Medway must maintain its commitment to these protections

Deangate Proposals:
Grass cutting/renovations: cut all fairways back to normal and fertilise and seed - trim rough round edges so not as thick - add fairway bunkers on 9 and 18
Add practise matts to each hole for winter months
Deweed all fairways and rough areas so purely grass only
Refill streams/ponds for more hazards when playing
Add tee boxes to all holes so we can have white tips and use ones there for yellow and women tees

Cart path- cart path around whole course so buggies can still be used in winter - fence off cart path with openings so carts can’t to on fairway during winter months

Driving range: add grass area to use when practising (this will be for members only and bookable for visitors) if not practise matts can be used

Prices:
£600 membership for a year, can we payable for £50 payments each month - this enables a turn up and play facility without the need to book tee times
Visitor prices are £15 per round, or £9 for just 9 holes
Practise facilities will be £1 for a bucket of balls on the driving range (50 balls) and an area to practise chipping/putting
Buggies will be £30 to hire which includes a £10 deposit which is payable back to customer after round had finished
Golf pro - if a golf pro is available prices will be dependent on him/her, but a cost is payable to the club at what they charge
Private functions/weddings will be calculated on a package basis dependent on requirements and numbers

Extend the restaurant and bar to cater for private functions such as parties/weddings

Member benefits
Exclusive use of course without having to book
Worldwide recognition of handicap
Will enter into league events/competitions (including in house competitors, monthly medals, captains trophy etc)
Free use of practise facilities (driving range, chipping green and putting green)

Night golf maybe in the summer? UK does currently not have a night golf option...

Weekly competitions - hole in one prize on longest par 3? £10 extra on top of round to compete, course Marshall has to be present when teeing off if entered

Grand reopening - the first week of opening, first come first serve on free rounds to attract golfers and spread the word

Support. Transport corridors should be transformed into green corridors where possible. Residents should be supported with tree planting

Having walked the RSPB site near Hoo with Grandchildren, where London dev elopers drop their spoil in the area,
there are many sites that can benefit combining employment and landscape quality.

Start the campagin to include the Hoo Peneinsula in to the Kent Downs National landscapes

Southern Water strongly supports Policy S5 and the inclusion of “multi-functional green infrastructure” wording throughout, as explained further below.
Further explanation and justification:
Southern Water supports all requirements which seek to ensure that surface water is appropriately managed, as close to source as possible. We need planning policy to consider carefully the measures called for in response to the climate crisis, and ensure sustainable development is central to the local planning framework for planning applications coming forward.
Southern Water is strongly supportive of sustainable urban drainage solutions (SuDS) as these will be essential to establishing community resilience to the impacts of climate change into the future. Whilst we appreciate there may be a need for some flexibility, Southern Water considers SuDS essential for all development. This is in line with paragraph 167(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023) that requires:
167(c) using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management)
Southern Water is working across our region to remove surface water from our networks in key areas. Even as we deliver this work, development continues to increase surface water run-off. To be resilient to the evolving impacts of climate change we must plan to ensure that rainwater is separated from wastewater in the design and construction of our communities. For more information on our work, and the root causes of releases from storm overflows, please see –
https://www.southernwater.co.uk/our-region/clean-rivers-and-seas-task-force/pathfinders/
https://www.southernwater.co.uk/our-performance/storm-overflows/storm-overflow-task-force
During heavy rain, local sewer networks’ drainage capability can be exceeded by the amount of rainwater entering pipes and storage tanks connected via roads, roofs and paved areas. When these fill up, storm overflows release excess water through outfalls into rivers and the sea to prevent flooding of homes and businesses. Storm overflows are part of the network’s original design and are regulated by the Environment Agency. Over time, the expansion of urban settlements as well as ‘urban creep’ (home extensions, conservatories and paving over front gardens for parking) have incrementally added to the amount of rainwater entering sewers, resulting in increased releases from storm overflows. As stated in Water UK’s 21st Century Drainage Programme;
“The country’s built environment is constantly changing and “urban creep” – home extensions, conservatories and paving over front gardens for parking – can all add to the amount of water going into our sewers and drains. Green spaces that would absorb rainwater are covered over by concrete and tarmac that will not. In fact, studies show that “urban creep” results in a larger increase in predicted flooding than new housing, because it adds more rainwater to these systems’.
In terms of community resilience to the impacts of climate change into the future, better rainwater management through SuDS is the preferred approach. Retrofit of sustainable drainage solutions can be challenging but is also exemplary of good practice, and can be particularly necessary in areas of urban creep.

This appears to be completely in contrast to where housing is going to be built, especially around the Capstone area

Agree totally we must protect these areas for the benefit of future generations, it was highlighted during covid how important green spaces were and with more development it is paramount that all green space and National Landscapes are not built upon for commercial gain.

No comment

Affirm

Fundamentally important for the rural areas to ensure they are not destroyed or blighted.

So important particularly as detailed in Section 4.7 AONB. This is the only part of Medway classified as AONB and should be protected at all cost and not see it eroded by residential or commercial development or erosion of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 4.6.2:- “Green infrastructure is intrinsic to good development and quality place making”. This statement is supported, with site HHH41 providing a potential opportunity to enable the site to link with adjoining sites and the countryside.

LNRs are not protected by law. Rede Common is an example of an LNR in Medway that contains ancient woodland.

Enforcement on developers is not happening. Rights of way and greenspaces do not always happen.

In response to Q5
Yes

The woods around Gibraltar Farm are ancient, are you going to allow Attwood to tear through those too? I can't believe half the stuff I'm reading. You're saying you wish to preserve it but in reality will be, just rip through it all and build

The RSPB supports Medway’s efforts to connect ecologically important sites, reflecting the ‘bigger, better and more joined-up’ recommendations of the Lawton Principles. We would like to see these corridors being given a status that supports appropriately establishing, protecting and maintaining them in practice, otherwise they risk being just limited to ambition in a strategy. A great deal of work has gone into the forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) (‘Making Space for Nature’) across Kent and Medway, and it is vital that there is consistency with proposed corridors and priority habitat enhancement and key areas identified within the LNRS – therefore we agree with 4.6.6 This work will be further developed in the Kent and Medway Local Nature Recovery Strategy. When pursuing this policy, the Council should ensure directing access away from ecologically sensitive sites and functionally linked land where disturbance may impact wildfowl, waders and other wildlife. Pursuing this policy should also include awareness of important sites for declining farmland birds such as turtle dove, for which Medway is very important. The Kent Ornithological Society (KOS) has produced some maps identifying core areas of farmland birds in Medway, including areas where they are declining and need intervention. Such key areas include coastal parts of the Hoo Peninsula, especially the north-east and north-west corners, and the area around Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI. The map shows a potential corridor around Lodge Hill SSSI and this could be used to serve as part of the 400-metre buffer to protect the SSSI in perpetuity. This would also help connect key nightingale populations and facilitate their spread. We recommend that these areas be factored into ecological corridors as a priority. We would be keen to assist with this and we suggest Medway works with the RSPB and KOS to help inform this work.

Agree

It would be wonderful if this policy was in place now. However, current policies act in the opposite direction. Environmentally, time is running out.

The whole of the hoo peninsula and wider areas need to be protected before loss of habitation and ecology are lost to developments.

agree

Should be no development in this Area

Paragraph 4.6.2:- “Green infrastructure is intrinsic to good development and quality place making”. This statement is supported, sites AS14, AS15 and AS17 provide the potential opportunity to enable the sites’ to link with each other and the wider countryside.

I welcome the highest protection being given to sites of international importance and National Landscapes.

Chatham Docks is vital to maintaining a ‘robust…blue infrastructure network…’

The river-borne and sea-borne traffic associated with Chatham Docks allows direct sustainable connections with the rest of the South-East and with European ports, rather than just lorry deliveries in and out. These options would be lost were Chatham Docks to be redeveloped for uses not requiring water-based transport, and with displaced industry instead relying more on road-based transport with consequent carbon impact.

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

Paragraph 4.6.2:- “Green infrastructure is intrinsic to good development and quality place making”. This statement is supported, however, it is considered that site HHH19 has the potential opportunity to enable site HHH19 to link the wider countryside to deliver this.

As stated previously Medway is blessed with much open space including the river and marshes. Accessing existing green and blue infrastructure is welcomed but my view is that development proposals are far dense and that individuals and families need living space in which to frow.

Over dense housing means invariable that some residents will live in spaces with direct sunlight that are dull and wet and overlooked on all sides. Some existing open space should be sacrificed so that density can be reduced.

As before, how can the green network be effective if you build over Capstone Valley.

I don't believe that this will be the objective of the plan or local government because so far nothing has been shown that is sympathetic to nature and wildlife spaces.
I believe this is simply paying "lip service" to address the concerns surrounding the natural environmental concerns.

None of the planned development in Allhallows aligns with the goal of providing multifunctional, connected, and accessible green infrastructure. The development fails to reflect local character, enhance connectivity, or support biodiversity and landscape conservation. Instead, building on a floodplain, increasing pollution, and destroying habitats contradicts the Council’s expectation for development to be resilient to climate change and strengthen ecological networks. These plans do not contribute to improved public access, health, or wellbeing and undermine efforts to bolster the resilience of the natural environment, as outlined in the Council’s guidelines.