Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)

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.

The strategic objectives do not deal expressly with the amount of housing that needs to be delivered. In the absence of clearly setting out what the housing requirement is and whether the Plan is looking to meet Medway’s needs (which it should), the process of using the currently drafted objectives to inform the Council’s assessment of different sites and locations for development cannot be considered as “Positively Prepared” or “Justified”, contrary to the NPPF (para 35).

Whilst in general terms, this objective mentions housing generally, it does not set out how much housing will be provided. This is a determining factor in deciding what is the most appropriate spatial strategy is and should inform the basis of future strategic policies, as required by the NPPF. Whilst we acknowledge that the Council seek to meet their needs in full, the housing requirement should be clearer in this strategic objective to fully show that the plan is positively prepared and justified in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

The principles of the strategic objectives are supported. However, the strategic objectives need to be clearer in numerical terms about the levels of housing and employment growth in across the plan period.

This objective refers to the development of brownfield land as part of the ongoing benefits of Medway’s regeneration to deliver housing and employment growth. This is supported by NPPF (para 123), which states that it is “a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.

We strongly support the objective to make best use of brownfield land and to help transform waterfront sites.

The Temple Waterfront (CHR20) site is a brownfield site in a waterfront location within Medway’s urban area, which has long since been identified for regeneration as a residential development site. Given that the site is in a sustainable location which has formed part of a wider historical allocation, our client supports making the most of brownfield sites such as this one.

Our client supports SGO 3 (Blended Strategy) as it approaches regeneration with a ‘brownfield first’ focus looking specifically within urban centres and waterfront locations such as the Morgan Timber site (CHR20).

We specifically support the identification of indicative site allocation CHR20 – the Morgan Timber site, which has long since been identified for development and is subject to a current live planning application.

However, this growth option does not deliver the 28,000 homes required to fully meet the district's housing needs. The Council needs to allocate additional sites across the district to deliver the additional 4,267 dwellings across the plan period to fully meet their needs in accordance with para 23 of the NPPF.

It is essential that the Council ensures that such sites are making the maximum contribution towards meeting housing needs, taking into account the constraints of the site.

The Council should not go beyond national policy/regulations in addressing climate change. National policy and regulations are continually changing adapting to new and different concerns.

For example, the Future Homes Standard (FHS) is anticipated to launch in 2025. The technical consultation on the proposed specification of the FHS took place in Spring 2023; further consultation is to take place throughout 2024, followed by the adoption of the regulations in 2025. From 2025, compliance with the FHS will become mandatory and will ensure that new homes built from 2025 will produce 75-80% less carbon emissions than those constructed under current Building Regulations. The FHS seeks to decarbonise new homes by improving heating and hot water systems and reducing heat waste.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the FHS has yet to be adopted. Significant concerns and risks were raised in the technical consultation relating to the impact of the increased costs of implementing the FHS on house prices and building costs. In turn, there is a chance that the full impact of achieving net zero could filter through into the viability and subsequent delivery of new schemes. It would, therefore, be prudent for the viability assessment to be re-run, including the scenario within which the FHS is implemented and considering any government funding to ensure that new development is able to achieve net carbon zero and remain viable.

Given the reasons set out above and the example of the FHS we consider that the Council should work policy S1 in a way that is flexible and adaptable enough to meet the ever-evolving requirements of national policy when it comes to meeting the challenges of climate change. The Council do not want to be over reliant on her policy in the future that is out of date with the current national policy at any particular one time.

Our client objects to the proposal to go beyond the statutory minimum 10% increase in BNG. Brownfield sites such as the Morgan Timber site have higher abnormal costs, and delivering biodiversity net gain above the statutory minimum requirement would place an unreasonable burden potentially causing viability difficulties for brownfield sites. It is above the legal requirements set out in the Environment Act which came into effect in February 2024 for major developments.

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.