Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 353

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

3.2.2 'The topography of the site means it is reasonably well contained visually' - strongly disagree with this statement, as large parts of the site are visible from the elevated land to the north. This also conflicts with the Landscape Strategy which identifies much of the site has visual connectivity with the adjacent KDNL, including land south of the railway line.
3.2.4. Suggest this is amended to ’The Kent Downs National Landscape, a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty...’. This is to ensure the correct terminology is used; National Landscapes are still designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in legislation.

Comment noted.
Officers agree that additional commentary should be added to the reference to the topography to align with more detailed landscape and visual assessment work set out in the Landscape Strategy.
Officers agree with the modification to paragraph 3.2.4 to ensure the correct terminology is used.

Comment

Representation ID: 354

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

We are concerned that the requirements in Policy LPRSP4 (A) such as 3 (a) and (d) do not currently come across sufficiently in the SPD and we consider the first bullet point in Figure 9 of the draft SPD should be strengthened to reference the need to ensure impacts to the KDNL are avoided or minimised.

Comment noted.
Officers agree that the background constraints and issues should also reference wider potential impacts across the area.
Additional commentary has been added to Chapter 3.3: Constraints Opportunities to acknowledge that impacts specifically on the Kent Downs National Landscape should be avoided or where this in not possible minimised.

Comment

Representation ID: 355

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

5.2.4 - it is not clear what ‘respecting the topography of the land’ means and consider clarification and further detail are required and it should be applicable to land south of the railway.
5.25 - contains typos.
5.4/Figure 12 - Structural planting is also required along A20 frontage. Floodlit sports pitches adjacent to the KDNL would be inappropriate. Concerned at employment locations on high ground.
5.5/Fig 14 - references to densities could conflict with policy requirements to minimise or avoid impacts to the KDNL e.g. Principal movement corridor as an indicative opportunity for higher densities.

Comment noted.
The Framework Plans and associated commentary provide an overview, and allow for appropriate flexibility for further design work to consider matters in more detail and bring forward appropriate proposals.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Green Infrastructure & Landscape' (Chapter 6.2) and Officers agree that additional guidance should be included to replicate the wording as set out in LPRSP4(A)(3)(d) from the Local Plan Review to better acknowledge issues of importance.
Structural planting is proposed along the northern edge of the site adjacent to where the new neighbourhoods and buildings are proposed (as set out in Figure 10). The part of the allocation adjacent to the A20 is anticipated for highways access and open space but not built development, so it is not considered necessary for additional structural planting. This will be a matter that can be considered further as part of the preparation of future planning applications.
Officers agree that an additional principle should be added to provide guidance in relation to lighting.
The SPD sets out a range of densities and overall accords with Policy LPRHOU5 of the Local Plan Review which sets out a density expectation for the Garden Communities.
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.

Comment

Representation ID: 356

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

5.2.4 - it is not clear what ‘respecting the topography of the land’ means and consider clarification and further detail are required and it should be applicable to land south of the railway.
5.25 - contains typos.
5.4/Figure 12 - Structural planting is also required along A20 frontage. Floodlit sports pitches adjacent to the KDNL would be inappropriate. Concerned at employment locations on high ground.
5.5/Fig 14 - references to densities could conflict with policy requirements to minimise or avoid impacts to the KDNL e.g. Principal movement corridor as an indicative opportunity for higher densities.

Comment noted.
The Framework Plans and associated commentary provide an overview, and allow for appropriate flexibility for further design work to consider matters in more detail and bring forward appropriate proposals.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Green Infrastructure & Landscape' (Chapter 6.2) and Officers agree that additional guidance should replicate the wording as set out in LPRSP4(A)(3)(d) from the Local Plan Review to better acknowledge issues of importance.
Structural planting is proposed along the northern edge of the site adjacent to where the new neighbourhoods and buildings are proposed (as set out in Figure 10). The part of the allocation adjacent to the A20 is anticipated for highways access and open space but not built development, so it is not considered necessary for additional structural planting.
Officers agree that an additional principle should be added to provide guidance in relation to lighting.
The SPD sets out a range of densities and overall accords with Policy LPRHOU5 of the Local Plan Review which sets out a density expectation for the Garden Communities.
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.

Comment

Representation ID: 357

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

The KDNL team are concerned that the Landscape Strategy is not referenced here and consider additional clarity is required.

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Green Infrastructure & Landscape' (Chapter 6.2). The 'Landscape Strategy' is a separate supporting document which includes additional assessment and information. Key aspects identified in the Landscape Strategy have been drawn across into the SPD.
The Landscape Strategy is referenced at Paragraph 6.2.2, and at Principles (L) and (M) in reference to 'Landscape & Visual Impacts'. Officers agree that this could be made more prominent. The Landscape Strategy will also be published alongside any adopted SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 359

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

Reference to the need to comply with the Landscape Strategy should be included at 6.1.1
The Landscape Strategy is not provided in the Consultation as an Annex to comment on.
The Landscape Strategy should be better integrated into the main SPD document and requirements set out at 7.4 be incorporated into the SPD.
Principle ‘k’ should be strengthened.
Reference to the need for LVIAs should be included.
Principle (m) should require adherence to the principles in Section 7.4 of the Landscape Strategy.

Comment noted.
Officers agree that the reference to the 'Landscape Strategy' should be strengthened and a link provided. This has been published alongside the SPD as 'Supporting Information' on the Maidstone BC website and will also be published alongside any adopted SPD.
Key aspects identified in the Landscape Strategy have been considered and as appropriate drawn across into the SPD.
Appendix C of the SPD sets out the anticipated planning application requirements which includes the need for LVIA.

Comment

Representation ID: 360

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

We raise concerns in respect of 6.65, 6.68, 6.6.10 and principle (e).

Comment noted

Comment

Representation ID: 361

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

6.6.5. Densities – the word ‘visual’ should be inserted in front of relationship.
6.6.8 Should be amended to state ‘avoid or minimise’, rather than ‘reduce’.
6.6.10 Fails to go far enough. Development proposals should be required to comply with specifications at 7.4 of the Landscape Strategy and pale coloured materials should be avoided where visible from the KDNL.
Principle (e) should be more specific about heights in relation to views from the KDNL and refer to the requirements set out in LPRSP4 (3)(d).

Comment noted.
Officers agree that the proposed modifications to Paragraphs 6.6.5, 6.6.8 and 6.6.10 should be included.
Officers agree that additional guidance should replicate the wording as set out in LPRSP4(A)(3)(d) from the Local Plan review.

Comment

Representation ID: 362

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Kent Downs National Landscape

The Landscape Strategy is generally supported.
It is considered that it would be beneficial for the SPD to include Design Codes at this stage. We have concerns that the SPD fails to include any reference to lighting. Maidstone Borough Council, as a relevant authority, will need to ensure adherence to the amended statutory Protected Landscapes duty set out at S85A of the Countryside and Wildlife Act in the drafting of the SPD as well as in consideration of future planning applications.

Comment noted.
A range of guidelines and principles are set out for the approach to a 'Design Code' at Chapter 6.2 to achieve a high quality place, which will be required as part of future planning applications.
Officers agree that an additional principle should be added to the SPD to ensure that the issue of lighting will be robustly considered and any adverse impacts mitigated.