Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 492

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

You know very well that all developments that say they will be 40% affordable are nothing of the sort. What it means in practice is that London councils buy up a load of houses and export their residents who don't want to be in the countryside, don't understand driving on rural roads and resent local efforts to integrate. Gypsies are gaming the system by buying small plots all over and moving caravans and mobile homes on them. How about concentrating on current problems before you create more?

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which included the requirement for affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 493

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

There's no mention of sustainability - all homes should have solar panels, extra insulations, heat pumps etc. What about waste water, sewage, utilities. What about broadband? The ideas are all fine - but what about accountability?

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out guidelines and principles relating to "Sustainable Design and Addressing Climate Change" at Chapter 6.12, and "Blue Infrastructure & Wastewater" at Chapter 6.3.

Comment

Representation ID: 494

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

Obviously it makes sense to make sure the residents can walk to shops and other facilities that you'd expect in a community. I note there's no provision for a meeting hall or church or pub, which means everybody will drive to these places in Lenham or Charing or Egerton or Headcorn, clogging up the tiny roads all around the site to east, west and south. A lack of a pub will mean more drink driving which is rife round here. Never a police car to be seen. Folk don't cycle or walk in the rain or the cold

Comment noted.
The SPD contains a range of topics including (at 6.8) the approach to the proposed District Centre which must include a wide range of services and facilities including appropriate community facilities, retail and leisure to meet the needs of residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 495

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

Rail services should not detract from provision for Lenham. If the bus service is merely an extension of the 10x between Ashford & Maidstone that will add to the existing long journey, which is no use to those who have to get to work (have you asked who uses the service?) and not much for shoppers who have to carry stuff. Cycle paths might encourage me (if it's dry), but I doubt they would make a non-cyclist take it up. 'Modal shift' merely means the narrow roads are clogged with parked cars

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure for the site, including various measures related to transport
The detailed design of transport mitigation measures will need to be set out as part of the formulation and consideration of future planning applications.
Officers agree that it would provide clarity to make direct reference to the need for new walking, cycling and wheeling routes and connections to be 'all-weather' to ensure usability, albeit not to specify the specific material.

Comment

Representation ID: 497

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

No - the facilities won't be ready for the first phase. It doesn't matter how close kids live to schools, they won't necessarily go to their most local one, and anyway, the reality of getting them ready in the morning may mean parents have to get the car out to get them there in time. The first ones who will have to go to the Lenham School will be crossing the mainline railway - how long before one is killed messing about? Lenham surgery is already a nightmare - we can't get appointments as it is.

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope and phasing of infrastructure, and is replicated within Figure 19 at Section D.
Paragraph 7.2.5 sets out that infrastructure will be secured at the appropriate time as the development comes forward through the use of planning conditions and legal agreements.

Comment

Representation ID: 498

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

No way to make it better without scrapping the whole project. So scrap it and then improve the facilities in Lenham - the surgery needs more doctors (apparently they can't get more - is that because they don't want to pay for them or because the country isn't training enough?) Use your influence to get this situation sorted out before you go in for this great big vanity project. Stop wasting our time and money and concentrate on the basics. Tell the govt to do the same

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which allocated the site and required the preparation of the SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 499

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

This is not the site for employment. It's in the middle of the countryside. The oasts at Harrietsham have already been turned from offices to housing - why would anybody want to base themselves further from motorway access/towns/London? Half the shops in Lenham are empty. More employment will mean more traffic in and out of the site - unless the homes are tied to the jobs... how's that for an idea? We can only assume that the 5k jobs includes the builders of the estate and other temp workers. More spurious figures

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established that the development should aim to provide for as close to 5,000 new jobs as feasible and viable
Section 6.10 sets out guidelines and principles for employment, and the types of new employment space to be provided.
Future planning applications will need to consider and address all issues and requirements.
Appendix C of the SPD sets out the anticipated planning application requirements which includes the need for an ""Employment & Economic Strategy"" to establish a strategy to consider commercial opportunities and business sectors in more detail.

Comment

Representation ID: 500

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

Concentrate on small business - make homes with workshops and workspaces. Provide some sort of community co-working space. Don't line the A20 with warehouses and industrial spaces - it's bad enough that you'll build within full view of the Downs but the sensible choice is to have employment places by the A20. But then the A20 is already full any time there's a problem on the M20. All points to Heathlands (a horrible name) being a bad idea in the wrong place

Comment noted.
Employment areas will need to located sensitively across the proposals and cannot be located directly adjacent to the A20 to protect the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 501

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

Noble principles. Not realistic. People who don't cycle might be encouraged by cycle paths but they aren't going to ditch the car for most of their journeys. A20 is already nose to tail often. Lenham heath rd is the rat run. Buses are unreliable and sparse. Trains to London on the mainline are slow and parking at Lenham station is difficult. The better service is from Headcorn but that's 6 miles on largely single-track roads. Their huge car park is often full by mid-morning. Heathlands is the wrong idea in the wrong place

Comment noted.
The overall strategy and policy basis for Heathlands was 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 SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope and phasing of infrastructure, which included the requirement for a new health facility, new or improved wastewater facilities, new schools and community facilities, a new rail station and other transport improvements.

Comment

Representation ID: 502

Received: 14/12/2025

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Meek

Wrong development in the wrong place. You can't stop cars using the roads to east, west & south. It will make life unliveable for the current pedestrians. One lady was killed on Lenham Heath Road recently. Biking scary. The A20 needs dualling if more houses are built. Turning right onto it is not easy at times. Maidstone/Ashford can't take the extra traffic. Miss the park&ride. Lenham is tricky now the railway bridge is single track. More cars parking on the High St. Hard to park. Bus services will cease as soon as the developer pulls the subsidy.

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which allocated the site and required the preparation of the SPD.