Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 679

Received: 11/12/2025

Respondent: CPRE Kent

CPRE Kent is the county branch of the countryside charity CPRE, representing 1,174 individual members along with 121 Parish Council members across Kent and working to protect the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of the county’s rural landscapes. We have been engaged with the Heathlands proposals since their inception and have, throughout, set out clear and sustained concerns about both the location and concept of the scheme.
CPRE Kent Overarching Response to the Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD Consultation
CPRE Kent remains firmly of the view that Heathlands is the wrong development in the wrong location. Whilst we recognise that the site is now an allocation within the adopted Local Plan Review, nothing within the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) alters our longstanding conclusion that this is an inherently unsustainable location that cannot credibly support the scale or form of development proposed. Our previous representations have set out in detail the environmental, landscape and infrastructure constraints of the site, all of which remain unresolved.
Whilst we were grateful to speak with representatives from both MBC and Homes England at the Lenham public consultation event, these conversations did little to alleviate our concerns. Given the anticipated rapid turnaround of the SPD, we were offered no real reassurance that this formal consultation stage has any meaningful scope to influence the final content of the SPD. Consequently, we see limited value in responding in detail to the specific questions posed on the consultation webpage, as our primary concerns relate to the overall approach being taken in producing the SPD, rather than the marginal issues those questions focus on. This is particularly frustrating given that CPRE Kent fought hard during the Local Plan examination to secure the SPD stage, and it feels like a missed opportunity when a scheme of this scale and complexity so clearly needs a robust and carefully constructed blueprint.
This matters because the Heathlands is envisaged to come forward over several decades, extending well beyond the expected lifespan of Maidstone Borough Council itself, which is due to be abolished under forthcoming local government reforms. The SPD must therefore operate as a lasting and authoritative reference point for future decision-makers. Yet the draft before us is vague, permissive and insufficiently detailed. In practice, the document appears intentionally flexible, granting maximum latitude to future developers rather than setting clear and enforceable standards. This is the opposite of what is required to secure long-term protection, clarity and accountability
At the same time, it is important to recognise that the national planning system is undergoing significant reform: under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, SPDs are to be phased out and replaced by statutory “Supplementary Plans” subject to independent examination. This reflects the Government’s clear intention that major developments should be guided by documents carrying full statutory development plan weight, not informal guidance. Given this, and with key infrastructure such as the railway station still so uncertain, there is a strong case for MBC to pause and reflect on whether pressing ahead on the soon to be legacy system is a sensible course of action. Against this context, CPRE Kent is seriously concerned that MBC, acting as both landowner and promoter, is deliberately pursuing the SPD under the current system to avoid the firmer statutory basis and independent scrutiny that a Supplementary Plan would require.
We are certainly concerned that a project of this scale and sensitivity is going to be anchored to a document type that is shortly to be downgraded in status. At the very least, the Council should commit to replacing the SPD with a statutory Supplementary Plan once transitional arrangements are clarified and there is greater certainty regarding the railway station. Without such a commitment, Heathlands risks progressing on the basis of a document that is neither robust nor enforceable, leaving future decision-makers—and the public—facing uncertainty that should have been resolved from the outset.
Our concerns about phasing reinforce this conclusion. Phase 1 focuses almost entirely on the land north of the railway and along the A20, where lower densities and higher-value market housing are proposed. As we explained to Council and Homes England officers, this sequencing places the most profitable parcels first, creating a very real risk that housebuilder developer partners will build the “easy win” executive housing, bank the returns, and later argue that further phases—those requiring costly infrastructure, community facilities and more challenging layouts—are no longer viable. The danger is that Heathlands becomes little more than a ribbon of car-dependent commuter housing along the A20, with the supposed benefits of a garden settlement never materialising.
These concerns are compounded by the continued lack of any firm and binding commitment to delivering the new railway station, long described by MBC as the linchpin of Heathlands’ sustainability. The SPD now states only that the station is a primary “objective” not a requirement and it “anticipated” to be delivered in Phase 1. It is also at pains to point out its delivery “will involve separate processes involving rail stakeholders” Such phrasing is deliberately weak and to us represents a clear retreat from previous assurances. It also allows significant scope for the station to be delayed, diluted or abandoned entirely and is clearly laying the foundations for the future blame to passed onto Network Rail and its decision-making process should the train station fail to be delivered.
This softening of language is entirely consistent with the longstanding uncertainty surrounding the station. As the evidence presented at the Local Plan Review hearings made clear, Network Rail has never explicitly committed to a two-station arrangement in such proximity to one another. Concerns over timetable impacts, dwell times and operational viability remain unresolved. Even in the best-case scenario, the SPD still does not require the station to be delivered until the end of Phase 1, by which time over 1,300 homes may already be occupied. This guarantees that unsustainable travel behaviours will become ingrained from the outset, undermining any plausible future modal shift.
More generally, the document lacks meaningful “sticks”, relying instead on broad statements of principle with few enforceable mechanisms for ensuring delivery. In stark contrast, other garden settlement SPDs—such as Brentwood’s Dunton Hills SPD https://www.brentwood.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/BBC-DGV-SPD-230131.pdf —set out mandatory spatial principles, precise design parameters, phasing requirements and robust controls governing density, layout, landscape and place-making. By comparison, the Heathlands SPD is startlingly thin and leaves enormous interpretative leeway to future developers.
Ultimately, we are concerned about the lack of meaningful genuine scrutiny and accountability in the SPD’s preparation. MBC is both the landowner and promoter of Heathlands, as well as the author of the SPD. Unlike the Local Plan, the SPD is not subject to independent examination, meaning the Council, acting simultaneously as promoter and regulator, will decide which comments to accept or disregard. This leaves the public in the difficult position of responding to a document produced by an authority effectively marking its own homework. Taken together with the SPD’s weak language on critical infrastructure, its lack of detailed and enforceable design controls, the “decide and defend” approach to the consultation process, the absence of independent oversight, and the Council’s dual role in both shaping and scrutinising the scheme, the process falls considerably short of what is required for a development of this scale and sensitivity.
In this respect, it is disingenuous for MBC to assert that they “have no choice” but to proceed with Heathlands. This is simply not true. MBC and Homes England control much of the land. MBC is the joint land promoter. MBC is now undertaking a Local Plan Review in which it will be required to revisit the deliverability of all strategic allocations. The Council therefore has multiple opportunities to pause, reassess or amend its approach, particularly in light of unresolved infrastructure, environmental risks, viability challenges and the absence of any binding commitment from Network Rail. Suggesting that the Council’s hands are completely tied is misleading and just further erodes public trust.
If the Council is determined to pursue this allocation, it must do so transparently, rigorously and with a genuine willingness to engage with community and expert concerns. As drafted, the SPD does not meet the minimum expectations for a document intended to guide a complex, long-term strategic development, and we therefore offer the following detailed observations in the hope that they will still inform necessary improvements.
1)
Inclusion of full adopted Local Plan policy text within the SPD
Whilst we recognise that an SPD cannot introduce new policy, we consider it essential that the full text of the adopted Local Plan Review policy—specifically LPRSP4(A) —is reproduced within the final SPD for ease of reference. This is not merely a matter of convenience; it is a practical requirement to ensure clarity, transparency and consistency. The SPD is expected to guide multiple future planning applications over a 20-25 year period.
Without the full policy text, readers must continually cross-consult separate documents, and there is a risk that the precise requirements of the adopted Local Plan—particularly those relating to phasing, infrastructure, design quality, landscape protection and affordable housing—are diluted or misunderstood. Including the adopted policy in full will help ensure that decision-makers, developers and residents are working from the same authoritative baseline and will serve as a continual reminder of what was examined, found sound, and ultimately adopted as part of the statutory development plan.
2)
Requirement for explicit demonstration of how the scheme meets the Section 85 CRoW Act duty
The SPD acknowledges that the allocation lies immediately adjacent to the Kent Downs National Landscape, and indeed the site boundary directly abuts the designated area in several locations. However, the SPD currently relies on a generic “landscape-led” narrative without addressing the statutory duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which requires all public bodies to further the purposes of National Landscapes. As drafted, the SPD does not explain how this legal duty should shape development parameters, design responses, or detailed masterplanning. Given the proximity to one of Kent’s most sensitive protected landscapes, the SPD must go beyond indicating buffers or planting strategies and instead require explicit evidence—through Design Codes, LVIA-led parcel design, building height controls and settlement-edge strategies—demonstrating how each phase will contribute positively to conserving and enhancing the National Landscape.
3)
Density, green infrastructure and the risk of compromising design quality
We note and welcome the stated ambition for a minimum of 50% green and blue infrastructure across the site, but this commitment appears to be achieved primarily through concentrating built form into very high-density development parcels. CPRE Kent strongly supports the principle of “gentle density” where it enhances placemaking, walkability and land-use efficiency. However, the scale of development proposed at Heathlands, and the constrained developable footprint, raises a real risk that design quality, amenity, landscape impact and liveability will suffer unless densities are very carefully justified and shaped by landscape capacity rather than numerical yield. This is particularly important given the extensive infrastructure severance caused by the M20, HS1 and mainline railway, and the requirement to provide substantial new roads, bridges and crossings.
Against this context, the SPD must provide a far clearer and more robust design framework than is currently proposed. While we accept that detailed Design Codes will be prepared at later stages, these cannot be created in a vacuum. For a strategic site of this scale and sensitivity, the SPD must itself set out the key design parameters—density envelopes, building height limits, settlement edges, landscape thresholds, neighbourhood structure, and required transitions to the Kent Downs National Landscape—from which all future codes, masterplans and planning applications will flow.
In this respect, we again point to Brentwood’s adopted Dunton Hills Garden Village SPD which provides a comprehensive set of mandatory spatial principles and design requirements that anchor the entire development from the outset. In contrast, the Heathlands draft SPD remains almost entirely narrative in tone, leaving critical matters to later negotiation—at a stage where the housebuilder ultimately tasked with delivering development on the ground will inevitably hold a clear advantage. In our view, this represents a significant weakness. To ensure genuine landscape-led planning, long-term design integrity and consistent decision-making over a 20–25 year build-out, the SPD must set a clear and enforceable blueprint at the outset, not defer core design questions to subsequent stages where they risk dilution or inconsistency.
4)
Affordable housing delivery: need for phase-by-phase requirements and upfront delivery strategy
The adopted Local Plan Review requires 40% affordable housing at Heathlands, yet the SPD avoids committing to this on a phase-by-phase basis. Instead, it suggests that affordable housing should be delivered “across the development”, with insertion of the caveat “where possible” for each substantive phase. This approach is wholly inadequate and will not ensure delivery. Based on long-established experience across Kent, early phases of large strategic sites routinely claim reduced viability owing to upfront infrastructure costs, displacing affordable housing to later phases—if it is delivered at all. The Council’s own evidence to the Local Plan Examination recognised the substantial infrastructure burden associated with Heathlands, including mineral restoration, rail infrastructure uncertainty, wastewater upgrades and multiple highway interventions.
It follows that the SPD must require:
- a binding Affordable Housing Delivery Plan, agreed prior to the first outline consent, -
clearly defined minimum percentages for each phase,
- triggers preventing occupation of market units where phase requirements are not met, and
- a mechanism preventing the deferral of affordable housing to later phases.
- Anything less risks substantial under-delivery and would undermine one of the core purposes of the allocation, namely the provision of genuinely affordable homes in a strategic location.

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.
Chapter 6.11 of the SPD sets out principles and guidelines including relating to promoting active travel, assessing and mitigating impacts across the local and strategic road layout.
Figure 19 of the SPD replicates the required phasing of development and associated infrastructure as per the Local Plan Review.
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.
Ideas and initial proposals to be included in the SPD were the subject of informal public engagement in May 2025, with several in person engagement events held in Lenham.
In person events were held again in Lenham as part of the current consultation process on the draft SPD. All comments made are being considered by Officers and amendments are being made in light of feedback received.
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.
The Council will need to review all adopted SPD's once Government provides additional regulations and guidance in relation to Supplementary Plans.