Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Support

Representation ID: 363

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

Currently there are fundamental questions still unanwered within this SPD which were raised previously by residents this document should be amended to reflect the significant elements raised about transport, provisions for health services and effect on local population which has not been taken into account.

Support (with the principle) 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.
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: 364

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

There is not sufficient detail on transport planning both in terms of the A20 corridor or rail network. No plan on policing and fire and rescue cover along with NHS provision both locally and hospital services. No details on how this development would benefit the current local community.

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. This includes various aspects including new schools, a health facility, a Country park and new publicly accessible open spaces, improved bus services, and the creation of new jobs.
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.
The SPD 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.
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: 365

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

Transportation network studies are not reflective of current and future status specifically A20 corridor between Ashford and Hollingborne including M20 diversion route and Operation Brock. Rail capacity is not considered based on current service. No mention made of medical services and how this would be delivered to a new town and guarantees made that developers would be contractually committed to deliver key services.

Comment noted.
The SPD 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.
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.
The SPD set out principles and guidelines relating to 'Community Facilities and Social Infrastructure' (6.6) which sets out further guidance relating to the provision of a health facility.
The requirement is replicated within Figure 19.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 366

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

There is no demonstration within the vision how this could benefit Lenham or Lenham Heath or surrounding villages. Lenham Heath will be completely subsumed under this plan. The mobility plan provides no detail on how this could be delivered outside of the Heathlands settlement and no cohesive plan for A20 and wider road networks that is approved or costed.

Objection noted.
The SPD is providing additional policy and guidance specific to the Heathlands Garden Settlement and the policy requirements of LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review.
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.
Chapter 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 367

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

This plan must have a fully approved and budgeted transport plan attached with costs and reflective of the vehicles using the A20 and surrounding roads to account for current and future vehicle usage. Also taking into account other developments in local area both residential and commercial.
Jobs - there is no reference to jobs for a significant increase in population that would support the creation of this settlement.

Comment noted.
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.
Chapter 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.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 368

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

Transport - plan and supplemetary documentation needs to completely redrafted to reflect real world situation and increase in traffic flow even if this development did not go ahead.
Describe benefits to local community - there is no mention made

Objection noted.
The SPD is providing additional policy and guidance specific to the Heathlands Garden Settlement and the policy requirements of LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review.
Additional commentary has been added to Section 3.3: Constraints Opportunities to acknowledge wider impacts across adjacent areas.
This proposals include various aspects that will be accessible to the local community including new schools, a health facility, a Country park and new publicly accessible open spaces, improved bus services, and the creation of new jobs.
Figure 18: Infrastructure Requirements as per the Local Plan Review acknowledges the need for necessary off-site highway mitigation.
Chapter 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 369

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

Rail - There is no confirmation on a new station for this development. The station is proposed to be only 2 minutes from Lenham Station and would need significant investment to build and staff. Concerns on viablity on Lenham Station. Rail connectivity into London would need increase due to other developments on this line at Barming and West Malling. Many rail passengers use Pluckley and Headcorn which provides better connectivity.

Comment noted.
The SPD carries forward the requirement for a new station as set by Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review.
The delivery of the station will be a matter that future developers and planning applications will need to address.

Comment

Representation ID: 370

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

A20 - provide a fully costed study transport model to include the significant increase that this development will bring. Include all A20 corridor from Ashford to Hollingborne and include upgrade of road quality to fix issues with flooding. M20/Operation Brock diversions need to be accounted and determine management of country roads to deter rat-running. Current and future modelling should allow for significant development in recent commercial sites on A20 notably warehousing.

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, and Section 6.11 sets out principles and guidelines including relating to promoting active travel, assessing and mitigating impacts across the local and strategic road layout.
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.
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: 371

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

No provision for any traffic increase this development will bring.
Light pollution will become a significant factor and unaddressed here.

Comment noted.
Officers agree that the issues should also reference wider potential impacts across the area and additional commentary has been added to Chapter 3.3: Constraints Opportunities to acknowledge this.
Figure 18: Infrastructure Requirements as per the Local Plan Review acknowledges the need for necessary off-site highway mitigation.
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.

Comment

Representation ID: 372

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Mr David Harris

This document demonstrates a lack of interaction with local residents especially those directly affected in Lenham Heath and surrounding area. The Local Parish Council do not seem to have been consulted or if they have this is not refelcted. The document also does not demonstrate any benefit to the current local residents.
As stated previously there is no clear plan on A20 transportation, Rail planning, NHS provision and policing and fire cover.

Comment noted.
The preparation of the SPD has been led by Maidstone Borough Council working with the site promoter and other key local stakeholders.
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.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure, which includes road, rail and health provision.