Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Object

Representation ID: 599

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

The key issues of this development are it’s in the wrong position with no transport links produced in it to back up the development.

Objection noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which allocated the site and required the preparation of the SPD.
The SPD is supported by a Transport Annex and Assessment which considers the site in its transport context 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.

Object

Representation ID: 600

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

No proof of the required station being built of how it is to be financed except the statement they are in discussion with network rail,
No proof the bus company’s have agreed to service the development and how regularly busses will call,
No mention of upgrading the A20 both ways to its junctions with the M20, with the potential of thousands of extra vehicles travelling along the A20 this is a priority before the development can begin

Comment noted.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure which is replicated in the SPD and includes the need for the station and for improvements to bus services.
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.
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.
Future planning applications will set out more details around the proposed layout of buildings, uses, infrastructure and other mitigations in light of assessments of impacts.
All future applications will be the subject of consultation and future decision making.

Object

Representation ID: 601

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

I believe MBC have pushed this development through against the thoughts and wishes of the existing residents of lenham Heath.
MBC have ignored the concerns and thoughts of the residents of lenham Heath, and will continue to do so.

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 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 captures the key structuring elements and principles, whilst also allowing for appropriate flexibility for further design work to consider matters in more detail and bring forward appropriate proposals.
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: 602

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

I believe MBC have not identified the key elements involved with this development and are pushing it through with no thought for the future of the development and surrounding areas

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out guidance and principles across a number of key themes and topics.
Officers consider it important for the SPD to provide sufficient context and explanation to enable future planning applications to address the full range of issues.
All future applications will be the subject of consultation and future decision making.

Object

Representation ID: 603

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

The vision of heathlands looks very nice on the glossy publications produced but in reality will not work. All vehicles will have to be banned from the site to make it safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Objection noted.

Comment

Representation ID: 604

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

How can you have MBC as lead developer and in charge of signing off the planning application. This is a conflict off interest and not in the interest of the surrounding area.

Comment noted.
MBC are co-promoter with Homes England.
Any future planning applications will be considered under formal statutory procedures and decision making in line with all relevant laws, policies and guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 605

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

How do you plan to deal with light pollution across the Heathlands site. We have large populations of bats across the site that will lose their home and food sources.
Barn owls, kestrels, buzzards and the Red Kite are among the hunting birds we have that again will lose their homes and food
River voles live in the Great stour.
How do you plan to stop domestic cats destroying the large song bird population we have.
Fox’s and badgers also live in the area.
That’s along with all the wild flowers that will be destroyed.

Comment noted.
Officers agree that additional guidance should be added in relation to lighting.

Comment

Representation ID: 606

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

The green corridor proposed runs through our property. No one was able to tell us what that means for our property or if it will affect us. We have not been consulted over this and strongly disagree to being included in your development.

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.
The SPD captures the key structuring elements and principles, whilst also allowing for appropriate flexibility for further design work to consider matters in more detail and bring forward appropriate proposals.
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: 607

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

I agree the wastewater treatment works is not fit for purposes with the new development as we have raw sewage running across our property when extremen weather of break downs at the existing site happen.
We were told they were moving it to opposite our property because and I quote, no one wants to buy a new house next to a sewage works. But it’s ok the new one will not smell.
If that’s the case keep your sewage in the middle of your site.

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out guidelines and principles to require that wastewater treatment facilities must be appropriately located, having particular regard to the protection of amenity of neighbouring uses including housing so as to not negatively impact on new or existing residential properties, including ensuring appropriate buffers and other mitigation is put in place. The requirements aims to protect all residents and properties and avoid negative impacts.

Comment

Representation ID: 608

Received: 15/12/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrison

The new waste water treatment site needs to be built before the first houses are complete and on the first development site, the current wwtw is where the new quarry is and your proposed site is in the last phase to be built.

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.