent the main factors in the public's opposition to Peel’s plan as currently presented. The plan needs to consider a balanced approach to population growth and infrastructure development.

I wish to raise strong objections to the current version of the Medway Local Plan which may be suggesting a significant increase in housing development at Chatham Docks. We believe that this is a poorly considered plan, contributing to overcrowded development and having substantial negative implications for the community, particularly those on St Mary’s Island and in the Chatham Maritime area.

Primarily, the significant addition of new housing threatens to drastically change the unique character of the Chatham Docks and surrounding areas. The proposed figures have potential to cause severe overcrowding, detrimentally impacting the aesthetic charm, heritage and spacious ambiance of our beloved locality. This dense development risks the quality of life for current residents, diminishing our enjoyment of our surroundings, and hindering prospective visitors and tourists.

Additionally, we believe that the extensive housing plan will place intolerable pressure on existing local services. It is paramount to ensure the ability of these services, including schools, healthcare, emergency, transportation, and utilities, to function effectively and sustainably in meeting the needs of the current population. Further development should not compromise their quality, capacity or availability.

We suggest an extensive and careful reconsideration of the current proposal for the New Local Plan. The impact of any proposed housing numbers should not overlook their consequent strain on infrastructure and the community at large. Decisions about the future of our community must involve thorough, consultative planning which factors in the well-being of existing residents and preserves the heritage and beauty of our environment.

In light of the aforementioned concerns, we ask for the re-evaluation of the current version of the Medway Local Plan. Let us focus on the sustainability, conservation and the enduring success of our area for generations to come, rather than hastily introducing an abundance of new homes without the infrastructure to support them. Let's make sure that our cherished Chatham Maritime remains a thriving, comfortable and welcoming community, rather than an overcrowded dockland.

Regarding the green Belt release, I urge consideration to be given to the proposal to build 2,649 homes on our Green belts. Green Belts often serve as habitats for diverse flora and fauna. Construction can cause irreversible harm to these ecosystems, pushing many species towards endangerment. Furthermore, many green belts contain fertile farmland that plays a critical role in maintaining local agriculture and food supplies. Green belts can absorb large amounts of water and prevent the local area from flooding, thus offering a natural defence mechanism against natural disasters.

The long-term vision for the River Medway should include increasing its potential as a sustainable means of transport. By introducing cleaner and greener options, we can mitigate traffic congestion, reducing air pollution while adding a picturesque commuting option. The Local plan should aim to enhance recreational facilities and attractions alongside the River Medway. This should include the improvement of public parks, river tours, sporting facilities, trails and more. With such enhancements, we hope to bolster local tourism and enhance the recreational enjoyment of the river for our community.

After long consideration of this initial presentation, my feeling is that this isn’t a plan for people living in Medway, it’s a plan for people who currently don’t. By focusing so much on new house building it misses completely the needs of people who live here now; they want services, infrastructure; health facilities and education for their children and grandchildren. Housing, housing and more housing makes it feel like a place I want to move away from and not a place I want to stay the rest of my life in. The emphasis needs to dramatically change.

More school places are needed to support increasing numbers of children and young adults being diagnosed with Autism and S.E.N.

Esquire Developments Representations

Sporadic, uncoordinated development in recent years
In this example I will refer to Rainham but it could be applicable elsewhere in the Medway area. Parts of the Rainham North ward, around Otterham Quay Lane and Lower Rainham Road have seen significant amounts of new housing development over the past five years. Building new homes for people who need them is not necessarily a bad thing, but the new housing does not appear to have included accompanying social infrastructure, principally: primary school places, expansion of GP services, local shopping and bus services. Worst of all, there appears to be no new footpath provision.
A very good example of this is the Bloomfields estate on the northern end of Station Road, Rainham. Station Road had suffered from narrow footpaths for a very long time. When the field on the north east of the road was developed into Bloomfields there was a fantastic opportunity to devote more space to pedestrian movement, and yet somehow the old narrow, not fit-for-purpose footways were retained. It was unfathomable why the Council didn’t seek such a simple measure, which would have only taken a few inches off the front gardens of some new houses, everyone lost out as the road remains an unpleasant walking environment, further encouraging local trips by car.
Transport and land use policy –
Facilitating “15 Minute Neighbourhoods” (or equivalent)
New development should aim to fulfil the ambition of the 15 Minute Neighbourhood (15MN) – another name may be more appropriate, in view of the misinformation surrounding the concept online. Places like Twydall, Park Wood and Walderslade although remote from their town centres, exhibit some characteristics of 15MN – key social infrastructure is available for most people in these areas within a 15 min walk of their front door. However, the availability of decent roads, parking and low residential densities contributing to poor public transport provision means that sadly, many do still choose to drive.
Cycle infrastructure
The Council and developers should build more pedestrian and cycling infrastructure: off-road cycle lanes, cycle parking and safe road crossings in the new developments and into the existing road layouts to encourage sustainable travel behaviour, particularly as new residents offer a chance for new habits to be created.
Severance
The road network can be a hostile environment to pedestrians and cyclists, with examples near Bowater roundabout, or Dock Road and the Northern Link Road around the Universities. The severance these roads cause must surely reduce local quality of life and economically discourage creation of secondary facilities, e.g. catering and entertainment facilities to serve the student market in Chatham Maritime.


Poor public transport
The poor state of public transport is recognised in the consultation document and there are many issues which can be resolved outside of the Local Plan to improve the frequency and speed of bus services. However, services will only improve significantly with policies to increase density of development to increase demand and reduce competition for road space.

Recognising the value of our land
Medway has lots to offer, its potential as a place to live and invest is massively overlooked as a result partly of its urban grain and polycentric settlements. However the Council needs to be a much stronger force in encouraging and insisting upon greater levels of sustainability in new development.
s.106 / tariffs
Across the South East of England currently there is relatively little space to build new housing. Medway and other parts of North Kent are considered to have some capacity available, although less than before – as seen in local house prices rapidly climbing towards the regional average.
Medway Council should recognise the value the area has to the development sector – it seems that the Planning department doesn’t recognise its negotiating position, possibly due to weak support from politicians during the era of Conservative control. With new leadership, whilst recognising commercial viability, the Council should be increasing the level of s.106 and any other levies available from developers and pursuing them for every last penny of it.

An imaginative approach to design and urbanism
St Mary’s Island – although benefitting from scale and public subsidy, the success of St Mary’s Island as a good example of place-making, with an emphasis on pedestrians and cyclists, and decent design should not be overlooked. I hope the Council can use SMI as an example to learn from on the Hoo Peninsula if land is released there for development.

Effects on existing communities
Moreover, recognition is needed of the impact of development on existing communities of the construction of new development – to use another example from Rainham North, Lower Rainham Road has been subject to numerous closures over recent months, increasing congestion elsewhere in the town and adding to journey times for local people. Development offers existing communities nothing in exchange – the development of new social infrastructure (whilst designated a mitigation, may often be perceived as an improvement) may help soften the impact of new housing. There is no evidence of such schemes in Rainham North. In fact, the children’s play area on the housing estate on Station Road includes a large sign informing non-residents that they are not allowed to make use of it. Further evidence that without a robust planning authority comprising strong political leadership, technical expertise and well-formed policy, developers are allowed to ride roughshod over existing residents of an area.
Neighbouring districts
Quality of life in Medway is at risk from the urban fringe being developed by neighbouring local authorities e.g. Lidsing / Bredhurst (Maidstone BC) and Rainham North (Swale). These plans should be challenged at all costs, and Medway’s own planning should not facilitate these potentially disastrous plans – particularly Lidsing. Developing parts of the Capstone Valley would only fuel that dreadful idea of a new ‘village’ near the M2.

Efficient use of land:
Town centre viability
To arrest the decline of the high street, I propose seeking to make the designated zones for retail in Chatham and Gillingham smaller than they are at present. In doing so, the remaining space will fill more vibrant and welcoming to sceptical local residents who currently have the means to stay away and use other facilities. I have set out a rationale below.
I would suggest 40-50% of the space was released for other activities, e.g. Gillingham High Street west of Canterbury Street and Chatham High Street east of Batchelor Street (but also releasing the old Debenhams / Alders site). The space released could be converted to decent family housing with parks, play areas and schools. Size, massing and scale of Rochester Riverside, especially if the old Tesco and bingo hall were included in the scheme, along with a re-alignment of Brook Street.
Chatham and Gillingham’s high streets are too long for the purposes they currently serve and are in a spiral of decline. Vacancy levels and general degradation mask the usefulness of these local assets, and deter those with disposable income to spend money and time in those centres, instead preferring out of town outlets or online shopping.
Also, there seems to be a surplus of car park land in both town centres, can more be released for development?
There has been a massive reduction in demand for some high street shopping facilities with a transfer to online or out-of-town facilities. In terms of these trends, previous planning decisions by the Council to allow the growth of sites such as Horsted Retail Park and Dockside, and local online distribution centres have hastened the decline of the traditional high street. Further development decisions on out-of-town or online retail should recognise the harm their approval would have on traditional urban centres.
Medway suffers from the polycentric nature of the settlement. Compare the quality and massing of Reading or Brighton centres (both serving similar populations to Medway) – part of their success is due to the presence of a single dominant centre, where core comparison retail functions have been consolidated. With this in mind, thinking more radically, could Gillingham town centre be scaled back even more significantly, replaced by housing, with functions relocated to Chatham, along with some relocated functions from out-of-town activities?
On the other hand, I’d suggest Rainham, Strood and Hempstead Valley are useful assets, public transport, walking and cycling connections to these locations should be prioritised.

Better use of low density suburbs
Much of Medway’s outer areas are low density and difficult to serve with public transport. More consideration should be given to the scope to assemble land from private gardens (subject of course to availability of land and local approval) to develop more intensive housing in such areas. However, any intensification of suburban areas needs to be combined with improved public transport links.

Biodiversity and agriculture
Some of the land around Medway is extremely rich fertile farmland, if lost then it would be hugely regrettable for our food security and preservation of Kent’s remaining agricultural heritage. Agri-businesses looking to make high profits from selling farmland should be warned this is not possible, with a robust local plan and clear zoning.
Similarly the biodiversity of small sites should not be overlooked. Fields which appear scrubby and unproductive may include numerous florae and faunae not seen elsewhere. Careful investigation should be undertaken of this sites and developers forced to fulfil their obligations over biodiversity net gain.

I do not agree with the proposed use of green field sites. The proposal does not support a good quality of life for the Medway community and will put additional strain on health and education services which are already under stress and cannot safely manage demand

The “Vision” for Medway encompasses broad policy principles for the future emerging Local Plan covering transport, employment, the environment, retail, waste and minerals.

It is noted that the “Vision” seeks to provide more sustainable and resilient development, strengthen and enhance the character of Medway including supporting green infrastructure, creating a healthy place in which to live and work, and providing decent places to live for all sectors and ages of the community. It further highlights Medway as a leading economic player in the region where it can support the business space attracting new investment. Alongside development, there should also be the provision of improved travel choices and infrastructure provision.

However, the “Vision” is silent on its intention to meet its identified housing needs. It is similarly silent on its intention of addressing economic/employment needs. Indeed, the overarching principles for the “Vision” fails to identify housing at all (para 3.1) as forming an important component of the Plan.

Whilst the “Vision” talks in general terms about how development is to be provided, central to the “Vision” must be “how much development is provided” as a matter that is fundamental to the framework for growth and spatial strategy as a determinative matter. This is a significant failing, considering the “Context” identifies “the supply of new homes is central to the Local Plan” (para 2.7).
NPPF (para 15) states that:

The planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings.

In the absence of the “Vision” setting out its intention of how much development is to be delivered, specifically housing development, it does not provide a positive framework for addressing housing need contrary to the NPPF (para 15). This failing is further perpetrated by the “Strategic Objectives” (see Section 3 of this Statement), which also does not address the scale of housing provision that should be delivered, also contrary to the NPPF (para 20). This underlines the importance of the” Vision” setting out the intentions for growth.
The “Vision” as set out at para 3.1 must be amended as follows (new test in red):

The policies and growth strategy in the new Plan will deliver the vision for what we want to achieve for Medway by 2040. Our thoughts for what this vision could look like are set out below. The vision encompasses all aspects of policies in the new Local Plan, including housing, transport, environment, retail, employment and waste and minerals.

Allied to this, a new paragraph must be added, or existing paragraphs amended as part of the “Vision” clearly setting out the intention of the Local Plan to meet identified housing and employment needs. The 7th paragraph (un-numbered) could be amended as follows:
The Plan will seek to deliver 28,500 new homes to ensure the needs of all sections and ages of the community can find decent places to live. The quality of new development has enhanced Medway’s profile, and driven up environmental standards in construction, and older properties have been retro-fitted to improve sustainability. Custom and self-build housing has provided new living opportunities for residents. Investment in new services and infrastructure, such as transport, schools, healthcare and open spaces, has supported house building to provide a good quality of life for residents.

The proposed change aligns with the “Development Needs” (para 5.4), which as set out in Section 4 of this statement the Plan must seek to deliver on.

The outlined changes are essential to ensure the Plan is “Positively Prepared”, “Consistent with National Policy” and therefore “Sound” (NPPF, para 35).

Connectivity needs to be localised as well as regional. We need to get people walking, cycling and onto good quality public transport if this is going to be achieved.