Prepared for a sustainable and green future

It is CPRE Kent’s overall view that the strategic objectives are largely positive with a strong emphasis on the need to conserve and enhance the natural, built and historic environment, which aligns with CPRE Kent’s goal of protecting the countryside. However, it is important that these objectives translate into firm actions and policies that prioritise the environment over development.

For example, whilst the Plan talks about improving transport networks, it should also consider the impact of transportation infrastructure on rural areas. Building more roads will lead to increased car dependant development and urban sprawl in rural areas, which can negatively affect the countryside.

This is a particular concern that we have with respect to the Hoo Peninsula, as made clear within our responses to the various HIF related consultations we have previously participated in and our 2023 Regulation 18 comments.

While we support the aspiration for high-quality homes that genuinely meet the housing needs of Medway, it is our view that there should be a far greater emphasis within the strategic objectives of redeveloping brownfield sites over greenfield sites.
We welcome the placement of delivering the Council’s commitment to the Climate Emergency at the top of the proposed strategic objectives. However, we would like to see this expanded to include meeting the ecological emergency.

In this regard, it is CPRE Kent’s view that the countryside itself can provide many of the solutions to tackling climate breakdown and the ecological emergency, while supporting rural communities and economies to thrive. Development should meet local need, while contributing to efforts to mitigate and adapt to the climate emergency.

Sustainable development needs to be redefined to focus on living within environmental limits and the importance of addressing the climate emergency. At the national level, CPRE is campaigning for all new development to demonstrate a net negative carbon footprint, and for all plans and infrastructure programmes to demonstrate how they will achieve a reduction in total road transport, not just the need to travel, and that climate action is a key test of soundness in the examination of all development plans.

We therefore consider that the new local plan will need to give ‘positive discrimination’ towards the environment by giving clear priority to policies which seek to mitigate climate change.

For Medway, fundamental to this will be ensuring that the overall strategy for the local plan is firmly focused upon optimising the recycling of land that has already been used for buildings by adopting a truly ‘brownfield first’ strategy. This will need to be put at the forefront of developing the Plan, so that it is clearly reflected within each of the Plan’s objectives.

Alongside this, we would expect to see ring-fencing of all environmental measures within the local plan viability appraisal as being non-negotiable fixed costs. This should include the need for all new-build residential development to be designed to achieve zero carbon homes, with a requirement for detailed carbon assessments demonstrating how the design and layout of the development has sought to maximise reductions in carbon emissions, a water efficiency standard of less than 100 litres and ensuring significant improvements in the dwelling emission rate over the target carbon dioxide emission rates.

We would also expect to see proactive policies that increase the area of habitats that sequester and store carbon and those which support projects for retrofitting existing building stock. Again, this will need to be clearly reflected within the objectives of the Plan.
Overall, the proposed objectives show a commitment to environmental sustainability, but it's essential to ensure that these objectives are effectively translated into precisely worded policies and actions that prioritise the protection of the countryside and its unique ecosystems. Furthermore, robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that development does not come at the cost of rural landscapes.

This isn't sustainable and green. This will cause more pollution and harm to the environment than is needed, who came up with this rubbish that this is in any way eco friendly?

The strategic objectives do not deal expressly with the amount of housing that needs to be delivered. In the absence of clearly setting out what the housing requirement is and whether the Plan is looking to meet Medway’s needs (which it should), the process of using the currently drafted objectives to inform the Council’s assessment of different sites and locations for development cannot be considered as “Positively Prepared” or “Justified”, contrary to the NPPF (para 35).

I agree with the aims of dealing with climate emergency , I feel that a reduction in the amount of cars in Medway would be a big help Cars are parked on pavements on both parts of a road on many roads in Chatham.
Making cars above people is wrong , it is getting to the point you have to walk in the road.

The strategic objectives do not deal expressly with the amount of housing that needs to be delivered. In the absence of clearly setting out what the housing requirement is and whether the Plan is looking to meet Medway’s needs (which it should), the process of using the currently drafted objectives to inform the Council’s assessment of different sites and locations for development cannot be considered as “Positively Prepared” or “Justified”, contrary to the NPPF (para 35).

Lepus Consultancy Report Appendices(Vol2) omits any climate change data thereby equating its impacts across rural and urban development, therefore all analysis is wrong.

The scale of the development proposal is at odds with most of the environmental-related policies within the same document, e.g. S2,S3,S4. It will significantly increase carbon emissions with over 20,000 new houses, plus the extra populations and their cars, especially on greenfield sites.

Planning policies are toothless regarding developers that renege on their infrastructure commitments post development-build. Many of your policies (e.g. 10.5.13) throughout this document mention planning application 'mitigation' which worries me.

Would be good to see recognition of food security as an issue linked to climate change and a commitment to preserve all grade 1 agricultural land in Medway. Would also like to see something like the One Planet Developments in Wales https://theoneplanetlife.com/what-is-one-planet-development-in-wales/

Not achievable and lack of people's need especially in rural communities who rely on their own private transport for independence with local roads and infrastructure lacking.

building in rural areas does nothing for the wildlife there it destroys it. And by building in rural areas you are putting more cars on the road as that is the only way you can get to amenities as public transport is a joke, so you are increasing polllution.

Please improve & increase cycle routes, walking, running & spaces.

Sustainable and green future must include all new and repurposed buildings to be connected to mains sewerage, have solar electric panels and batteries, have connection to fast broadband.
For young local people to be able to rent or buy property where they grew up there needs to be a requirement of 1&2 bedroom properties in each development. Some apartments and some bungalows to meet needs of young and elderly residents and free up the current stock of under occupied 3/4/5 bedroom homes

All new developments should be integrated with the existing developments.

All new buildings should have access to mains sewerage (many existing houses do not!), have access to fast broadband (currently many areas on the Hoo Peninsula do not) and be efficient with solar panels. The development of new sites, where possible, should facilitate existing houses being able to have the same accesses to mains sewerage and broadband.

Specifications for houses should allow for smaller houses to enable younger people to rent or buy, and for older people to move to, to reduce the stock of current under-occupied 3/4/5 bedroom homes.

Building all over the green fields around Capstone Country Park is not going to help the climate emergency. Greenfield sites should be saved. This area flows into the important National Landscape (formerly AONB) around Bredhurst and will adversely affect it as will increased footfall in this area and Capstone Park.

This will also adversely affect air quality. This was supposed to be a 'green lung' for this part of Medway not a concrete jungle with increased traffic.

I support the commitment to conserve and enhance assets of international and national importance for nature, with a specific focus on the KDNL.

I think building on the peninsula would be adding to pollution as the area is reliant on cars for transport.
Also any large amounts of building on the peninsula must cause harm to the environment and affect the
Protected SSSIs and other international known areas of environmental and scientific importance.
Not sure that will enhance our carbon footprint.

Chatham Docks utilities river-borne and sea-borne transport to receive raw materials and to send out finished products, a lower carbon alternative to road-based transport. If Chatham Docks is redeveloped as a residential led development, ArcelorMittal Kent Wire will be forced to relocate, likely outside the UK, leading to longer journeys for their steel products essential for UK construction projects, including those associated with sustainable energy development.

The carbon impact of this has not been properly considered by as part of the draft Local Plan process.

A full representation is provided to planning.policy@medway.gov.uk

Sustainability is one of the key words in this emerging local plan.
To protect and enhance our environmental assets protect air quality and
To build a more environmentally friendly infrastructure and everything must be 100% sustainable.

There is no climate emergency..

We should preserve biodiversity wherever possible but accept some loss for high quality economic development.
Faming land should not be built on under any circumstances unless the yields from that land can be demonstrated to be poor as to make it uneconomic to farm.
All measures should be taken to improve air quality across Medway where the proposed action can be demonstrated through evidence to improve air quality. This includes banning of the most polluting cars, vans, lorries and busses. Banning rather than taxing as taxing does improve air quality.

How in God's name can you improve on walking when most of the greener areas have no more than narrow country lanes?
Further to that how are you going to improve & develop transport networks run a new bus company?How on earth are you going to protect the natural environment assets when you are going to concrete over it all? What you propose is a load of old waffle 🧇.

This is an utter joke and the plan is full of holes. Yet again you are proposing to improve peoples lives by providing walking and cycling routes by desi crating the existing natural spaces. Doesn't stack up. People WANT natural places not specifically designed tarmac footways and cycle paths with a few token trees and grass planted.
What is the plan for protecting natural habitat and wildlife, No mention of the diverse wildlife that will be lost forever if this plan goes ahead.
As usual no consideration is given to the benefit of watching and observing wildlife on mental health.

Building more will increase population locally and will no be fit transport. This is only going to get worse with increase traffic coming to a standstill. There are already issue with traffic flow and more houses in lordswood and rainham will drastically increase this. Red routes have been put in place and to measure pollution but these are no effective measuring and planning for more goes again nts these ideas medway Council are currently in implementing.

The Local Plan claims to ensure the effective management of natural resources, including water and soil, improve air quality, and minimise waste. However, where I live, the water mains and sewage system constantly leak and have done so for decades. These issues can’t be properly fixed because the village has been beyond capacity for many years. I’ve lived here for almost 21 years, and every time I step outside, I can smell sewage. Instead of addressing these ongoing problems, the plan’s focus on building more homes only worsens the situation, directly contributing to environmental degradation and climate change.

The Medway river, needs to be part of our drive for a sustainable future. Clean enough to safely bathe in it and take part in water sports. Pump out facilities for river boats.

Safe interconnecting cycle routes from villages into the main centres would be such a wonderful addition: covid lockdown provided a vision of how idyllic it was to cycle on routes without the worry of cars.

ALLHALLOWS the carbon impact would actually increase a long global warming this would in time increase the risk of flooding as certain areas are still classed as flood plains.
Secondly would the EA /DEFRA support for seawall protection where needed in the foreseeable future.

You cannot say that you are working towards Net Zero and sustainable solutions when you intend to allow building to take place on agricultural land. The impact on future generations will be catastrophic as once this land is lost to concrete it cannot be recovered. This is a classic example of short termism, yes you may solve housing crises but a much more catastrophic crises by creating flooding both flash flooding and causing flooding for residents in Luton Rd, not just residents but for public transport as well. Not to mention that population numbers are in decline, empty houses?

I am keen to see improvements to air quality. It cannot be down to planting more trees as we have narrow streets so we need to change behaviour. Drivers need to be discouraged from sitting in their cars while parked with the engines running.

I am concerned around the continuing development of homes and businesses on existing flood plane however reducing flooding is highlighted here as an aspiration.

Chatham Docks utilities river-borne and sea-borne transport to receive raw materials and to send out finished products, a lower carbon alternative to road-based transport. If Chatham Docks is redeveloped as a residential led development, ArcelorMittal Kent Wire will be forced to relocate, likely outside the UK, leading to longer journeys for their steel products essential for UK construction projects, including those associated with sustainable energy development.

The carbon impact of this has not been properly considered by as part of the draft Local Plan process.

A full representation is provided to planning.policy@medway.gov.uk

"Sustainable travel" ie walking is not sustainable for the elderly. An octogenarian is not going to cycle to the supermarket in the rain. Public transport is dire, the only good transport is the railway. Buses are irregular and infrequent & unreliable. This needs to be addressed to carry the working population who pay tax to keep the economy going. There is nothing wrong with the air quality, I sniff an oncoming justification for a ULEZ type charge. Southern Water executives need to be held to account to improve waste water pollution. Not in the remit of Medway. Carbon impacts? Ridiculous.