Medway Local Plan (Regulation 19, 2025)

Object

Representation ID: 4473

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Unsound: Regulation 18 activities allowed 8 weeks for consultation. The regulation 19 activities have been rushed through in 6 weeks during summer holiday season. The regulation 18 plan included 3 options, two of which did not include development at the orchards off Pump Lane (SA10). The council stated a preference for option 3 which again did not include development SA10. The development has previously been rejected by both Medway Council and Secretary of state. The people have therefore made it very clear in previous consultations that they do not want this development.

Object

Representation ID: 4474

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan to include SA10 does nothing to preserve the environment of hundreds of acres of orchards/agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 4475

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Adding another 750 homes and two schools to an already congested area of Medway/Rainham will do nothing to make Medway/Rainham a great place to live. It is already causing misery at the mere threat to people living in the area that they will be unable to sell their houses at market value should they wish or need to for a period of up to 12 years, the planned length of the consultation/development.

Object

Representation ID: 4476

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan will do nothing to improve the 'clean air' in and around the area designated for SA10 Lower Rainham. The area already suffers from congestion and adding 750 homes and two schools will do nothing to improve that situation.

Object

Representation ID: 4477

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Documents provided for the consultation do not include analysis of the junction Beechings Road/Pump Lane. The developer stated that the information will only be provided to the independent assessor taking it out of scope of consultation. I would question the legality of this. The plan relies on statements about the number of houses in SA10 being vastly different to those previously rejected (750 vs 1250) however the inclusion of two massive schools adds insult to injury. It is widely expected that the council will renege in any case and decide not to have the schools and reinstate the additional houses

Object

Representation ID: 4478

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is disingenuous to state that input from consultation and engagement with residents has informed the plan. The previous regulation 18 consultation did not include SA10 Lower Rainham as a preferred option (according to the council) so the community did not need to respond at that time, rather they breathed a sigh of relief, but in any case the plan to build in this area had previoulsly been rejected by the council and UK secretary of state following extremely strong opposition from the local community.

Object

Representation ID: 4479

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This section is contradictory setting out the areas 'valued landscapes' a reason previously given for rejection of the proposed development of Orchards at SA10 Lower Rainham.

Object

Representation ID: 4480

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Although not mentioned here at all, 'extensions... to the North of Rainham' are described in the Regulation 19 summary booklet as being suburban areas whereas they are clearly rural green field sites. This is misleading at best.

Object

Representation ID: 4482

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is difficult to acknowledge how developing adjacent agricultural land will 'avoid, or minimise' the need for flooding solutions alongside a road that already floods when it rains heavily.

Object

Representation ID: 4483

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

.. and yet you persist in developing the area. Congestion at the junction of Pump Lane/lower rainham road is dire. 'Good day' Traffic analysis shows the bad effects of the bottle neck at the adjacent traffic lights made worse by the inclusion of the new development and as far as a I can see no traffic analysis has been published for the consultation at the junction of beechings way/pump lane adjacent to a single lane under a bridge which would be crippled by the inclusion of additional housing, a huge secondary and additional primary school.