Probably the last act of Gillingham Borough Council  before it amalgamated with Rochester to become  Medway Council was the issue on 31st March of a  Draft Development Brief for the site of the old Co-op  Hall and shops opposite to the Church in the High  Street.  The cleared area is probably the most sensitive  development site in the centre of Rainham and the  Draft Brief is perhaps the most important for us since that issued over 30 years ago relating to the proposed  shopping centre. The two are to some extent related as  undoubtedly the location of the shopping centre to the west of Station Road has brought about a decline of retail activity to the east which was entirely  predictable. (The alternative site considered for the  shopping centre was behind the Co-op between  Station Road and Ivy Street.) 

Personally I can see no  likelihood of a significant expansion of retail  development to the east whatever is done on the Co-op  site or on any other in that vicinity.  The most original and controversial suggestion in  the Brief is the creation of a pedestrian access through  the site from Station Road to the High Street either by  an alleyway between Nos. 6 and 6A Station Road and  then along the wall of the Whitehorse PH or by an  arcade through 2-4 Station Road. The Council  acknowledges that CCTV cameras may be necessary!  Whilst direct access from Station Road to the High Street is undoubtedly attractive in strict planning  terms I reckon that it would become a dangerous ‘no  go’ area right in the centre of town to which I would  hope and expect the police to raise objection. 

I cannot  think that anyone would wish to buy property next to  such a ‘problem area’.  The development envisages provision of ‘units’  fronting the High Street for offices, health care  services, or leisure use (whatever that means).  Residential use of the ground floor facing the High  Street is discouraged on grounds of traffic noise. I  suggest that passing pedestrians would also be a  problem and the occupants of all the higher flats  facing the Church will need to like the sound of bells!  It is suggested that scope exists for approximately 40  residential units in the form of 1 & 2 bedroom studio  flats built on three sides of a quadrangle the centre of  which would provide car parking and service facilities and a garden. 

I presume that such a design would be amended if the pathway through the site is deleted.  Access to the rear would continue along the old roadway adjacent to 109 High Street which it is  suggested should be widened for two way traffic. This  originally gave entry to Jacob’s dairy pastures, the Co- op bakery and other properties. The entry to car  parking and the services would be from this roadway.  The design of the building is in my view most  important as this is such a sensitive highly visual site  from the raised pathways opposite. I can see a conflict  between developers who would wish to maximise the  profitable potential with planners who hopefully  would wish to see the new design blend in with the  listed buildings and conservation area immediately adjacent. I understand that the plan originally submitted by developers has been amended to include six units facing the High Street to accommodate a  large Doctors’ practice and Health Centre!  

One of the unusual features mentioned in the brief  is the Palm tree in the garden which few people see  behind the wall. The site of the proposed development  was, prior to 1928, occupied by an imposing residence  known as Church House, with four cottages alongside  which although very old at least fitted in with the  character and architecture of the area at that time. 

Freddie Cooper  
P.F. Cooper, 18.4.98