3.2.1

Building in the Capstone Valley, Riverside and Darland are the most stupid ideas put out there. They are the most important areas of green space available on the Chatham, Gillingham, Rainham side of the river. In fact, they are pretty much the only significant green spaces left. Building on these 3 areas will be significantly detrimental to the environment.

You cannot say that the environment is important in the same breath as saying you want to build on the only green spaces left in Medway on the south side of the river. You only have to look at a map of the developed areas of Medway to see that proportionately, there is very little green space left.

Looking at this topic none of the options are really great but the least worst option for me would be the blended option which increases housing across Medway and not just the areas where there is already too much development. I can foresee a lot of opposition from areas where there is a high percentage of more desirable properties but sharing the burden is much fairer and we need much, much more social housing especially in the areas which have had luxury homes overlooking the Medway or rural areas. Making communities more diverse.

Affordable housing for local people is the priority, thus reducing the need for renting and improving the quality of life people have, thus more money in their pockets thus helping the local economy.

Existing approvals for housing on greenfield such as East Hill and Gibraltar Farm in the Capstone Valley go totally against the policy of not allowing housing that will place an inappropriate strain on local and rural roads.
There is so little green space left in Medway south of the river. It’s all very well saying that only a certain percentage is urbanised, but most of that is concentrated in one area. And the non-urbanised percentage includes areas that are not even possible to develop such as marshland. This warps the figures in favour of more building on greenfield.

I am concerned that the term "brownfield site" can be used to avoid scrutiny as people assume that "brownfield sites" are derelict and there is no downside to their development. I note that SG03 appears to include the development at Chatham Docks and would include the closing down of thriving businesses that provide valuable employment in primary industries as well as secondary employment for related service industries. There appears to be plenty of spare capacity south of basin 1 and basin 2 for the sort of light commercial operations that are proposed for basin 3 (there is an undeveloped pier and machine shop 8 remains undeveloped. The Natwest building has been abandoned and much of the office space south of basin 2 is empty). Basin 3 is an important and valuable piece of infrastructure that should be maintained. The businesses at the docks will not commit spending money on maintenance and development until they have security of tenure.

Their should be no development on greenfield sites until all brownfield and existing sites are exhausted. All new developments should include solar panels on roofs or parking structures to enhance green credentials and move towards net zero.

I can not see how this can be achieved by adding to the population. Main roads are clogged already as there is little alternative routes. Cars on pavements, reduce flow through side roads. Not sure how that achieves net zero. By contemplating building on greenfield or reducing farmland will drastically reduce wildlife and the space people have to relax and destress. Antisocial behaviour, littering etc will increase. Attractions need excellent public transport and/or parking facilities. Good quality of life also includes decent housing, not rabbit hutches, feeling safe to walk out after dark, a functioning hospital, GPs and dentists etc.

SGO2. It’s not all about building affordable housing. If you close the docks you are making people unemployed, they won’t be able to buy the houses you intend to build. Hundreds of jobs will be lost. In fact one of the businesses located at the docks makes the reinforcement needed to build houses. You have a thriving business on your door step. Local deliveries no need to import from other countries. The houses built need to be affordable for local people, and infrastructure must be a priority. Medway towns are a nightmare to travel around already.

My preferred option is 1, Urban Focus. Any new housing should be built on brown field sites within Medway. We need our green spaces for health and well being as well as producing food for our country. Many of our wild areas are needed as natural habitate for endangered species and must not be touched. Any new housing developments also need to have the appropriate infrastructure, Doctors Surgerys, Schools, local shops and amenities. Medway also needs a new hospital as the current one is not fit for use (I recently waited 14 months for an appointment which resulted in a heart bypass operation).

As an environmental consultant, I feel that this preferred spatial growth option would be significantly damaging to the local wildlife in addition to the wellbeing of the people in the area. There is a very clear link to wellbeing and access to green spaces and in turn it would go against the climate action incentives outlined earlier in the document. There needs to be an emphasis on retrofitting old properties, looking at sites which won't impact on the local environment or the biodiversity of the area. I am shocked to think that as a council that has declared a climate emergency the preferred option is one where only half would be on brownfield sites. These greenfield sites are not only important as habitats, but should be considered a key part of Medway's placemaking strategy. They should be protected at all costs, and seen as a health & wellbeing priority for the local community.

A detailed economic analysis should be performed to identify which option is best with the 2041 objectives in mind. Solving to maximise {council tax revenue, GDP per capita} and to minimise {carbon emissions, GINI coefficient} would be ideal, in my opinion, from the Council's perspective.

SGO 1,2 and 3 are likely to have very differing outcomes. SGO1 would force medway's economy to be upgraded to higher GDP per capita output, simply by moving lower-value businesses out of centrally-located, prime real estate. SGO2 would likely cause the greatest environmental damage, but would likely not upgrade Medway's economy, mainly delivering more housing.

I do not support Medway Council's preferred option because it gives a green light to build over swathes of green land. I am strongly against development in the area of countryside extending from Capstone up to Lidsing - the entire area of beautiful countryside, hills and valleys that separates Lordswood from Hempstead.
This is the prettiest area of countryside we have left in Medway and it holds the original character of how Medway once looked. I would like to remind Medway Council that England is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and this will deplete it further.

Please consider derelict buildings eg the numerous empty offices at Dockside and innovation centre Rochester to change into flats before you kill anymore wildlife and orchards and green space
Leave Rainham alone it’s far too build up pollution is extremely high

The Capstone Valley needs to be protected at all costs. It’s one of the few remaining open spaces south of the river in Medway authority, and plays an important part in preventing Hempstead and Lordswood being joined in one huge urban mass. It’s too far from mainline railway to be of use to commuters necessitating reliance on cars. The bus network is woeful in Lordswood, esp if you want to get to anywhere except central Chatham in anything resembling a timely fashion.
And the Capstone valley is even more important to the area since Maidstone includes Lidsing in their plan.

Right approach. The core 5 towns of Medway need urban renewal/ regeneration. This should extend to Rainham precinct (large site desperate for high quality shops and flats). Chatham and gillingham high streets need to be developed to attract footfall/ increase safety. Any green field housing should be on the Hoo peninsula. They have the space for the infrastructure to be built in properly to ensure roads/ sustainable transport networks are there from the start! New housing in the core 5 towns should be prioritised along transport corridors.

Tend to agree with SGO 3 as a preferred option, but will requre necessary options to support sustainable travel and accessibility for all and the associated amenities for a community to avoid excess extra travel. Will cost of utlity connections and road network access affect affordability for the more remote locations and accessibility to senior schools, medical facilities. There seems to be more on the Isle if Grain, which has important migrating habitat locations. Assume sea level rising wouldn't require excessive expenditure for flood defence for the option chosen and impact of additional hardstanding.

The maps provided in this section lack specificity and are arbitrary without a good key. What do the circles represent? It is impossible to tell from these maps exactly what land would be considered for development.

Dispersed is preferred as it will attract more developers to the Unitary Authority's conorbation.

Medway is already densely developed with inadequate supporting infrastructure.SG 01 must be the least worst option to minimise the detrimental impact of the imposed development you are required to provide for.

I accept the preferred option but on the condition that brownfield is still considered first. There runs a risk that developers will all rush for the greenfield sites because they are easier to complete rather than those brownfields that may need some environmental remediation work done beforehand. I urge the council to ensure that this plan doesn't end with all of the considered greenfield sites built on but only some of the brownfield.

TMBC welcomes MC’s in-principle commitment at this stage to seek to make provision for Medway’s development needs over the plan period. TMBC supports MC’s preferred strategy of SGO 3 (Blended Strategy) to meet the development needs, due it’s ‘brownfield first’ approach whilst providing a range of housing choice.

TMBC would also welcome clarity on the precise potential quantum of growth that would be delivered through SGO 3, as well as information on potential yields of sites identified in the Policies Map. This would enable detailed consideration of potential cross-boundary issues such as, for example, the impacts of growth on the local highway network and the consequential impacts on local communities.

over 40% of housing allocated to Hoo something you dont make clear so once again misleading the public and is probably the most harmful

Living on the Hoo Peninsula, I would prefer SGO1 (Option 1) as there has been too much housing development already here. We cannot have any more development unless the current population is supported by vital services and infrastructure. Road infrastructure and other services and very importantly health services need to be in place BEFORE any further housing development.

The roads that pass those areas are inadequate, at the least, one lane wide. Will the road be widened to two lanes and how will you do that without causing issues to the other residents of Ham Lane? Secondly, the ransom strip road, between Gibraltar Farm and Lordswood, will this be given over to alleviate traffic through Lidsing and Hempstead?

The development of land in the Capstone Valley should be carefully considered. It is the ‘lungs’ of the Medway Towns. There are flooding risks on Capstone Road which will be exacerbated by development. Capstone Road is a country lane where large vehicles are unable to pass in places. There are already restrictions on the size of vehicles in this area. Loss of green space should be avoided and I believe that all brownfield sites in Medway should be exhausted before green field development is considered for health, environmental and social reasons.

3.2 to be honest is about building anywhere you like. Hempstead will suffer dreadfully and we haven't got the roads to cope with the amount of housing being planned not only now but in your plan. Maidstone is on our doorstep and are planning to build on most of the fields available in lidsing. The roads are not and we're never meant for the traffic these housing will bring. You say about promoting sustainable travel, is there such a thing, if so, what is it. People will only use their cars, petrol or electric, it will never be anything else.

SGO 3 should not be considered due to the amount of farm land that it would use, the amount of current homes that it would devalue, and the stress on the small villages it would cause. This stress not only being the residents that live there, having their surroundings destroyed by development but also the fact that there isn't enough infrastructure to allow for more homes and people. Urban development SGO 1 should be the only option. Drag the towns up to standard before destroying our countryside.

I support option 3 provided it comes with appropriate infrastructure upgrades BEFORE we are over run with new houses.

It doesn't appear to be possible to zoom in on the details on the maps to see what they are showing in detail? They remain distorted.