Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Search representations
Results for Mr Lewis Marshall search
New searchComment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Spatial Development Strategy
Representation ID: 4066
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mr Lewis Marshall
When considering development of greenfield sites, we will not produce a modal shift away from car-based travel without significant investment in public transport beyond buses. Medway is well placed to allow inhabitants many opportunities but they cannot all be provided on the doorstep.
When considering development of greenfield sites, we will not produce a modal shift away from car-based travel without significant investment in public transport beyond buses. Medway is well placed to allow inhabitants many opportunities but they cannot all be provided on the doorstep.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
3.2.1
Representation ID: 4077
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mr Lewis Marshall
I think that to most living in Medway SGO1 would still appear to be a blended strategy, given that greenfield sites (e.g. north of Hoo, south of Capstone Park, east of Mierscourt Road) are included in consideration for development. For people to live near employment opportunities and access good public transport choices, the majority of development must be in the urban area.
I think that to most living in Medway SGO1 would still appear to be a blended strategy, given that greenfield sites (e.g. north of Hoo, south of Capstone Park, east of Mierscourt Road) are included in consideration for development. For people to live near employment opportunities and access good public transport choices, the majority of development must be in the urban area.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Policy S7: Green Belt
Representation ID: 4088
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mr Lewis Marshall
Green Belt is Green Belt. It ceases to be Green Belt if you build on it.
Green Belt is Green Belt. It ceases to be Green Belt if you build on it.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Policy T3: Affordable Housing
Representation ID: 4098
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mr Lewis Marshall
Why should lower value areas demand a lower % of affordable housing? This will price out those on lower means by demand in the lower value areas, and by per unit price in high value areas! Also the off-setting approach e.g. build affordable housing on a second site looks like an open loophole.
Why should lower value areas demand a lower % of affordable housing? This will price out those on lower means by demand in the lower value areas, and by per unit price in high value areas! Also the off-setting approach e.g. build affordable housing on a second site looks like an open loophole.
Comment
Medway Local Plan (Regulation 18, 2024)
Policy T14: Rural Economy
Representation ID: 4112
Received: 08/09/2024
Respondent: Mr Lewis Marshall
I agree with this policy but I do not see how some of the proposed spatial growth developments can be compatible. Even the recent planning permission granted to ~450 properties between Ham Lane (Elm Court) and North Dane Way (Lordswood) I think might fall short of several of these points.
I agree with this policy but I do not see how some of the proposed spatial growth developments can be compatible. Even the recent planning permission granted to ~450 properties between Ham Lane (Elm Court) and North Dane Way (Lordswood) I think might fall short of several of these points.
