Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 1911
Received: 07/08/2024
Respondent: Peter Chatwell
I don't think the first two tests need to be quite as strict. If the current site is not in keeping with the desired economic mix (higher productivity) for Medway, then I do not think the site needs to also have been on the market for 12 months.
I don't think the first two tests need to be quite as strict. If the current site is not in keeping with the desired economic mix (higher productivity) for Medway, then I do not think the site needs to also have been on the market for 12 months.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 2405
Received: 04/09/2024
Respondent: Mr John Conner
Agree
Agree
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 2637
Received: 06/09/2024
Respondent: Councilor EDMUND RALPH BARRALET Peake
Greater footfall is the key! Get people living within walking distance of businesses.
Greater footfall is the key! Get people living within walking distance of businesses.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 2819
Received: 06/09/2024
Respondent: Option Two Development Ltd
Agent: DHA Planning
As currently worded, the policy does not take account of sites like Grays of Chatham which have been allocated for residential development in the Local Plan. There may also be other unallocated sites which are currently in commercial use where there would be planning benefits in their being redeveloped for other uses.
The list of bullet points for scenarios where support would be forthcoming should be extended to include:
• The site is identified in the Local Plan as being suitable for other uses
• There would be wider, demonstrable planning benefits in redeveloping the site for a non-employment use.
As currently worded, the policy does not take account of sites like Grays of Chatham which have been allocated for residential development in the Local Plan. There may also be other unallocated sites which are currently in commercial use where there would be planning benefits in their being redeveloped for other uses.
The list of bullet points for scenarios where support would be forthcoming should be extended to include:
• The site is identified in the Local Plan as being suitable for other uses
• There would be wider, demonstrable planning benefits in redeveloping the site for a non-employment use.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3018
Received: 06/09/2024
Respondent: Mr robert fynn
Agree
Agree
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3049
Received: 06/09/2024
Respondent: Morgan & Company (Strood) Ltd
Agent: DHA Planning
As currently worded, the policy does not take account of sites like Morgan Timber (CHR20) which are proposed to be allocated for housing in the Local Plan. There may also be other unallocated sites which are currently in commercial use where there would be planning benefits in being redeveloped for other uses.
The list of bullet points for scenarios where support would be forthcoming should be extended to include:
• The site is identified in the Local Plan as being suitable for other uses
• There would be wider, demonstrable planning benefits in redeveloping the site for a non-employment use.
As currently worded, the policy does not take account of sites like Morgan Timber (CHR20) which are proposed to be allocated for housing in the Local Plan. There may also be other unallocated sites which are currently in commercial use where there would be planning benefits in being redeveloped for other uses.
The list of bullet points for scenarios where support would be forthcoming should be extended to include:
• The site is identified in the Local Plan as being suitable for other uses
• There would be wider, demonstrable planning benefits in redeveloping the site for a non-employment use.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3079
Received: 06/09/2024
Respondent: Mr Anthony Rees
This is the problem, we have disused retail buildings that could be ready to go again for their intended purposes but what do developers do? Turn them all into flats and houses. We have to many if those and not enough shops, pubs etc and they're dying out sadly no thanks to you lot. Residential buildings are no good to people because they're only useful to the people that buy and live in them
This is the problem, we have disused retail buildings that could be ready to go again for their intended purposes but what do developers do? Turn them all into flats and houses. We have to many if those and not enough shops, pubs etc and they're dying out sadly no thanks to you lot. Residential buildings are no good to people because they're only useful to the people that buy and live in them
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3282
Received: 07/09/2024
Respondent: Mrs Yvonne Forrest
agree
agree
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3470
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: ArcelorMittal Kent Wire Limited
Agent: Lucy McDonnell
Policy S11 is wholly inconsistent with the proposals for Chatham Docks. Chatham Docks would not meet the proposed test for non-employment redevelopment as it is neither no longer appropriate or viable nor has there been no market interest in the in the site, nor has been market for a reasonable period (of 12 months). This demonstrates again the lack of consistency within the draft Local Plan, and the failure to properly consider of the redevelopment of Chatham Docks and its wider consequences. It is not considered in the sustainability appraisal.
A full representation is provided to planning.policy@medway.gov.uk
Policy S11 is wholly inconsistent with the proposals for Chatham Docks. Chatham Docks would not meet the proposed test for non-employment redevelopment as it is neither no longer appropriate or viable nor has there been no market interest in the in the site, nor has been market for a reasonable period (of 12 months). This demonstrates again the lack of consistency within the draft Local Plan, and the failure to properly consider of the redevelopment of Chatham Docks and its wider consequences. It is not considered in the sustainability appraisal.
A full representation is provided to planning.policy@medway.gov.uk
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3554
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mr John Williams
I don't think that losing hundreds of jobs in Chatham Docks is a Good advertisement for Medway
to attract new companies to the area.
We should be supporting our existing jobs whilst attracting new employment to Medway.
I don't think that losing hundreds of jobs in Chatham Docks is a Good advertisement for Medway
to attract new companies to the area.
We should be supporting our existing jobs whilst attracting new employment to Medway.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3797
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mr Rupert Turpin
PeeL PORTS ARE predatory developers buy ports, claim they "unviable "seek change of planning . should not allowed determine that site "unviable" will make up data. they did on job creation by double counting. docks companies provide valuable contribution Medway . they need to know the site remains site for employment not" mixed use " sophistry.
Peel likely take many years to develop site and ask for government handouts and to build large numbers of family unfriendly flats. This will not be a St Mary's Island mark 2, but a high rise dystopian landscape if it ever comes to pass,
PeeL PORTS ARE predatory developers buy ports, claim they "unviable "seek change of planning . should not allowed determine that site "unviable" will make up data. they did on job creation by double counting. docks companies provide valuable contribution Medway . they need to know the site remains site for employment not" mixed use " sophistry.
Peel likely take many years to develop site and ask for government handouts and to build large numbers of family unfriendly flats. This will not be a St Mary's Island mark 2, but a high rise dystopian landscape if it ever comes to pass,
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3825
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Turpin
"Changing land designation supported when existing use is proven to be no longer appropriate or viable." Who needs to prove that? This is the argument at Chatham Docks but there are two sides to this debate. It may not be appropriate for the council to decide.
"Changing land designation supported when existing use is proven to be no longer appropriate or viable." Who needs to prove that? This is the argument at Chatham Docks but there are two sides to this debate. It may not be appropriate for the council to decide.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3851
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Miss Rachael Selleck
The lack of local employment opportunities in Allhallows forces residents to commute significant distances for work, with many relying heavily on cars. As Medway continues to expand housing developments without increasing job prospects, the situation will only worsen. More homes mean more residents needing to travel for work, which strains existing transport infrastructure and heightens environmental concerns. To mitigate these issues, it's essential to plan for job creation alongside housing growth, ensuring that future developments include provisions for local employment and improved transport links. This approach will help reduce the dependence on cars and support sustainable community growth.
The lack of local employment opportunities in Allhallows forces residents to commute significant distances for work, with many relying heavily on cars. As Medway continues to expand housing developments without increasing job prospects, the situation will only worsen. More homes mean more residents needing to travel for work, which strains existing transport infrastructure and heightens environmental concerns. To mitigate these issues, it's essential to plan for job creation alongside housing growth, ensuring that future developments include provisions for local employment and improved transport links. This approach will help reduce the dependence on cars and support sustainable community growth.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3902
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mrs Maureen Wade
I agree that premises/land that has previously been designated for business use that has stood empty or abandoned for a set length of time should be redeveloped. I also think that business premises where the owners have failed to pay business rates for the same length of time should be considered for redevelopment once the company accounts have been inspected and there is no likelihood that the rates will paid. Businesses in this situation will not be able to sustain a business nor pay any employees.
I agree that premises/land that has previously been designated for business use that has stood empty or abandoned for a set length of time should be redeveloped. I also think that business premises where the owners have failed to pay business rates for the same length of time should be considered for redevelopment once the company accounts have been inspected and there is no likelihood that the rates will paid. Businesses in this situation will not be able to sustain a business nor pay any employees.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Representation ID: 3926
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: ArcelorMittal Kent Wire Limited
Agent: Lucy McDonnell
Policy S11 is wholly inconsistent with the proposals for Chatham Docks. Chatham Docks would not meet the proposed test for non-employment redevelopment as it is neither no longer appropriate or viable nor has there been no market interest in the in the site, nor has been market for a reasonable period (of 12 months). This demonstrates again the lack of consistency within the draft Local Plan, and the failure to properly consider of the redevelopment of Chatham Docks and its wider consequences. It is not considered in the sustainability appraisal.
A full representation is provided to planning.policy@medway.gov.uk
2.12.1 Policy S11 is wholly inconsistent with the proposals for Chatham Docks. Chatham Docks would not meet the test for non-employment redevelopment, as proposed by the draft Local Plan, as it is neither no longer appropriate or viable nor has there been no market interest in the in the site, nor has been market for a reasonable period (of 12 months). This demonstrates again the lack of consistency within the draft Local Plan, and the failure to properly consider of the redevelopment of Chatham Docks and its wider consequences.
2.12.2 The sustainability appraisal makes no reference to Chatham Docks and the conflict of the residential redevelopment in the consideration of this policy, indicating the inadequacy of its approach. The sustainability appraisal states that "the Council’s criteria to ensure that redevelopment of employment sites only occurs where detrimental effects can be avoided". This is clearly not the case in relation to Chatham Docks. That neither the Council policy nor the sustainability appraisal consider a balancing approach demonstrates a lack of understanding of the planning process in general and Chatham Docks in particular.