Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2023)

Comment

Representation ID: 392

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

Broadly agree with the vision and welcome the references to net zero and climate change. However the phrase 'sustainable development' is used widely in the document without an obvious definition of what this means in practice (hopefully this will be clarified in the Local Plan itself). Also a glaring omission to me is any reference to addressing the biodiversity crisis we are now facing as a country - especially since much of the Medway area is rural in character. The only emphasis seems to be on building stuff - I see little reference to nature or wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 393

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

Welcome the reference to securing a "robust green and blue infrastructure", though like all the other bullet points in this section I need to see what this means in practice. In particular how the proposed suburban expansion, rural development and green belt release will enhance this (as it suggests to me filling in green parts of the landscape). I also think the document underplays the negative effect of the Lower Thames Crossing (if it goes ahead) - there are negatives to this scheme from a 'green' perspective, not least for the areas around Strood and Frindsbury.

Comment

Representation ID: 394

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

Zero carbon or carbon neutral building should be the aim, not 'low' carbon. 'Green' infrastructure should be central to any development, not an afterthought/tick box exercise.

Comment

Representation ID: 395

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

Always wary of the undefined term "growth" - what does this mean in practice and how do you ensure it is "sustainable"?

Comment

Representation ID: 396

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

I find the statements in this section very vague, aspirations rather than targets. Why not insist on green, zero carbon or carbon neutral building and traffic free neighbourhoods, for example?

Comment

Representation ID: 397

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

Need to see a definition of "sustainable development". Dislike the implication that a Local Plan could be used to stop 'development'.

Comment

Representation ID: 398

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

I personally think the Lower Thames Crossing is a mistake, destroying ancient woodland and wildlife habitat for little gain. It would be good to see some recognition by Medway Council of its negative aspects.

Comment

Representation ID: 399

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

It is to be hoped that in the present financial climate, the LTC will not go ahead. The Local Plan should recognise this possibility. If it does go ahead the Local Plan should seek ways to actively mitigate its substantial environmental impact (which will be felt, especially in Strood, Frindsbury and Wainscott.

Comment

Representation ID: 400

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

This additional 2,000 homes seems to have been underplayed in the consultation document - presumably these would be in the Strood area?

Comment

Representation ID: 401

Received: 03/10/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Dyke

Redevelopment of Strood waterfront should be brought forward as soon as possible, but made it sympathetic to the character and history of the area.