Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Support

Representation ID: 461

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

I agree with the principle of supplementary documents but it has to add additional detail to that presented to the planning inspector and I feel that this has not happened at present.

Support (with the principle) noted.
The SPD sets out a range of principles & guidelines, infrastructure and phasing requirements and Officers consider this provides an appropriate level of detail at this stage in the planning process.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 462

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

The impact of the scheme across a wider geographic area was not addressed. So in summary additional studies on the wider impact outside of the close site confines, has been missed.

Objection noted.
The SPD considers the site and its local context at Chapter 2.
The SPD is supported by a Landscape Strategy which considers wider matters in relation to the landscape context, views and visual impacts. The SPD is also supported by a Transport Annex and Assessment which considers the site in its transport context and sets out additional guidance on the approach to transport assessment and mitigation (Chapter 8) as has been agreed between Maidstone Borough Council, Kent County Council and National Highways.
The detailed design of transport mitigation measures will need to be set out as part of the formulation and consideration of future planning applications.
The SPD is providing guidelines and principles, and further work will be required as part of the preparation and determination of planning applications to consider impacts and necessary mitigation.
Appropriate requirements and mitigation measures will be secured through the use of planning conditions and legal agreements.
Appendix C of the SPD sets out planning application requirements which requires a wide range of supporting documents to be submitted to assess impacts of proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 463

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

The supplementary document fails to address the inevitable traffic issues that will arise along the main arterial routes, especially across the wider area and the impact on the narrow lanes that currently cross the site. Detail with reference to public transport has not progressed further than that presented to the planning inspector. In particular, the key addition of the new train station has not been progressed any further. There is no additional detail from stakeholders that the station will be constructed and when. The impact on stations at Lenham & Charing has also not been fully addressed.

Objection noted.
Principles and guidelines relating to traffic are set out at Chapter 6.11 which requires detailed assessments of impacts on the local and strategic road network and direct reference to minimise impacts on local lanes.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, including the need for a railway station as part of Phase 1, as set out in Figure 19.
The SPD can only relate to the land and proposals within the site.
The nature or 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.

Object

Representation ID: 464

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

Disagree. This growth is in the wrong location. The SPD contents gives no more detail than first presented to the planning inspector and the document provides little reassurance concerning key issues. Infrastructure is limited to the site only and not the wider area. Long term economic opportunity and prosperity is only speculative. Services provision lacked detail especially with reference to maintaining levels for current residents. The plan for spaces seems idealistic. Homes are incorrectly located and examples likely unachievable. Biodiversity climate change challenges seem contradictory. Comments on heritage, natural and cultural assets were contradictory given their current circumstances.

Objection noted.
The overall strategy and approach to future development across the Maidstone Borough area has been established by the Local Plan Review which was adopted by the Council in March 2024, following a robust process of debate and scrutiny via an independent ‘Examination in Public’.
The preparation of an SPD for the site is a requirement of adopted Policy LPRSP4(A).
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.
Officers consider it important for the SPD to provide sufficient context and explanation to enable future planning applications to address the full range of issues.

Object

Representation ID: 468

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

If a scheme of house building in this area is necessary then a smaller development, working closely with the parish council and residents , that evolves more slowly over time would be wise. Maximum of 500 houses at an initial stage .This would give more opportunity for the scheme to develop in a more sensitive manner, allow for more certainty in the planning stages and assist in identifying the issues and providing sensitive solutions. There would be scope for expansion but in smaller increments if necessary.

Objection noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of the Local Plan Review which considered matters related to overall housing need and supply, and identified and allocated the Heathlands Garden Settlement to address future needs.
The development will come forward in phases as set out at Chapter 7 of the SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 469

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

No, the framework is idealistic and likely unachievable. The SPD lacks detail and it is impossible to see how the vision evolves from the framework without detailed background from stakeholders. This has not really advanced to any great extent from the framework which was presented to the planning inspector.

Objection noted.
The SPD sets out a range of principles & guidelines, infrastructure and phasing requirements.
The Council consider it important for the SPD to set out this additional guidance to enable future planning applications to address the full range of issues.
Future planning applications will need to consider and address all the identified issues and requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 470

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

More certainty concerning the train station is required. The planning inspector made the provision of this key asset paramount and yet it has really not been fully confirmed as a viable addition. That needs to be in place before the framework can be seriously considered.

Objection noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, including the need for a railway station as part of Phase 1, as set out in Figure 19.
It will be the responsibility of the developers and rail stakeholders to evolve a Business Case and funding for the new station.
Future planning applications will need to consider and address all issues and requirements.

Support

Representation ID: 471

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

Yes, I agree, it is important to maintain this feature and importantly make improvements.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 472

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

No, the mineral proposals run contrary to the housing schemes. Mineral extraction will likely change the sites significantly away from the current landscape form. There is a risk that the mineral extraction will be undertaken with less care with commensurate impacts on current resident's lives. If we are to see house building then mineral extraction should be curtailed.

Objection 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 approach to minerals will also need to reflect wider policy and guidance as set out in the latest Minerals and Waste Local Plan produced and adopted by Kent County Council.

Object

Representation ID: 473

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Proctor

No I don't agree. The proposed site density is not achievable when compared to the proposed site area, amenities and infrastructure.

Objection noted.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines in relation to ""Placemaking, Density & Character"" at Chapter 6.6 which explains the approach to site capacity and density, and an indicative breakdown of land uses is set out at Figure 12 and shown as part of Figure 13 the Land Use Framework, which includes provision for all uses and infrastructure.