Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Object

Representation ID: 54

Received: 11/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

Section A is extremely woolly and very top level. It only highlights what exists and thought process of taking into consideration. There is no mention, of the severe obstacle's that exist in this scheme.

Objection noted.
Chapter 3 of the SPD provides an overview of the site context including site constraints and opportunities. The comment does not identify specific obstacles to be included.

Object

Representation ID: 55

Received: 11/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

This issues raised, being the existing is correct, but NO correlation has at all been applied to the scheme, of the large obstacles that exist in progressing this project forward. gives the impression that if they are not highlighted in Section A. Then it will be dismissed or overwritten going forward.

Objection noted.
Additional commentary has been added to Chapter 3.3: Constraints Opportunities to acknowledge wider impacts across adjacent areas.
The SPD is to be read as a whole, and sets out a range of principles & guidelines, infrastructure and phasing requirements.
Future planning applications will need to consider and address all issues and requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 56

Received: 11/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

Issues missing from this section.
Impact of existing dwellings and its habitants, adjacent to scheme or within 0.5m radius.
Impact on scheme, if landowners or certain landowners do not sign up to their farm land being built upon.
High costs to scheme of
1. New and Larger Water Treatment to meet demand.
2. Transport- New railway station
3. Consideration of mitigating pollution to river Stour
4. Transport- Mass improvement to A20 of Leeds & Great Danes roundabouts
5. Consideration of Operation Brock
6. Consideration of M20 closures-diverging onto A20

Comment noted.
Section 3.3: Constraints & Opportunities references the need for the railway station and new/improved waste water treatment facilities.
Officers agree that additional text should be added to also acknowledge wider transport considerations as highlighted by the comment.
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: 57

Received: 11/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

This section is basically a Flowery Marketing Document, with no substance.
Net-Zero, Bio-diversity will never be met. The scheme will destroy vast amounts of farmland. Therefore existing Bio-Diversity will be removed entirely. The amount of pollution that will be generated over the 20-year build cycle will take decades to mitigate. Vast amounts of funds will be required, in an attempt to reinstate or make good what has been destroyed.
This vast town will be an Urban Settlement NOT a Garden Settlement, Garden is disingenuous to the populous!

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.
The SPD includes requirements for 20% Biodiversity Net Gain (6.2) and for measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change (6.12). Future planning applications will be considered against these policy requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 58

Received: 11/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

Changes, compile a document with substance, not a marketing pamphlet.

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: 59

Received: 11/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

No in principal. This is an ill thought out SPD. The actual location of scheme in borough has not been addressed in a satisfactory way, or actually even contemplated. MBC has decided to choose this far out location, in a vain attempt to ease the issues of Maidstone town centre. No mention of where the inhabitants will migrate from to live in Heathlands. The scheme will pull inhabitants in from most likely the suburbs of London. Not from the county of Kent, let alone Maidstone and its surrounding area. A totally unsatisfactory document, must try harder!

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).

Object

Representation ID: 60

Received: 11/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

This needs to be withdrawn with immediate effect, a totally ineffectual document. Master planner, very concerning as MBC doesn't have the know how or the capacity to run and manage such a scheme. If not managed and costed in a true and reflected manner, this would mot likely bankrupt MBC. The track record of Homes England, is not a quango that should be relied upon, to in effect pick up the pieces after the effect!

Objection noted.
The preparation of an SPD for the site is a requirement of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which was adopted in 2024.
The SPD sets out a range of principles & guidelines, infrastructure and phasing requirements.
Future planning applications will need to consider and address all issues and requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 94

Received: 12/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

The words are well meaning, but how will it be managed and controlled. Developers have a tendency to cut corners and not implement the fine details. Considerable management is required to ensure implementation. Developers are purely a profit based business.

Comment noted.
The preparation of an SPD for the site is a requirement of adopted Policy LPRSP4(A).
The SPD sets out a range of principles & guidelines, infrastructure and phasing requirements.
Future planning applications will need to consider and address all issues and requirements.
Infrastructure will be secured through the use of planning conditions and legal agreements, as part of the consideration and determination of future planning applications.

Object

Representation ID: 95

Received: 12/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

This section should include a broad statement, that if the vision isn't being implemented as per planning. Then fines will be applied forthwith, to ensure compliance.

Objection noted.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Green Infrastructure & Landscape' (Chapter 6.2) to achieve a high quality place,
Chapter 10 of the SPD sets out the approach to approach to Design Coding to securing quality.
Future planning applications will need to consider and address all issues and requirements.
Where matters are subject to changing influences over time during construction, monitoring and review mechanisms will also be required.

Object

Representation ID: 96

Received: 12/11/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stead

Waste & Blue water statement, takes the narrative. References likes "should be designed", "avoid or minimise" is BAD planning. NOT defined. Its a prerequisite to state MUST. Again yet another extremely woolly section. Must try harder!

Objection noted.
The references are intended to set out an appropriate hierarchy of how proposals should consider key issues, with primacy being on avoiding impact, but recognising that where this is impossible, then minimising any impacts.
Officers consider that clarity can be added to reflect this as a hierarchy as opposed to an either/or approach.
Officers agree that the terminology within the guidelines and principles for Blue Infrastructure should be amended to replicate the related wording in Policy LPRSP4(A) in the Local Plan Review.
Officers agree that the reference to requiring pollution mitigation measures is a matter that 'must' be designed in.