Object

Representation ID: 4544

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Blueberry Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As per our previous representations at Regulation 18 stage, the affordable housing requirement (30% in high value areas and 10% in lower value areas) should be clearly defined on a map within the Local Plan. The emerging Local Plan does not identify the defined area and we therefore object on the basis that there is no clear indication of what area relates to the value areas as defined by the Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4620

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Kent

Agent: Mr Richard Thompson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy should be consistent with the NPPF.
Query reduction in provision to 25% from the last Regulation 18 consultation.
Golden Rules should be defined (in connection with policy SA6).

Support

Representation ID: 4662

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Hopkins

we need to make sure more people can afford their own homes.

Object

Representation ID: 4775

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs AONB Unit

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Consider that this Policy should explicitly establish a lower site threshold of 6 units or more for affordable housing provision on windfall sites that come forward for development in the National Landscape over the Plan period in line with NPPF para 65.

Consider that this policy lacks necessary clarity on differing levels of affordable housing that will be applied across the district.

Object

Representation ID: 4827

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Socio‑Economic Risk & Community Cohesion: lessons from Ashford & Gillingham
Ashford’s high‑growth model caused:

Town centre hollowing and loss of independents

Transient HMO/1‑bed population

Social infrastructure a decade behind housing

Gillingham now mirrors this in HMO saturation and benefit‑dependency cycles. The plan as it stands will accelerate Medway decline.

The plan clearly lack safeguards to protect residents housing and employment opportunities. Of note in the plan are infrastructure opportunities and lax housing procedures and legislation that have benefited a number of MPs personally through ownership and change use schemes, and Political Parties through lobbying and donations.

Object

Representation ID: 4888

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Viability Assessment notes “specialist older people’s housing is unlikely to be able to bear affordable housing.” Given that the heading included both sheltered and extra care housing it is therefore unclear as to whether the conclusion is a broad bush assessment or related more to the extra care element. There is no subsequent clarification provided in the policy wording of this matter and whether therefore C2 housing as extra care should be exempt or not from affordable housing.
There are also concerns over the approach for PDL sites.

Object

Representation ID: 4905

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Kitesfield Estates Limited

Agent: Bloomfields Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy fails to make the appropriate recognition of the challenges involved with developing brownfield sites which are often more expensive to deliver, for example due to issues such as contamination or demolition costs.
It is important that the requirements for affordable housing do not conflict with the Local Plan's ‘brownfield first’ approach.
Smaller sites in the high value areas should not considered as part of the wider Hoo Peninsula Strategic sites, this is particularly important if it border a strategic site or is in an area of an accumulation of smaller sites, or if the site is brownfield.

Support

Representation ID: 5025

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Lincoln Ritchie

While I do support, I don't understand the minimum values. It would be great to get some clarity on these, as I would have guessed more affordable homes would have been needed in lower-value areas. For example, young people and their families would likely want to live in areas of previously developed land due to the closeness and access to local services. Please increase these minimums.