The SDS should also :- show how the Council's Strategy fits in with the strategies of adjoining areas and whether there is scope for Medway's needs to be met elsewhere; contain quantitative elements that show the extent that needs for residential and other development are to be met; show how the likely changes in household structure will impact on the Strategy; and the extent of change from the existing Medway strategy with particular reference to residential development.

Again why are you reducing the need for people to use their cars and travel? Are you wanting to go back in time, when people didn't venture outside of their community? People need to be independent with their own private vehicles. With options for other means of transport if they wish, not what you impose.

the growth on the hoo peninsula and beyond is not sustainable , you are increasing air pollution as the public transtport service is not up to standard thereby putting more cars on the road. there is no way you can connect all areas to green spaces without the use of cars.

I want to see councils prioritising infrastructure development before house building. In so many recent house building sites, the intrastructure such as medical centres, schools, transport upgrades are all pushed to the latter phases of the bulding project which means they are more likely to be scrapped due to funding issues. I want to see councils force house building companies to build infrastructure first.

It would be great to see more leisure & retail to the north of Gillingham especially along the river.

We are writing on behalf of our client, Richard Castle, in respect of the Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024) consultation and its supporting background documents.
Our client continues to promote the sites now referred to as AS14, AS15 and AS17 in the consultation document and located at Middle Stoke on the Isle of Grain as suitable for residential led schemes in future Medway Local Plan (MLP). These sites, which extend to approximately 2.72ha, 0.86 ha and 7.83 ha respectively are identified as suitable for “reasonable alternative development”, with each having a possible capacity of 90, 15 and 180 units respectively. Given the adjacent landownership being the same as these sites, there is potential for greater delivery should the Council so require.
This consultation response provides feedback on both the main Regulation 18 documents and its background documents, specifically the Sustainability Appraisal and the Viability Assessment.
This representation supports the inclusion of sites AS14, AS15 and AS17 for inclusion in the future Local Plan for Medway and provides detailed feedback on individual paragraph numbers and policies as follows:
• Paragraph 1.2.2:- We support the vision for the plan which seeks to identify sites that will enable people to live healthier and longer lives. We consider that sites AS14, AS15 and AS17, will provide a safe, connected and sustainable place to live and work.
• Paragraph 1.2.8:- We support the statement that ‘Housing-led growth can support wider investment in services and businesses and contribute to shaping the character of new and existing communities’.
Section 2.3 ‘Spatial Development Strategy’ :- The aspirations of the Spatial Development Strategy for Medway are supported, specifically, “Outside of the urban regeneration areas, the Council will support the expansion of identified suburban neighbourhoods and villages, where the principles of sustainable development can be met, and where unacceptable impacts on infrastructure and the environment can be avoided”.
Sites AS14, AS15 and AS17 form part of a grouping of sites located centrally on the Isle of Grain, which have been identified as suitable for residential development. The fact that the land parcels of the 3 sites are all under the family ownership means they can be delivered more easily, whilst allowing for a phased release. These sites, when developed together and having regard to their surrounding will prevent isolated development and create a neighbourhood area which would meet the aspirations of sustainable development.
Furthermore, section 2.3, sets out that “Development will respond positively to the environmental context and realise opportunities to boost biodiversity and resilience”. The current land has limited biodiversity value, but given the wider land ownership by our client, has the potential to enable the provision of biodiversity enhancements and the creation of a green infrastructure which will connect the sites to the wider countryside. On this basis, the development of the site for residential uses would enhance biodiversity in accordance with National policy aspirations and the draft proposals in the Local Plan.

Development across the Hoo peninsula will always increase car use on already busy single access routes due to lack of alternatives. Cliffe Woods/Cliffe have a single main access route. Hoo/chattenden/High Halstow/Allhallows/Stoke and Grain have a single main access route. If either is blocked for any reason thousands of people cannot move in or out.
HIF train station concept was abandoned. Upgrading 4 elms hill junctions was abandoned. Every autumn/winter 4 elms hill is partially closed for weeks due to inadequate sewerage system. There is no room for additional development across the Hoo Peninsula.

Development across the Hoo Peninsula will undoubtedly increase car use on the current single lane road infrastructure (Cliffe, Cliffe Woods, Hoo, Chattenden, High Halstow, Stoke, Grain & Allhallows.

If any of these single lane routes get blocked, then thousands of people get stranded and cannot move in or out of the peninsula.

The previous proposed infrastructure developments - the HIF train station concept & the upgrade to Four Elms junction - were abandoned and several times per year there are incidents - sewerage issues on Four Elms, vehicle accidents - which limit access in/out of the peninsula.

I support the Blended Strategy – this promotes a 'brownfield first' approach supporting urban regeneration, complemented by greenfield sites in suburban and rural locations to provide for wider housing choice.
Also building higher i support with accessibility considered.Also I would encourage people to downsize many people are rattling around in five or four bedroom houses with two people in them we need to harness these properties for the challenges of giving a good home to everybody

I support Medway's strategy to focus on previously developed land and to retain the function and extent of the Green Belt in Medway.

Neither the draft Local Plan nor supporting documents provide any reasoned conclusions for the redevelopment of Chatham Docks away from strategically significant steel manufacturing. There is no indication that the Council have considered the spatial and location uniqueness of the last non tidal dock in the South East, nor the consequences of redeveloping them as homes. It does not consider the impact on the UK construction industry, carbon impacts of losing water based transport, loss of 2000 skilled jobs and inadequately considers economic impact, employment land, and the unique features of the docks.

A full representation is provided to planning.policy@medway.gov.uk

Our client continues to promote the site referred to as HHH19 in the consultation document and located immediately off the Ratcliffe Highway on the Hoo Peninsula as suitable for a mixed-use schemes in the future Medway Local Plan (MLP).

The site, which extend to approximately 13.9 has been identified as capable of accommodating up to 400 residential units as part of a mixed use scheme. If not considered by the Council to be suitable to be residentially led, consideration should be given to the site being employment land led, with the capability to support residential development.

Given the adjacent landownership on the east and west being brownfield land and with the site having been supported for development through the pre-application service with the Head of Planning and Senior Planning officer (see Council letter dated 21 April 2021) and which also included a separate site visit by the Council’s landscape officer with our client's landscape officer, this site should, respectfully, be allocated for future delivery.

It is difficult to see how the green network can be supported when you are isolating Capstone Country Park by surrounding it with housing and development. This can hardly provide resilience for nature; it will destroy the natural habitat. This will also not improve mental health.

Section 2.3, sets out that “Development will respond positively to the environmental context and realise opportunities to boost biodiversity and resilience”. The current land has limited biodiversity value, but, has the potential to enable the provision of biodiversity enhancements and the creation of a green infrastructure which will connect the site to the wider countryside. On this basis, the development of the site for mixed use development would enhance biodiversity in accordance with National policy aspirations and the draft proposals in the Local Plan.

Net Zero is a ridiculous and highly expensive programme that will reduce the quality of life for residents. Many current and future residents of Medway will not work in Medway and will need to use their car to access work opportunities and leisure activities when it suits them and not the bureaucracy.

Development that is on Medway boundary should be considered when Medway s creating its local plan. Lidsing Garden Village is an example of such development. In future boundaries should be adjusted so that these development sit in the LA area most affected by the development.

Just hope you have a contingency for the increase in legal action taken by residents for the impact this plan will have on their mental health and well being due to increased deaths by poor air quality and accidents.

Well pretty soon there won't be Kent downs it will be a sprawl of houses right up to the downs. Another load of waffle What the hell is Chatham intra? On all the planning applications there will be unacceptable impacts on infrastructure and environments.

Build on brown field sites yes, but stop destroying green spaces. You cannot link these areas if you continue to destroy them all.

Please do not forget the spatial benefits offered by access and safe frontage to the river Medway itself.

The plan claims to create a wider network of green and blue infrastructure across Medway to connect countryside, parks, and open spaces, but how can it achieve this when you’re removing these spaces? The Council also promises to improve environmental amenity, deliver Biodiversity Net Gain, and enhance air quality. However, in my village, the sewage system has been beyond capacity for decades, causing a persistent stench of sewage that has lingered for nearly 21 years. Adding more houses will only worsen air quality. Additionally, developing fields that host badgers, foxes, and hares drastically contradicts efforts to support biodiversity.

Our towns have already seen a lot of development over recent years. It is wise to use brownfield sites and also to be ready to adapt our high streets to meet the changing shopping habits. With large shopping centres and a move to online shopping, our high streets are struggling and need to attract people for different reasons, including being more residential where appropriate.
If a passenger train was ever to come into fruition it should connect Hoo Peninsula into the rest of the Medway towns

Paragraph 7 is especially woolly given how important this might be. There is no reassuring detail on how strategic masterplans might be drawn up or the parameters for transport, wider infrastructure and environmental measures. Transport links ie roads are particularly poor and it is difficult to see how there could be improved without significant local impacts.

MAKE SURE NOT EVERYTHING iS LOadED ONTO the peninsula. That place is a gold mine for JOBS not houses. if you build too many houses you will spoil the traffic situation for the jobs. It also needs to be spread out fairly so that homes go onto Cqapstone area ( grade three land) and Rainham area. DO not ruiN THE GRADE ONE LAND BY BUILDING ALL OVER IT. IT IS NEEDED FOR FOOD SUPPLY.

While regeneration is excellent, side by side with that is the choice in all 3 plans to develop Capstone, this simply put, puts greater pressure on what is the green lung in Medway. Already according to Environment Agency Lordwood is at risk of flash flooding, how much greater will that be when half the lung is concretised? Already there are concerns about Luton Rd's risk due to East Hill, the fact that Gibraltar Farm and Capstone will add nearly 4000 houses means that all flood risks are greater. More financial impact on residents because of higher flood Risk Insurance!

This is counter productive as there is a need for balance between developing better linked to Hoo and not destroy natural resources in this plan. What protections are in place to prevent arable land and other green spaces being "redeveloped"?

2.7.1 ArcelorMittal Kent Wire objects to any development proposal which supports the closure of Chatham Docks and which supports the loss of existing employment.
2.7.2 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 employing local people within the Borough.
2.7.3 It is imperative that Chatham Docks continues to be protected within the draft Local Plan in recognition of its unique locational attributes as a site protected for port-related development including industrial, business or storage and distribution development both as a designation on the Proposals Map and in Policies within the draft Local Plan.

Provide a scientific basis for your commitment to a net zero carbon Medway. Please do not repeat the mantra that the science is settled. It is not. And this is simply the new acid rain, ozone, or whatever else the public needs to be frightened with in order to part with their cash. Protect wildlife, the estuaries, nature reserves and prevent water pollution. Do not build on greenfield or farmland. That is what you can do of practical use to the natural world.

Provide the scientific basis for your commitment to a net zero carbon Medway. Please do not repeat the mantra that the rest of the public have been frightened into believing, the science is not settled and carbon is not going to kill us any more than it killed anyone six hundred years ago. Bus transport is terrible, this needs improvement if you want people to stop using cars, the rail services are fine. Cycle paths must not be built at the expense of vehicle lanes, roads are already narrow and this would only increase idling engines and pollution.

The Spatial Development Strategy should set out the intended future strategic relationship between Medway and the Kent, South East and in particular Greater London areas. For example, there are deep economic relationships with London, are these expected to change.
Locally, the Strategy should include intended approaches to policies and proposals with neighbouring Councils on substantial development areas that could span the borough boundaries. For example in the Lords Wood, Hempstead vicinity. If the principle of development becomes accepted for example upon appeal or local plan examination, it should be well planned in detail via policies and/or masterplans.

I oppose the plans to develope the Hoo peninsula. Especially Allhallows. These are small villages with already stretched services. It is impossible to get a doctor's appointment, difficult to get a bus at a time that suits and the roads are terrible. Adding more homes will only exacerbate the already failing services.