I live in Allhallows, where there are barely any employment opportunities. You claim to preserve the surrounding coast and countryside, yet you're taking away valuable green spaces, worsening climate change. Adding more cars to the road will increase pollution and exacerbate the crisis. Building on a floodplain is irresponsible, increasing both pollution and flood risks. Your promise of "improved travel choices" is empty—Strood is 9 miles away, an 18-mile round trip, do you expect people to walk or cycle that far every day for work? Claims of well-connected communities with facilities and services are simply untrue.

The reference to Medway is confusing as it makes it sound like Medway is a place, rather than a river or a local authority. I would prefer the Medway towns and villages.
Would agree with a vision that wants to make more of our River. There is much more potential but there has been improvements over recent years. There has been a lot of housebuilding to ensure that all f the community can find decent places to live. However the rural areas are often too expensive, with very large homes coming forward, out pricing local people and especially young buyers.

Overly optimistic view of Medway. The areas of deprivation especially along the main thoroughfares impact travel choices and perceptions of safety. "Strengthening natural assets" is at odds with the proposed building in Capstone valley, Darland and Hempstead that will join up the south side of the Medway Towns into a big urban area and against the Vision's "...open spaces are valued and benefit as joined up environmental assets". Chatham and Gillingham High Streets are depressing places, little evidence of the "sought after locations" other than Rochester. Medway's farmland faces decimation under the plans.

A very positive local plan vision and considerable hard work.
The means of financing is the main concern, plus the loss of the democratic process in planning if the Council has insufficient funds to go to appeal. There also appears to be no method of insuring that housing construction, designed to fulfil the shortfall of accommodation in Medway, does not entice in people from outside the area leaving a continuing shortfall of housing.

With regards the carbon in pact in ALLHALLOWS any plans to build new home would actually increase the carbon levels as the infrastructure for public transport is totally unreliable.
You can't force a company to run at a loss.

Medway shou be itself and not try to emulat other , trendy places. aim should be to put quality of life first for residents , such as social care and Childrens services, nothing grandiose or smacking of misplaced arrogance or insecurity. We have plenty of history to be proud of. Please NO CITY BIDS.

Take air pollution seriously, do basic services right. Get the roads paved otherwise you give the wrong impression. Get freedom of movement into Chatham Historic Dockyard so that it becomes part of the towns. get out of the entrepreneurial mode which the council cannot do. (IPM)

It is all very well setting out a plan which protects the heritage and allows people to find a place to live, without the proper infrastructure invested in transport, Medway, especially the areas in Lordswood will simply be choked with traffic. Improving access to M2 is not the answer, without access to reliable and affordable public transport, the area will be grid locked and we will be choking on fumes, more so than ever as the green lung will not longer exist to remove pollutants from the atomosphere. the impact on biodiversity will be catastrophic.

Your ambitions for Medway are commendable, but there are tensions between conservation and development that are difficult to reconcile. I have concerns about how mitigation may be used as a lever to allow developments that will lead to environmental harm. I need to be convinced mitigation can be enforced post development

I don't believe building more houses on Capstone Valley is conducive to a green environment, when so much green space will be destroyed.

2.1.1 Neither the draft Local Plan nor the supporting documents provide any reasoned conclusions for the redevelopment of Chatham Docks away from strategically significant steel manufacturing. The identification of Chatham Docks as an indicative residential-led development site is not explained. There is no indication that the Council have considered the spatial and location uniqueness of the docks, nor the consequences of redeveloping them as homes in the draft Local Plan or supporting documents. This is an inadequate approach to the loss of the last non tidal dock in the South East, with a failure to properly grapple with, or consider at all the particular features of the site in determining its future use. The draft Local Plan does not consider the impact on the UK construction industry, the carbon impacts of losing a facility for water based transport and replacing it with road based transport, the loss of skilled jobs. There is only a superficial assessment of the economic impact, a lack of proper consideration of the unique features of the docks, and a flawed employment land assessment. There is no analysis which allows a comparison of all of the relevant sustainability effects to assess the replacement of a key industrial facility, that of ArcelorMittal Kent Wire, with a housing led development. Further, there is no assessment of the "net" position where ArcelorMittal Kent Wire's operation is lost from Chatham Docks and replaced by a housing led, light industrial scheme.
2.1.2 The draft Local Plan states in its strategic objectives that growth will be directed to the most suitable locations. We submit the strategic objective itself is too vague to serve its purpose – it is unclear what it would or would not justify and therefore is not a proper basis for alternative testing or assessment of soundness. Further, as detailed in our representations, in relation to employment, critical economic infrastructure, and lack of proper alternative testing, the strategy would not put the growth in the most sustainable places.
2.1.3 There is no assessment of the proposal for the residential led redevelopment of Chatham Docks. One of the supporting documents, the Chatham Docks Employment Report, considers the economic impact of a mixed use redevelopment of Chatham Docks but in a superficial way without proper consideration of construction industry wide impacts from the loss of UK production of essential steel products. Further, it does not explain its conclusion regarding the viability of Chatham Docks, relocation costs and the use of agency staff. Noting the very widely drawn strategic objective, the Council has so far failed to produce (or rely on) any evidence which properly appraises the pros and cons of the two visions for the Site.
2.1.4 If Chatham Docks were redeveloped as a residential led development, ArcelorMittal Kent Wire's operation at Chatham Docks would be lost, alongside the businesses of other operators and the potential for future dock-based enterprises. ArcelorMittal is the world’s leading integrated steel and mining company, with a presence in more than 60 countries, and the largest operator at Chatham Docks. Through their operation at Chatham Docks ArcelorMittal Kent Wire is a major supplier of steel products essential for construction, including 30% of Britain’s reinforced concrete steel supply.
2.1.5 ArcelorMittal Kent Wire's landlord, Peel Waters, has submitted a planning application for the redevelopment of the southern part of their site. The application is currently the subject of an article 31 Holding Direction, noting the significant impacts for the British economy were the redevelopment to go ahead, with the loss of a significant part of the British steel market including products essential for construction, as detailed further above. This is issue that is not considered at all in the identification of Chatham Docks as a residential led site.
2.1.6 In addition to flaws in the consideration of the loss of Chatham Docks as a strategically important non tidal dock for transhipment and manufacturing, we note that the Council's Draft Viability Assessment, whilst containing some propositions we do not agree with including on housing delivery, finds that the residential redevelopment of Chatham Docks does not generate positive values.
2.1.7 ArcelorMittal Kent Wire strongly supports the Council’s ambitions for boosting jobs and investment in Medway in the draft Local Plan - particularly in considering the future of Chatham Docks.
2.1.8 Chatham Docks is a 400-year old commercial port and is a vibrant, working dock operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The docks employ over 800 people – many of whom are local. There are also existing jobs in the supply chains. Overall, there are over 2000 jobs dependent on the docks.
2.1.9 To enable ‘all people’ to ‘thrive’ Chatham Docks must be both supported and protected in the draft Local Plan. The draft Local Plan must strike a balance in identifying new sites for housing but not to the detriment of existing jobs and existing important employment generating uses
2.1.10 ArcelorMittal Kent Wire notes that ‘Medway is a leading economic player in the region’. Therefore, future housing development in Medway must not be at the expense of existing viable employment generating sites.
2.2 NPPF
2.2.1 We consider that the draft Local Plan is not in accordance with paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), stating:
"Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that:
(a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects"
2.2.2 As detailed further, we consider that the draft Local Plan is flawed in failing to consider the development needs of the area, and the nation as a whole, in promoting the redevelopment of ArcelorMittal Kent Wire's facility, severely impacting the supply of essential construction materials. The impact of this is not weighed in the plan nor the sustainability appraisal. There is a failure to align the housing growth needed, with at a basic level the infrastructure needed to supply to relevant building materials. There is further a lack of consideration given to the loss of an industrial site uniquely situated on a non-tidal dock, which allows lower carbon water-based transport, and the consequent green house gas emission consequences from instead moving products longer distances and with greater reliance on road based transport.
2.2.3 In addition, we do not consider the draft Local Plan is in accordance with "building a strong, competitive economy" section of the NPPF, nor the amendments to the relevant sections the Government is currently consulting on. Clearly, the proposed residential redevelopment of ArcelorMittal Kent Wire's facility does not "help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development". The proposal puts at risk the whole of ArcelorMittal Kent Wire's operation at Chatham Docks, which will likely have to leave the UK if the redevelopment goes ahead, and so clearly preventing any investment in the meantime. There is a failure throughout the draft Local Plan to recognise the impact on wider economic growth, where a key producer of the steel products needed for construction would be lost to the UK.
2.2.4 In particular, the draft Local Plan does not properly identify sites for commercial development which meet the needs of a modern economy amendments, pursuant to paragraph 84(b), further demonstrating the inadequacy of the sustainability appraisal in considering alternatives, as set out further below. As detailed previously, AMKW's materials have been pivotal in high-profile, nationally significant infrastructure projects, clearly demonstrating their role in meeting the needs of a modern economy. The importance of the land use AMKW relies upon, supported by the NPPF, is not reflected in the draft Local Plan.
2.2.5 Further, the draft Local Plan does not pay sufficient attention to the proposed amendments to paragraph 85, in particular the recognition of the importance of decarbonisation and reliability in the supply chain. Chatham Docks, by virtue of its location on a non-tidal dock, is able to use water-based transport. Were the site to be redeveloped for residential led development in accordance with the draft Local Plan, the new occupiers would not make use of that water-based transport. The option to use water-based transport would be lost forever. AMKW have sought to identify alternative sites but have concluded they would likely need to relocate outside the UK. This would have both carbon consequences, as materials would need to be transported longer distances, and likely with more reliance on road-based transport, and also on supply chain security. If AMKW were forced to close, the 30% of Britain's reinforced concrete steel would instead have to be supplied from elsewhere.

The natural world requires carbon to function, the carbon hysteria aligned with big 'green' business must not damage Medway. The forecast increase in population will further damage our estuary SPA/Ramsar sites & birds. The heritage scapes are forecast to be decimated and dominated by ugly highrises, Ironmonger's Yard is testimony to that. If you foam insulate older cavity walls you are not "less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change such as overheating". You contradict yourself. You are more vulnerable to damp and rot in the property. Building on any farmland is undesirable, we are not self sufficient.

How will building hundreds more houses in an already densely populated area create a better place for people to live with more opportunities? Nobody will be able to get to work, school, the station or the coast with all the extra cars on the roads pumping out fumes into the already highly polluted atmosphere. There is already a big problem with traffic congestion at J4 M2 Hempstead and surrounding area. I’ve not seen any viable solutions to this yet. Maidstone’s local plan just adds even more chaos to the roads. Now Medway want to destroy what countryside we have left

I feel that the council has made this process impossible for some people to take part in. The illiterate, visually impaired, those who have no access to the internet and those who are not tech literate will find it extremely difficult to consult the quantity of documents that need to be read to make a reasoned comment. I am an intelligent, literate, tech savvy individual and it has
taken me 8 hours to read content and answer just under 50 questions that required more reading of legal documents that are written in legalese.

High reliance on greenfield sites could lead to loss of valuable agricultural land and natural habitats. This will inevitably impact on food security. Also, the urban focussed strategy to develop to develop “brownfield sites” in unique and historical waterfront areas may require extensive remediation and infrastructure improvements which may impact on the viability of these sites.
Therefore, such sites should not be considered, or included without the necessary sensitivity analysis to support an informed decision-making process. Such analysis should include CO2 emissions and air pollution before, after and during the development.