Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 385

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Helen Whately

The SPD does not detail who will fund the capital and running costs of the proposed
railway station. Not only does the build of the station need to be funded: the
Department for Transport may well require operating costs to be covered in the early
years. The lack of details seriously concerns me, as I fear the station will prove
unviable further down the line and will never be built.

Comment noted.
The SPD carries forward the requirement for a new station as set by Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review.
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.

Comment

Representation ID: 386

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Helen Whately

There does not appear to be adequate healthcare provision planned for the new
garden village. I am concerned that the Len Valley Practice will be unable to absorb
this number of new patients, as people already have difficulty getting appointments
there. If the new settlement is to have its own medical facilities that will require
significant funding.

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, 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 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: 387

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Helen Whately

Waste water treatment mechanisms
There are local concerns that wastewater will not be effectively disposed of and the
new development will rely on tankers to remove waste. This would be a totally
unacceptable solution to a development of this size, accessed along country lanes.

Fresh water supplies
There have been serious supply problems with drinking water in Kent in recent years,
including an outage of almost a week to the east of my constituency, unreliable
supplies in and around Headcorn, and a long outage in the Tunbridge Wells area.
This development will make further demands on a water system which is already
failing residents in Kent. The SPD does not address this.

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 Heathlands site, including the need for new/improved wastewater treatment as part of Phase 1, as set out in Figure 19.
The guidelines and principles at Chapter 6.3 of the SPD in relation to 'Blue Infrastructure and Wastewater Treatment' require development proposals to demonstrate how foul water will be appropriately managed, including provision of an improved or new wastewater treatment facility.
It is the responsibility of the relevant utility providers to ensure that future development is provided with safe, reliable water for domestic and commercial use, as per statutory obligations and relevant legislation.

Comment

Representation ID: 388

Received: 10/12/2025

Respondent: Helen Whately

Affordable housing
The Borough needs more affordable housing. While there will be some local families
who would welcome affordable housing in this area, a rural location like Heathlands
is not suitable for social housing at scale, given its distance from employment sites
and services.

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirement set out in Policy LPRSP4(A)(2)(b) which sets a target of 40% affordable housing for the site.