Policy DM5: Housing Design

All new housing must include solar panel provision and water recycling/rainwater harvesting to reduce strain on existing infrastructure.

Your vision for long term living, that a home will be for life, no need to move then I would assume that these new developments will have taken into consideration things like wider doors, possible adaptations in the future if the resident has a disability.

Level access into and from the house, like no raised front doors or raised access into the gardens or outside space.

Support the points. Would request a requirement for a minimum private open space. Either gardens or balconies etc.

Also need to cover to ensure that there are sufficient car parking spaces for the size of the size of the unit and that any garages are of a suitable size to fit a modern family electric car.

1 and 2 bedroom units should have at least 2 car parking spaces
3 and 4 bedroom units should have at least 3 car parking spaces
5 and larger should have 4 car parking spaces

The public transport is so poor in mediate, that car dependancies is very high

This is very important. Great design is achievable and will make a huge difference to how successful any new development will prove to be.

Developers need to be actually accountable for shoddy construction work. All the rest won't happen if this condition isn't met.

In a similar response to Policy T1, the criteria in this policy should be reconsidered as some of the criteria would be better suited to a more overarching strategic policy. The last criterion of DM5, is considered to be unnecessary, lacking clarity, and better suited to a strategic policy:
“All new accommodation must, in addition to the general design policy above (T1): ●Design for flexible living, successful places are robust and support 'long-life and loose-fit' neighbourhoods that are flexible and adaptable to rapidly changing circumstances. The physical and social infrastructure provision required to create sustainable communities have been considered”.

This criterion in this policy, setting out theadditional requirements for single aspect homes, seem more like a generic and vague aspiration than those based on a sound evidence base.

It is not clear why the requirement for dementia-friendly standards has been included in a general housing design policy. This policy requirement would be more relevant to Policy T4.

The M4 building standards for dwellings can be incorporated into Policy T2: Housing Mix, setting out the mix of M4 (2) and M4 (3) homes, which are all designed to adapt to various living situations.

We are concerned at the proposal that no more than 5% north-facing single-aspect homes within any one development will be considered. Whilst the premise of this policy is in accordance with paragraph 135 (f) of the NPPF, seeking to create places that are of a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, the hard 5% limit appears unnecessarily arbritary.

The last bullet point of the policy seeks a design for flexible living: successful places that are robust and support long life and loose fit’ neighbourhoods that are flexible and adaptable to rapidly changing circumstances. Our client has concerns regarding the deliverability of this part of the policy. What standards does the Council intend to apply to help determine whether something is flexible living, and what are the key design criteria for long-life and loose-fit neighbourhoods? The Council should consider the production of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or details within a Design Code to clearly set out how they wish housing standards to meet such fluid design criteria to help applicants understand what is required of a planning application which may help facilitate the long life and loose fit neighbourhoods set out in the policy.

Ultimately, the last part of this policy currently appears to be intangible. The Council needs to provide further guidance about how long-life and loose-fit neighbourhoods will manifest themselves in the Medway towns.

It is concerning that opening points on the vision for access and movement in Medway relate to working from home. It is not appropriate for new residential dwellings to make provision for bespoke working-from-home facilities in residential dwellings where existing areas such as spare bedrooms and other locations in dwellings can be utilised to work from home given the portable nature of professional service work operating in laptops and other devices. We consider that the Council should pursue a policy pursuant to their current adopted policy (Policy ED 10: Working From Home), which sets out that working from home will be permitted provided that it can be demonstrated that there would not be any detrimental impact/effects on residential amenity, it would not impact upon traffic flows, vehicle parking or the erosion of the residential character of the area.

You're missing the point, we don't want a whole bunch of new people coming to the area so why would we be interested in you making sure the houses will be livable? Means we will find it harder to get doctors appointments, hospitals will suffer and such

Agree

It is not clear why the requirement for dementia-friendly standards has been included in a general housing design policy. This policy requirement would be more relevant to Policy T4.

The M4 building standards for dwellings can be incorporated into Policy T2: Housing Mix, setting out the mix of M4 (2) and M4 (3) homes, which are all designed to adapt to various living situations.

We are concerned at the proposal that no more than 5% north-facing single-aspect homes within any one development will be considered. Whilst the premise of this policy is in accordance with paragraph 135 (f) of the NPPF, seeking to create places that are of a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, the hard 5% limit appears unnecessarily arbitrary.

The last bullet point of the policy seeks a design for flexible living: successful places that are robust and support long life and loose-fit’ neighbourhoods that are flexible and adaptable to rapidly changing circumstances. Our client has concerns regarding the deliverability of this part of the policy. What standards does the Council intend to apply to help determine whether something is flexible living, and what are the key design criteria for long-life and loose-fit neighbourhoods? The Council should consider the production of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or details within a Design Code to clearly set out how they wish housing standards to meet such fluid design criteria to help applicants understand what is required of a planning application which may help facilitate the long life and loose-fit neighbourhoods set out in the policy.

Ultimately, the last part of this policy currently appears to be intangible. The Council needs to provide further guidance about how long-life and loose-fit neighbourhoods will manifest themselves in the Medway towns.

Cameron's "Bonfire of regulations" (see the Grenfell Report) has turned housing development into the wild west. Until Building Regulations are restored to pre-1980s levels, decent housing will continue to be solely for the richer members of society.

parking is an issue and spaces of 2 per property should be made

What about requiring house builders to install solar panels? Also where is the provision for charging points?

Wouldnt it be nice if all new developments had some small plots allocated for individual self builds, green buildings as well as some modern architectural gems (perhaps local architectural students could be invited to design some futuristic designs ).

Policy DM5: Housing Design:- In a similar response to Policy T1, the criteria in this policy should be reconsidered as some of the criteria would be better suited to a more overarching strategic policy. The last criterion of DM5, in particular, is considered to be unnecessary, lacking clarity, and would be better suited to a strategic policy:
“All new accommodation must, in addition to the general design policy above (T1): ●Design for flexible living, successful places are robust and support 'long-life and loose-fit' neighbourhoods that are flexible and adaptable to rapidly changing circumstances. The physical and social infrastructure provision required to create sustainable communities have been considered”.
This criterion, and the additional requirements for single aspect homes, seem more like a generic and vague aspiration than those based on a sound evidence base.

I am disappointed that this policy makes no reference to promoting Green Energy in new housing developments.

Recent builds have been too small, of poor quality and with little or no garden or parking. I have known several people have purchased new builds and all have been disappointed with the quality of the build which has fallen way short of what was promised. Coming from a building family I have been appalled at what has been revealed as being acceptable building standards. We should learn from Grenfell that developers, materials suppliers and inspectors have fallen short of the standards required to produce quality builds. The new builds of today will be the slums of tomorrow.

I am very concerned that no reference is made to promoting Green Energy in most new housing developments.

New housing developments should ensure high-quality, adaptable homes that support family life and daily activities. However, the current approach of cramming numerous houses into small spaces fails to meet these standards. These developments often lack the necessary room for families and typically provide only limited space for two small cars on the driveway. The focus seems to be on meeting unrealistic numerical targets rather than prioritising quality and functionality. This approach undermines the living conditions of future occupants and shows a disregard for the practical needs of families.

"Demonstrate sufficient space for storage and drying clothes." This is really important for health and welling being. If we want residents to recycle they need to have the space and facilities to store. Also such a "simple" thing as drying clothes is important to again have facilities and space to do so. Really want to see housing come forward with solar panels which we are not seeing enough of.

All developments should have amenity space or be very close to it. The 5m2 is a good measure. Permitted Developments Rights must be opposed and rejected within Medway. All single aspect flats should have shade screening or considerations given to mitigate solar gain.

All new houses should have solar panels where possible. Also energy efficiency should be a top consideration.

I am glad there is recognition of the limitations of quality of housing aver the last fifty years!
I definitely approve of the limit to North-facing single aspect homes and the provision of sufficient natural light.
Excellent points again.

This sounds very standard.
Medway would then clearly consider a 6% north facing single aspect dwelling to be desirable?

Ensuring that new developments meet national space standards and prioritise natural light is essential for creating healthy living environments. I particularly appreciate the focus on adaptable homes and including natural features, such as green walls and rooftop gardens. These elements align perfectly with my support for sustainable building practices, providing reassurance that the proposal is on the right track. I would encourage even more emphasis on Passive House standards to enhance energy efficiency further and promote communal spaces in developments without extensive gardens to foster social connections.