Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Object

Representation ID: 25

Received: 04/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Brown

Whilst I agree with the principle of an SPD, it is very difficult to comment on this draft because it contains almost no additional planning guidance. The SPD uses an awful lot of words and repetition to say that all planning issues will be dealt with at some point in the future. The SPD needs to be reduced in length by 90% and rewritten to give detail on specific concerns, particularly on the possible financial implications of decisions yet to be taken. The Planning Inspector described the scheme as "marginally financially viable". The SPD needs to address this.

Objection noted.
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.
The viability of the proposal was considered during the examination of the Local Plan Review and is not a matter needing to be revaluated to prepare the SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 26

Received: 04/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Brown

There is very little in the SPD about the impact of the scheme on the A20. What kind of access onto the A20 is planned? Will it be a straightforward T-junction, a roundabout or a complex interchange? What are the financial implications of the planned access? What measures are planned to enable the A20 to take the increase in traffic?
It can be anticipated that there will be an increase in car journeys into Lenham village where there are already choke points and limited parking. What is planned to prevent Lenham being overrun?

Objection noted.
The SPD is supported by a Transport Annex and Assessment 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.
Chapter 8 of the SPD sets out the required approach to assess and consider transport impacts of proposals, and establish appropriate mitigation measures.
The detailed design of transport mitigation measures will need to set out as part of the formulation and consideration of future planning applications not the SPD which sets out guidance and principles.

Object

Representation ID: 27

Received: 04/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Brown

It is inaccurate to assume there will be limited impact on local traffic levels because of improved footpaths and cycle ways. People living in the new scheme will use cars to reach Lenham and Charing. What measures are planned to mitigate the impact on traffic levels on local roads and villages?

Objection noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, and Section 6.11 sets out principles and guidelines including relating to promoting active travel, assessing and mitigating impacts across the local and strategic road layout.
The SPD 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.

Object

Representation ID: 28

Received: 04/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Brown

The SPD refers to a new station being built. My understanding is that Network Rail does not have a budget for this. What are the financial implications for the scheme if money has to be found to build a new station, fund new signalling, etc?

Objection noted.
The SPD carries forward the requirement for a new station as set by Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review.
The viability of the proposal was considered during the examination of the Local Plan Review and is not a matter needing to be revaluated to prepare the SPD.
The delivery of the station will be a matter that future developers and planning applications will need to address.

Object

Representation ID: 29

Received: 04/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Brown

The SPD is very vague on water treatment facilities. What are the financial implications if a new water treatment is required? how will potential pollution of the Great Stour be avoided?

Objection noted.
The SPD carries forward the requirement for improvements to the wastewater infrastructure as set by Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review. Section 6.3 provides additional guidelines and principles including in relation to requirements for Sustainable Drainage Systems and pollution mitigation measures. The financial implications of all measures will be a matter that future developers and planning applications will need to address.

Object

Representation ID: 30

Received: 04/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Brown

The SPD says that Design and Layout will come forward on a phased basis - i.e. there is no plan of the site!! Shouldn't the SPD provide some detail of the planned layout rather than vague schematics?

Objection noted.
The Framework Plans 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.