Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)

Search form responses

Results for Peter Chatwell search

Form ID: 1896

Respondent: Peter Chatwell

Adequate overnight lorry parking would reduce the risk of lorries parking in locations that lack proper facilities and/or cause a nuisance. Are there local shortages for overnight lorry parking in Medway?

The plan should be trying to reduce/remove the need for lorries to enter the medway towns. They cause harm to the infrastructure, environment, and they hold the Medway economy back by supporting low-value manufacturing/logistics business, where an ambitious SE England pseudo-city has no historical or current physical or logical advantage.

Form ID: 1905

Respondent: Peter Chatwell

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?

No answer given

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?

The North Downs way is of great natural significance in Surrey and Kent. If we do not offer it the highest degree of protection, we cannot be seen as an aspirational town/city in the England. For talented people to want to live in Medway, we need to develop our brownfield sites and preserve our nature.

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?

No answer given

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, as there is an abundance of brownfield sites that not only can be developed, but should be developed to maximise the economic prosperity of Medway residents.

Form ID: 1907

Respondent: Peter Chatwell

Should this policy be broadened out to areas adjacent or near to Conservation Areas rather than only within?

Given the scale of the housing targets Medway is looking to achieve, and the scope of the regeneration of Chatham and Gillingham, I think it should be broadened out to adjacent areas *purely for the duration of this local plan* to ensure that the massive scale and pace of building does inadvertently cause some sites of historical or achaelogical importance to be forever damaged.

Please explain why

No answer given

Form ID: 1909

Respondent: Peter Chatwell

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

I believe it is effective only for the current, relatively poor, Medway economy. If the local plan is made more ambitious, to encourage much more upgrading of Medway's economy to higher value industry, then the median Medway wage will rise vs. the national median, and this may permit a lower proportion of affordable housing. The mix should be subject to revision. The greater the economic ambition/success of the Local Plan, the lower the need for affordable housing. An excessively high proportion of affordable housing may limit the attractiveness of Medway for those in well paid jobs, considering relocating here.

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?

Yes, but not for the reasons I suspect these requirements have been arrived at. I expect the biggest boost to Medway's economic productivity to come from regeneration of brownfield sites (which I do not think are "low value"), therefore I agree with the lower affordable housing requirement for brownfield development.

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?

A thorough economic analysis of development on Medway's brownfield and greenfield sites would give much greater clarity on this. My company [REDACTED] would be happy to provide this on a non-profit basis.

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?

HMOs should only be permitted on a temporary basis (e.g. 6 month licenses). This would allow HMOs to be part of the housing mix for the workforce needed for the large-scale building works of the Local Plan itself, but would mean that communities cannot be permanently blighted.

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

No answer given

Form ID: 1918

Respondent: Peter Chatwell

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

Yes, by considering the impact on existing centres, and ensuring that travel to/from outside centres is sustainable and in keeping with policy, unintended negative consequences on the town centres should be less likely.

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

yes

Do you agree with the proposed Chatham town centre boundary?

Mostly, yes, as this creates scope for more residential housing to materialise nearby, but I think the boundary should extend south to include the railway station.

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

yes, this will reduce the sprawl

Do you agree with the Rochester district centre boundary proposed?

No, as intra formally in rochester. If the objective is to move intra into Chatham, this should be reflected in the Chatham boundary.

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

No, the primary shopping area is far too small and not reflective of current shopping trends.

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?

I would choose A + B, on the premise that the larger the centre is, the more room there is for regeneration under this plan.

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

no, strood struggles to maintain shops of any quality in the existing shopping area, primarily due to the cannibalisation from strood retail park. a bigger decision needs to be made about the size and shape of strood. The horrible road network running through it kills strood as a centre. if that road network is to remain, then letting strood centre turn substantially more residential would make more sense.

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?

absolutely, yes.

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

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