Lidsing Garden Community SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 707

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Bredhurst Parish Council

5. Usability of the SPD (SPD Q35)
The SPD is difficult to interpret due to:
• Overuse of similar colours in diagrams
• Lack of clarity on ecological constraints
• Concept plans that ignore existing residential and commercial properties
• Diagrams that fail to show connections to the existing road network
These issues undermine the SPD’s purpose as a practical guide for developers and decision‑makers.

Comment noted.
The Framework plans provide an over-arching depiction of how the development could come forward at a scale appropriate to the sites context and the purpose of the document however officers agree that Green infrastructure and ecology designations could be clearer.

Comment

Representation ID: 708

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Bredhurst Parish Council

4. Flood Risk (SPD Q3)
A flood risk has been identified at The Rise, Hempstead, yet the SPD contains no requirement for a mitigation strategy. This is a serious omission.

Comment noted.
The SPD provides principles and guidelines relating to 'Water Management at Chapter 6.10.
Officers agree that an additional principle should be added to replicate the requirements set out in Policy LPRSP4(B) in terms of needing to ensure that flood risk is not exacerbated elsewhere.

Comment

Representation ID: 709

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Bredhurst Parish Council

3. Delivery Framework (SPD Q32–Q34)
BPC does not agree with the Delivery Framework.
3.1 Infrastructure First
The SPD must require that no development is permitted until:
• A full, approved, detailed design of the East–West link and its connections to North Dane Way and M2 Junction 4 is in place.
• Any interim connection to Maidstone Road is fully designed, tested, and approved.
• A comprehensive Transport Assessment is completed, including cumulative impacts with Gibraltar Farm and developments planned or in progress in the Medway section of the Capstone Valley.
• A construction traffic management plan is submitted and approved.
3.2 Phasing
Given the fragility of the existing road network:
• The East–West link and the orbital bus route should be operational before dwellings are occupied to engender active travel habits from first occupation.
• Any sub‑optimal interim connection to M2 Junction 4 must be tested through a fresh Transport Assessment.
3.3 Social Infrastructure
There is no evidence of engagement with:
• Medway Council (secondary education, transport)
• NHS (hospital and primary care capacity)
• Water authorities (supply and sewage disposal)
It is not acceptable to state that “contributions will be made” without identifying:
• What is required
• Who will deliver it
• When it will be delivered
• Whether it is feasible

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out additional guidance on the approach to transport assessment and mitigation (Chapter 7.3) with further detail provided in the accompanying Transport Annex. More detailed assessment of transport impacts and the design of transport mitigation measures will need to be set out as part of the formulation and consideration of future planning applications.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(B) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, which confirms the spur being opening in phase 2 (2033-2038).
Figure 41 at Section D of the SPD replicates the required phasing of development and associated infrastructure.
Infrastructure will be secured through the use of planning conditions and legal agreements, as part of the consideration and determination of future planning applications.
Appendix B of the SPD sets out the anticipated planning application requirements, which includes the need for a 'Construction Management Plan' which will consider issues relating to construction traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 710

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Bredhurst Parish Council

2. Framework Plans (SPD Q6 & Q7)
BPC does not agree with the framework plans.
2.1 Access to the Strategic Road Network
The SPD does not demonstrate how individual parcels of development will access the Strategic Road Network. With or without the East–West link in place, the most direct routes will be:
• Westfield Sole Road
• Lidsing Road
• Hempstead Road
All of these are narrow, rural, sub‑standard roads wholly unsuitable for any additional traffic. BPC has repeatedly highlighted this risk.
2.2 Missing Infrastructure
None of the framework plans show:
• The proposed replacement M2 bridge
• Its connection to Maidstone Road
• The detailed alignment of the spine road
• The relationship with Medway’s network
These omissions are fundamental and render the plans incomplete.

Comment noted.
The Framework Plans set out at Chapter 5 of the SPD capture the key structuring elements and principles, whilst also allowing for appropriate flexibility for further design work to consider matters in more detail and bring forward appropriate proposals.
Future planning applications will set out more details around the proposed layout of buildings, uses and infrastructure across the site. All future applications will be the subject of consultation and future decision making.
The SPD sets out guidance and principles across a number of key themes and topics, especially within 'Section C: Placemaking & Design Guidelines'. Each theme has a clear section which sets out 'Key Principles/Guidance' specific to each theme and taken collectively provide sufficient clarity around design expectations and that of a design code. The code coming forward prior to reserved matters will still ensure good quality design aspects are embedded when the site is delivered.
Future planning applications will have to consider and demonstrate how they have addressed all stated requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 711

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Bredhurst Parish Council

1. Key Issues and Context of the Site (SPD Q2)
BPC does not agree that the SPD identifies the correct key issues or addresses them adequately. The SPD omits or glosses over several fundamental matters:
1.1 East–West Link and Spine Road
• No clear definition, alignment, or design of the East–West link road is provided.
• No certainty regarding the design or deliverability of connections to North Dane Way or M2 Junction 4, both of which lie within Medway Council’s administrative area.
• No requirement for these designs to be approved before any Outline Planning Application is submitted.
• No clarity on the proposed “Green Bridge”, its purpose, design, or timing.
1.2 Cross‑Boundary Dependencies
• The SPD provides no evidence of meaningful engagement with Medway Council, despite the development’s heavy reliance on Medway’s Road network, schools, health services, and utilities.
• The proposed link to M2 Junction 4 has no basis in either the Maidstone or Medway Local Plans and would require exceptional justification, particularly within the Kent Downs National Landscape.
1.3 Ecology
• The Ecology Framework is wholly inadequate.
• The SPD does not reference the ecological evidence base from the Local Plan Review, which identified the need for multiple detailed studies that have not been undertaken.
• Known protected species—including skylarks, ground‑nesting birds, bats, badgers, and birds of prey—are not acknowledged.
• References to dormice and reptiles are vague, with no source or mapping.
• The diagrams use indistinguishable shades of green, making interpretation impossible.
1.4
Monitoring and Mitigation
• No detailed procedure is provided for monitoring traffic, air quality, noise, or ecological impacts.
•
There are no plans or procedures detailing what mitigation will be put in place if the increase in traffic becomes a problem before the new infrastructure is put in place.
1.5 Relationship with Gibraltar Farm
• The SPD fails to explain how the Lidsing development interfaces with the Gibraltar Farm development in Medway. This omission is critical, as the alignment of the spine road and infrastructure depends on it.

Comment noted.
The Framework Plans set out at Chapter 5 of the SPD capture the key structuring elements and principles, whilst also allowing for appropriate flexibility for further design work to consider matters in more detail and bring forward appropriate proposals.
Future planning applications will set out more details around the proposed layout of buildings, uses and infrastructure across the site. All future applications will be the subject of consultation and future decision making.
The SPD sets out guidance and principles across a number of key themes and topics, especially within 'Section C: Placemaking & Design Guidelines'. Each theme has a clear section which sets out 'Key Principles/Guidance' specific to each theme.
Future planning applications will have to consider and demonstrate how they have addressed all stated requirements.
Officers agree that a reference to the previous ecology work done for the Local Plan Review should be included.
Future planning applications will need to be accompanied by additional assessments of ecology and biodiversity which should be included in Appendix B

Comment

Representation ID: 712

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Bredhurst Parish Council

Bredhurst Parish Council (BPC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Lidsing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). BPC has consistently objected to the allocation of Lidsing Garden Development - Policy LPRSP4(b) throughout the Local Plan Review process, and the concerns previously raised are not given sufficient clarity in this SPD. The SPD fails to provide the clarity, evidence, and safeguards required to make the development acceptable or deliverable.
The SPD is incomplete, lacks essential technical detail, and does not provide the level of certainty required for a strategic allocation of this scale—particularly one located on the boundary with Medway, dependent on infrastructure outside Maidstone’s control, and reliant on a sub‑standard existing road network.
Bredhurst Parish Council
6. Overall Position of Bredhurst Parish Council
Bredhurst Parish Council maintains its long‑standing objection to the Lidsing allocation. The SPD:
• Fails to resolve the fundamental concerns raised during the Local Plan Review
• Lacks the technical detail required for a strategic development of this scale
• Does not demonstrate deliverability
• Does not protect the rural character, landscape, or ecological value of the area
• Does not safeguard residents from severe traffic, air quality, and infrastructure impacts
• Relies heavily on infrastructure outside Maidstone’s control
• Provides no credible phasing or monitoring framework
Until these issues are addressed comprehensively and transparently, the SPD cannot be supported.
7. Key Points for Maidstone Borough Council’s Consideration
Bredhurst Parish Council asks that the following matters be explicitly addressed in the Lidsing Garden Community SPD:
a)
Transport assessment to address the vital proposals to restrict traffic at Forge Lane Bridge and Dunn Street, as brought to the initial public consultations, and as approved by most residents.
Many residents are concerned that should Forge Lane bridge be closed to traffic, it will merely push all vehicles along The Street and Dunn Street and onwards to Boxley Village. Closing Forge Lane bridge alone will not benefit Bredhurst or Boxley Village residents. If this bridge is to be closed it must be done in conjunction with closing access via Dunn Street at the same time. This is what most residents asked for at the first consultation in March, but their wishes and that of the Parish Council appears to have been ignored.
b)
In connection with East-West phasing
Clarity needed (see 5 & 6, below) and the development of the requirement for a Green Bridge.
c)
Cross-boundary infrastructure Dependencies Issue: Several critical elements (strategic transport, education, health, utilities) rely on land and consents within Medway. Action requested: The SPD should clearly set out cross-boundary assumptions and require early engagement with Medway Council and relevant statutory bodies prior to outline planning applications.
d)
Relationship with Gibraltar Farm Allocation Issue: Delivery of the East–West Link and wider movement strategy is dependent on coordination with the adjoining Gibraltar Farm site. Action requested: The SPD should explicitly reference Gibraltar Farm and require cumulative assessment and coordinated infrastructure planning at outline stage.
e)
East–West Link phasing clarity Issue: The term “delivery within Phase 1” is insufficiently defined and open to interpretation. Action requested: The SPD should clarify the functional meaning of Phase 1 delivery, including expectations for operational use prior to substantial occupation.
f)
Linking the East-West link to M2, Junction 4.
The link to the M2 must be done at the earliest possible stage and in conjunction with the east-west link. The proposed ‘interim’ arrangement forcing traffic onto Maidstone Road will cause chaos as vehicles will have to join an already busy Wigmore Road to loop back to join the M2.
g)
Monitor-and-manage framework Issue: Monitoring is referenced without clear baselines or mechanisms for response if impacts arise early. Action requested: The SPD should require baseline data and set out how monitoring outcomes would inform mitigation secured through planning obligations.
h)
Ecology evidence and survey requirements Issue: The SPD does not clearly reference the Local Plan ecological evidence base or outline survey expectations. Action requested: The SPD should reference the evidence base and specify proportionate ecological survey requirements to accompany outline applications.
i)
Clarity and legibility of framework plans Issue: Several diagrams are difficult to interpret and omit key contextual information. Action requested: Framework plans should be improved for clarity, with clear keys, colour contrast, and depiction of existing roads, settlements and interfaces.

Comment noted.
The Framework Plans set out at Chapter 5 of the SPD capture the key structuring elements and principles, whilst also allowing for appropriate flexibility for further design work to consider matters in more detail and bring forward appropriate proposals.
Future planning applications will set out more details around the proposed layout of buildings, uses and infrastructure across the site. All future applications will be the subject of consultation and future decision making.
The proximity to Medway is recognised throughout the document however section 7 can be refined further to make clear that such engagement should be evidenced through future planning applications.