Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)

Yes, the Council should aim to exceed the statutory minimum of a 10% increase in Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Given Medway’s unique environmental challenges, such as habitat loss and pollution, setting a higher BNG target would better support local biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. By going beyond the minimum requirement, the Council can more effectively address environmental degradation, enhance habitat connectivity, and contribute to a more sustainable and thriving natural environment. This proactive approach would align with the goal of safeguarding and restoring Medway’s ecological health, ensuring long-term benefits for both wildlife and local communities.

Yes, the Council should aim to exceed the statutory minimum of a 10% increase in Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Medway faces significant environmental challenges, such as habitat loss, increased pollution, and frequent flooding, which necessitate more ambitious measures. A higher BNG target would not only help to mitigate these issues but also support the restoration and enhancement of local ecosystems. This proactive approach would create more resilient habitats, improve biodiversity connectivity, and strengthen ecological networks. By exceeding the minimum requirement, the Council can address the specific needs of Medway’s unique environment, ensuring long-term benefits for both wildlife and local communities while demonstrating leadership in environmental stewardship. This commitment would foster a more sustainable future and help Medway adapt to ongoing climate and ecological pressures.

Yes, the tariff-based strategic approach applied to development within 6 km of designated areas, supporting the Bird Wise SAMMS programme, represents an effective means of addressing the potential impact of recreational disturbance on the SPA and Ramsar habitats of the Thames, Medway, and Swale Estuaries and Marshes. By implementing a financial contribution mechanism, this approach ensures that developers contribute to the management and mitigation of recreational impacts on sensitive habitats. This strategy helps fund necessary conservation measures and supports habitat protection efforts, which are crucial for maintaining the ecological integrity of these important areas. The tariff-based approach aligns development with environmental stewardship, balancing growth with effective conservation.

Yes, Medway Council should consider identifying landscapes of local value as an additional designation in the new Local Plan. Recognising these landscapes would help protect areas that are not only important for their natural beauty but also for their cultural, historical, or recreational significance to local communities. This designation would enhance conservation efforts, ensure that local landscapes are preserved for future generations, and support sustainable development that respects these areas. It also fosters a sense of community pride and engagement, contributing to the overall quality of life and environmental stewardship in Medway.

The criteria for designating landscapes of local value should include: 1. Natural Beauty: Areas with exceptional scenic or aesthetic qualities. 2. Cultural or Historical Significance: Landscapes with important historical or cultural connections to the local community. 3. Ecological Value: Areas that support diverse wildlife or unique ecosystems. 4. Recreational Use: Landscapes that provide significant recreational opportunities for residents. 5. Community Sentiment: Places that hold strong sentimental value for local people. In Medway, areas like the marshes and estuaries along the Thames and Medway, and specific rural landscapes around Allhallows could justify this designation. These areas offer scenic beauty, cultural significance, and recreational benefits while supporting local wildlife and reflecting the community's heritage. Identifying these landscapes helps ensure they are protected and valued within the new Local Plan.

Yes, the Council should promote Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework standards in the Medway Local Plan policy. Adopting these standards would ensure that green infrastructure is integrated effectively into development plans, enhancing environmental quality, connectivity, and resilience. The framework provides a comprehensive approach to planning and managing green spaces, which supports biodiversity, improves public health and well-being, and contributes to sustainable development. By aligning with Natural England’s standards, Medway can enhance the ecological and social benefits of its green infrastructure, creating more vibrant and sustainable communities.

The draft Medway Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework has identified several key issues and assets, but its effectiveness in strengthening Medway’s green infrastructure depends on its comprehensiveness and applicability. It should address critical issues such as habitat connectivity, pollution control, and flood resilience, while also recognising valuable assets like natural reserves, waterways, and urban green spaces. Effective guidance should include specific strategies for improving green infrastructure, ensuring it supports biodiversity, enhances public access, and integrates with broader environmental goals. If the draft framework comprehensively covers these areas and provides actionable recommendations, it can significantly enhance Medway’s green infrastructure.

Yes, the Green Belt boundary should be revised in line with the recommendations in the 2018 Green Belt Assessment. The assessment provides valuable insights into the current effectiveness and constraints of Green Belt boundaries, helping to ensure that they continue to meet their intended purposes, such as preventing urban sprawl, protecting the countryside, and preserving local character. Revising the boundaries based on these recommendations can help address areas where the Green Belt may no longer be serving its purpose effectively, ensuring that it remains a robust tool for sustainable development and environmental protection.

Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify a review of the Green Belt boundary depends on specific factors affecting Medway. Exceptional circumstances might include significant pressure for housing and infrastructure development, especially if current boundaries hinder meeting essential needs for housing, economic growth, or public services. However, any review should be carefully considered, weighing the benefits of development against the importance of preserving Green Belt land. Comprehensive evidence should demonstrate that alternative solutions are insufficient and that revising the boundaries is necessary to achieve sustainable development while protecting the Green Belt’s core functions.

I have reservations about the proposed requirements for affordable housing. While a 10% requirement on urban brownfield sites may reflect the need to balance development pressures with affordability, it may not be sufficient given the high demand for affordable housing. The 30% requirement for greenfield sites and higher value urban locations seems more appropriate but still may not fully address the affordability crisis, especially in areas where housing costs are high. To truly meet the needs of the community, the percentages should be re-evaluated, potentially increased, and tailored to ensure that affordable housing is effectively provided across all types of sites.

An effective alternative approach would involve a more nuanced and flexible strategy for affordable housing that takes into account the varying value areas and specific needs of each locality within Medway. This could include: 1. Tiered Requirements: Implementing a tiered approach where affordable housing percentages are adjusted based on the location's market value and the existing demand for affordable housing. 2. Incentives for Developers: Offering incentives such as expedited planning permissions or financial benefits for developers who exceed the minimum affordable housing requirements. 3. Community Needs Assessments: Regularly conducting detailed assessments to understand local housing needs and adjust requirements accordingly. 4. Mixed-Income Developments: Encouraging mixed-income developments that integrate affordable housing with market-rate units to promote diversity and inclusion. By tailoring affordable housing requirements to different value areas and incorporating flexibility, Medway can better address local housing needs and ensure that new developments are more effectively balanced and equitable.

An effective split between social/affordable rent and intermediate/low-cost home ownership housing should balance immediate affordability needs with long-term home ownership opportunities. A recommended approach might be: 1. Social/Affordable Rent: Allocate 60-70% of affordable housing to social and affordable rent tenures. This addresses the urgent need for rental accommodation among lower-income households and those on waiting lists for social housing. 2. Intermediate/Low-Cost Home Ownership: Allocate 30-40% to intermediate or low-cost home ownership options. This supports households who are not eligible for social housing but struggle to afford market prices, offering pathways to ownership and stability. This split provides a balanced approach, catering to both immediate rental needs and long-term home ownership aspirations, ensuring diverse and inclusive communities.

An effective split between tenures for affordable housing should consider both current demand and future sustainability. A balanced approach could be: 1. Social/Affordable Rent: 60% of affordable housing should be allocated to social and affordable rent. This caters to those in immediate need of affordable rental options, particularly lower-income households and those on waiting lists. 2. Intermediate/Low-Cost Home Ownership: 40% should be dedicated to intermediate and low-cost home ownership. This supports those who are not eligible for social housing but still need assistance to access home ownership, thus encouraging long-term housing stability and community integration. This distribution ensures that both rental and ownership needs are addressed effectively, promoting a well-rounded approach to affordable housing.

Defining limits to the over-concentration of HMOs (Housing in Multiple Occupation) in a community is crucial for maintaining residential balance and ensuring quality of life. Recommended criteria for managing HMO concentrations include: 1. Proportion of HMOs: Limit the percentage of HMOs within any given area or street, ensuring they do not exceed a certain threshold (e.g., 10-15%) of total residential properties. 2. Distance from Schools and Family Areas: Restrict HMOs within a certain distance from schools, parks, and family-centric areas to minimise impact on local families and children. 3. Impact on Local Services: Evaluate the effect of new HMOs on local services and infrastructure, including waste management, parking, and community facilities, to prevent strain on existing resources. 4. Community Feedback: Incorporate feedback from local residents regarding the perceived impact of existing HMOs, considering their views in policy decisions. These criteria help to manage the balance between different types of housing and maintain community cohesion.

Based on the information provided, I don’t have specific sites to promote for self-build allocation. However, I would recommend focusing on identifying and promoting: 1. Unused or Underutilised Land: Sites that are currently vacant or underused, especially those in more central or accessible areas within Medway, can be ideal for self-build projects. 2. Brownfield Sites: Repurposing previously developed land that may not be suitable for large-scale housing but could be ideal for individual self-builds. 3. Smaller Plots in Urban Areas: Areas where infrastructure is already established and where self-builds can integrate into existing communities. 4. Community-Initiated Projects: Engage with local groups or communities who might have identified potential sites for self-build developments. Focusing on these types of sites ensures that self-build allocations are practical, beneficial, and align with community needs and infrastructure capabilities.

I support the approach to protect Medway’s centres by requiring impact assessments as outlined in Policy T17. It is crucial to ensure that any new developments or ancillary projects do not negatively affect the existing centres, particularly in areas where infrastructure and local services are already under strain. Proper impact assessments will help to safeguard the vitality of Medway’s centres, prevent further strain on already limited resources, and ensure that developments are aligned with the community's needs and infrastructure capacity. This approach is essential for maintaining the balance between growth and the sustainability of local services.

I do not fully agree with the proposed Chatham town centre boundary. Expanding or changing the boundary without addressing the existing issues in infrastructure and safety may exacerbate current problems rather than resolve them. Before considering boundary changes, it's essential to prioritize substantial improvements to the town centre’s infrastructure and safety measures to ensure that any new development or boundary adjustments will benefit the community effectively.

I have reservations about the proposed Primary Shopping Area boundary. If the boundary is extended without addressing the significant problems already present, such as safety and infrastructure deficiencies, it may not provide the intended benefits and could worsen existing issues. It's crucial to ensure that any proposed boundaries are accompanied by a comprehensive plan for improving safety, infrastructure, and overall town centre quality to genuinely benefit the community.

I have reservations about the proposed Rochester district centre boundary. If the boundary is not aligned with the current needs and challenges faced by the area, such as inadequate infrastructure or safety concerns, it may not effectively address these issues. Ensuring that the proposed boundary supports meaningful improvements and reflects the actual needs of the community is crucial for its success. A thorough review and alignment with local priorities and infrastructure developments would be essential for a positive outcome.

I would likely question whether the proposed Primary Shopping Area boundary in Rochester district centre adequately addresses these issues. If the boundary does not align with the current infrastructure and community needs or fails to consider areas with significant challenges, it may not be effective. It is crucial that the boundary supports both the expansion of shopping facilities and the enhancement of infrastructure to ensure it benefits the local community and addresses existing shortcomings. Proper consultation and alignment with local needs are essential for the boundary's effectiveness.

I would recommend selecting an option or combination of options for the Gillingham district centre boundary that: 1. Expands the boundary to include underrepresented areas: This ensures that the district centre can cater to a broader range of needs and potentially attract more businesses and services. 2. Focuses on enhancing infrastructure: Any chosen option should account for the current limitations in infrastructure and aim to integrate improvements alongside boundary adjustments. 3. Includes community consultation: Engage with local residents and businesses to understand their needs and priorities, ensuring that the expanded boundary reflects their input and addresses local concerns. A well-considered boundary should balance growth with the existing infrastructure capacity and address community needs effectively.

I would suggest that the Primary Shopping Area boundary proposed within Gillingham district centre may need careful consideration. Given the issues with infrastructure and the current inadequacies in accommodating the needs of existing residents, any boundary proposal should ensure that it does not exacerbate these problems. The boundary should be set to support sustainable development, enhance local services, and address existing infrastructure deficits. Adequate community consultation is crucial to ensure that the proposed boundary aligns with local needs and supports the overall well-being of the area.

To choose the most appropriate option or combination of options for the Strood district centre boundary, consider the following: 1. Assess Infrastructure and Facilities: Ensure the boundary aligns with existing infrastructure capacity and future needs. Expansion should not outpace the ability of current services to support additional demand. 2. Community Needs: Consult with local residents to understand their needs and preferences. The boundary should reflect areas where development will be beneficial and enhance local services. 3. Sustainable Development: Choose options that support sustainable growth, balancing new development with the preservation of existing assets and community character. 4. Economic Viability: The boundary should be set to support local businesses and improve economic opportunities without overwhelming the area. Based on these criteria, opt for a combination of options that provides a balanced approach to growth, aligns with infrastructure capabilities, and considers community feedback.

To determine whether you agree with the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) boundary proposed within Strood district centre, consider these factors: 1. Alignment with Community Needs: Does the proposed boundary reflect the areas where there is genuine demand for retail and services? Ensure it supports the local economy and meets the needs of residents. 2. Infrastructure Capacity: Evaluate if the boundary aligns with the existing infrastructure and can accommodate future growth without straining local services. 3. Economic Viability: Assess if the proposed PSA boundary supports local businesses and encourages a vibrant retail environment. 4. Consistency with Planning Goals: Ensure the boundary is consistent with broader planning objectives and policies for Strood. If the proposed boundary aligns well with these considerations, then supporting it would be reasonable. If not, suggest adjustments based on the specific issues identified.

To choose the most appropriate option or combination of options for the Rainham district centre boundary, consider the following factors: 1. Current and Future Retail Needs: The boundary should reflect areas with high demand for retail and services, and be adaptable to future growth and changes in shopping habits. 2. Infrastructure and Accessibility: Ensure that the boundary encompasses areas with sufficient infrastructure and is accessible to the majority of residents. This includes transportation links, parking, and pedestrian access. 3. Economic Viability: The boundary should support existing businesses and encourage new investment, fostering a vibrant and economically sustainable district centre. 4. Community Impact: Consider how the boundary will affect local residents and businesses. It should enhance the area's functionality and appeal without negatively impacting surrounding areas. 5. Consistency with Planning Policies: The chosen option should align with broader planning goals and policies for Rainham. Review each option based on these criteria and select the one that best balances these factors to support a thriving and sustainable district centre in Rainham.

I have concerns about the proposed Primary Shopping Area boundary within Rainham district centre. The boundary should be carefully assessed to ensure it aligns with current and future retail needs, infrastructure, and accessibility for residents. Given the challenges in Medway, such as inadequate infrastructure and the need for more shops and facilities, the boundary must support local businesses and foster economic growth without exacerbating existing issues. It is crucial that the boundary reflects a comprehensive understanding of the area’s requirements and is reviewed in consultation with local stakeholders to ensure it meets the community’s needs effectively.

Providing a supermarket in Hoo could indeed be beneficial to residents by promoting sustainable travel patterns, convenience, and sustainable lifestyles. A local supermarket would reduce the need for residents to travel long distances for groceries, thus lowering their carbon footprint and supporting more sustainable travel patterns. It would also enhance convenience, allowing residents to shop locally and support the local economy. Additionally, having access to a nearby supermarket can encourage healthier lifestyles by making it easier to purchase fresh and nutritious food. Overall, a supermarket could improve quality of life and contribute to more sustainable community practices.

It seems important to ensure that boundaries for local and rural centres are set with careful consideration of current and future needs. If the boundaries and retention of these centres align with a realistic assessment of community infrastructure, economic viability, and the ability to support local services and amenities, then they could be supported. However, if they are based on outdated or inaccurate assessments, or fail to address critical issues such as insufficient infrastructure or inadequate local services, it may be necessary to reassess and adjust them accordingly.

Given the current state of infrastructure and local needs in my area, including Allhallows, you might consider suggesting the following local and rural centres for inclusion: 1. Allhallows: As a growing village with current infrastructure challenges, it could benefit from being designated as a local centre to better address its needs and improve facilities. 2. Stoke: Given its proximity to Allhallows and its own infrastructure needs, including it could help create a more cohesive plan for the area. 3. Hoo: As a potentially underserved area, including it could support the development of essential services and improve local accessibility. These suggestions aim to address existing gaps and ensure better service provision and infrastructure support for residents.

You might consider the following points when assessing the boundaries and retention of shopping parades and neighbourhood centres: 1. Evaluate Existing Needs: Ensure that the boundaries reflect the current needs of local communities. If areas like Allhallows or Hoo are struggling with inadequate facilities, their boundaries might need re-evaluation to better support local needs. 2. Infrastructure Capacity: Consider whether existing shopping parades and neighbourhood centres have the capacity to accommodate growth or if their boundaries should be adjusted to alleviate pressure. 3. Community Feedback: It's essential that local communities are consulted to ensure that their needs and concerns are addressed. The boundaries should align with residents' experiences and expectations. If the current boundaries do not align with these considerations or do not adequately address local needs, it may be worth advocating for a review or adjustment.

Considering the current needs and challenges in my local area, such as Allhallows, you might suggest including the following types of centres: 1. Allhallows Village Centre: Given the existing concerns about inadequate local facilities and infrastructure, expanding or enhancing the boundaries to include additional areas within Allhallows could address the shortage of shops and services. 2. Hoo Centre: If not already included, considering the potential benefit of a supermarket or additional amenities could make Hoo a more effective centre for local needs. 3. Smaller Villages: Areas like Stoke and other nearby villages that lack sufficient shopping and community facilities might benefit from inclusion, to better serve the surrounding communities. These suggestions aim to improve local access to essential services and support the overall sustainability and convenience of shopping and community services.

If the proposed boundary effectively encompasses key leisure amenities, provides adequate space for current and future developments, and integrates well with surrounding areas, it could be considered appropriate. The boundary should ideally support the growth of leisure activities, ensure accessibility for residents, and contribute positively to the area's overall development without negatively impacting other land uses or communities.

To evaluate the proposed percentage mix of uses, consider the following factors: 1. Community Needs: Does the mix align with the needs and preferences of the local community? For example, if there is a strong demand for retail, leisure, or housing, the mix should reflect that. 2. Economic Viability: Is the proposed mix likely to be economically viable? Ensure that the mix supports local businesses and attracts investment. 3. Sustainability: Does the mix support sustainable development? For instance, including green spaces or community facilities can enhance quality of life and environmental impact. 4. Infrastructure: Are the existing and planned infrastructure and services sufficient to support the proposed mix? If the percentage mix effectively balances these factors, it is likely to be a supportive approach. If it does not address key issues or does not align with community needs, adjustments might be necessary.

No answer given

More of: 1. Green Space Preservation and Enhancement: - Developments that maintain and improve green spaces, parks, and recreational areas. These spaces support physical activity and mental well-being. 2. Infrastructure Investment: - Prioritising infrastructure improvements before new housing, including upgrading roads, sewage systems, and public transport to support existing and new residents effectively. 3. Community-Focused Projects: - Projects that involve genuine consultation with local communities to address their specific needs and desires. This includes investing in local facilities such as schools and shops. 4. Affordable and Suitable Housing: - Developments that provide truly affordable housing with reasonable space, gardens, and driveways. Ensuring that new housing meets the needs of local residents without contributing to over-concentration issues. 5. Sustainable and Well-Planned Development: - Housing and commercial developments that consider environmental impact, including reducing traffic congestion and pollution. Projects that include proper facilities and services to support sustainable living. 6. Properly Managed Gypsy, Traveller, and Showpeople Sites: - Sites that are well-managed and actively supervised to prevent issues related to property damage and antisocial behaviour, ensuring they integrate well with local communities. Less of: 1. Inadequate Housing Developments: - Reducing developments that result in poorly designed, small houses with minimal amenities, which do not fit the local needs and contribute to overcrowding. 2. Over-Expansion of Tourist Facilities: - Limiting the expansion of facilities like holiday parks that cause more problems than benefits, such as increased crime and traffic issues in local areas. 3. Insufficiently Consulted Projects: - Minimising projects where local communities are not consulted adequately. Avoiding developments that impose changes without understanding the impact on existing residents. 4. Over-Emphasis on Centralised Development: - Reducing focus on central Medway to the detriment of outlying areas, ensuring that development benefits all areas equally, not just central locations. 5. Unmanaged HMOs: - Less focus on developing HMOs without adequate controls, which can lead to issues such as crime and poor living conditions. By focusing on these aspects, Medway can achieve healthier, more balanced development that benefits both current and future residents.

For the local plan to address health and wellbeing effectively, the most important areas to focus on are: 1. Infrastructure Investment: - Prioritising infrastructure improvements is crucial. Upgrading roads, sewage systems, and public transport will support both existing and new residents, improve safety, and enhance the overall quality of life. 2. Green Space Preservation and Enhancement: - Protecting and enhancing green spaces is vital for physical and mental health. These areas provide essential recreational opportunities and improve air quality. 3. Affordable and Suitable Housing: - Ensuring that new housing is truly affordable and designed with adequate space and amenities is essential. Properly planned housing will prevent overcrowding, reduce strain on local services, and improve living conditions. 4. Community-Focused Projects: - Genuine consultation with local communities to understand their needs and preferences ensures that developments are beneficial and well-integrated, addressing specific local issues effectively. 5. Sustainable and Well-Planned Development: - Emphasising sustainable development that considers environmental impacts and supports local amenities will help in reducing pollution and traffic congestion, leading to healthier living conditions. Addressing these areas will help create a more balanced and supportive environment, improving overall health and wellbeing for residents.

To ensure that development is inclusive and accessible for all members of the community, including people with disabilities, the local plan should incorporate the following strategies: 1. Universal Design Principles: - Adopt universal design principles that ensure buildings, public spaces, and infrastructure are accessible to everyone, regardless of ability. This includes ramps, elevators, wide doorways, and accessible restrooms. 2. Inclusive Public Consultation: - Engage with disability advocacy groups and conduct consultations specifically tailored to gather feedback from people with disabilities. This helps identify barriers and needs that might otherwise be overlooked. 3. Accessibility Audits: - Perform regular accessibility audits of existing and proposed developments to ensure they meet or exceed current accessibility standards and guidelines. 4. Accessible Transportation Options: - Ensure that public transportation and road networks are designed to accommodate people with disabilities, including accessible bus stops, train stations, and pedestrian crossings. 5. Affordable and Accessible Housing: - Include provisions for affordable, accessible housing within new developments. This means designing homes that can accommodate a range of disabilities and making sure that such housing is available across different neighbourhoods. 6. Adaptive Infrastructure: - Design public spaces such as parks, community centres, and recreational facilities to be adaptive and inclusive, with features like tactile paving, audio-visual aids, and adjustable facilities. 7. Inclusive Employment Opportunities: - Encourage the development of businesses and facilities that are committed to inclusive hiring practices and provide necessary accommodations for employees with disabilities. 8. Ongoing Monitoring and Feedback: - Implement mechanisms for ongoing feedback from the community on accessibility issues and continuously update standards and practices to address any identified shortcomings. By integrating these strategies into the local plan, developments can be made more inclusive, ensuring that all members of the community, including those with disabilities, have equal access to opportunities and services.

No answer given

Identifying the required infrastructure to support the scale and locations of growth within Medway is indeed a crucial approach. This ensures that development is sustainable and that new housing, commercial, and community projects are supported by the necessary infrastructure, such as roads, schools, healthcare facilities, and utilities. Without adequate infrastructure, growth can lead to increased congestion, strain on existing services, and reduced quality of life for residents. However, this approach should be coupled with: 1. Comprehensive Impact Assessments: - Conduct thorough assessments to understand how new developments will affect existing infrastructure and to identify potential gaps or needs. 2. Community Consultation: - Engage with local communities to gather input on infrastructure needs and priorities. This ensures that developments align with the needs and preferences of residents. 3. Phased Development: - Implement growth in phases, ensuring that infrastructure is developed in tandem with new housing and commercial projects to prevent overloading existing systems. 4. Monitoring and Adaptation: - Regularly review and adapt infrastructure plans based on evolving needs and feedback to ensure continued alignment with community requirements. Overall, while identifying infrastructure needs is essential, the process must be dynamic and responsive to the changing demands of the community and the impact of new developments.

A 'mini Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) approach' focusing on broad locations and strategic sites could be beneficial, as it allows for targeted planning and resource allocation. This approach would focus on key areas that are expected to see significant growth or development, ensuring that infrastructure is aligned with the most impactful projects. Advantages of a Mini IDP Approach: 1. Targeted Planning: - It allows for detailed planning and prioritisation of infrastructure where it's needed most, which can be more efficient than a blanket approach. 2. Resource Allocation: - Focuses resources on strategic sites, making it easier to manage and coordinate infrastructure development. 3. Flexibility: - It can adapt to changes in development priorities or unexpected growth patterns. Alternative Suggested Approach: 1. Integrated IDP: - Develop a comprehensive IDP that integrates both broad locations and strategic sites, including smaller-scale projects that might be overlooked in a mini IDP approach. This ensures that all areas of growth are considered, not just the largest or most immediate ones. 2. Dynamic Infrastructure Planning: - Implement a dynamic planning approach where infrastructure needs are continuously assessed and updated based on real-time data and community feedback. 3. Community Involvement: - Engage local communities in the planning process to ensure that infrastructure development meets their needs and expectations. 4. Phased Development with Monitoring: - Incorporate phased development plans with regular monitoring to adapt to changing conditions and needs. Overall, while a mini IDP approach can be effective for strategic sites, integrating it with broader, dynamic planning and community involvement will provide a more comprehensive and adaptable framework for infrastructure development.

Balancing growth and new infrastructure requirements with a funding gap involves strategic planning and innovative solutions. Here are some key approaches to manage this balance effectively: 1. Prioritisation and Phasing: - Prioritise Critical Infrastructure: Identify and focus on infrastructure that is essential for supporting the most immediate or impactful growth areas. - Phased Implementation: Plan infrastructure development in phases, aligning with the timing of growth and available funding. This allows for gradual adjustments based on evolving needs and resources. 2. Funding Strategies: - Diversified Funding Sources: Explore various funding sources such as government grants, private investment, public-private partnerships, and community contributions. - Infrastructure Levy: Implement or increase levies on new developments to contribute to infrastructure costs. This ensures that developers contribute to the costs associated with the growth they generate. 3. Value Capture Mechanisms: - Land Value Uplift: Use mechanisms to capture increased land value resulting from new infrastructure and development, such as Development Charges or Tax Increment Financing (TIF). - Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Apply CIL to raise funds from new developments to fund infrastructure improvements. 4. Cost-Effective Solutions: - Innovative Design and Technology: Utilise cost-effective and innovative infrastructure solutions that provide high value while minimising expenditure. - Sustainable Practices: Implement sustainable practices that reduce long-term costs, such as energy-efficient systems and durable materials. 5. Collaboration and Partnerships: - Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Collaborate with private sector partners to share the cost burden and leverage additional expertise and resources. - Joint Planning: Work with other local authorities, businesses, and community groups to coordinate and pool resources for infrastructure development. 6. Incremental Growth and Adaptability: - Adapt to Changing Needs: Remain flexible and adaptable to changes in growth patterns and funding availability, allowing for adjustments in infrastructure plans as needed. - Incremental Expansion: Build infrastructure incrementally to match the pace of growth, avoiding overcommitment and ensuring sustainability. 7. Community Engagement and Support: - Engage the Community: Involve local communities in the planning process to build support for infrastructure projects and identify priority needs. - Transparent Communication: Maintain transparency about funding challenges and involve stakeholders in finding solutions. By adopting these approaches, it is possible to align infrastructure provision with growth while managing funding constraints effectively. Balancing these factors requires careful planning, strategic investment, and a willingness to explore innovative solutions.