Lidsing Garden Community SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 913

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Detling Parish Council

Detling Parish Council (DPC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Lidsing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Whilst some way away from the development site Detling could be impacted by the lack of detailed planning to deal with the significant traffic generated from the proposal. This appears inherent to the current model of planning for transport, which has moved away from the predict and provide approach of the past thereby inevitably causing a lack of infrastructure until very late in the process.

Many objected to the allocation of Lidsing (Policy LPRSA4(b)) throughout the Local Plan Review process, and the concerns previously raised are not always given sufficient clarity in this SPD, which may threaten deliverability.

The SPD lacks essential technical detail, particularly around the timing and nature of the highway’s mitigation needed for a strategic allocation of this scale, but in other areas as well particularly as being located on the boundary with Medway, some dependence exists on infrastructure outside Maidstone’s control.

Lidsing Garden Community Supplementary Planning Document
Detling Parish Council requests that the following amendments and additions be made to the Lidsing Garden Community SPD to address the risk of additional through-traffic on narrow rural roads to the south and east of the allocation.

6. Overall Position of Detling Parish Council
Detling Parish Council acknowledges that the SPD cannot address all of the issues caused by the Loal Plan Review. The SPD needs to be more robust, however in nailing down the delivery of key mitigations to ease the risk of the existing infrastructure falling over. Significant further detail is required to deal with these unresolved concerns.

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out additional guidance on the approach to transport assessment and mitigation (Chapter 7.3). 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).
The detailed design of transport mitigation measures including addressing off site impacts will need to be set out as part of the formulation and consideration of future planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 914

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Detling Parish Council

1. Intended Strategic Traffic Routing
Proposed SPD insertion – Section B (Movement & Transport), following introductory transport principles
Insert a new paragraph stating:
“The Garden Community is intended to be served primarily by the strategic road network, including routes towards the M2, A229 and Maidstone. The use of narrow rural roads to the south and east of the site for through-traffic is not an intended outcome of the development.”

2. Recognition of Sensitive Rural Lanes Beyond the Site
Proposed SPD insertion – Section B (Road Hierarchy and Access)
Insert a new subsection identifying that:
“Narrow rural roads beyond the site boundary, including but not limited to Kemsley Street, White Hill Road, Cox Street and Scragged Oak Road, are roads of limited capacity and are not intended to form part of the Garden Community’s strategic movement network.”

3. Transport Assessment Assumptions
Proposed SPD insertion – Section B (Outline Planning Application Requirements)
Add a requirement that:
“Transport Assessments accompanying outline planning applications must test non-preferred routing scenarios, including potential movements towards the A249 via rural lanes to the south and east of the site.”

4. Monitor and Manage – Baseline and Scope
Proposed SPD insertion – Section B or Section D (Monitor and Manage Framework)
Insert new text requiring that:
“Baseline traffic data shall be collected on affected rural lanes to the south and east of the site prior to first occupation, and shall form part of the monitoring framework.”
7. Interim and Early Access Arrangements
Proposed SPD insertion – Section B (Phasing and Interim Arrangements)
Add text stating:
“Interim access arrangements and early phases of development must be designed so as not to encourage the use of narrow rural roads as through-routes.”

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, including off-site, will need to be set out as part of the formulation and consideration of future planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 915

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Detling Parish Council

4. Monitor and Manage – Baseline and Scope
Proposed SPD insertion – Section B or Section D (Monitor and Manage Framework)
Insert new text requiring that:
“Baseline traffic data shall be collected on affected rural lanes to the south and east of the site prior to first occupation, and shall form part of the monitoring framework.”

5. Early-Phase Monitoring
Proposed SPD insertion – Section D (Delivery and Phasing)
Insert a new paragraph stating:
“Monitoring of traffic impacts on surrounding rural lanes shall commence in early phases of development and shall not be deferred until later phases.”

6. Adaptive Mitigation Commitment
Proposed SPD insertion – Section D (Delivery Framework / Planning Obligations)
Insert a paragraph stating:
“Where monitoring demonstrates unacceptable impacts on rural lanes, appropriate mitigation measures may be required and secured through planning obligations, to be agreed with the highway authority.”

8. Engagement with Affected Parishes
Proposed SPD insertion – Section D (Cross-Boundary and Stakeholder Engagement)
Insert a requirement that:
“Outline planning applications shall set out how parish councils likely to experience downstream traffic impacts will be engaged in monitoring and mitigation discussions.”

3. Delivery Framework (SPD Q32–Q34)
3.1 Infrastructure first
The SPD can not necessarily dictate this, but its lack will result in serious issues As set out above the lack of the East west link and its connections to North Dane Way and M2 Junction 4 is a serious concern. The interim connection to Maidstone Road remains not fully designed, or tested, there is no comprehensive Transport Assessment and no analysis of cumulative to deal impacts with Gibraltar Farm. Plans are needed to consider construction traffic and site
facility locations.

3.2 Phasing
This is a concern given the fragility of the existing road network: early establishment of the East–West link and the orbital bus route is crucial to avoid grid lock.

3.3 Social Infrastructure
There needs to be evidence of engagement with:
• Medway Council (secondary education, transport)
• NHS (hospital and primary care capacity)
• Water authorities (supply and sewage disposal)
It is not just a little nebulous to state that “contributions will be made” without identifying these or offering any quantification. There needs to be consideration of what when, and how.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 916

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Detling Parish Council

Summary
Detling Parish Council considers that these additions fall within the proper scope of a Supplementary Planning Document and are necessary to ensure that the impacts of the Lidsing Garden Community on surrounding rural roads are appropriately managed.

Furthermore, with regard to the SPD as a whole:
Particular issues of concern are that (SPD Q2)
Rather glosses over several matters: Firstly:
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.
Secondly 1.2 Cross-Boundary Dependencies
• The SPD provides insufficient 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 seems undercooked.
• 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, and references to other species seem somewhat vague ie references to dormice and reptiles are vague, with no source or mapping given.
• The diagrams are hard to use as the colours are too similar. This does not help

1.4 Monitoring and Mitigation
 The basic issue here is how is this to be done? no details are provided across any of the key subject areas.
 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: 917

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Detling Parish Council

2. Framework Plans (SPD Q6 & Q7)
There are issues with the framework plans.
2.1 Access to the Strategic Road Network
It is not clear how individual parcels of development will access the Strategic Road Network. Without the East–West link in place, the most direct routes will be:
• Westfield Sole Road
• Boxley Road
• Hempstead Road

All of these are narrow, rural, sub-standard roads wholly unsuitable for any additional traffic. has repeatedly highlighted this risk. Without planning for the traffic created traffic will inevitably end up in Boxley Village, and more widely the White Hill Road area of Detling, It may even try and avoid Boxley Village by turning down the rather unsuitable Pilgrims Way. The impact will be felt as far as Bearsted.

2.2 Missing Infrastructure
The framework omits
• 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 important and will cause significant pressure on an outdated road network in Boxley, Bredhurst Detling and Bearsted

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: 918

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Detling Parish Council

5. Usability of the SPD (SPD Q35)
The SPD is difficult to interpret due to: similar palettes of colour on plans, vagueness on some of the ecological detail, and the lack of clear indications of existing properties and connections to the existing road network These issues make commenting harder than it should be.

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.