Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Support

Representation ID: 279

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

It is essential that the development is properly planned to ensure the necessary infrastructure is put in place first

Support Noted

Comment

Representation ID: 280

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

Insufficient thought has been given to ensuring coalescence between old Lenham village and the new development does not occur. Permanent protection in the form of a national park or protected open space must be created to the north west and west of Heathlands to prevent future creep of the development westwards towards Lenham.

Better connection to the M20 is needed, not just via the A20, and an improved frequency and faster service to London is needed on the existing railway line

Comment noted.
The SPD can only relate to the land that was allocated in the Local Plan Review for the Heathlands Garden Settlement, and can not set new policy for land beyond that boundary.
The allocated land for the Garden Settlement is located beyond the settlement boundary of Lenham village and there are no other allocations in the Local Plan review that would create coalescence with the Garden Settlement.
The Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework (Figure 10) and Placemaking Framework (Figure 14) show that there will be landscape buffers and structural planting along the boundaries of the site with the north (towards Kent Downs National Landscape) and to the west (towards Lenham) to further protect against visual impacts and coalescence.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, which did not include a requirement for a new junction on the motorway.

Comment

Representation ID: 281

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

There should be proposals for a shuttle bus to the existing Lenham station. To create a new station will just add to the existing long journey time. It would be wrong to close the existing Lenham station and open a new one at Heathlands.

The challenge of how to connect to the rail network is still being determined

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, which includes a new station between Lenham and Charing.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Movement & Connectivity' (6.11) which includes the need for enhanced bus provision to link the site into the wider area from the outset of development.

Comment

Representation ID: 282

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

The green corridor idea works but there needs to be protected open space to the north east as well as that proposed for the south east, in order to prevent future coalescence with Old Lenham

Comment noted.
The Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework (Figure 10) and Placemaking Framework (Figure 14) show that there will be landscape buffers and structural planting along the boundary of the site to the north towards Kent Downs National Landscape and the northern most part of this area is protected from inappropriate built development, providing a 350m offset to the National Landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 283

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

The provision of a new station in Heathlands will impact on the already slow journey time to London. Frequency of the service needs to improve. A shuttle bus to the existing Lenham station might be preferable to adding a new station.

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, which includes a new station between Lenham and Charing.
The frequency of the service is not a matter that the SPD can define, as it will be for the relevant Train Operating Company to set out service timetables.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Movement & Connectivity' (6.11) which includes the need for enhanced bus provision to link the site into the wider area from the outset of development.

Support

Representation ID: 284

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

I support the provision of anew country park but an area of undeveloped open space or national park should be created to the north west to prevent coalescence

Comment noted.
The SPD can only relate to the land that was allocated in the Local Plan Review for the Heathlands Garden Settlement, and can not set new policy for land beyond that boundary.
The allocated land for the Garden Settlement is located beyond the settlement boundary of Lenham village and there are no other allocations in the Local Plan review that would create coalescence with the Garden Settlement.
The Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework (Figure 10) and Placemaking Framework (Figure 14) show that there will be landscape buffers and structural planting along the boundaries of the site with the north (towards Kent Downs National Landscape) and to the wets (towards Lenham) to further protect against visual impacts and coalescence.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, which did not include a requirement for a new junction on the motorway.

Comment

Representation ID: 285

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

Add protected open space or a new country park to the north west of Heathlands to prevent coalescence

Comment noted.
The SPD can only relate to the land that was allocated in the Local Plan Review for the Heathlands Garden Settlement, and can not set new policy for land beyond that boundary.
The allocated land for the Garden Settlement is located beyond the settlement boundary of Lenham village and there are no other allocations in the Local Plan review that would create coalescence with the Garden Settlement.
The Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework (Figure 10) and Placemaking Framework (Figure 14) show that there will be landscape buffers and structural planting along the boundaries of the site with the north (towards Kent Downs National Landscape) and to the wets (towards Lenham) to further protect against visual impacts and coalescence.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, which did not include a requirement for a new junction on the motorway.

Comment

Representation ID: 286

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

The quarry area to the south east should be considered for the creation of a large lake, which would benefit both wildlife, and could create water sport opportunities.

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out within the principles and guidelines under Minerals (6.4) that the phasing and delivery of the Garden Settlement must consider matters related to the restoration of areas subject to minerals extraction, and that such land will be made suitable for the Heathlands development and optimise potential gains for landscape and biodiversity, The specific role and function of such land, and whether this should take the form of new water features will be subject to the preparation of future planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 287

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

As per previous answer, a new lake should be created where quarried areas are left

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out within the principles and guidelines under Minerals (6.4) that the phasing and delivery of the Garden Settlement must consider matters related to the restoration of areas subject to minerals extraction, and that such land will be made suitable for the Heathlands development and optimise potential gains for landscape and biodiversity, The specific role and function of such land, and whether this should take the form of new water features will be subject to the preparation of future planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 288

Received: 06/12/2025

Respondent: Maidstone Borough Council

A good selection of bungalows should be included to allow for older persons and disabled persons to have a choice of properties. Three storey properties should be avoided.

Comment noted.
The Housing Chapter of the SPD (6.7) sets out some key principles including the need to provide a broad mix of homes across the site. This will need to be informed by the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment together with other relevant and recent information as well as considering market factors and the location and characteristics of the site.
The precise mix and types of housing units will be determined at the pre/planning application stage.