Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 676

Received: 04/12/2025

Respondent: Debbie Grant

I am writing to you as a very concerned resident of Charing Heath. I notice that even as a small hamlet, we aren't even pictured on any maps. In summary we are a small village/rural community and wish to stay this way.

The area lacks any substantial infrastructure to cope with the proposals. The roads around here with the recent buildings in Harrietsham and Lenham struggle with the volume of traffic and when the M20 is closed or capacity reduced (which happens all too often), it then becomes a nightmare to get anywhere. The local roads will not cope. I also have concerns about the proposed railway station for the town. This would have to be at the cost of Lenham and Charing railway stations. In short the new town will effectively kill two existing great and thriving local communities. It will completely dwarf them and this is far from acceptable. Any building plans should be made to compliment existing communities not to destroy them.

I also have an issue in that this area is right next to the Ashford Borough Council area (of which I am in). I feel that Charing and Charing Heath will simply be swallowed up by this enormous development. There is currently issues with water pressure, school places, GP surgery capacity etc and the area simply cannot cope with any more buildings. There has already been significant building an Lenham and Charing so as an area I feel that we are contributing to our share of meeting housing demand.

I have a concern that both Ashford and Maidstone BC will adopt an out of sight out of mind approach and this could end up with the area being an unloved area with potential social issues. With South Kent and West Kent Police boundaries matching that of the Ashford and Maidstone BC boundaries, the will be no central co-ordination to manage any criminal of social issues which are bound to occur due to the numbers of people living there.

Any houses built should be for local people in order to manage local demand, not to attract people from London or further afield. I chose to live in a rural setting and to live in Kent, the garden if England. It is rapidly feeling like a concrete jungle with no space for wildlife or any green spaces.

Most importantly for me is the ecological damage that will be inflicted. The area is at the source of both the Stour and the river Len and any chemcial pollutants would impact the natural eco-systems in waterways (and in the case of the Stour, the Stodmarsh area for which there are strict planning controls). There is a significant amount of wildlife in this area, in terms of birds of prey, amphibians etc which is allowed to thrive. We need to keep this area as it is, an area for local nature and quality prime farmland. There aren't many spaces left and we should be proud to keep them as they are. There has to be significant boundaries between any development and protected areas - currently this detail is lacking.

In terms of farming, we need to be able to grow our own food and not become more and more dependent on importing this. The recent issues in Ukraine with the rise in flour and sunflower oil prices is a very good example.

In summary, I do not support this proposal and need to see more detail in terms of how it will address these concerns.

I was also horrified to hear that Maidstone Borough Council was not prepared to listen to the local petition signed by numerous local people - it was ignored. And also horrified to hear that the council would not listen to the local Lenham councillors to address issues raised by them (who then resigned in protect). This is a democracy and they represent the local people. Please LISTEN and take note and do something positive about what we are all saying rather than ignoring us and hoping that we will go away

Comment (objection) 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.
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 set out this additional guidance to enable future planning applications to address the full range of issues.
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.