Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Object

Representation ID: 117

Received: 19/11/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

While I do agree with the principle, I object to the fact that you haven't listened to our previous complaints about the unviability of the scheme, the lack of proper costings and the fact that the land capture uplift cannot pay for all the infrastructure you need if it is to be a real standalone garden settlement rather than an expensive housing estate in the middle of nowhere.

Objection noted.
The SPD sets out the requirements that future planning applications will need to consider and address.
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: 118

Received: 19/11/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

No, you have not addressed any of the key issues which include financial viability of the whole scheme. As well as that very basic fact, which we can prove and we'll be highlighting to the press, the waste water treatment plant is not sufficient and space has not been allocated for the upgrade or replacement. The station has not been properly costed and has to be built in the first phase (the planning inspector said). Even the land itself has not been secured and these maps are simply wrong.

Objection noted.
The Framework Plans included in the SPD identifies both the existing and a potential new wastewater facility, and this has been taken into account as part of the 'Indicative Land Use Breakdown' at Figure 12.
The principles at Chapter 6.3 in relation to 'Blue Infrastructure and Wastewater Treatment' require development proposals to demonstrate how foul water will be appropriately managed, including provision of an improved or new wastewater treatment facility.
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 New/improved wastewater treatment and a railway station as part of Phase 1, as set out in Figure 19.
The SPD sets out the requirements that future planning applications will need to consider and address.
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: 119

Received: 19/11/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

most people will go to Headcorn for better service, on back lanes that are single track in many places. No provision for north/south routes. What mitigations? Junctions - it's difficult turning right from Lenham on to the A20 - 10,000 more cars on the road will be gridlock. The roundabout in Ashford is bad enough already and Maidstone - well, imposs. Info from the council has been woeful - the consultation has had no publicity and we were made to go round the back of the pub (no signs) into a dark car park - and then not allowed in!

Objection noted.
Additional commentary has been added to Section 3.3: Constraints Opportunities to acknowledge wider impacts across adjacent areas.
Figure 18: Infrastructure Requirements as per the Local Plan Review acknowledges the need for necessary off-site highway mitigation.
Section 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 be set out as part of the formulation and consideration of future planning applications.

Object

Representation ID: 475

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

While I agree with the principle, I object to the fact that you haven't listened to our previous complaints about the obvious unviability of the scheme, the lack of proper costings and the fact that the land capture uplift cannot pay for all the infrastructure you need if it is to be a real standalone garden settlement rather than an expensive housing estate in the middle of nowhere.

Support (with the principle) noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure.
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: 476

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

No, you have not addressed any of the key issues which include financial viability of the whole scheme. As well as that very basic fact, which we can prove and we'll be highlighting to the press, the waste water treatment plant is not sufficient and space has not been allocated for the upgrade or replacement. The station has not been properly costed and has to be built in the first phase (the planning inspector said). Even the land itself has not been secured and these maps are simply wrong. The roads cannot take that volume of vehicles.

Objection noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure.
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 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 wastewater facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 477

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

Every element has flaws. Plan is unaffordable, badly costed, undeliverable. Landowners coerced. Rail station unaffordable and plain daft, so close to existing station. Public transport is rubbish. Roads are full. It will not be the lovely garden settlement you envisage - it'll be a mess at the foot of the Downs in full view of Pilgrims Way. Not space for enough houses to pay for infrastructure. Lots of 4-bed £600k houses for sale in area. Developers aren't going to build 'affordable' (which aren't). Market nosediving. No thought to roads other than A20

Comment noted.
Officers consider it important for the SPD to set out the proposed additional guidance to enable future planning applications to address the full range of issues.

Comment

Representation ID: 478

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

All very nice but not realistic. We've all seen that housing estates end up with bigger houses of poorer quality, smaller roads, little parking and no facilities for years. People won't ditch the car if they live way out in the country 9 miles from a town. Train station will cost much more than budgeted - contingency is inadequate. Do you cycle in rain & cold? Bus service rubbish. What about north/south links and the narrow lanes to Headcorn (better train line). Lenham already being ruined by new estates with people who don't want to be here

Comment 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 479

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

Yes, don't go ahead with this ridiculous and unaffordable plan. Stop wasting our money! And if there's nowhere acceptable in Maidstone borough that can take thousands of new homes, grow a pair and tell the government so!

Comment noted.

Comment

Representation ID: 480

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

No, you need to go back to basics and do your sums properly first. Work out how many houses the site can really support, once you have accounted for the stations, the sewage works, the parklands, the marshy bits by the river, the land needed for the quarry, the roads, and what you are going to do with the gypsies (that's something you should be sorting out anyway - have you been down Headcorn Road lately?)

Comment 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 481

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

You can't get on with any sort of framework until you work out how much the whole thing is going to cost and at what point the landowners will be paid. When does Homes England have to be paid back? There's absolutely not enough money that will be generated by the house sales to cover the costs of this. Taxpayers will be paying through the nose for decades. Get our services right before you embark on an expensive vanity project (Alison Broom's?) of this magnitude.

Comment 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 and Officers consider this provides an appropriate level of detail at this stage in the planning process.