Lidsing Garden Community SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 339

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

Insufficient clarity is provided in connection with landscaping requirements to help assist mitigating impacts to the KDNL.

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Landscape' (Chapter 6.4) and 'Open Space' (Chapter 6.5).
Officers agree that a number of amendments should be made to provide additional clarity on several aspects.

Comment

Representation ID: 340

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

We consider these should be amended to provide greater clarity on future requirements.

Comment noted.

Comment

Representation ID: 341

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

- The requirement for a 15 metre minimum width of structural tree planting along the northern boundary of the M2.
- That the ‘Opportunities for community access’ referenced is in respect of the land to the south of the motorway.
- We would query whether this is the right place within the SPD to include requirements on building design. However whether it is provided here or elsewhere, the key principles/guidelines as currently worded falls far short of the expectation set out in criterion v and vi of policy LPRSP4(B) and should be expanded to incorporate these requirements.

Comment noted.
The requirement for a landscape buffer along the M2 is included in the guidelines and principles for Landscape at Chapter 6.4. Officers agree that the need for a buffer along the M2 should also be made clear on Figure 23: Green & Blue Infrastructure Framework.
Officers agree that an additional principle should be added to Chapter 6.4 (Landscape) to more clearly relate to criterion (H)(V), (VI) and (VII) of Policy LPRSP4(B)

Comment

Representation ID: 342

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

We consider clarification/changes should be made to principles (k) and (o).

Comment noted.

Comment

Representation ID: 343

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

In respect of (k) we would wish to see the inclusion of requirements for an informal parking area and information/interpretation board relating to the Kent Downs National Landscape.

In respect of (o) it is disappointing that the location of this has yet to be determined and specified within the SPD. It is also disappointing that further details such as minimum widths of planting zones on the bridge are not specified here. The main purpose of the bridge should be to connect the landscape, rather than to provide wildlife connectivity.

Comment noted.
The SPD captures 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.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(B) of the Local Plan Review which established the overall policy and infrastructure requirements. This was not explicit about a requirement for parking or facilities in relation to KDNL.
Future planning applications will set out more details around the proposed layout of uses and infrastructure across the site and could contain such uses if stakeholders agree.
All future applications will be the subject of consultation and future decision making.
Agree that further reference to parking and information within the area of the Kent Downs National Landscape should be included.

Comment

Representation ID: 344

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

We have concerns in connection with the guidance/principles for LCZ3 and LCZ 4

Comment noted.

Comment

Representation ID: 345

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

LCZ 3 - The requirements set out in respect of noise attenuation measures are of concern as these could be visually intrusive in views from the KDNL and further detail of the required landscape planting should be included.

LCZ4 - we are very concerned that the requirements set out in criterion 3 (iv), (v) and (vi) are not incorporated here. Proposed principle (m) for a continuous diverse building frontage would appear to be in direct conflict with the requirements of LPRSP4(B) 3 (v).

Comment noted.
The SPD includes principles relating to both noise attenuation and requirements for landscaping and planting as a buffer against the M2.
Officers agree that an additional principle should be added to more clearly relate to criterion (H)(V), (VI) and (VII) of Policy LPRSP4(B) and that the policy should clearly cross refer.
Officers agree that criterion 'M' is not appropriate and should be removed, as the additional principle provides clearer guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 346

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

We consider the requirement set out in LPRSP4(B) that no individual building exceeds 600m2 should be included here. This is considered all the more important in view of the intention that 50 per cent of the proposed 14ha of employment is specified as being for storage/warehousing (at 6.13.3).

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 347

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

We consider the requirement set out in LPRSP4(B) that no individual building exceeds 600m2 should be included here. This is considered all the more important in view of the intention that 50 per cent of the proposed 14ha of employment is specified as being for storage/warehousing (at 6.13.3).

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 348

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

Pre-Application working
7.6.6. Although not a statutory consultee, we would like to be included here as an organisation the applicant is encouraged to engage with.

Comment noted.
Officers agree that a reference should be added to encourage engagement with the Kent Downs National Landscape.