Lidsing Garden Community SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 1077

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Overview
Medway Council acknowledges that the principle of development of Lidsing Garden Community has been established in the Maidstone LPR. However, our authority retains concerns over the potential impacts arising from the planned growth, and is committed to working collaboratively with Maidstone BC to secure sustainable development with effective mitigations. We support joint working to coordinate planned growth across our borough boundaries in this area.
Medway Council welcomes the production of an SPD to provide additional guidance to influence development and secure greater clarity on the appropriate approaches and mitigations needed for sustainable development. We support the work of Maidstone BC in preparing an SPD in advance of the submission of a planning application. We agree with many of the principles and approaches set out in the SPD, and have largely focused in our responses on areas where we consider further detail would help guide the quality and sensitivity of the development approach.
There is scope to significantly expand the consideration of the relationship with Medway in the SPD, to acknowledge and address the complex and multi-faceted issues in approaching place making and development in a cross-border location. The lack of detail is a concern that the wider strategic issues and context have not yet been given the attention required to achieve sustainable development.
Our response sets out specific considerations, including guidance for landscape, heritage, open space, and infrastructure delivery. We view that there are aspects where the SPD could be stronger in its detail and scope to provide greater certainty on achieving the vision and objectives set out in LPR policy.
There are particular concerns about the transport plans for Lidsing and how these account for impacts in Medway. We view that that the Transport Annex published with the consultation SPD does not provide sufficient certainty on effective mitigation and timely delivery of the required transport schemes, both highways and sustainable transport modes. Concerns for impacts on the local road networks are key for local communities, both in Medway, and in the neighbouring areas in Maidstone. We continue to liaise with Maidstone BC, the site promoter’s transport consultants and Kent County Council on transport proposals, and to provide more detailed comments outside of this specific consultation. We would like to see a cross-border transport planning group involving our Councils and wider relevant parties. This would provide a strategic view of the cumulative development proposals, impacts on traffic and support a joined up approach to sustainable transport.
We note that much of the detail will be provided at planning application stage. In the absence of specific detail in the SPD, our Council has a key interest as a consultee on planning applications for Lidsing in assessing the cross-border impacts of the proposals. We expect to see specific reference to the importance of engagement with our Council in the developer’s Statement of Community Involvement and recognised in the Planning Performance Agreement.
We support ongoing cross border working between our Councils as we plan for the delivery of strategic scale development in the Capstone and Lidsing area that will involve significant changes for residents and the environment. We also intend to provide a comprehensive framework to guide growth in the proposed Capstone Valley strategic allocation in our Medway Local Plan. We wish to work effectively with Maidstone BC on this, and to follow a coordinated approach to avoid piecemeal development.
Appendix A P64 – Off-site Highway Improvements need to reference Medway Council.
Appendix B: Anticipated Planning Application Requirements
The checklist for the outline application does not include the need for a Design Code, which is fundamental in setting design and placemaking principles for any future development. Any Design Code should be tested alongside the emerging outline masterplan to see its potential outcomes, and how it may be refined and strengthened to promote appropriate high-quality development.
Site levels, despite being requested cannot not be completely defined at this stage, in the absence of proposed building types.
Whilst advanced planting to establish and develop the green infrastructure framework early on would be welcome, it is unclear why full planting details are being requested at the outline application stage. A green and blue infrastructure strategy, in addition to an open space strategy would be beneficial for the Outline Application, fully coordinated with the Design Code and site Masterplan.
An overarching lighting strategy may be of benefit at the outline application in setting out key principles. However, further strategies will be necessary as part of any future Reserved Matters and/ or condition application.
Incorporation of Strategy Documents
•
The masterplanning process should positively address relevant strategy documents and guidance from Maidstone and Medway. These may include but are not limited to Kent & Medway’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy, Medway’s Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy (Draft), Natural National Character Areas from Natural England, Kent’s Landscape Assessment, the Medway Heritage Assets Review 2017, the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2021-2026, and the Medway Landscape Character Assessment (June 2024).
•
When accounting for the site’s proximity to the Kent Downs National Landscape, and a statutory duty for seeking to “further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area” in accordance with The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act (2023), any masterplanning work should fully consider guidance and publications issued by the Kent Downs Unit, including its Management Plan, Landscape Design Handbook, Guidance on the Selection and User of Colour in Development etc.
Kent & Medway Local Nature Recovery Strategy
•
Kent & Medway Local Nature Recovery Strategy mapping shows the locations of particular biodiversity importance (APIB), and areas that could become of importance to biodiversity (ACIB). It also highlights desired habitat and landscape management enhancements for geographic locations.
•
Areas of Particular Biodiversity Importance (APIB):
▪
Predominantly woodland to the western and eastern edges of the Capstone Valley.
▪
Proposals provide a positive connection south with Bredhurst Hurst.
•
Areas that Could Become of Importance to Biodiversity (ACIB):
▪
Significant opportunities in Medway (entire Capstone Valley).
▪
Further opportunities to the west and east of the site.
▪
Proposed natural habitat in the current masterplan follows ACIB, to the south of site.
▪
Looking at historic mapping for field patterns would enable a positive approach to place making that more favourably aligns to the LNRS and current ecological constraints / corridors. This would enable positive enhancements around Roots Wood / Westfield Sole Road, and the setting of Lidsing.

Comment Noted.
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.
Officers agree that reference to a lighting strategy should be included.
Officers agree that Medway should be reference within Appendix A regarding off site highway contributions.
Regarding stewardship - officers agree to include reference to Medway council under "other relevant stakeholders".
Regarding the impact on local services in Medway - further assessment of the impact on local services will be established through the planning application process of which Medway will be a statutory consultee

Comment

Representation ID: 1078

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Points of correction/for review
•
References should be to Capstone Farm Country Park
•
Figure 8 – please review to ensure accurate and updated layouts of consented developments are used, particularly around new access.
•
Figures 11, 12 and 13 are showing different scales and not easy to follow. Does not seem to be include all the Ancient Woodlands, LNRS etc within the vicinity.
•
The scale/context of diagrams ie, Figure 15, could show a wider context, particularly Darland Banks
•
Figure 19 – error in labelling – Kestrel shopping area centre – not sub-regional scale – same labelling as Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre
•
Overlaying Information: A plan overlaying topography, flood zones, and ecology with the green infrastructure plan is required. It is unclear how existing and potential habitats interact with the layout proposals.
•
Building Heights: The site masterplan would benefit from a diagram on building heights, especially for the employment area to the east.

Further Points of Consideration / Missing Information
•
Highway Network: Is there further information on consideration towards the highway network for Lidsing Garden Community, and how this can avoid adverse impact on existing habitats?

Comment noted.
Officers would note the following:
-Agree to update references to Capstone Farm Country Park
- Agree to update Figure 8 regarding planned developments
-Figure 11 shows the wider context and figures 12 and 13 the local context - however accept that all Ancient Woodlands and LNRS should be shown on Figures 12 and 13
-agree to update the scale of figure 15 to show the full extent of viewpoints
-agree to update labelling in figure 19 regarding Kestrel Shopping Area
-Figure 25 shows the building heights so this does not require updating
-figure 16 shows the environmental designations which can be read against figure 23 to see how these have influenced the Green and Blue infrastructure network

Comment

Representation ID: 1079

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Section A - Background
We are concerned that the timing of a proposed Design Code is to follow an outline planning application, which could compromise the ability to achieve the quality sought in the vision. We consider that early preparation of a Design Code is important in shaping the development, and view that this would follow best practice.
The policy context should note the draft Medway Local Plan bringing forward policy and potential allocations in land adjoining the Lidsing site.
The SPD has a limited assessment of the relationship of the planned development with the Medway area; particularly considering the context of existing communities, new development, such as at East Hill and emerging plans for Gibraltar Farm and the wider proposed strategic allocation of land in the Capstone Valley for growth as a component of the spatial strategy in the Draft Medway Local Plan.
Flood Risk
Despite not being in an area of high flood risk paragraph 3.2.3 (page 26) states that "low flood risk has been used to define the starting point for the green infrastructure". Instead, this should be used as one of several influences to shape the green infrastructure strategy, including landscape character, historic land-use/ field/ and settlement patterns, archaeology, ecology/ existing vegetation, and existing utility/service constraints.
Ecology
Paragraph 3.2.7 (page 28) refers to the emerging Kent Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS). Whilst its reference is positive, it is unclear how the LNRS has informed the SPD and Site Masterplan.
Landscape Character
The SPD does not give greater detail on the landscape character of the site, in particular the defining features of the "5 distinct landscape character zones spread across the site", how these were determined, and how they have informed both the green infrastructure framework and character areas within the SPD. Consequently, it is difficult to see how the proposals are truly landscape led.
The Landscape and Visual Technical Note (July 2021), Landscape Capacity Study (March 2022), Land at Kemsley Street Road - Opportunities Plan (March 2022), and Key Views (May 2022) have not been published with the Lidsing SPD for viewing,
and as such it is difficult to fully assess decisions within the landscape and masterplan. The SPD could clarify how it has drawn on previously published work and the status of the technical and supporting documents.
Landscapes cross authority boundaries, and as such the development of a garden community, its masterplan, design code and other supporting strategies should consider the analysis, recommendations and guidance of the Medway Landscape Character Assessment (June 2024).
At 3.3.2 the constraints should also reference infrastructure capacity, including transport and impact on traffic through the Downs and impact on Capstone Farm Country Park, and the North Downs Woodland SAC.

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.
The SPD has considered its relationship with emerging proposals where there is sufficient certainty regarding their planning status. However reference to the emerging Medway local plan should be included and these can be taken into account, as appropriate, as planning applications come forward.
Regarding floodrisk - the reference to “Starting Point” is clear that this is not the solely determining factor but that other elements have influenced the green infrastructure.
Regarding ecology - the green buffers to the east and west of the site were enhanced to reflect the LNRS.
Regarding landscape - this is explained further in section 6.8 of the SPD and the Green and Blue Infrastructure topic paper, which clearly indicates how the landscape character areas have informed the character areas within the SPD.
Regarding off site constraints - the opportunities and constraints are focused ‘on-site’ however the preceding paragraphs also cover off-site constraints

Comment

Representation ID: 1080

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Section B - Vision, Objectives and Spatial Framework
We welcome the reference to the Garden City principles published by the Town and Country Planning Association and note these set key challenges in managing delivery so that Lidsing does not become a car dependent suburban extension to urban Medway, lacking in distinctive character, and reliant on external services.
It is unclear how in the absence of more detailed information the SPD and associated masterplan can align with the vision (p47) for providing "a genuinely landscape-led settlement", creating well-defined landscape infrastructure that "enhances the natural environment of its location in proximity to the Kent Downs National Landscape and its relationship with the Capstone Valley". In doing so, the SPD is missing one of the underpinning principles for establishing a Garden Community (figure 21, page 50).
It is unclear how Lidsing Garden Community can become a "Landscape-Led Exemplar" (paragraph 4.2.3, page 49). Landscape-led development is more than creating development that "responds to the challenges and opportunities of Climate change".
We would like to see more consideration of the relationship to sites in Medway, particularly Gibraltar Farm.
Paragraph 3.2.2 – seek greater consideration of linked flood risk outside of the site in Medway and requirements for planning applications.
3.3 - constraints should acknowledge infrastructure capacity.
•
4.2.4 – Sports, play and allotments should follow national guidance. Allotments should be referenced here too.
•
5.3.1 - 37% of the total site area is to be given over to open space. It is, however, unclear whether this calculation includes blue infrastructure, or how much of this land will be usable public amenity.
•
5.3.3 - There is a case for recreational open space / sport also more centrally within the site, to support the new community and promote sustainable active travel modes.
•
5.3.4 - Ecological enhancement to western and eastern edges aligns with the LNRS, however, ecological corridors should be provided across the site to promote best outcomes for biodiversity and residents.
•
5.5 Placemaking & Design Framework
•
Whilst lower density is suggested to site edges, Figure 25 (page 59) displays building heights of up to 11m across a large proportion of the site area, where facing away from the Kent Downs National Landscape. Despite land falling away to lower levels in the north, this land will still be visible from the Capstone Valley. In doing so the proposals, conflict with current discussions regarding Gibraltar Farm.
•
5.3.3 – explain why the sports and allotments are on the periphery. These also need to be accessible. Lordswood Centre referenced throughout the document but it is already at capacity. How is the new development mitigating this?

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.
Officers agree that reference should be made to floodrisk outside of the site.
Officers agree that reference should be made to allotments in para 4.2.4. given their recognised role in supporting wellbeing.
Paragraph 6.5.1 confirms how much open space will be usable public amenity and the illustrative open space layout (figure 23) shows open space corridors around the centre of the site and figure 30 indicates sports facilities near to the local centre. Furthermore, the Open space network shows a connected network of open space thus allowing for ecological corridors across the site.
The building heights are consistent with the Local Plan Review and the employment guidelines originally intended for consultation which were subject to a short additional consultation refer to the 9m building height.
Regarding access to facilities, these will be accessible via active travel. Development proposals will need to take into account impact on the surrounding area including Lordswood Leisure Centre as set out in para 7.2.9

Comment

Representation ID: 1081

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Section 6.2 - with an Outline Application expected this year, and no requirement for a Design Code listed at the outline stage within the SPD, this raises concern over the effectiveness of the forthcoming planning application and how matters relative to effective design and delivery have been considered.
A Design Code should be developed as part of an outline application, rather than following on from an approval. This would mean that the Code can be developed and tested as part of an iterative design process in order to promote the best quality outcomes to placemaking and landscape context

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1082

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Section 6.4 Landscape
6.4.1 - In the absence of the supporting topic papers (and landscape framework plan) it is unclear how the proposed framework, and potential future development is landscape led - rather it is led by resolving drainage matters and does not fully embrace historic landscape character and uses to inform the creation of character areas and subsequent development parcels.
6.4.2 - Notes that the landscape framework is based on the pattern of woodlands and hedgerows found within the site but has not referred to the historic landscape and lost landscape components that formed an intrinsic part of the place.
6.4.3 - What is the rationale and purpose of a minimum 15.0m buffer? Where will this be located, and will this increase in size/ depth in areas of increased sensitivity? Is its function to solely serve in mitigating noise pollution from the motorway, instead of providing an appropriate contribution for mitigating the visual effects of development in views to and from the Kent Downs National Landscape and its setting?
Key Principles / Guidance
d. - Where are key views identified in the constraints plan - where in the document can this plan be found? What is the methodology behind the scoping and establishment of key viewpoints?
Fig. 30 - Green blue infrastructure framework appears primarily augmented around existing hedgerows / woodland, in combination with proposed blue infrastructure
elements (attenuation ponds). This will result in limited areas of usable amenity for a large increase in population.

Further thematic based comments
Integration of Landscape Character
The SPD lacks a detailed analysis of both existing and historic landscape character, and how this informs the design and development of character zones/areas. The
consultation would have benefitted from having clear links and availability of technical supporting documents.
The development will impact on the landscape setting, our green infrastructure, such as paths, flood risk and drainage, and green corridors for nature. Lidsing sits to the south of Medway, and there are important links between the Kent Downs National Landscape and biodiversity assets in Medway, such as Darland Banks and ancient woodland. We have provided comments on landscape considerations.
The initial Masterplanning exercise considers site-based constraints, however, does not seem to recognise or integrate existing landscape character, crucial for creating a sense of place especially given its proximity to the National Landscape.
•
The approach to site edges requires further consideration regarding landscape and built form density. The approach to wildlife corridors needs to be described.

Comment noted.
This is explained further in section 6.8 of the SPD which clearly indicates how the landscape character areas have informed the character areas within the SPD.
The purpose and rationale for the 15m buffer zone was informed through discussions with the with the Kent Downs National Landscape unit
The key views on the constraints plan are shown on figures 15 and 20, figure 15 can be updated to show the full extent of the views.
Regarding Green and Blue infrastructure - The open space typologies will need to meet the requirements set out in 6.5.1. More detail will be provided as part of future planning applications.
Officers agree that reference to the historic landscape, farmsteads (outside the site) and woodland connections should be included within the document.

Comment

Representation ID: 1083

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Placemaking
It is stated on page 21 that higher density development can feature along the new spine road - It is unclear what the rationale has been for the spine road's alignment and how this corresponds with wider landscape sensitivities and visual impact.
Ridge heights within the employment zone must not exceed 9m - this is the height of a 2-storey residential dwelling with a pitched roof. - In general, it is unclear why employment is all located in character area LCZ 4 Southern Edge Employment, which is situated closest to the boundary of the Kent Downs National Landscape.
It is unclear what principles make this a garden community, and no different from an edge of settlement suburban expansion. There is a lack of clarity on what distinguishes this as a “garden community.”
Building heights and density may conflict with views from sensitive areas like the Capstone Valley – an eleven-metre building height parameter takes up a large portion of the site area.
The employment zone placement near Kent Downs raises visual impact concerns, albeit we note the mitigations secured through the LPR Examination.
Paragraph 6.10.13 – we note the reference to the project level HRA and seek to collaborate with Maidstone BC and the promoter in assessing and addressing the cumulative, and in combination potential impacts of development.

Comment noted.
The building heights are consistent with the Local Plan Review and the employment guidelines originally intended for consultation which were subject to a short additional consultation refer to the 9m building height and further relevant guidance to mitigate impacts on the KDNL.
The principles and guidance throughout the SPD which take forward the policies in the LPR collectively will ensure the site functions as a garden community.
Section 6.13 explains the rationale for locating the employment area related to its proximity to Medway and the new Junction 4 spur overing direct access onto the motorway network

Comment

Representation ID: 1084

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

6.13 - Employment Area
6.13.3 states the development of a 14-hectare employment hub of flexible use, including 15% office space, 35% light industrial, and 50% storage / warehouse. The composition and siting of this mix of employment is likely to have a significant impact on the Kent Downs and wider area, when accounting for typical building footprint and massing.
Figure 39 demonstrates that a major proportion of greenspace will be taken up through inclusion of permanent ponds and drainage basins, in addition to acoustic bunding.
6.13.10 - States that development is expected to have minimal impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape, though this is without any further supporting technical information. We note that mitigations were secured through the LPR Examination, responding to the advice from the Kent Downs AONB/NL unit. Perhaps these could be more clearly referenced in the SPD.
It is unclear what above and below ground constraints exist that could have a bearing on the masterplan, the arrangement of development parcels, and impact on the establishment of appropriate green and blue infrastructure.
Paragraph 6.9.5 – support provision of residential care, and more widely a broad range of housing needs, including specialist housing.
Paragraph 6.12.4 should have a clearer reference to the Secondary School and the need generated by the development. The SPD should acknowledge that the need for the school is wholly generated by development in the Lidsing/Capstone area.

Comment noted.
The building heights are consistent with the Local Plan Review and the employment guidelines originally intended for consultation which were subject to a short additional consultation refer to the 9m building height and further relevant guidance to mitigate impacts on the KDNL.
However further reference to Kent Downs National Landscape should be included in landscape guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 1086

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Section D Delivery Framework
We consider that the infrastructure section does not provide sufficient certainty on delivery, or acknowledge the wide range of services that will need to be provided or enhanced. The vision for the Garden Community refers to a degree of self-sufficiency with local services, with the role of the local centre and employment area. However the SPD notes at paragraph 2.2.3 that the community will function as an extension to the Medway urban area, and the context analysis shows a dependency on neighbouring services. The document refers to services such as a new secondary school to meet the needs arising from the Lidsing development being provided in Medway, and to some existing services, such as Capstone Farm Country Park, Lordswood Leisure Centre and Hempstead Valley Shopping Centre. The diagram at Figure 18, clearly shows the majority of existing services that new residents may use are in Medway. Medway Council considers that the development at Lidsing will have significant impacts on services and infrastructure in Medway. These include strategic and local transport networks and services, education, health services, sports, leisure, community facilities, parks and other green spaces.
The guidance notes that the infrastructure needs and phasing have been set in the LPR policy and Maidstone Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Paragraph 7.2.2 states that this has been rigorously tested with input from stakeholders. Medway Council does not consider that its views and updated information have been reflected in the LPR policy and IDP updates. We expect that planning applications will be determined on an accurate assessment of current and planned capacity, and that effective mitigations with clear triggers will be set. Medway Council will collaborate with Maidstone BC to provide information on services in our borough, and identify where enhancements will be needed to mitigate the needs arising from the Lidsing Garden Community, meeting the legal tests.
We will work jointly to achieve the vision for sustainable travel set for Lidsing. We note that the active travel infrastructure referenced to encourage behaviour shift will need to be considered at key destinations in Medway, as well as coordinated planning for an integrated network. We will be seeking further certainty through the Lidsing planning applications.
The SPD does not consider infrastructure needs in detail and refers to the Plan policy requirements and phasing. Further consideration will be at the planning application stage. We wish to see further certainty on the phasing and triggers, such as the medical facility and local centre. We note that the residential phasing plan shows the earlier delivery bordering Medway and we question the timing for infrastructure. References to delivery in Phase 2 could be as late as 2038.
Medway Council wishes to see greater acknowledgement of the anticipated impacts on its local services, and commitment to addressing the increased demands through securing developer contributions to upgrade capacity. The SPD is silent in a number of key areas, such as indoor sports centres, Capstone Country Park, and libraries where Medway facilities will be much closer to residents in Lidsing than services in the centre of Maidstone. The SPD as drafted does not give existing or new residents clarity on their local services, and what will be in place to meet the needs of the increased population. Developer contributions to services and infrastructure in Medway will be required to provide for sustainable development.
Further clarification would be useful on what stewardship model can be expected under paragraph 7.5.5. This may have cross border implications.
Capstone Farm Country Park is mentioned throughout the document, along with photos as precedent etc - 6 photos and 7 references in total. The development will have a big impact on the park but there is no reference to what measures will be put in place to protect it and the impact and mitigation on surrounding rural roads.

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(B) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure.
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. Alongside this, as required policy LPRS13 can be taken into account to inform the prioritisation of infrastructure.
Officers agree that supporting text at para 7.2.9 should be updated to further acknowledge relationship with Medway urban area.
Officers agree that the relevant infrastructure guidelines can be clarified to refer to its timely provision and further collaborative working.

Comment

Representation ID: 1087

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Heritage and Historic Landscape Consideration
We consider that greater reference could be made to heritage and historic landscape in guiding development.
•
Integrating historic landscape elements can enhance and restore landscape character, align with Local Nature Recovery Strategy objectives, strengthen ecological corridors, develop character areas, and rationalise significant landscape moves like playing field locations.
•
Historic mapping shows woodland areas and shaws previously providing connections with Roots Wood and Blowers Wood, contributing to the setting of Bredhurst and Lidsing. Re-establishing Caters Wood to the east would define the new residential community from the employment area, provide visual mitigation from the Kent Downs National Landscape, and enhance ecological connectivity on the eastern side of the site.
•
Understanding the relationship between the historic landscape and historic built form can help to inform sustainable development which responds to local context and creates its own unique, but locally distinctive, character. That can be achieved through understanding the positioning of buildings in relation to the natural (such as the shaws on the site) and human-influenced landscape (such as the existing and former historic field patterns within the woodland infrastructure).
•
The heritage section within Section C is welcome in that it considers impact on setting of heritage assets and specifically the military balloon installation, as well as the value of the historic landscape. However, the assessment of the historic environment within the site is lacking in depth for the purposes of a garden city development, focusing on archaeology and not settlement patterns as they relate to historic landscape infrastructure.
•
Assessment of types and locations of past and current farmsteads should form part of the SPD to assist with the above, including reference to the Kent Downs AONB Historic Farmsteads Guidance, which is based on a comprehensive survey by Historic England and Kent County Council of the farmstead typologies throughout the county. This would assist in a better understanding of how development can integrate into the countryside.
•
No mention is made of the Kent Historic Environment Record, which includes a map layer for the historic farmsteads identified in the Historic England and KCC
project. Abbey Court Farm [this is named as Abbotts Court In the Key Principles/Guidance on page 67? Is this a typo?], Ivy Farm and Lidsing Court Farm are all identified as historic farmsteads, assets which have the potential to be considered non-designated heritage assets as historic dispersed plan and multi-courtyard plan farmsteads. Abbey Court Farm is mentioned only in Part 2 within a ‘key principle’ but it feels out of context as it states impact on ‘Abbotts Court Farm and other listed buildings in the vicinity.’ There are no listed buildings on the farmstead?
•
The site is directly adjacent to the Kent Downs National Landscape. The Kent Downs AONB/NL Management Plan lists the components of natural beauty as including ‘Historic, Cultural and Scientific Heritage’. This sets out a clear narrative of the morphology of the area and how that has shaped the landscape and settlements (pages 77-79). It would be helpful to reference this specifically given the references to nucleated villages, hamlets, Gavelkind, assart fields, open commons, timber buildings, and the clay, ragstone, flint and chalk geology used in built structures which has established a strong palette.
•
Paragraph 3.2.16, which follows a list of the designated heritage assets in Bredhurst, only discusses archaeology and gives no indication of the character of the heritage that will need to be assessed as part of any development.
•
Paragraph 3.3.1 pre-empts any deeper heritage impact assessment by concluding that ‘there is very limited impact on designated heritage assets on or near the site [in fact it was concluded earlier that there were no designated heritage assets on the site] though the potential for archaeology’. This statement is not qualified in Section C. It is odd in any case to include this in an ‘opportunities’ section, which conversely should be looking for opportunities to enhance character by relating the development to the historic environment. Is this referring only to archaeology, as 3.3.2 states that the settings of the listed buildings in Bredhurst is a constraint?
•
More could be done, therefore, to address paragraph 203 of the NPPF, which states that ‘plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment... This strategy should take into account...(f) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and (g) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of the place.’ This could be potentially done through drawing out more summary conclusions from the heritage work which was completed to support the Local Plan, other than archaeological potential.
•
This also relates to the development of the character areas, which give no indication other than geographically of how these were arrived at. The SPD gives little guidance as to how applicants will approach the ‘Identity’ component of the National Design Guide.

Comment noted.
Officers agree that reference to the historic landscape, farmsteads (outside the site) and woodland connections should be included within the document.