Lidsing Garden Community SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 1088

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Approach to Green & Blue Infrastructure
•
Reference to Kent LNRS is positive but lacks explanation of its influence.
•
Ecological corridors across the site are recommended for biodiversity.
•
37% open space is noted, but usability and inclusion of blue infrastructure are unclear.
•
Green and blue infrastructure appears concentrated around existing features, limiting amenity space function.
•
Where greenspace is shown within the main residential development, this is focused around flood zones rather than areas of landscape interest or importance. The green and blue infrastructure framework to development appears driven by drainage rather than the historic landscape context.
•
The current approach to blue infrastructure states that "the location of this limited flood risk has been used to define the starting point for the green infrastructure” and on its own this is insufficient in developing an appropriate framework for green and blue infrastructure, including open space amenity provision.
•
Blue infrastructure mapping, (presumably based on the site's greenfield condition), will significantly change with development. The design should serve multiple functions (e.g., flood management, ecology, and play) without sterilising open space.
•
The green infrastructure layout should include open space provision, amenities, play areas, and biodiversity opportunities, ensuring no adverse impacts upon Medway facilities.
•
The combined diagram for green and blue infrastructure doesn’t seem to consider landscape character, views from outside the site, connections with Bredhurst, and access to the isolated eastern land parcel. It is unclear how this framework enhances long-distance views following the area’s topography. Additionally, promoting leisure routes along main highway edges including the motorway, is questionable for leisure and amenity purposes.
•
Part of the proposed development falls within the 6km zone of influence for the North Kent Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) but this is not mentioned in the SPD. There is reference to this in the SEA and HRA Screening report on page 19, point 8G. Should there be reference to SAMMS contributions in the SPD Appendix A page 126, Anticipated S106 Requirements?
•
In relation to Public Rights of Way, there is a risk of fragmented planning: Lidsing and Gibraltar Farm developments are progressing independently, lacking a coordinated strategy for shared green infrastructure and open space networks.
•
Natural Corridor Disruption: Ecological links, including Ancient Woodland and Priority Habitats, are at risk due to development layouts that ignore landscape character and connectivity.
•
PROW Conflicts: Several Public Rights of Way intersect sensitive woodland areas, raising tensions between access and conservation. Proposed downgrades and diversions require formal processes and may face delays.

Comment noted.
Reference to North Kent Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) should be included in Appendix A.

Comment

Representation ID: 1089

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Approach to Open Space
•
The on-site proposal does not address all open space typologies needed for new residents and falls short in areas such as play, allotments and parks & gardens. MC plans to follow the updated Fields in Trust guidance in its new Local Plan. MBC advised that they are following their own guidance but as the new residents will use Medway’s open space facilities, and these will be impacted.
•
Open Space: The Open Space Strategy should consider its interrelationship with Medway facilities and provision. The Recreational Hierarchy plan needs to understand significant play areas outside Lidsing and include other recreational elements like sports pitches and allotments.
•
6.5 – also needs to make reference to Medway’s Playing Pitch Strategy and Built Facilities Plan which will be ready in 2026. The impact on Medway must be taken into account, not just Maidstone, and relying on current facilities which are at capacity. Also consultation with Sport England at an early stage to ensure high quality outdoor sports provision on site. This also needs to be referenced in the Key Principles/Guidance.
•
A comparison is shown on the following page based on 2,000 homes.
•
FiT uses a rate of average household size in England of 2.4. Therefore, based on 4,800 new residents:
Please see attached table

This development will have a huge impact on Medway’s existing facilities. Lordswood Leisure Centre is at capacity and is unable to take additional football pitches. The woodland adjacent to the Lordswood site would make it difficult to install a new 3G pitch here. Lordswood Leisure Centre needs investment, and it is unclear whether this will be able to cope with the additional demand.
•
Capstone Farm Country Park – Capstone Road is a narrow country lane, and 2,000 homes will add significant additional pressure to this route. Additional car traffic needs to be minimised to the country park. Consideration needs to be given to additional public rights of way to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists to the south and east of the site. Medway Council would need to discuss transport infrastructure and access with Maidstone BC to plan to mitigate the impacts of development at Lidsing.
•
Discussions mentioned the possibility of connecting open spaces between the Lidsing Garden Community and the neighbouring Gibraltar Farm development. How will this work if Gibraltar Farm comes forward before Lidsing phases, and will it be under a different developer? MC want to ensure that a high-quality, joined-up open space network can be achieved across these two sites.
•
The diagrams indicate a lot of open spaces will be taken up by SUDs but what form will these take? Is most of the proposed natural/semi natural to address BNG? Will it be accessible? SUDs shouldn’t be fenced off ponded areas but multi-functional, moving with the times. What is breakdown of actual usable open space versus SUDs? If these SUDs areas are to be fenced off ponds these should be discounted from the open space amounts.
•
Figure 23 – is it possible to have a sense of scale of the greenspaces proposed? Need to ensure they are usable, practical spaces worthy of high quality outdoor pitches, play allotments etc. Can we set a minimum width?
•
Figure 26 – shows only 3 play areas but these do not serve all the communities proposed. Also, these cannot just be LAPs. Paragraph 6.5.3 – Play - a site of this scale should be providing a number of NEAPs and LEAPs, not just LAPs as these are only for incidental play for a very young age. Guidance should follow latest Fields in Trust standards.
•
Key Principles/Guidance – there would need to be more than one 3G pitch, also what about tennis, paddle, other outdoor sports and ancillary facilities needed to meet the relevant guidance?
•
Allotments – also allotments themselves should be accessible, with cycle parking, different size plots, raised beds, consider width of paths etc.
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.
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.
Officers agree that reference to existing wildlife corridors should be included and that expectations for future planning applications should be further clarified.
Further acknowledgement of proportionate contributions to secondary education should be included however it should be noted that the SPD can’t result in additional financial burdens beyond those already identified in the Local Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 1090

Received: 05/01/2026

Respondent: Medway Council

Transport Considerations
The SPD could be clearer in presenting a vision for sustainable transport for Lidsing and a strategy for how this will be achieved. Further work and consultation is needed. Transport planning needs to be addressed as a cross-border priority.
This is a critical matter for cross border working and an important aspect of the SPD to secure sustainable development. We want to ensure that the cumulative impacts of growth in this wider location are identified and addressed. This is essential in determining the triggers for transport improvements, particularly the strategic scale interventions, such as the link road and the works to M2 Junction 4. Without a connection to the M2 there is a likelihood of significant road traffic joining the Medway network and our Council needs to understand if increased traffic can be accommodated on the existing network, and how the link is expected to operate. The
SPD references benefits to communities in Medway from the new transport link. We need to better understand the proposal and our long-term aspirations will be realised as a result. We have specific interest in phasing and the nature of the site connection between North Dane Way and the M2. We need to be reassured that the transport measures take account of cumulative development in Lidsing and Capstone in defining triggers.
We wish to work closely with Maidstone BC, Kent County Council, National Highways and the developers in providing for effective transport mitigations and reducing the need for car based travel. Our joint work will include a collaborative approach to addressing potential impacts on the North Downs SAC.
Further work is needed to determine the transport impacts, the trip budget and assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. We share the ambitions for delivering more sustainable transport choice and reducing the need to travel. The aspiration to deliver high quality walking and cycling routes between neighbouring attractors in Medway, this is acknowledged and appreciated.
This will need ongoing collaboration to define the function of key links and routes, including the new link, routes such as Chapel Lane, and further consideration of bus routes and links. As many of the destinations for Lidsing residents will be in Medway, it is essential that we are involved in discussions with bus operators, and that there is a joined up approach to the planning and funding of services and supporting infrastructure. We need a similar approach to the design of walking and cycling. We can help your Council in this joint planning work, such as through our active travel and public transport working groups. These meet regularly and we have direct contact with bus operators in our area.
We would like to see greater certainty on the delivery of the highways improvements to M2 Junction 4. Can the SPD stipulate who is responsible for preparing the necessary application for M2 J4 and other parties involved. The SPD should confirm that the Lidsing development is to fully fund M2 J4.
Our draft Local Plan Capstone Valley site allocation policy says ‘The design and layout of streets will provide for maximum bus accessibility and connections to an orbital bus route.’ Please can the SPD say the same.
We will be providing separate comments to Charles & Associates transport consultancy as per their request in relation to their scoping work, and we will copy Maidstone BC into this response.

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.
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.
Regarding reference to street layouts providing for maximum accessibility and connections to the orbital bus route, this is already covered by reference to the 400m maximum distance from a bus stop.