Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 675

Received: 13/12/2025

Respondent: Martin Grant

I am writing as a very concerned resident of Charing Heath, a small rural hamlet that is barely recognised on official maps and which has, until now, retained its distinct rural character. We are a small village community and wish to remain so.

I strongly object to the proposed development and believe the area is wholly unsuitable for a development of this scale.

Infrastructure and Transport
The local infrastructure is already under severe strain. Roads in and around Charing, Lenham and Harrietsham are struggling to cope with existing traffic levels. When the M20 is closed or capacity is reduced—which occurs far too frequently—local roads become gridlocked. Any further development would be entirely unsustainable, and the road network simply cannot cope with additional demand.

I am also deeply concerned about proposals for a new railway station. This would almost certainly come at the expense of Lenham and Charing stations, undermining two well-established and thriving communities. A new town of this scale would completely dwarf them, effectively destroying their identity and viability. Development should complement existing communities, not overwhelm or eliminate them.

Pressure on Services
There are already significant issues locally with water pressure, school places, GP surgery capacity, and other essential services. These problems are well documented and unresolved. The area cannot accommodate additional housing without serious detriment to residents’ quality of life.

Furthermore, there has already been substantial housing development in Lenham and Charing. As a community, we are already contributing to meeting housing demand and should not be expected to absorb yet more development at the cost of our environment and wellbeing.

Governance and Community Impact
Charing Heath lies close to the boundary between Ashford Borough Council and Maidstone Borough Council, and I fear this development will result in an “out of sight, out of mind” approach by both authorities. This risks creating an unloved area with inadequate oversight.

This concern is compounded by the fact that policing boundaries mirror borough boundaries, meaning there would be no single, coordinated approach to managing potential social or criminal issues arising from a development of this size.

Housing Need and Rural Character
Any new housing should prioritise local need, not attract large numbers of people from London or further afield. I chose to live in a rural part of Kent—the “Garden of England”—yet this is increasingly being eroded by overdevelopment, loss of green space and damage to wildlife habitats.

Ecological and Environmental Concerns
My most serious concern is the ecological damage that would result in. This area is the source of both the River Stour and the River Len. Any chemical pollutants would have far-reaching consequences, including downstream impacts on Stodmarsh, which is subject to strict environmental protections.

The area supports a wide range of wildlife, including birds of prey and amphibians, and is currently allowed to thrive. The proposals lack sufficient detail on buffer zones and clear boundaries between development and protected areas. Once this environment is lost, it cannot be replaced.

Loss of Agricultural Land and Food Security
This is also high-quality agricultural land. At a time when food security is increasingly important, we should be protecting our ability to grow food domestically. Recent global events, such as the war in Ukraine and resulting price rises in staple goods, demonstrate the dangers of over-reliance on imports.

Democratic Concerns
I am extremely concerned by reports that Maidstone Borough Council ignored a substantial local petition, and that local Lenham councillors were not listening to, leading to their resignation in protest. This undermines democratic representation and public trust. Local councilors speak for their communities and must be heard.

Conclusion
In summary, I do not support this proposal. Significant further detail is required to demonstrate how these very real concerns would be addressed, and at present, the proposal fails to do so.

I urge the council to listen to local residents, respect democratic processes, and take meaningful action rather than dismissing or ignoring legitimate objections.

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 Local Plan Review considered matters related to overall housing need and supply, and identified and allocated the Heathlands Garden Settlement to address future needs.
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 Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework (Figure 10) and Placemaking Framework (Figure 14) show that there will be landscape buffers and structural planting along the boundary of the site to the north towards Kent Downs National Landscape and the northern most part of this area is protected from inappropriate built development, providing a 350m offset to the National Landscape. Section 6.2 of the SPD sets out a range of principles and guidelines to protect and enhance local biodiversity, including a requirement to achieve a 20% biodiversity net gain through a range of measures, including the retention and enhancement of the most biodiverse existing habitats, new habitat creation, and integral wildlife niches within buildings, such as bird and bat bricks.
Section 6.3 provides additional guidelines and principles including in relation to requirements for Sustainable Drainage Systems and pollution mitigation measures.