3.2.1

It is admirable that brownfield sites are included as it is important that these are repurposed to meet housing need. However, it is devastating to see that multiple greenfield sites surrounding Lordswood and Hempstead are being proposed. This will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, air quality and mental wellbeing of residents. If the North Dane Way is further extended to meet with the M2J4, it will have a huge impact on the residents who live along this road with additional noise and pollution. The road is likely to become an accident hotspot.

I prefer option one with a few reservations but keeping Chatham Docks out and the protection of rural communities is paramount.

Paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) requires for plan-making, local planning authorities (‘LPAs’) should identify and update 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. Furthermore, specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the plan need to be clearly set-out.
The site owner of site HHH19 has confirmed that the site continues to remain available, developable and deliverable. Subject to its inclusion in the Local Plan, the site could become available in the first 5 years of the Local Plan period.
The Glossary of the NPPF defines deliverable and developable as follows:
“Deliverable: To be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years. In particular:
a) sites which do not involve major development and have planning permission, and all sites with detailed planning permission, should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that homes will not be delivered within five years (for example because they are no longer viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans).
b) where a site has outline planning permission for major development, has been allocated in a development plan, has a grant of permission in principle, or is identified on a brownfield register, it should only be considered deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years”.
“Developable: To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development with a reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged”.

Respectfully, the Council’s conclusion that the allocation of HHH19 could lead coalescence between settlements, and which forms a reason for not including it, is misguided. Site HHH19 is located between brownfield sites, that do not form individual settlements and in reality, the allocation of HHH19 as an infill plot has the benefit of enhancing the existing settlement form by better connecting residential and employment uses; whilst also offering biodiversity improvement on the site,
The conclusion drawn by the Council that the site is beyond walking distance to public transport is not agreed with. Indeed, the preapplication response letter from the head of planning and one of his senior planners dated 21 April 2021 identified “This area of land would be an ideal location for such a development given its proximity to the transport network and vehicular connectivity.”; going on to say: “it would be beneficial to now look at a footpath link from Bells Lane along to the proposed business hub site and the nursery.”; whilst a footbridge adjoining the site could also offer potential improved connectivity.
The sustainability appraisal identities that the site has a negative benefit in terms of leisure facilities. However, this conclusion it not considered to be appropriate given that site HHH19 immediately adjoins the Deansgate Leisure centre which is located immediately to the west.

The site proposed for development on Land at Flanders Farm (site HHH19), having already been supported in the Land Allocations Assessments (LAA) document, as a potential site allocation in the Future Medway Local Plan 2040 should be allocated in the forthcoming plan. If not considered to be a residentially led scheme over the whole site, the Council should consider the scheme to be employment led, with the addition on residential development.

Expansion of Allhallows would be counter productive because there's already properties which have been for sale for a long time without selling, even new builds. The area between Binney Road and Stoke Road continually flood, there are numerous water pipe leaks on the way to the village, power outages are fairly frequent so the infrastructure is at breaking point already. It only needs an incident on the main road onto the peninsula to completely gridlock the whole area. All this without even mentioning the impact it will have on the local wildlife.

My preferred option would be option 1

I agree with option 3 as the preferred development option. However how I do not believe that you can enforce a brownfield first approach without substantial subsidy from central Government and that development in the periphery such as Capstone Valley can be dome without significant infrastructure spend in road and traffic alleviation.

Medway's current traffic management approach is a total joke and ignores what every resident can see for themselves that squeezing more traffic into confined spaces is a receipe for traffic chaos and will severely impact existing residents.

From your documents the Capstone Valley needs/will have:
significant mitigation for climate change,
significant impact on biodiversity
greatest impact on landscape
significant increase in vulnerability to groundwater pollution
notable depletion of natural resources
no access to existing public transport
greatest distance from educational establishments
notable distance from existing employment
There are may negatives and not enough positives. It seems the council are being swayed by number of houses and nothing else.
The Capstone Valley is surrounded by ancient woodland and together with the above should be removed from all the options whether partial or full development.

SGO 2 is the best way forward as it leaves Chatham docks in place.

Brown field only not green spaces/farmland in lordswood, Rainham or hoo.

I prefer Option 3.

Blended, to include expansion of river and managed houseboat areas.

The Council’s assessments on land next to my house in Allhallows are filled with inaccuracies about the land’s condition and the local area, revealing how out of touch Medway Council is. Instead of trusting these misleading reports, it’s clear that focusing on urban areas—such as in SGO 1 - Urban Focus—is a better option. This plan aligns with existing infrastructure, providing closer access to jobs, schools, and essential services, and reducing pollution and traffic. Building on brownfield sites is a more sustainable choice for climate change and environmental benefits, compared to developing green spaces, which is the least effective option.

The urban plan makes most sense to me as it has less impact on the existing infrastructure. However, public services are a real concern.
I also worry that Hempstead is going to end up being so closely connected to Lordswood that there will be no open land between them

I can see why the council prefer this option as it appears to be a compromise. However the challenge that still remains is our housing target. The evidence shows that this large amount of development in a small geographical area will result in adverse impacts on our climate, our GHF emissions, on our biodiversity. There will be significant impact on Landscape, negative impact on pollution and waste, negative impact on our community's Health and Wellbeing. Agreement that development is necessary and needed but not to the extent that it has negative impacts on existing residents and new communities.

I support option SGO 3

CDOCKS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A BROWNFIELD SITE. The loss of jobs would weaken Medway's economy and the site also has problems when considering housing, not least from the traffic and fumes.. flood risk etc.
Any strategy should protect this site and allow it to be enhanced for jobs alone. Peel is looking at the profits they could make, while still leaving signs of its own strategy i.e. saying the land is non viable and then asking for government help in flood derisking etc. If IPM is a total failure how can the council decide to let this site go?

The efficient use of brownfield sites is of primary importance, so that we are not wasteful of our developed land, moving on to fresh ground because it is easier to develop, but we cannot fill it with too high a density of population, with the risk of social unrest and unhappiness.

I cannot understand the need to develop further on the green lung. With East Hill, Gibraltar Farm and potentially Lidsding, a total of 3550 new houses how will the lung continue to perform. It goes against the idea of limiting damage to biodiversity and despite the risk of flooding where is the water coming from? The Envirionment Agency estimates that without further building Medway will reach continuous drought conditions by 2050. What are the plans to prevent this? With climate change already happening very quickly I am worried about how this will impact the area

I would object to the development sites proposed in Hempstead. The roads are already clogged up at busy times and further development will only make things worse leading to more congestion and pollution. The loss of green space will negatively affect the local wildlife and also remove areas currently enjoyed by the community for walking, cycling, exercising their dogs etc. The loss of viable farming land is also short sighted when we're looking at greater strain on our food supplies due to global events.

Since moving to Medway in 2007, the traffic and congestion has become worse year in and year out. It is unreasonable to plan to add to this any further, particularly without the proper infrastructure in place. For example, my children were not allocated their closest grammar school so we have to drive 4.5 miles to their school. On a good day, it takes 25 mins to get them there by car. A bus journey would take well over an hour. We don't need a further 28,000, possibly more, cars on our pot holed roads. There will be so much more pollution with all the extra cars and tarmacking over farmer's fields and building on them will cause flooding issues, drive away wildlife and turn the few areas of unspoilt land into a sprawling urban, litter covered mess.

In an ideal world your choice of SG03 is the right one. The only problem I see is the additional costs involved in developing housing on brownfield sites that may increase both build costs and time. Green sites offer a quicker return for their investment for developers. You will be fully aware of this challenge but hope you can achieve the proportion of brown sites coming on stream so that the use of green field sites is limited

Any more development on the Hoo Peninsula Must have significant new road infrastructure. Too many tines our lives come to a standstill because we only have one route in.

The use of truly brownfield sites that are closed or derelict is positive. It's a shame that functioning business areas like Chatham Docks are categorised as brownfield. It is regrettable that we cannot have an SGO 3 that safeguards the maritime nature of the businesses at Chatham Docks.

The government is committed to protecting the best agricultural land. We need to be as self sufficient with food as we can, particularly considering changing politics and wars overseas and a growing population and the possibility of future pandemics.
We are surrounded by grade 1 agricultural land and this must be protected.

SGO 1 is my preferred option. SGO 3 is not suitable in my opinion for various reasons. I am fully against this option.
I am happy to provide further explanation of my reasoning for this if you wished to contact me. In summary Allhallows does not have adequate infrastructure...road access, public transport, schooling space, childcare facilities, amenities.

The government is committed to protecting grade 1 agricultural land. We must be as self sufficient as possible with our food particularly considering the changing political climate and conflicts overseas, plus the high likelyhood of further pandemics with a growing population.

We must not therefore use agricultural land for development.

There is no assessment of the proposal for the residential led redevelopment of Chatham Docks. The Chatham Docks Employment Report considers the economic impact of a mixed-use redevelopment of Chatham Docks but in a superficial way without proper consideration of the loss of UK production of essential steel products. The issue is not adequately considered by the Sustainability Appraisal. Noting the very widely drawn strategic objective, the Council has so far failed to produce (or rely on) any evidence which properly appraises the proposed redevelopment.
A full representation is provided to planning.policy@medway.gov.uk

SGO 1 is my preferred option as there is already adequate infrastructure and amenities available. SGO 3 is not appropriate as there is not adequate infrastructure or amenities to facilitate a large amount of people/housing.

Fully agree

This option turns the Chatham Docks into flats. We need industry and employment here, not flats for the London salaried. Historic Rochester is already too heavily built upon given it is the jewel in the Medway crown and relies on heritage tourism, supported by the conservation areas and their lovely historic architecture, now threatened by ugle towers like Ironmonger's Yard. The development in Hoo look like large ink spots, what do these ink spots actually mean? There is one arterial road for access and this will inevitably cause problems as there around 9 inkspots adjacent to this roadway.