Medway Local Plan (Regulation 19, 2025)

Support

Representation ID: 4484

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

The reasons given for refusing the planning application have not changed nor been mitigated sufficiently to warrant any decision other than refusing it again.

Remove SA10, Lower Rainham, from the Local plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4485

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It makes no difference that the proposal comes from SMEs. The proposed developer has confirmed verbally during the consultation process that the development will take up to 10 years regardless. The development will not be entirely different to that rejected at appeal in 2021. 750 homes is less than 1250 homes but will still be 750 homes, a blot on previously agricultural land that will be lost forever. The strains on the transport system will also be significant with the addition of those homes and a huge secondary school and primary school.

Object

Representation ID: 4486

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is ridiculous to argue that building only 750 homes and a huge secondary school will limit the degree of landscape impacts. The rural design code does not exist and has not been included in the consultation so it could effectively be made up as it goes along to suit whatever needs the developer has.

Object

Representation ID: 4487

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposed developer has confirmed during consultation meetings that they expect the development to still take 10 years. Stating here that the development will be quicker is disingenuous at best. Having the houses look different to each other does nothing to address the infrastructure issue and loss of hundreds of acres of agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 4488

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This is a ridiculous statement. Rainham Parkside Village would destroy the rural setting.

Object

Representation ID: 4489

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Making the bottom end of Pump Lane 'one way' shows the complete disregard for exisitng residents in the area when planning new development. In this case residents who are within a stones throw from home travelling North could have their journeys significantly extended by being diverted through the new estate and via the lower rainham road which is usually backed up at peak hours and has already been assessed as being significantly worse following the new development.

Object

Representation ID: 4490

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

WRT SA10
The Plan consultation summary confirms the Medway City Estate (MCE) suffers from traffic congestion and hazardous on street parking. How are we to trust the transport plans produced by the council. The previous UK level appeal for Pump Lane development (point 29) received ‘competing appraisals’ from the two parties. They preferred the Councils Medway Aimsun Model (Point 29 [2]) vs a junction modelling approach from the appellant. No mention is now made of Aimsun software in the strategic transport assessment for regulation 19 perhaps because it doesn’t support the new plan especially wrt SA10?