Medway Local Plan (Regulation 19, 2025)

Object

Representation ID: 4882

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The emerging plan sets out the annual housing requirement of 1,636 new homes per year . Over the intended plan period that amounts to a need to identify 24,540 new homes. Paragraph 1.3.6 identifies the supply approach as follows:
• Pipeline sites (with planning consent, not completed or allocated) – 1,762
• Local Plan allocations – 21,194
• Windfall sites – 1,584
Paragraph 1.3.7 notes that “This provides a small buffer on supply over need”
This approach to supply however fails to make any provision for a buffer having regard to paragraphs 72 and 78 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 4883

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst the principle of this policy is supported, at present the wording is too loose when cross referenced with the terms of paragraph 181 of the NPPF. This requires there to be a distinction between the hierarchy of landscape designations which is lacking in the policy.
The policy therefore needs redrafting to clearly delineate between the hierarchy of landscapes and protections that apply to each level.

Object

Representation ID: 4884

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We support the approach of this policy save for one element of specific wording under the heading of Sustainable Urban Drainage.
The first bullet requires that developments should “replicate Greenfield runoff rates and volumes.” This should only be applicable to sites that are indeed Greenfield, whereas on any brownfield site the approach should be to ensure that runoff rates and volumes are no greater than existing to avoid undue pressures that may affect off-site rates.

Object

Representation ID: 4885

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy wording needs to be reflective of the NPPF in that inappropriate development can be justified on the basis of Very Special Circumstances as per paragraph 153. Whilst that is well established the present policy wording does not acknowledge that. The policy wording therefore needs to be revised to reflect national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4886

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst we support this policy approach the requirement that all planning applications demonstrate compliance with Building Regulations is unnecessary as these are different regulatory regimes and should not overlap. For example, it is a requirement of current Building Regulations to design schemes at 110 litres per person per day, so this does not need to be demonstrated at the planning application stage.

Object

Representation ID: 4887

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The general approach to considering the total loss or substantial harm to a designated heritage asset accord with the NPPF, namely paragraph 214. However, the policy as presently worded is not considered to appropriately reflect the test at paragraph 215 relating to proposals that result in less than substantial harm. The requirement for “exceptional and overriding reasons” set out in the emerging policy at present appears to relate to any heritage asset, whether designated or non-designated. Paragraph 216 provides the approach to considering the impacts on non-designated assets.

Object

Representation ID: 4888

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Viability Assessment notes “specialist older people’s housing is unlikely to be able to bear affordable housing.” Given that the heading included both sheltered and extra care housing it is therefore unclear as to whether the conclusion is a broad bush assessment or related more to the extra care element. There is no subsequent clarification provided in the policy wording of this matter and whether therefore C2 housing as extra care should be exempt or not from affordable housing.
There are also concerns over the approach for PDL sites.

Object

Representation ID: 4889

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst welcoming the inclusion of a specific policy relating to this form of delivery the current wording does not really provide certainty over delivery. The approach is too generic, sets no differentiation between the forms of specialist housing and needs and also lacks certainty over the link with policy T3 on affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4891

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We find the inclusion of this specific site difficult to understand given the previous refusal and dismissal on appeal with an inspector recognising that development of this site would have a sever residual cumulative impact on the local highway network. Whilst the quantum has been reduced no major infrastructure proposals are included to overcome the previous upheld concerns.
The supporting SA evidence also seems to lack the true justification for the site despite previous concerns in the Reg.18 version

Object

Representation ID: 4892

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Nightingale Homes Ltd

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This site was discounted at the Reg.18 stage when no requirement was identified to review Green belt boundaries. The sole justification now appears to be on the basis that neighbouring land in Gravesham may be allocated but that local plan has not progressed and the proposed extent of release of land in Medway extends beyond that proposed for Gravesham.