Medway Local Plan (Regulation 19, 2025)

Object

Representation ID: 4792

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Paragraph 1.3.8 fails three of the four soundness tests and may also be vulnerable on legal compliance and the duty to cooperate if evidence transparency and cross-boundary collaboration are not reasonably demonstrated. The Employment Land Needs Assessment’s figures and site allocations are unjustified, ineffective, and inconsistent with national policy, relying on inflated demand projections, constrained strategic sites, and over-specialisation.
The historical pattern of abandoned or slow-moving flagship projects in Medway (notably Innovation Centre/Tesco) suggests large, speculative allocations may likely remain vacant or underused. Risks committing the Council to yet more high-cost, low-delivery strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 4795

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Plan is considered incomplete and possibly insufficient to prove it is “positively prepared,” “justified,” and “effective” as required by the NPPF. Relying on an interim Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA), pending air quality assessments at a crucial stage weakens confidence in the Plan’s evidence base. Lack of clear evidence showing how consultation feedback has influenced Plan changes, inadequate assessment of all potential sites and alternatives. Interim HRA before completing a full air quality assessment risks breaching the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; requires Appropriate Assessment before Plan submission. Lacks coordination between authorities to manage cross-boundary environmental impacts effectively.

Object

Representation ID: 4796

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We acknowledge that Medway Council has engaged with neighbouring authorities and statutory consultees during the preparation of the Local Plan. However, to ensure full compliance with the legal Duty to Cooperate and to enhance the Plan’s soundness, the following amendments and clarifications are necessary:

Demonstrate Substantive Outcomes from Cooperation:
The Plan should clearly document how ongoing liaison has influenced key decisions, including the identification, mitigation, or management of strategic issues; Evidence of agreed joint actions or mechanisms to resolve cross-boundary matters must be included.
Strengthen Cross-Boundary Coordination Mechanisms
Improve Transparency and Public Engagement
Address Outstanding Environmental Cooperation:

Object

Representation ID: 4797

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Plan’s references to cooperation with Gravesham Borough Council on unmet housing need lack clear evidence of binding agreements or effective joint action. The scale of unmet need is not fully quantified or incorporated into Medway’s housing targets, undermining the Plan’s soundness. Justification for Green Belt boundary changes is insufficiently transparent and robust. Additionally, housing needs may be inflated by London overspill assumptions, and the Plan fails to address issues of poor-quality HMOs and unaffordability. Without addressing these concerns, the Plan risks legal non-compliance and being unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 4799

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Over-allocates London overspill housing without HMO/retail safeguards.
Provides infrastructure, cycling, and social facilities only as aspirations.
Neglects waste, heritage, housing quality, education capacity.
Omits sex-based equality analysis, risking breach of Equality Act 2010.

Housing No separation of local vs. migration demand NPPF 35; Housing Act 1985; HMO Regs 2018
HMO / Article 4 No saturation control or rogue deterrent GPDO 2015 Art. 4; NPPF 62-64
Cycling & Safety No evidence-led delivery or maintenance NPPF 104-106; Road Traffic Act 1988 §39
Socio-Economic HMO, illicit trade, exploitative retail, school strain Equality Act 2010; Localism Act 2011; Education Act 1996

Object

Representation ID: 4802

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Inconsistency with National Policy (NPPF)
Chapter 4’s policies fail to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including:

Paragraphs 179–182, which require proactive and precautionary approaches to biodiversity protection and net gain.
Paragraph 186, requiring planning policies to “enhance the natural and local environment”.
Paragraphs 20 and 35, which require strategic policies to be deliverable, justified and effective.

The Plan also lacks adequate provisions for urban greening, air quality protection, and integrated green-blue infrastructure in line with government guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4803

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The benefits outlined regarding health, wellbeing, biodiversity, and economic gains from accessible greenspaces are aspirational but currently unsound within the context of Medway’s existing infrastructure. Without affordable transport options, visitors are forced to rely on already congested roads, exacerbating traffic burdens rather than alleviating them. Additionally, the absence of safe, well-lit pathways that do not contradict or disrupt the natural or lived environment severely limits access by sustainable means, undermining the potential for assumed benefits. Until deficiencies are addressed in a way that respects the character of the area, the plan’s projections are not realistic or deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 4804

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy states major development will only be allowed in “exceptional circumstances” and if it’s “in the public interest.” This aligns with national planning frameworks but is inherently subjective and open to interpretation by decision-makers.

The policy requires development proposals to demonstrate conformity with the Kent Downs National Landscape Management Plan and related landscape assessments. This provides a technical basis for decision-making.

The policy calls for mitigation of adverse impacts and encourages enhancement opportunities, which provides some flexibility but can also lead to compromises rather than outright protection.

Object

Representation ID: 4805

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Local Plan should clearly distinguish between planned growth that is deliverable and supported by confirmed infrastructure capacity versus future ambitions.

The plan does not provide sufficient evidence that existing or planned infrastructure (transport, schools, utilities, healthcare) can adequately support the proposed development at the site. Without confirmed infrastructure provision, claims of sustainability and deliverability are speculative.

Releasing land ahead of demonstrated need risks inefficient land use, increased costs, and potential environmental harm. The Local Plan must align housing allocations strictly with confirmed demand and infrastructure readiness to ensure sustainable development.

Object

Representation ID: 4806

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Mulloy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Protecting open land must be balanced against the urgent and demonstrable housing needs of Medway’s population, including affordable and accessible homes for key workers in emerging green industries. Failure to align housing provision with local employment and training opportunities risks social and economic stagnation.