question 7 which of these question 8b please provide ... · so how can we be expected to answer?...

Name

Question 6 If not, what

would you propose and

why?

Question 6b Please provide

a short summary of your

answer to Question 6

Question 7 Which of these

2 methods do you think

should be used to select

additional sites if required?

Question 8 If neither, what

alternative method do you

suggest and why?




(max. 500 characters)

Question 9 Do you support

the position that, should a

lower housing growth

scenario be chosen as an...

Question 10 If no, what do

you think the number of

jobs per dwelling should be

and why?

Michael

Donovan

RTKL

(Monica

Qing)

Martin

Osborne Neither

I do not want any sites

selected on Green Belt land

in Gravesham.

I do not want any

development on Green Belt

land in Higham.

Julie Green

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

David Lucy

Utilise the settlement

hirearchy contained in

Policy 1 as the main

consideration Yes

PDPDesign

(Patrick

Parnell)

martin

darragh Neither

Choose existing brownfield

sites. Inform developers

that planning

permission that they have

indicated will not be utilize

will be revoked

and/or no further

applications for

developement from them

will be considered.

Choose existing brownfield

sites. Inform developers

that planning

permission that they have

indicated will not be utilize

will be revoked

and/or no further

applications for

developement from them

will be considered. No

Probably should be nil,

given the tremendous job

done in estimating the

number of jobs to be

created by Ebbsfleet and

Springfirld developments.

WHat evidence is there that

Gravesham Borough Council

are qualified to

estimate job creation? Also

under the rural proposals

what jobs does

GBC think will be created in

areas with no infrastructure

for employers

or employees? Has work

been done to assess the

current number of jobs

per household that are

retained in the borough?

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Theresa

Sadler

What map? I work in

evaluation - the map should

be provided!

No map has been provided

so how can we be expected

to answer? Neither

Regeneration of existing

buildings. Allowing rural

communities small scale

building on their properties -

i.e. windfall housing. Regeneration of housing. No

I do not think that to work

in the same community that

you live in is ideal. It is well

understood that the

commuter belt supports

public transport and the

environment. As such, I

cannot give a figure. If you

live in the countryside you

do not usually expect to be

employed there. In there

are more jobs amd more

houses. Gravesham has

both town and rural

communties and so jobs per

dwelling would have to have

2 options - rural/town.

Liz

Whitehead Neither

Building should be limited

so that no additional sites

are required. Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

A stones

throw

design (Paul

Baker)

Stick to brownfield sites

rather than green belt

Stick to brownfield sites

rather than green belt




consideration Yes

Elizabeth

Stone

we agree with the town

centre Neither

Each site should be looked

at individually and all

measures should be done

before a basic score is done. Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Richard

Stabler No

A one job per dwelling

allows for too many zero

jobs per dwelling. A higher

minimum should be used,

perhaps one and a half jobs

per dwelling.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

simon

hartridge Neither

Only brownfield should ever

be considered until all these

run out. You

have asked developers what

they want and they will

always say

greenfield/greenbelt as they

will make most profit. We

need you to see

the big picture as this is a

25year plan that you are

creating on the

current negative economic

factors that hopefully will

only be current

for 5 years. 

We have employment

problems in Gravesham,

well the answer should be

employ our people on

decontamination of the

brownfield sites and all

associated works. Then be

bold and make beautiful

houses that people

want on these brownfield

Only use brownfield sites,

get a good plan together Yes

Hartley

Parish

Council

(Helen

Gilder) Neither

Hartley Parish Council

opposes the proposal for

building in the Green

Belt in the Tier 2 Settlement

Sites, as there are adequate

brown field

sites already designated, in

the north of the borough.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

None

(Nicholas

Channon)




consideration

June Hansen

Can't find it on your web

site

Utilise the overall site score

as the main consideration Yes

But how can you with the

current economic climate??

Its taken me 15

months to find a job and

that is 60 miloes from

Meopham

Sharon

Saunders



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Stephen

Barlow

Margaret M

Murray

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Ann Sullivan

M Bannister

J E Bannister

W Williams

Riju Dhupa

Terence

Jeffrey

Malcolm

James


as the main consideration

graham loft

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Jacob White

packaging

(Geoff

Phillips)

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Stuart

Hawkes

David Lee

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

james

turner

David King

Greenbelt land should stay

as it is as this has

successfully prevented

urban sprawl, this maintains

the unique resource of

agricultural land in

Gravesham.

Greenbelt land should stay

as it is as this has

successfully prevented

urban sprawl, this maintains

the unique resource of

agricultural land in

Gravesham. Neither

Any other method which

maintains the existing Green

Belt and doesn't add

to the pressure on it by

moving boundaries in other

areas.

Any other method which

maintains the existing Green

Belt and doesn't add

to the pressure on it by

moving boundaries in other

areas. No

This is a subjective number

that can never be accurate

and just leads to

increased development for

the sake of

development. 

If people do move to this

area then having an

employment opportunity

should logically be part of

there decision, to move to

an area and then

to expect a job is clearly

short sighted at a time when

unemployment is

high and will lead to a

greater burden on local

services.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

David

Compton No

We should plan to add at

least TWO jobs per new

dwelling, whatever the

scenario. There are

insufficient jobs now. The

incoming migration has

been young people and

families. In each house

there are potentially a

breadwinner, a part-time

spouse, and young adults

also requiring work.

Many thirty-year olds are

returning to live with

parents, as they cannot

afford their own place. The

density of people per house

has gone down

hitorically over the last 50

years, but it is going up now.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Ian Haydon

Derek

Wager Neither

Use only brownfield sites.

Developers should be made

aware that although a bit

more expensive, no

greenfield sites will become

available.

Sufficient brownfield sites

are available to meet the

lower growth scenario. The

Green Belt must be retained

for the benefit of all,

particularly to protect

wildlife and encourage

visitors and migration to the

Borough. Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Helen

Simpson




consideration

Sarah

Woods Neither

a mix of policy 1 and 2

should be used with an

absolute minimum built in

rural areas. I want 5 house

per annum in rural areas as

figures in

another document

suggested. so 100 homes in

rural over 20 years

a mix of policy 1 and 2

should be used with an

absolute minimum built in

rural areas. I want 5 house

per annum in rural areas as

figures in

another document

suggested. so 100 homes in

rural over 20 years No

I agree with creating a

minimum one job per

dwelling but not if these

dwellings are in sites

currently classed as green

belt/green field

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

NWKCP

(Caroline

Drewett)



Jaimie

Hartridge Neither

Only Brownfield sites should

be used for developing new

houses. Only

when this has been fully

utilised should it be

necessary to look at

alternative options. Not

doing this would mean that

you build on either

already fully developed

areas, or small villages

which cannot handle the

additional houses and you

also lose the character of

these little

villages, which make Britain

what it is. Kent is known as

the garden of

england, we will be

destroying that if we build

on our Greenbelt land. 

Incentives should be offered

to developers to help them

with this and

make it more attractive to

them. 

Utilise Browfield sites only,

offer incentive to

developers to make it

attractive for them to do so.

This will also assist in our

employment figures. Yes

Karen

Moore

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

ken kemsley Neither

no development on

greenbelt sites before all

brownfield sites have been

utilised. see 8 Yes

Kathleen

Kemsley




consideration

I think that is a silly question

as the whole point is we

should be

providing housing for the

needs of the people of the

borough. If people

have jobs they usually have

houses too. Thinking that

you will

encourage businesse to

relocate from London is pie

in the sky as this

would mean a drop in salary

and make buying a house

unviable. If the

idea is to get more

commuters then they will

already have a job.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Stephen

Webb Yes

Margaret

Webb

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Simon

Handy

Julie Moore



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Jill Smith Neither

Redevelopment of

brownfield sites only by

 

a)Revising housing density

proposals to allow 50/60

per hectare. The

suggestion of only 30 per

hectare indicates a vision of

more expensive

properties as opposed to

the mainly `affordable`

housing which is

required to meet the

shortage. 

b)Insisting that only

brownfield sites are

available to developers.

Brownfield sites only; revise

density proposals to 50/60

per hectare;

insist that developers make

use of brownfield sites with

no option for

greenfield sites. No

Bearing in mind the current

unemployment levels,

planning should not

only include jobs for

occupants of new dwellings,

but should envisage

providing local employment

for existing residents. Thus

perhaps 1.5


the ambition.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Colin

Marshall

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

National

Federation

of Gypsy

Liaison

Groups

(Peter

Mercer

MBE)

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Senja

Compton

Secondary frontage should

include properties north of

West Street to the

riverfront between Bath

Street and Queen Street,

encorporating what was

Riva Restaurant. Reason -

Potential for visitors from

the

Towncentric/St. George-

Pocahontas area to make

purchases and dine as

well as passengers from

riverboat traffic.

Expansion to riverfront of

secondary frontage. Neither

There is NO demand!!!! The

requirement is being put

forward as fact and

there is no basis to

substantiate the needless

building of one dwelling

for each projected individual

expected to move into the

area. Where is

the scientific basis? The area

cannot sustain an

unregulated growth and

this is what is being

recommended. Who will be

held accountable for the

destruction of the

environment? The roads

cannot cope with the

current

traffic to Meopham, the

water supply is diminishing

and residents are

being threatened with

rationing, the schools are

oversubscribed. This is

not a valid scenario.

There is no demand as initial

premise is flawed. No

A minimum of two jobs per

dwelling should be allocated

mainly because a

dwelling should NOT be

defined in terms of one

resident, but a unit of

at least 2 individuals. Many

families are seeing the

return of adult

children to the home

because of the downturn in

the economy, inability

to get on the property

ladder, and

divorce/separation

settlements. A

good number of households

require both of the

cohabiting adults to work

to afford household

expenses. And, lastly, many

teens are needing to

find employment to meet

their educational expenses.

This is further

compounded by the current

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Paul

Mitchell No See Q2

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Chris Smith

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Andrew

Daniels

You cannot change

boundaries - the scaling and

visibility of the maops

presented do not provide

clear details to provide a

complete view. 

Any proposal to move the

green belt boundaries will

set dangerous

precedents - where will it

end - the Channel? Neither

Without full understanding

it is diffcult to comment - it

would be

helpful to have more

narrative here. 

I trust that all efforts will be

put to the ongoing intent

that priority

will be given to developing

previously-developed (i.e.

brownfield) land

in the urban area of

Gravesend / Northfleet /

Ebbsfleet - all brownfield

site options plus

redevelopment of existing

housing must be exhausted

before new build in any

other area - no building on

green belt land

should be considered.

Priority should be given to

developing previously-

developed (i.e.

brownfield) land in the

urban area of Gravesend /

Northfleet / Ebbsfleet No

Not sure how I can answer

this - can you guarantee

that new jobs will go

to local people? Won't

developers employ their

own staff via agencies? 

 

Creating new jobs for local

people is a principle that I

support and

enhances the strength of

the local economy.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Kevin Dyke

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Martin

Wilson

Green Belt areas should not

be tampered with. as above Neither

Use only existing Brown

field sites As above Yes

Given the current low jobs

per housing ratio this is a

minimum position

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Stuart Nash

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

media

mosaic

(james

ferrin) Neither

New sites for development

should be identified on the

basis of the

settlement hierarchy. The

focus for these must

therefore be the

Gravesend, Northfleet and

Ebbsfleet. Urban areas. The

Council’s

strategy of regenerating

Gravesend town centre has

already been endorsed

and it would therefore be

nonsensical and, indeed,

detrimental to then

promote development

elsewhere. 

 

The point has already been

made in response to

Question 2 that the

strategy in the South East

Plan of seeking to focus

development north of

the A2 was logical and

needed to be retained. It is No

It has already been stated,

in response to Question 1,

that a lower

housing growth scenario

should be chosen, and that

a figure of 4600

dwellings would be

appropriate. That is the

number of new dwellings

that

have been calculated as

required, and they should

therefore be provided. 

 

Support has also been given

to the Council’s

strategy of

regenerating Gravesend

Town Centre. In these

circumstances, it would be

inappropriate to restrain

development in the town

centre – and,

perhaps at Northfleet and

Ebbsfleet on the basis that a

specific number

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Richard

Norman




consideration



basis of the



therefore be the



Council's strategy

of regenerating Gravesend

town centre has already

been endorsed and it

would therefore be


detrimental to then

promote

development

elsewhere. 

 


made in response to

Question 2 that the




the A2 was logical and No



that a lower



a figure of 4600

dwellings would be



that




 


to the Council's strategy of

regenerating

Gravesend Town Centre. In

these circumstances, it

would be inappropriate

to restrain development in

the town centre

– and, perhaps

at

Northfleet and Ebbsfleet on

the basis that a specific

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Zoe Taylor




consideration No

The creation of jobs cannot

be purely based on the


being planned. Existing

residents owning their own

homes may be unemployed

or seeking a change of

employment. Opportunities

to develop brownfield sites

would also need to be

considered, and


centre as well as at

Northfleet and Ebbsfleet to

be encouraged.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Wendy

Norman




consideration



basis of the



therefore be the


Ebbsfleet Urban areas. The

Council’s






detrimental to then

promote development

elsewhere. 

 


made in response to

Question 2 that the








that a lower



a figure of 4600

dwellings would be



that




 

Support has been given to

the Council’s






the town centre –

and, perhaps at



number of new

John Cubitt




consideration No

This is an inappropriate

question. The identified

number of dwellings at

4600 should be constructed

and a flexible approach to

job creation

adopted throughout the

plan some of which should

be achieved through the

regeneration of the town

centre.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Colin Spark




consideration No



that a lower



a figure of 4600

dwellings would be



that




 


to the Council’s

strategy of






centre – and,



specific number

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Jacqueline

Spark




consideration No



that a lower housing growth

scenario should be chosen,

and that a figure of 4,600

dwellings would be

appropriate, if that is the

lowest figure accepted by

yourselves. Support has also

been given to the Council's




would be inappropriate to

restrain development in the

town centre and, perhaps at




are planned. Such an

approach would fail to take

account of opportunities to

redevelop brownfield sites.

It would also ignore the fact

that many existing residents

may be unemployed or

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Jon Green Neither



basis of the



therefore be the



Council’s






detrimental to then

promote development

elsewhere. 

 


made in response to

Question 2 that the








that a lower



a figure of 4600

dwellings would be



that




 


to the Council’s

strategy of






centre – and,



specific number

Arriva

Southern

Counties

(Kevin

Hawkins)

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Kent

Wildlife

Trust -

(Debbie

Salmon)



Kent Wildlife Trust

understands the need to

allocate further sites due

to the work undertaken on

the viability of the

Brownfield development

sites. A decrease in

development within these

sites will provide space

to ensure that a resilient

urban green infrastructure

is planned into

these developments

coupled with buffering and

contributions to landscape

scale enhancement.

However we have identified

impacts on biodiversity if

all sites incorporated within

the Green Field and Green

Belt Assessments

and Options report are

developed. Appendix 2

provides detailed comments

in relation to individual site

impacts and in-combination

GBC SUMMARY - Advocate

site scores to assess the

viability of the sites

for development. The

assessments and site

scoring have taken into

account the landscape

impacts of the sites.

Proximity to nationally and

locally designated sites does

not appear to have been

considered within

the assessment and impacts

on these sites should be

factored into any

decision regarding the

location of development on

Greenfield sites.

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Kent County

Council - (Liz

Shier) Neither

The Borough Council have

assessed 13 sites, 11 of

which are in the Green

Belt. They have used a

number of criteria, including

"impact on

Green Belt boundary"

and "sensitivity of

landscape". This

approach does not comply

with long established

planning policy for the

Green Belt. The draft

National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) will be

finalised in March 2012 and

incorporates current policy

in PPG2. The

NPPF states (from paras.

133-143): 

 

"The Government

attaches great importance

to Green Belts. The

fundamental aim of Green

Belt policy is to prevent

KCC does not support either

of the site selection

methods offered in the

consultation. KCC is

opposed to

"inappropriate"

development in

the Green Belt and objects

to the Borough Council's

assessment of Green

Belt sites for the reasons

given above. KCC seeks a

sequential approach

as described above.

KCC supports the

regeneration of strategic

sites within Gravesham and

efforts to improve the

number and choice of local

jobs. The current

assessment of their capacity

suggests that greater

residential content

would provide a closer

balance of land uses.

However, given the scope

for changes in the

movement of labour

between Dartford and

Gravesham,

and to London via the High

Speed rail services, a ratio of

1 job to each

new dwelling should not be

applied rigidly. The Borough

Council's plans

should allow flexibility in the

mix of development on the

strategic

sites to ensure their

R Bestel

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

M Granieri



T Cramer



L Bristow



G Kennett



M A

Rochford



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D Liffen



P Thomas



R Chivers



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

John Hooper Neither

Please see Section 4 of the

supporting Statement titled

‘Response

to Gravesham Growth

Scenario & Core

Strategy Consultation and

Supporting Evidence Base in

Respect of Land to the

South of Istead Rise,

December 2011.’

Para 54 of PPS3 & para

109 of the NPPF advises that

site selection

should be assessed on the

ability to deliver &

develop the sites. It

should also take into

account mitigation

measures that could be put

in

place to make a site

suitable, if it is not

considered so already.

Neither the options to

assess the suitability of

greenfield and green

belt sites for release assess

the deliverability of the

sites, which is

key to demonstrating a

robust housing land supply

and to meet housing

requirements.

David

Stapleton



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

T Maisey Neither

Look at sites across the

whole rural area on their

individual merits

utilising the site scores.

Look at sites across the

whole rural area on their

individual merits

utilising the site scores. Yes

N Caine



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Robert Slade




consideration



basis of the



therefore be the



Council's strategy

of regenerating Gravesend


been endorsed and it

would therefore be


detrimental to then

promote

development

elsewhere. 

 


made in response to

Question 2 that the





GBC SUMMARY - The focus

for development sites must

be the

Gravesend/Northfleet/Ebbsf

leet urban areas. It is

inappropriate to

propose the allocation of

Green Belt sites given the

principle of

permanence. It is wrong to

consider extending the

Green Belt at North

East Gravesend whilst

proposing to develop Green

Belt sites elsewhere. No



that a lower



a figure of 4600

dwellings would be



that




 


to the Council's strategy of

regenerating





the town centre - and,

perhaps at Northfleet

and Ebbsfleet on the basis

that a specific number of

new dwellings are

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Stema

Shipping

(UK) Ltd (. .) Neither

It is not sustainable for a

growing economy to only

use Brownfield sites

for residential use. If this

policy is followed through

the rates for

commercial land will

increase up and above a

sustainable level and the

council, due to its

geographicl limits will not

be able to support the

required non-skilled job

creation required.

Residential housing cannot

be given priority for

Brownfield sites. Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Dartford

Borough

Council -

(Teresa

Ryszkowska)

Michael

Harvey



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

M Shepherd



Mr and Mrs

Syrett and

Loe



Michael

Snelling

The land at North East

Gravesend - just given

planning permission for

housing - should be included

if that is possible. If not

possible, the

boundaries shown are

agreed.

The land at North East

Gravesend - just given

planning permission for

housing - should be included

if that is possible. If not

possible, the

boundaries shown are

agreed. Neither

Because the Land West of

Wrotham Road is the only

greenfield (as opposed

to Green Belt) site listed

then this must be developed

first - but only

if absolutely necessary.

Develop Land West of

Wrotham Road first if

absolutely necessary. Yes

Rosemary

Tunbridge

Maria

Tunbridge

R Tunbridge

G Boffa

Michelle

Boffa

D N Walker

S Partridge

B Robins

P McAvoy

C Watkins

T Watkins

A Berry

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Adebola

Sogbetun

A Sogbetun

S Wilson

D W Rhodes

L Green

D Green

J Anderson

Carole

Thorne

M Bains

W

Bauckham

S Makaruh

N Tanner

F Tanner

B Jones

E Strickland

G Brace

J Hutchinson

E Pike

B Shad

J A Stewart

J K Dinza

Raymond

Scott

Mark

Merrison

Jane

Sharman

David Old

Graham Old

Karen Old

Christopher

Old

P Rehal

M Ramsey

E Ramsey

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

L Ramsey

G Ramsey

Debbie

Merrison

Maureen

Merrison

D J

Rawlinson

J Rawlinson

J Warner

L V Coxon

L Burrluck

Peter Ersser

Pauline

Ersser

Frederick

Ayling

Deborah

Crow

H Flemming

A Flemming

H

Masterson

Derek

Wheeler

L E Banks

Paul Banks

Angela

Hatch

E R Ahrens

J Ahrens

D

Richardson

G Pearce

M Lapley

L Kessell

C J Searle

M R Ryan

N Ryan

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Ann Evans

M Carter

M Wellar

E Wood

Alf Loten

H

Blackamore

L Anderson

Urban

Gravesham

(Gillian

Emerson)

We note the High Street,

Queen Street and even New

Road and Windmill

Street 

are marked as 'secondary

frontages'. Whist this may

well describe the

present lessthan- 

satisfactory situation, it

shows no real intention to

improve the

viability of the 

east of the town centre.

Instead the emphasis is on

the modern shopping

centres to 

the west. 

 

It should be noted that the

old Woolworths Building,

the adjacent cinema

site, and 

Horn Yard extending

through to the market is a

substantial area. The

right sort of 

GBC SUMMARY - High

Street, Queen Street and

others are shown as

secondary frontages.

Question this as it is based

on the present

situation and shows no

proposals to improve the

viability of the east of

the town centre. A

sympathetic anchor

development based on

Woolworth's

building/former

cinema/Horn Yard could

counter current pull of

shopping

centres to the west. Support

primary shopping area,

extending it over

West Street car park would

be a mistake.

W

Masterson

Margaret

Wheeler

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Maria

Pearson

P Evans

Linda Turner

P Leighton

D Leighton

T Bell

Alan

Wallaker

K Wallaker

Vi

Rushbrook

Brian

Rushbrook

B A Cook

J Philpot

Karen Mills

. Hunter

. Hunter

. Marjara

H Marjara

K James

S C Payne

Sean Payne

D Payne

M

Higgenbotto

m

T Taylor

G Taylor

K Boon

R Davis

D Breon

Frances

Paradine

V R Willson

Jean Plumb

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Maria

Ritchie

L J Hendy

E D Hendy

. Donoghue

M Petty

C Baker

W Calver

C Withy

A Rawding

Sue Sacre

Don Addis

Irene Addis

A Hudson

A Whiteford

L Whiteford

E Clover

J O

Middleditch

Jackie Dixon

Cameron

Graham

Andrea

Graham

Cynthia

Gray

Joyce

Hammond

Barry Hawes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Lynda

Carroll



GBC SUMMARY - If Green

Belt land has to be used,

and only as a last

resort, then it is only fair

and reasonable to treat all

potential sites

on the basis of a 'level

playing field'. To use the

settlement hierarchy

in any way, let alone as the

main consideration, is quite

clearly to

weigh the outcome in

favour of certain sites and,

inevitably, prejudice

the results against others.

GBC SUMMARY - If Green

Belt land has to be used,

and only as a last

resort, then it is only fair

and reasonable to treat all

potential sites

on the basis of a 'level

playing field'. To use the

settlement hierarchy

in any way, let alone as the

main consideration, is quite

clearly to

weigh the outcome in

favour of certain sites and,

inevitably, prejudice

the results against others.

Peter Carroll

John

Warner

Sue Warner

Mandy Borg

J Borg

Vera Genn

Janette Loft

David Loft

Alison Dixon

B Neeves

B D Fuller

D Baker

P Baker

S A

Dedridge

G Rich

Vikki

Whitehead

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Robert

hardy

Kathryn

Hardy

S Stopford

Alan

Holman

S Robinson

D Janjuha

I Janjuha

Brenda

Deadman

M Deadman

Olga

Zubalova

Gary Evans

B Wilkinson

P

Dumpleton

C

Dumpleton

J Pullen

A Cloke

D Cloke

J Furrents

Molly Hoiles

D Hoiles

S Sangha

Sukhjiwan

Sangha

K O'Connor

Trevor Cloke

K

Whitehead

J Whitehead

A Mills

M J Mills

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

J Mee

K Mee

George

Penhaligan

J Penhaligan

Margaret

Hills

T A Hills

M

McDermott

S Steadman

Gordon

Crawford

Janet Brown

J Manwaring

S

Manwaring

N Nayler

Edward

Smith

G Smith

J Whitman

D Poynter

L Poynter

S Elliott

R Green

C Green

Elaine

Powell

Richard

Powell

M Carrell

E Stewart

C J

Huckstepp

S J

Huckstepp

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

H Hill

C Baker

C Taylor

A Versluys

P M

Versluys

S F Guthrie

S Prior

J Hammond

J Hammond

P Slade

L Smith

R Carter

S Carter

Debbie

McLeavey

. Lavender

D Lavender

L Fletcher

E Hufton

C Ager

T Buesnel

K Livermore

L Livermore

M Sanghera

D Cock

J Cock

R Mills

S Mills

J Pickles

D Benning

J Gooch

C Julibois

E Hall

J Wotton

H Butler

G B Allen

M Allen

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Lynda

Ramsay

R L Ramsay

J Cuthbert

I

Greenstreet

B Walker

M Walker

J Burden

J Cook

N Matthews

M Bunnett

J Tunbridge

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

The Barnes

Trust (David

Barnes)




consideration

Dianne

Knight

D Baker

Brian Curtis

Susan Curtis

F Hunt

Amanda

Smith

S Barham

V Murphy

J Coaker

Paul Elliott

Sarah Elliott

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

M Pitman

R Paine

Brian

Bennett

A N Brown

C Seaward

J Seaward

P Cruse

S Cruse

C Odunsi

E Odunsi

Simon

Odunsi

R Head

R S Nijjer

K Cullen

T Cullen

J Rayfield

W Tomlin

T Edwards

Nichola

Munday

Mahmood

Usman

michael

whibley

Doreen

Beech

Peter Beech

Bob

Turnbull

D Roberts

P Roberts

W Webb

none (Chris

Turner)

Chris Ansell

Helen Ansell

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

CPRE

Protect Kent

- (Brian

Lloyd) Neither

GBC SUMMARY 

Objection to not

demonstrating PPG2

exceptional circumstances

to amend

Green Belt. Recommends: 1.

Reconsider growth

scenarios/use Kent Forum

housing methodology; 2. Re-

work SLAA in partnership

approach/more

flexible assessment of

viability/deliverability; 3.

Spatial Strategy to

inc social/environmental

factors; 4. More proactive

approach to

strategic urban sites i.e.

Duty to Co-operate; 5. Use

windfall allowance

2022-31 of 400 dwgs; 6.

Bring back to use the 445

long-term vacant homes. No

GBC SUMMARY 

Objection since will be

reduced land for B1,2,8 Use

Classes from lower

Growth Scenarios 3 to 5,

should reduce from 10,000 -

5,200 jobs (1

job/dwg). However, para.

24.2 table for 6 strategic

sites is 12,550 jobs

- 2,856 dwgs. Not

supportive of restricted job

growth by linking it to

housing growth. Concerned

Three Dragons Viability

Toolkit assumptions,

brownfield sites previously

promoted for housing now

more viable for

employment. More

balanced approach between

housing/employment.

Julia Broad

Mark

Harding

Karen

Harding

M Hill

D Hill

W Kendall

E Ware

W Ware

L Neville

M Kennedy

T Jeffrey

M Clarke

J Trodd

J Milledge

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D Ranger

K McDonnell

T Truman

. Elliott

J Elliott

L P Rhodes

Shakiia

Khela

Lucy

Wootten

M Kennedy

S Rodberg

.

Fotheringha

m

N Bridges

Natalie

Bright

Phil Boyer

J Smith

R Stoton

R Pavitt

S Fisher

D Alexander

G Alexander

M Blackwell

Declan

Burns

J Motley

A Odd

S Odd

A Thompson

A Twitchett

Paula

Twitchett

M L Johnson

M Harris

D Spurr

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

M Spurr

K Barker

M Laney

Eileen Tuff

D Ledger

R A Wildish

R Springhall

K Neat

A Rea

Clive Rea

. Cherry

W Cherry

L C

O'Connor

M K

O'Connor

M Houghton

Ashley

Tomlin

W Brett

W Roud

D J Cox

J Gibbs

M R South

J O'Connor

Orly Belcher

A Hales

L Hales

B Marriner

Dennis

Smith

J Stalley

N L

Harwood

C Butler

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Sara

Abbonizio

David Berry

Tim

Pennington

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Mark Brett

Keith Jones

Janet Jones

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Homes and

Communitie

s Agency

(Robert

Moore)

Barry P

Milton

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

c/o WS

Planning

and

Architecture

(David King)



Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Arthur Hills

Sue Walters

Michael

John Shinn

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Margret

Hills

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Matthew

Bignell

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

John Maltby Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Nick Fisher

Jason Freed

D Martin

Hazel

Martin

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Christine

Windsor

Michael

Windsor

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Meopham

Parish

Council -

(Bryan

Rayner)

Christine

Clark

S Edmeades-

Stearns

Linda Oxley

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Metropolita

n Police

Authority

(Anthony

Barnard)

Barbara

Wade

Duncan

Finlayson

Paula

Robinson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Shorne

Parish

Council - (T

Martin)




consideration Yes

Chrissy

Wood

Julia

Prescott

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Lynnette

Powell

G Grace

Debbie

Britten

Philip

Britten

Marc Cole

Sara Cole

Jane

Gutteridge

Robin Lee

A A Hill

Shaun

Murphy

craig freed

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Theatres

Trust - (Rose

Freeman)




consideration Yes

Higham

Parish

Council -

(Linda

Carnall)




consideration Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Bovis and

Persimmon

Homes




consideration No

We support the Council's

continued focus on

economic regeneration

although object to the

current economic strategy

which is underpinned by a

growth scenario of 5,200

dwellings. In order to

facilitate the envisaged level

of regeneration, the Council

should still seek to maintain

the target of 10,000 jobs

over the plan period.

. Winter

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Hawkspare

(Laura

Hicken) Neither

GBC

SUMMARY Backgro

und documents such as the

SLAA precludes need to

undertake formal Green

Belt Review whilst the

inclusion of additional

Strategic Allocations in

urban fringe and rural

locations will assist in

supplementing the housing

land supply. Such allocations

should cater for

development in a range of

rural settlements to include

those in Tier 2 and 3 in

order to maximise market

support and individual site

allocations should have due

regard to site constraints.

GBC

SUMMARY Backgro

und documents such as the

SLAA precludes need to

undertake formal Green

Belt Review whilst the

inclusion of additional

Strategic Allocations in

urban fringe and rural

locations will assist in

supplementing the housing

land supply. Such allocations

should cater for

development in a range of

rural settlements to include

those in Tier 2 and 3 in

order to maximise market

support and individual site

allocations should have due

regard to site constraints.

Doug Powell

B Hill

Eric Davis

Hazel Davis

John Leslie

England

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Mark Ward

Alex Hills

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Louise Jean

Hills

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Highways

Agency

(Howard

Moore) Yes

Sheila

Buchanan

Brian

Edwards

Carol

Edwards

Adrian

Metson

Patrick

O'Brien

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Frank

Noctor

A J W

Henderson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Meg

Henderson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

David

Michael

Gibson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Frank and

Susan

Gibson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Roger

Menasse

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Sarah-Jane

Menasse

Arthur

Francis

S Stewart

Liz Kabler

Stuart

Kabler

IAN KEEP

Annette

Keep

Elliot Keep

Elysia Keep

Miles Keep

J F Jones

Charles

Keep

D

Kemmenoe

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

E P

Kemmenoe

denise lewis

Andy Lovett

C Marsh

Jean

McNeilly

Barbara

Mollison

Thomas

Mylod

Janet Mylod

Jonathan

Parry

Elizabeth

Bylett

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

John Bylett

N/A

(Stewart

Mackie)

Julia Mackie

Martin

Lofthouse

Paul Lee

Ann Kneif

James

Thornley

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Janet Topp

S Ross

Barry &

Margaret

Smith

Tina Foster

Geraldine

McMahon

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

A and N

O'Grady

Stuart

Johnson

Claire

Jansseune

A F

Waghorn

J S Gilmour

Leonard

Freeman

R T

Hickmott

Ronald

Hawkes

Dorothy

Jeffrey

I L Handley

Margaret

Holder

Gavin

Hopper

Jacqueline

Baker

Sharon S

Dickson

Tony Faro

Domenico

Faro

E Webster

Lynne

Fincham

Stephen

Fincham

Nick J

Downs

Edith M

Ripley

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Deborah

Dillon

Yvette

Piggott

Muriel J

Apps

P Ferris

D

Golebiowski

Michael D

Medhurst

Susan

Medhurst

Anne Moor

Rebecca

Moor

Ramandeep

Khaira

Donna

Eaton

Raymond

Irons

Shelia Irons

Antonia

Teague-

Blaber

Paul Blaber

Brigitte

Walton

Rosemary

Webb

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

David Stuart

A C England

K S England

C S England

Rob

Osmond

P Rayfield

I Hillbert

Susan Love

Patricia

Orsbourn

Paula

Jewsbury

Robert

Holder

Martin

Holder

Linda Stock

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Reynolds D

Turner

C C Y

Williams

S G Williams

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

K Howard

Sally

Starbuck

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D.P.

Markham

M Stevens

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

A Stevens

P Harvey

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

A Stapley

R Dwyer

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

V A Hills

L Watts

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

F Forsey

M P Cullen

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

. Weller

E Walker

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D A and B A

Hicklin

J.R. Cater

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Betty Wells

Sam Wells

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

. Martin

Trish

Plowman

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

V Phillips

N.M Dodd

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

John Axby

D M

Edwards

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Paul Hopper

Fiona

Hooper

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Ina Hewins

M Williams

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

T Costin

Marion

Knight

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Philip Knight

V Mitchell

D Congram

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

C Congram

A Congram

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

H.M.

Goodwin

M.G.

Goodwin

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Sue Sparks

Jon Sparks

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

E.M.

Buhagiar

A Carroll

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

M Cooper

L H

Williamson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

G Hurkus

V Donnelly

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

K J Barras

U Barras

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D Hall

R Barnes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Katie Lee

David

Waghorn

Valerie

Freeman

D Hickmott

Linda

Hawkes

Amanda

Latter

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

W M

Penney

Martin Uden

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D Uden

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

K S and Julie

Aldous

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Brian

Twyman

Marion

Twyman

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

R Miles

M Chapman

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

A Allwright

J Allwright

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

G Woodman

C Woodman

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Janice

Tasker

J Currier

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

T Ryan

K Cheater

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Simon Frost

B Milborrow

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Michael

Broome

E Broome

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

P Broome

T Broome

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Gloria E

Turner

D R Turner

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D French

Patrick and

Maureen

McCormack

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Daniel

Manwaring

Elizabeth

Manwaring

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Alison

Kingsmith

S.K. Heire

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

J A Davidson

Joyce Parker

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Mike

Lockwood

Jo Lockwood

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Lucy Boston

Des Croker

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

E L Croker

Michael

Sullivan

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

A Gilchrist

C Luchford

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

K Buss

T Shaw

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Teresa Hall

Shaun

Walton

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

D German

A.P.

Beaumont

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

M Neal

. Atkins

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

J Anderson

Melanie

Taylor

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

J Roper

A.C. Vale

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Tara Styles

D.V. Mead

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

B Wadhams

John E.H.

Parkinson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Janet E

Parkinson

Pat J Flinn

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

J.E. Flinn

phillip

Rosser

Andrea

Murphy

Maureen

Stuart

N Barham

Sally

Spellman

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Diana Axby

Jason

Armsden

Sandra

Armsden

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Alan Austen

Sylvia

Austen

Adrian

Baillieu

Patricia

Brooks

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Ken O

Brooks

S Ogston

Ann Faro

D Burman

S W Ripley

Mary E Read

M Butler

J W Harvey

R Usher

C Steer

G Steer

Stephen

Moor

James Eaton

T Ayres

Martin Pass

Simone

Barnes

Alison

Girling

Jonathan

Okeze

Mark Hayne

Doris Cox

Karen

Turmer

K Love

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Colin

Orsbourn

Tom Elliott

Glenn Elliott

Jennie

Hutson

David

Brooks

T Coaker

Kenneth

Baker

Paul Baker

R Danton

C Danton

Julie Rosser

John Piggott

Jane New

Susan

Messam

Kataryna

Golebiowsk

a

B F Betts

Jade

Kingsland

David

Fearne

Allison

Fearne

G Spindler

Eric Hutson

A P

Volkering

V Volkering

Jo Wood

G Wood

C Bagshaw

M Betts

M Shelton

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

J M Bennett

P F Sanders

M Dixon

J Dixon

Ronald

Simpson

June

Simpson

Sharon

Baker

Sherridan

Stock

T L

Volkering

Shaun

Sanders

Brian Dillon

E Webster

J Ayres

Matt

O'Connor

Patrick

O'Connor

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

John Palmer

Janet

Palmer

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Stephen

Palmer

Donald

Pascoe

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Heron Hill

Action

Group (Alex

Peters)

Debra

Dorrer

Peter Hasler

L Haywood

Paul

Henderson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

James

Simpson

Teresa

Simpson

Peter Smith

Clive Stanley

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Laraine

Shinn

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Peter Court

Associates

(Peter

Court)




consideration



basis of the settlement

hierarchy. The focus for

these must therefore be the


Ebbsfleet urban areas. The

Council's strategy of



been endorsed and it would

therefore be nonsensical

and, indeed, detrimental to

then promote development

elsewhere. The

point has already been

made in response to

Question 2 that the strategy

in the South East Plan of

seeking to focus

development north of the

A2 was logical and needed

to be retained. It is

therefore wholly

inappropriate to then

propose that locations

GBC SUMMARY - New sites

for development should be

identified on the basis of the

settlement hierarchy.

Therefore, the focus should

be the Gravesend,

Northfleet and Ebbsfleet

urban areas which is also in

accordance with the South

East Plan strategy. It is

inappropriate to propose

that locations within the

Green Belt be allocated

instead and that the Green

Belt be extended at North

East Gravesend. No



that a lower housing growth

scenario should be chosen,

and that a figure of 4600

dwellings would be



that have been calculated as


therefore be

provided. Support

has also been given to the

Council's strategy of






centre - and, perhaps at




are planned. Such an

approach would fail to take

account of opportunities to

Gordon

Phillips

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Sheila

Phillips

Laura Sears

Derek

Shelbrooke

John

Sheridan

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Julie

Sheridan

Keith

Simmonds

Ann Smith

Effie Smith

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Francis

Smith

Kim Smith

Maureen

Smith

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Dennis

Smith

Roger Steer

I would extend the

boundary eastwards to

encompass the Canal Basin

Area development area and

plan leisure services at the

east end of Milton Road. I

would also extend the

boundary westwards to

encompass the old hospital

site and surrounding area.

These areas have great

potential to draw users into

the town centre. This means

the primary shopping areas

should be extended

eastwards.

I would extend the

boundary eastwards to

encompass the Canal Basin

Area development area and

plan leisure services at the

east end of Milton Road. I

would also extend the

boundary westwards to

encompass the old hospital

site and surrounding area.

These areas have great

potential to draw users into

the town centre. This means

the primary shopping areas

should be extended

eastwards. Neither

I do not agree with the

selection of sites of 50

dwellings or more. This

misleads as there must be a

very long tail of potentially

developable small sites in

urban and rural settings that

could be developed. I would

ask for a comprehensive

assessment of all

developable sites. I further

do not agree with using the

density ratios proposed. In

rural areas, density ratios of

those consistent with the

locality should be used

(despite what national

guidance says). In urban

areas, high rise densities

may be possible. There has

been no discussion of high

rise development and in

which settings this may be

appropriate. It seems to me

that there are advantages in

avoidance of low level

Doesn't agree 50+ dwgs.

Misleads as many small sites

in urban/rural areas. Wants

assessment of all sites. Rural

densities should reflect

locality. Urban areas: use

high densities. No discussion

of high rise/approp.

settings. Good avoiding low

level pollution/flood risk,

exploitation of natural vistas

of river/countryside,

economies of development

concentration. Wants high

rise sites search; market

forces discussion. No point

having sites if no market for

flats, brownfield sites be

redesignated. Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

P Stone

Linda

Stringer

Susan

Roberts

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Christine

Rose

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

David Rose

Richard

Rushen

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Maureen

Taylor

T Taylor

Barry Wade

As stated before, we are

getting closer to being

linked to the London

Metropolis. In time, London

will overwhelm the North

Kent area and if boundaries

are adjusted you could

finish up with concrete from

the west of London to the

Thanet Coast.

Do not interfere with the

boundaries. Neither

There is, if the will was

willing, plenty of scope for

development in the

Borough in addition to the

many areas currently

standing dormant, e.g.

rebuilding schemes similar

to the Christianfields

development since many of

the pre-war estates in the

Borough are looking tired

and energy inefficient.

Use brownfield land and

consider rebuilding some of

the pre-war estates. Yes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Patricia

Wager

L Wall

Lisa Kitchen

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Julie

Wallace

Simon

Walsh

Lisa Walsh

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Peter Warr

Jill Warr

Lindy

Webster

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

C Whiteing

R Whiteing

P Dickson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Sandra

Willmore

Robert

Willmore

Barbara

Wilson

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Alastair

Wood

K Wood

Ray

Woodbury

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

James York

Dennis

Barnes

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Stella

Barnes

Jean

Beachem

Terry

Beachem

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Mark

Botterill

Dawn

Botterill

Charles

Boyce

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Sharne

Brown

Keith Brown

Christopher

Ireland

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

E Ireland

K Tait

Julia Buckle

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Sandra Jack

H Jack

Eileen James

Norma

Capuano

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Roy Carlo

Paul Cater

Janet

Cherrison

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Colin

Cherrison

Bob Claxton

Colin

Cruttenden

?

Cruttenden

Zoe Curley

Kuldip

Dhillon

Roger

Double

Alison

Duffort

Jean Dyke

Martin

Elliott

Susan

Farrington

Carol Fisher

Nicki Fowler

Name



why?










suggest and why?












and why?

Steve

Fowler

Heather

Frost

Martin

Handley

Damian

Heylen

Caroline

Heylen

Christine

Hogg

Barry

Huggens

question 7 which of these question 8b please provide ... · so how can we be expected to answer?...

Documents