Policy T11: Small Sites and SME Housebuilders

Small or large sites are not needed on the Hoo Peninsula anymore. We have had more than our quota over the years and without any infrastructure being added to cope with these developments. No extra doctors or dentists. There is an extra primary school but HOH secondary is bursting at the seams with no thought in where parents would park when taking and collecting their children. Main Road has become a joke before and after school hours. Grass verges churned up. What parking facilities are going to be put in place ?

Finally Hoo Sports Centre is in desperate need of a refurbishment. The pool is never emptied and cleaned anymore. Nothing has changed since my children were school age over 15 years ago ! Can I have an update on this please

Support. Good design should be essential.

Policy T11 ‘Small Sites and SME Housebuilders’, we support the inclusion of a policy which supports the provision of development by small and medium sized businesses, as these sites are often built-out quickly and support local jobs. Site HHH41 is considered to fall within the small site policy requirement and has an indicative capacity of 25 units. Its future development by a SME housebuilder would actively support the local economy.

While our client can see the benefit of a policy supporting SME housebuilders for smaller site development, the 60 unit cap seems arbitrary and potentially confusing. Whilst the support for SME housebuilders and small sites is welcomed, and important, it is unclear what practical effect this policy has as drafted. Would a high quality 61-unit scheme not be supportable?

Agree

While our client can see the benefit of a policy supporting SME housebuilders for smaller site development, the 60-unit cap seems arbitrary and potentially confusing. Whilst the support for SME housebuilders and small sites is welcomed, and important, it is unclear what practical effect this policy has as drafted. Would a high quality 61-unit scheme not be supportable? Why is there a need for a cap at all?

Again, more unnecessary and excessive building

We are concerned that there is no mention of community-led housing in the draft Local Plan, despite it extending to a period up to 2041.

Community-led housing development can help boost the supply of housing to meet Medway’s targets, as well as diversifying the type of housing being delivered or in the pipeline. Supporting the scaling up of community-led housing can also help increase the creation of genuinely affordable homes in Medway, providing more people with access to good-quality homes in thriving and connected communities.

Therefore we strongly urge Medway Council to put in place a specific policy that positively supports community-led housing.

A good example can be seen in East Cambridgeshire District Council’s Local Plan, through Policy LP5 (Community-led Development) which reads as follows:

‘The Council is very supportive of community-led development. This may include schemes involving housing, small business units and other appropriate uses. In principle, there will be a presumption in favour of genuine community-led development schemes, even on land not allocated for development and including on land outside of development envelopes, subject to meeting criteria (with further details on these criteria as set out in a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).’

The above-mentioned SPD outlines the following:

‘The District Council is generally supportive of community-led development…the affordable housing elements may be permitted outside development envelopes as an exception to normal policies of control where:

- The District Council is satisfied that (i) the scheme was initiated by a legitimate local community group, such as a Parish Council or Community Land Trust and (ii) the scheme has general community support, with evidence of meaningful public engagement
- It can be demonstrated that the scheme will be well managed and financially viable over the long term and that any benefits provided by the scheme can be retained by the local community in perpetuity
- An element of open market housing on the site will only be acceptable where it is demonstrated that it is essential to enable delivery of the affordable housing or other community benefits on the site’

AGREE

Perhaps planners should afford the small developers more flexibility with the planning - just like they do with big developers who seem to get away with falling short on their duties to the community .

Policy T11 ‘Small Sites and SME Housebuilders’, we support the inclusion of a policy which supports the provision of development by small and medium sized businesses, as these sites can be built-out quickly and support local jobs.

Abbey Developments supports the Council's policy of encouraging the development of small sites in the Borough.
Abbey Developments has a small site to the east of Rainham off Meresborough Road which could make a valuable contribution to meeting housing need. It is a sustainable site close to local amenities and services
It needs to be made clear in the new Local Plan that the site is proposed to be in an area which is no longer subject to restrictive policies of landscape protection which have prevented its development.

I would like to see planning applications approved for back garden developments in rural areas eg Hoo Peninsula similar to that given in villages.

Also, I note that applications for individual homes are turned down in The Peninsula for 'sustainability' reasons and yet developer schemes close by are given the go ahead when placed before Committee against advice from the planning officer tasked with the application eg, Hollies & Toilers Croft on Sharnal St both on the Peninsula - a clear inconsistancy.

I believe that the locations for housing developments need a serious review, as many of your reports are inaccurate. Building fewer houses in certain areas would be more beneficial than cramming 50 into a space meant for only 30. The focus should be on constructing reasonably sized homes with adequate gardens and driveways. This approach would ensure better living conditions and make more efficient use of space.

I think small sites and SMEs should be encouraged in that they are usually local people undertaking these and are usually built to a higher standard than the large National companies who bring builders in from elsewhere in the country.
I have known people who work on large sites/companies who showcase a property to the buildings inspectors which have been built to standard but the rest of the large site is not and the inspectors don't inspect every property. This does not happen on small sites and SMAs thus a much better build.

Fully supportive of something which supplies answers to infill that large scale builders have no interest in.