Medway Local Plan (Regulation 19, 2025)

Object

Representation ID: 4364

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I support the building of the homes - but am concerned about supporting infrastructure - most notably roads and waste water removal.

Support

Representation ID: 4365

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I think this is a vital part of these developments and as outlined here must be built early in the development.

Support

Representation ID: 4366

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I support that development through this area needs to be better co-ordinated and planned. The Darland Banks is a vital green space that needs to be preserved and not overly affected by developments.

Support

Representation ID: 4367

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I support this - providing the additional traffic does not have knock on problems on the approach to Junction 4 from Rainham/Parkwood and the flow of traffic on the M2. Ideally the M2 should be increased to 3 lane width between J4 and J5 if not to J7.

Support

Representation ID: 4368

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I broadly support this strategy. However I feel since the 1980s Medway has consistently talked about attracting good office jobs to the area and has failed. I worked nearly my entire career commuting from Medway to find suitable employments in IT services etc.

Support

Representation ID: 4369

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I broadly support this policy.

However recent years has seen CCCU and Kent University reducing their presence in Medway.

Do we offer an attractive location for universities to locate and do we offer a good destination for students?

We need to focus in more specific policy and action I feel to ensure we don't see our higher education availability decline rather than increase.

Support

Representation ID: 4370

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I broadly support this policy.
In particular I would like to support maintaining the Grade 1/2 corridor on our eastern boarder with Swale Council. Thus allowing there to be a clear separation between Medway and Swale, something we've failed to achieve on the Lower Rainham Rd.

Also mechanised, automated agriculture will be needed to continue to make use of our Grade 1 land in future. That requires I feel investment in the road network. The "lane" topography of Lower Rainham, Meresborough etc. need to be updated to better roads that larger vehicles can use effectively.

Support

Representation ID: 4371

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I broadly support this vision.
I'd make two observations about public transport from a Rainham residents point of view. There is little provision for local travel by bus - ie. Wigmore to Rainham Town Centre or Otterham Quay area to Hempstead Valley. I'd very much support consideration of circular routes that help "carless" people get around Rainham.
Employment centres on the Hoo Peninsular with housing in Rainham looks to me a recipe for further congestion at the Dockyard river tunnel.
Consideration to a train connection via Strood and Hoo Junction would help this.

Support

Representation ID: 4372

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

I 100% support the reinstatement of the Grain branchline to meet transport needs this plan will lead to.

Object

Representation ID: 4373

Received: 18/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Hunt

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I refer to the sentance - Access to shared mobility, such as e-bikes, e-scooters and electric vehicle car clubs is encouraged through a Travel Plan for medium and longer distance journeys.
e-scooters are illegal on public roads and paths. Thus I don't believe this policy is legal.