Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)

Search form responses

Results for Church Commissioners for England . search

Form ID: 2906

Respondent: Church Commissioners for England .

Agent: Lichfields

The Council could consider setting local standards for development that go beyond national policy/regulations in addressing climate change. What evidence would justify this approach, and what standards would be appropriate?

No answer given

Do you consider that the Council should seek to go beyond the statutory minimum of a 10% increase in BNG?

5.3 The view of CCE’s appointed ecologist, Ecology Solutions, is that the planning policy in the Reg 18 B Plan is pitched correctly – to ensure compliance with the 10% national legislative standard. For many sites (particularly intensely farmed arable), whilst it may be possible to aim for and indeed achieve more than 10%, this should be explored on a site-by-site basis, rather than written into Policy. A higher target in the Local Plan across Medway would be overly prescriptive and could result in deliverability or viability issues, noting that BNG assessment work is complex and varied .

What evidence can you provide to support your view?

No answer given

Do you agree that the tariff based strategic approach applied to development within 6 km of the designated areas, supporting the delivery of the Bird Wise SAMMS programme represents an effective means of addressing the potential impact of recreational disturbance on the designated SPA and Ramsar habitats of the Thames, Medway and Swale Estuaries and Marshes.

No answer given

Do you consider that Medway Council should identify landscapes of local value as an additional designation in the new Local Plan?

No answer given

What should be the criteria for designation? Are there areas that you would identify as justifying a local valued landscape designation – where and why?

No answer given

Do you agree that the Council should promote Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework standards in the Medway Local Plan policy?

5.4 The approach put forward is pragmatic and aligns a number of key elements, including aspects that can deliver BNG, wider ecological benefit and other elements of schemes important for ecology (such as informal recreational areas) and other disciplines (drainage, landscape, design).

Has the draft Medway Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework identified the correct key issues and assets, and provide effective guidance for strengthening Medway’s green infrastructure?

No answer given

Do you consider the Green Belt boundary should be revised in line with the recommendations in the 2018 Green Belt Assessment?

No answer given

Do you consider that exceptional circumstances exist to justify review of the Green Belt boundary?

No answer given

Form ID: 2932

Respondent: Church Commissioners for England .

Agent: Lichfields

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?

7.5 CCE support the importance given in the Reg 18 B Plan to affordable housing, it being a ‘key priority’. CCE’s strategic landholdings provide the opportunity to make a significant contribution to affordable housing in Medway. There is a need to provide the right homes in the right places to meet Medway’s growing affordable housing needs. Policy T3 Affordable Housing proposes 30% affordable housing in ‘high value areas’ including the Hoo Peninsula and suburban greenfield sites. The policy states: ‘A viability assessment in line with national policy and guidance should be submitted to the Council to be independently verified if the affordable housing proposed does not meet that which is required.’ The policy should be amended to make it clear that, should the viability assessment demonstrate the requirement for affordable housing is not achievable, then a lower level could be acceptable. 7.6 On Tenure mix, Policy T3 refers to ‘49% affordable home ownership, including First Homes’. Medway will be aware that the Government’s proposed changes to the NPPF (2024), would remove the requirement for ‘First Homes’. Should this change be published within an updated NPPF towards the end of the year, the Regulation 19 Plan will need to be updated accordingly. 7.7 In addition, the Policy refers to the ‘Local Plan Viability Assessment’, which was undertaken in 2022. An updated Viability Assessment will need to be prepared and published with the Regulation 19 consultation later this year, and Policies reviewed in line with this document to check the 10% and 30% requirements remain achievable.

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?

Support the importance of delivering Affordable Homes in Medway. CCE’s strategic landholdings provide the opportunity to make a significant contribution to affordable housing in Medway. There is a need to provide the right homes in the right places to meet Medway’s growing affordable housing needs. An updated Viability Assessment will need to be prepared and published with the Regulation 19 consultation later this year, and Policies reviewed in line with this document to check the 10% and 30% requirements remain achievable.

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?

7.6 On Tenure mix, Policy T3 refers to ‘49% affordable home ownership, including First Homes’. Medway will be aware that the Government’s proposed changes to the NPPF (2024), would remove the requirement for ‘First Homes’. Should this change be published within an updated NPPF towards the end of the year, the Regulation 19 Plan will need to be updated accordingly.

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

No answer given

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

No answer given

Form ID: 2946

Respondent: Church Commissioners for England .

Agent: Lichfields

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?

No answer given

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

No answer given

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?

9.4 The supporting text of S22 Hoo Peninsula confirms the Council is collating evidence as part of the preparation of the Local Plan, which includes identifying the infrastructure and service needs linked to growth in this location. This evidence base will be a key document; it must undertake a capacity and needs based assessment to inform the emerging proposals for infrastructure and retail at the Hoo Rural Town, including whether the provision of a supermarket at Hoo is likely to be needed. CCE would welcome engagement with the Council on this evidence base to understand further the requirements for infrastructure to support the new Community. In the same way, CCE would welcome discussions with Medway on need, timing and location of other infrastructure including schools (see CCE’s response to question 42). 9.5 Allocation of CCE’s land at both east and west of Ropers Lane, would not only provide the opportunity for the delivery of a mix of much needed, high-quality homes (including affordable homes), but the opportunity to provide a sustainable mixed-use development, including education, employment and the opportunity for retail provision. Current illustrative concept proposals for development of CCE’s land east and west of Ropers Lane are provided at Appendix 3 and in the Vision Document. However, this is not fixed and, should it be decided that land to the east of Ropers Lane would be usefully allocated alongside residential use to provide retail provision, or other infrastructure to encourage sustainable travel patterns for existing and new residents at the Peninsula, then this could be explored in consultation with Medway, CCE, and the wider Hoo Consortium. 9.6 In preparing its evidence base and developing the Regulation 19 Plan, Medway must consider the changing nature of the retail market. A data-led approach should be adopted to assess the amount of retail space which would be economically viable given the calculated anticipated retail spend of the new population.

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?

No answer given

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

Form ID: 2960

Respondent: Church Commissioners for England .

Agent: Lichfields

Are there any core health and wellbeing issues or opportunities missing from the policy?

No answer given

What are examples of healthy development in Medway you would like to see more or less of?

No answer given

Of those health areas listed, what are the most important for the local plan to address?

No answer given

How can the local plan ensure that development is inclusive and accessible for all members of our community, including people with disabilities?

No answer given

Please use the online map to identify a green area for consideration as designated Local Green Space.

No site plotted.

Sport England require an up-to-date PPS to justify the protection, enhancement and provision of playing pitches. Based on an audit and assessment of the supply and demand for existing and future playing pitches, the PPS provides recommendations and an action plan for addressing issues regarding the quantity, quality and accessibility of playing pitches and ancillary facilities. Medway Council’s latest PPS was completed in October 2019 for the period 2018-35. Medway Council is inviting local clubs, national governing bodies of sport and other users and providers to review the latest PPS. More specifically, are there any matters in the latest PPS that should be updated?

No answer given

Do you agree identifying the required infrastructure to support the scale and locations of growth within Medway is the correct approach?

10.6 CCE consider it prudent to identify the infrastructure required to support development in Medway. Large scale strategic infrastructure, such as schools and road junctions, should be identified and funded by those allocations which benefit from their development. A mini IDP approach could be used to identify infrastructure, which is solely required for, and therefore funded by a single allocation.

Would a ‘mini IDP approach’ focusing on broad locations and strategic sites be preferred? Or do you have an alternative suggested approach?

Align infrastructure provision in line with this growth – how can we balance growth and new infrastructure requirements with funding gap?

10.7 Sufficient development will need to be delivered to fund the construction of infrastructure. Careful consideration will need to be given as to when elements of infrastructure is required and then ranked in terms of priority, so it can be delivered in a stages across the development period of an allocation ensuring its viability.

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