Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2023)

Comment

Representation ID: 525

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

I welcome the idea of new river transport and better utilisation of riverside space which as you've so rightly put defines Medway. I agree that the rural nature of the Medway valley is highly valued and therefore must be protected, especially that within the AONB.

Comment

Representation ID: 526

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

I fully support the work to support the climate emergency and completely disagree with the central government stance that people care more about their finances. Active travel is very good for the Medway towns but could be better encouraged in the Medway valley. For example, a better pedestrian path between Cuxton and the Medway valley leisure park along the river would greatly encourage more people from Cuxton to walk to the cinema, bowling or the gym, while also providing better links into strood. Currently walking along the a228 can be quite dangerous and air pollution is a concern.

Comment

Representation ID: 527

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

I greatly appreciate Medway's support of independent shops and consider Rochester an exemplar for all highstreets. I do think there could be more facilities put in place for more rural areas of Medway to support the elderly populations of these areas.

Medway should consider setting up a statement of flexible eligibility for the new ECO4 funding to ensure they are making as many residents eligible for help with energy efficiency as possible and further enable retrofit.

Comment

Representation ID: 528

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

Agree with need for affordable housing, this should be eligible to Medway residents first and also be based around a price affordable to Medway median income levels to ensure it is truly affordable.

Comment

Representation ID: 529

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

Mitigation of increased traffic should include protection of green belt land to provide a buffer for air pollution. The LTC says they dont need to account for air quality because cars will be moving to electric vehicles but as government have delayed this, this is a serious concern.

Comment

Representation ID: 530

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

I do not agree with the council providing capacity for Gravesham.

Comment

Representation ID: 531

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

The a228 will also be significantly impacted from LTC. This must be taken into account when considering the new sites for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 532

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

I am very concerned at any suggestion of development in the metropolitan green belt or AONB. These areas are vitally important to nature, to the councils climate emergency work and to the wellbeing of residents, and must be protected at all costs. Especially since greenbelt land only account for 5% of land in Medway but is being put forward for 7% of the supply. This is entirely disproportionate, especially with the need for the greenbelt about to grow ever more important to air quality mitigation. Brownfield development must be the main preference.

Comment

Representation ID: 533

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

I greatly support the development of new houses near existing employment and amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 534

Received: 20/10/2023

Respondent: Francesca Baylis

More must be done to encourage developers to take on these sites, otherwise they will continue to be left unused while good quality agricultural land is used as an easy option. The council should lobby central government for funds to make such schemes possible.