Lidsing Garden Community SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 854

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Melanie Fooks

I am fundamentally opposed to the Lidsing Garden development. However, I acknowledge that the principle of development has been established following the overturning of the Judicial Review. My comments therefore relate to whether the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides a policy-compliant framework to mitigate the impacts on Bredhurst.

In its current form, the SPD fails to demonstrate that transport impacts on Bredhurst have been adequately addressed, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly paragraphs 108–111, which require development to provide safe and suitable access and avoid unacceptable impacts on the highway network.

The SPD proposes the closure of Forge Lane bridge to general traffic but does not properly assess the resulting displacement of traffic onto The Street and Dunn Street. This risks increased congestion, reduced highway safety and harm to residential amenity, contrary to NPPF paragraph 110. Earlier consultation proposals to close Dunn Street at its junction with Lidsing Road—an option strongly supported by residents to prevent rat-running—have been omitted from the SPD without explanation. This raises concern that material consultation responses have not been properly reflected.

The SPD also proposes that improvements to M2 Junction 4 will be delivered later in the development. This conflicts with NPPF requirements that necessary infrastructure should be delivered in a timely manner. The M2 Junction 4 works should be required in Phase 1 to avoid unacceptable congestion during early phases.

Finally, the SPD does not require a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Given the scale of the development and the sensitivity of the local road network, this is a significant omission. In line with NPPF paragraph 111, a robust plan should be approved prior to commencement, with engagement from Bredhurst and Boxley Parish Council.

Without these amendments, the SPD does not provide an acceptable framework and should not be adopted.

Melanie Fooks

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.