Policy T2: Housing Mix

Any new housing must include a non negotiable ration of affordable housing. Together with water recycling and solar panels to reduce strain on infrastructure and reduce the carbon/environmental costs.

More medium sized homes for families or even bungalows for the older generation as this will free up the family 3 bed styles homes already built.
As we know if an older person or couple want to downsize at this moment there are not enough available smaller homes / bungalow for sale, so therefore staying put in the family home thus not helping the housing market move around.

Badly need bungalows for older people that require them. My mum has been trying to sell her 6 bedroom family home for a 2 bedroom bungalow, but so many have been converted to chalet bungalows with the bedrooms upstairs, making them useless for people who want a single story bungalow.

To have Affordable Housing on developments of only 10 or more means 99% of developments will have Affordable Housing. This is too low a number. Sadly ‘Affordable Housing’ is rarely maintained as it could and should be and this is unfair to the private owners who have paid a top price for their property and want to keep the area looking as it should. This is not snobbery as I was bought up on a Council Estate where fortunately my parents looked after their property. Therefore the minimum number of units should be raised before ‘Affordable Housing’ is built.

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

Support. Latest evidence is the best way forward

I would like to stress the importance of new bungalows. As someone with a disability that may leave them wheelchair bound in the future, the lack of bungalows already and the lack of new bungalows on new developments is of great concern.

We need a limit to the number of HMOs that can be present in any one street. Our small street has 3 children's homes and multiple HMOs, meaning the pressure for a parking space is huge, and quite often we have to park half a mile away from home. The children's homes are effectively businesses, with carers coming and going at all times. A good mix of use of the houses would ensure the pressures of HMO's are distributed more widely.

Previously, ALL, new developments in Medway have promised affordable housing, BUT they all went to London Boroughs. Where is the advantage to Medway residents? How can you ensure that the same will not happen with this development? One of your selling points is homes for medway residents….this will not be the case!

Tenure mix should be 50/50 split. this is to address the historic under delivery of the social and affordable housing needs in Medway. the focus of the plan should be to address Medway;s housing issue and address London's housing issue by migration of the London commuters to Medway.

I do not believe over building on and around the capstone valley is in the best interests of the Medway residents. With Maidstone’s local plan to build in Lidsing already receiving approval, this will turn the area into one large concrete ‘jungle’. There will be no green space left in the area whatsoever. The road network in this area is not fit for purpose as it is.

Unfortunately the houses on the Hoo peninsular are not affordable for our young children to get mortgages on. They are not being built to be environmentally friendly, ie not enough parking spaces, no garages, no solar panels, very small gardens indequate space for emergency services to gain access when there is parking on the road. There are no maisonettes, bungalows being built that would be affordable to the older people in the community to downsize. As the transport network is appalling it is difficult to access nearby services. We have 2 shops in the village, the doctors surgery is virtually closed and the doctors in Hoo rarely give out appointments on the day, it has a telephone backlog each morning at 8 am for appointments and when you finally get out of the queue all appointments are taken.

Agree but also Section 106 agreements must be in place for the development of ring roads if necessary

Developing Medway is not creating new affordable housing for locals residents but for either remote landlords or for those migrating in from more expensive areas thus driving the local population up. This applies to all developments in Medway and is seen on a regular basis. Having known someone who purchased a new build here these homes are VERY poor quality. Selected builds on a site are shown to inspectors which is of standard but the rest of the builds are substandard. More snap inspections are needed and sell only to Medway residents who have been residents for 3-5 years.

Former St John Fisher site (city way). Ideal for resi and/or mixed use development. Located close to existing services and facilities.

In response to Q10

This policy will need to be compliant with the draft NPPF (July 2024), particularly with regard to the emphasis on Social Rent homes (NPPF paragraphs 63 and 64) and the need for a minimum proportion of Social Rent homes required.

However, setting a target is not enough. The Council will be aware that the development industry is already not building the houses it has planning permission to build. In Kent alone, there are some 86,262 houses either with planning permission or identified within five-year supply statements ready to be built, yet currently the industry is only delivering 8,624 new houses a year. Of these, only 13.1% are affordable houses under the current definition, reducing to 8.6% which are genuinely affordable houses managed by Registered Providers.

Targets do not build homes. How will the Council ensure that affordable homes get built, without delivery delays (to market housing)?

We are pleased to see that the housing mix policy takes account of the fact that the housing mix on a site needs to take account of the size, location and characteristics of the site, rather than simply applying a blanket policy. It is essential to the viability of any scheme that there is market demand for the type of housing proposed. We support this overall approach.

We are however concerned at the requirement for all development schemes to demonstrate consideration of custom and self-build plots as part of the mix. On brownfield, predominantly flatted schemes, such plots are likely to be much less practical, as recognised in Policy T9. It would be helpful for this policy to cross-refer to T9 for clarity.

Welcome the opportunity for consultation . Families getting evicted from their homes because the Landlord wants to sell or re rent the property, and putting families into temporary accommodation can be uncertain as to how long temporary means and where are all these temporary housing units to be found, and we have other boroughs sending their young people here, and they are responsible for them.

6.1.2
Housing should be prioritised for local residents to enable Medway's growing families o be able to stay in the area. This will help with the care for the 'ageing' population as people will be able to care for their own families much of the time which would reduce the need for additional care homes.
6.2.3
Priority should be given to local residents first time buyers or residents wishing to move within the area. Social housing is becoming a 'lifestyle' choice for people who are able to - but are unwilling - to work.

No new housing needed. Say no to central gov.

Agree

We are pleased to see that the housing mix policy takes account of the fact that the housing mix on a site needs to take account of the size, location and characteristics of the site, rather than simply applying a blanket policy. It is essential to the viability of any scheme that there is market demand for the type of housing proposed. We support this overall approach.

We are however concerned at the requirement for all development schemes to demonstrate consideration of custom and self-build plots as part of the mix. Some sites will be better suited to self-build than others, depending on the characteristics and location of the site, and also the business model of the developer. We would object to any blanket requirement for self-build on all sites.

This is a load of old rubbish, there is no housing crisis and the population should not be growing at an alarming rate. That's on you, i would tell you where you can stick the property ladder aswell. We don't want for any types of new houses

Section 1.1.4 sums it up perfectly: protect greenfield sites, invest in infrastructure, and respect the identity of the historic towns and villages. There have been hundreds (thousands?) of new homes in Rainham in recent years, with lots more being built. Your SGO hints that there could be more to come, and this is just not sustainable. Roads and infrastructure cannot cope as it is, and it feels like Rainham will keep expanding until it merges with the surrounding villages. Please consider the burdens already placed on Rainham when you chose these new housing sites.

May I start by observing that your documentation is far from clear where residents and interested parties wish to make comments concerning specific issues.
The document does go into a lot of detail but is not easy to place comments which will confuse those wishing to comment.
Locking at the possible spacial options available in your document, then the third one would be Snodland Town Councils preferred option.
The councils comment on site ID CHR4 Form submission ID 253 are as follows:
This site was allocated for a possible new cement works at a public enquiry with the proviso that when the works were finished it reverted back to its previous usage.
If a minimum of 1000 new dwellings are built on this site then Snodland and Halling are being physically joined into one urban area.

AGREE

Perhaps there should also be a definite objective to house LOCAL people before London overspill as this is currently harming our sense of community and causing resentment .

We must have a wide ranging housing mix.
Catering for affordable single households, families with children and older people'.
Provision must be made for the travelling community.

I have lived in the Medway Towns my whole life and watched the very essence of the area be wiped out. Now more housing across farmland is proposed. Medway does not have the infrastructure for the building planned. Already it takes 40 minutes from Walderslade to Medway Hospital by road. Cars stationary for long periods. Damaging the environment. Medway Hospital is on its knees with the labour of work involved. Standards can slip. We need small affordable houses not the 4/5 bedroom that developers plan. Social housing is put in but repeatedly reduced. Small houses are needed by all mot specifically social housing. Schools GPs and all other infrastructure is needed for the current communities before we think of new housing. My grandsons GCSE Maths class was 50! How is that giving children a good start. It is not fault to be dished out GPs Teachers Hospital Staff are overwhelmed by demand

It is really important that we deliver housing that meets the needs of our communities. If there is more of a need for two bedroom housing then we must prioritise that over large, expensive 4/5 bedroom properties. It is also important that there is adequate supply of bungalows, appropriate for residents with mobility issues and for residents wanting to downsize in later life.