Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)

Search form responses

Results for Arches Chatham Neighbourhood Forum search

Form ID: 3182

Respondent: Arches Chatham Neighbourhood Forum

Do you think this policy provides effective guidance on the required housing mix in Medway?

No answer given

Do you agree with having a 10% requirement for affordable housing on urban brownfield sites and 30% requirement for affordable housing on greenfield sites and higher value urban locations?

No answer given

What do you consider would represent an effective alternative approach? Do you agree with a varied approach for affordable housing requirements based on the different value areas across Medway?

No answer given

What do you consider would represent an effective split of tenures between social/affordable rent and intermediate/low-cost home ownership housing in delivering affordable housing?

No answer given

What do you consider would represent an effective split of tenures between social/affordable rent and intermediate/low-cost home ownership housing in delivering affordable housing?

No answer given

Do you have views on defining the limits to over-concentration of HMOs in a community? What criteria would be recommended?

In response to question 14, the adopted Arches Chatham Neighbourhood Plan defines the threshold for an over-concentration of HMO as: ‘20% HMO on the road of the planning application, ensuring that only 1 out of a consecutive row of 5 units is converted to C4. Two C4s should not adjoin and no C3 property should be sandwiched between two HMO.’ This threshold was developed by reviewing successful policies of other LPAs, such as Enfield Council and Oxford City Council. We recommend this approach and welcome any criteria that goes further.

Do you have any sites you wish to promote for self-build allocation?

No answer given

Form ID: 3200

Respondent: Arches Chatham Neighbourhood Forum

Do you support the approach to manage ancillary development outside of centres in this way?

No answer given

Do you support the approach to protect Medway’s centres by requiring impact assessments in circumstances set out in Policy T17?

No answer given

Do you agree with the proposed Chatham town centre boundary?

Yes, we agree with the removal of the Go Outdoors/former Market Hall site from the Chatham Town Centre boundary.

Do you agree with the identification of the Primary Shopping Area boundary proposed within Chatham town centre?

Yes.

Do you agree with the Rochester district centre boundary proposed?

No answer given

Do you agree with the Primary Shopping Area boundary proposed within Rochester district centre?

No answer given

Which option or combination of options would you choose for the Gillingham district centre boundary?

No answer given

Do you agree with the Primary Shopping Area boundary proposed within Gillingham district centre?

No answer given

Which option or combination of options would you choose for the Strood district centre boundary?

No answer given

Do you agree with the Primary Shopping Area boundary proposed within Strood district centre?

No answer given

Which option or combination of options would you choose for the Rainham district centre boundary?

No answer given

Do you agree with the Primary Shopping Area boundary proposed within Rainham district centre?

No answer given

Would provision of a supermarket in Hoo be beneficial to residents to encourage sustainable travel patterns, convenience and sustainable lifestyles?

No answer given

Do you agree with the boundaries and retention of these listed local and rural centres?

No answer given

Are there any other local and rural centres you may want to suggest for inclusion?

No answer given

Do you agree with the boundaries and retention of the listed shopping parades and neighbourhood centres?

We agree that 142 Luton Road (former Elephant and Castle pub) should be included in the boundary of SP Luton Road, Chatham. However, we disagree with the proposal to include 1-16 Harnan Court. This new-build property is purely residential in use and does not offer any commercial or community functions. It does not meet the assessment criteria and as such should be removed from the boundary.

Are there any further neighbourhood centres or shopping parades you may want to suggest for inclusion?

No answer given

Do you agree with the proposed boundary for Dockside as a leisure destination? Please refer to the proposal map for the boundary suggestion.

No answer given

Do you support the percentage mix of uses proposed?

No answer given

Can you provide evidence for an alternate mix?

No answer given

Please read the help guide if you are using this consultation platform for the first time.