Heathlands Garden Settlement SPD

Comment

Representation ID: 838

Received: 16/12/2025

Respondent: Kent County Council

I am writing as the Kent County Councillor for Maidstone Rural East and would like to raise my significant concerns regarding the Heathlands proposal and the associated Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). While I acknowledge the intention is to provide housing (2000 affordable homes) and employment opportunities, the current SPD lacks critical detail and fails to demonstrate viability or sustainability of the scheme. This scheme has been proposed for several years now and there have already been many consultations where residents have voiced their views and reports from the Inspector which have given clear guidance. However, we still find ourselves reading a proposal which falls short. The SPD should provide everyone with the key facts and figures to help them understand the objectives of the scheme and provide residents with the confidence that they and future generations will be living with a well-designed and viable development. However, this document is vague and leaves many questions unanswered, consequently many feel that whatever is delivered will be sub-standard. My understanding is that this document will also provide a framework for developers, if that is the case then I believe it will bring chaos and broken promises as this document will fail to hold them to account.
However, I do recognize the need to engage with the process and from talking to residents I highlight their concerns below

Conclusion
The Heathlands proposal, as currently presented in the SPD, is not credible nor viable without firm commitments on infrastructure, funding, and governance. We urge MBC to:
• Pause the consultation and wait for more coherent information to be provided so the residents can understand what is proposed and what the reality of the infrastructure will be
• Publish details as to which land is currently under control of MBC
• Clarify land acquisition status and contingency measures.
• Publish a detailed infrastructure delivery plan aligned with development phases.
• Provide a comprehensive viability assessment including sensitivity modelling.
• Ensure design standards and sustainability measures are embedded from the outset.

Comment 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.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure.
Figure 19 at Section D of the SPD replicates the required phasing of development and associated infrastructure as was set out in the adopted Local Plan Review.
The deliverability and viability of the proposal was considered during the examination of the Local Plan Review and is not a matter needing to be revaluated to prepare the SPD.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Placemaking, Density & Character' (6.4) to achieve a high quality place and Chapter 10 of the SPD sets out the approach to Design Coding to secure quality.
The SPD sets out guidelines and principles relating to ""Sustainable Design and Addressing Climate Change"" at Chapter 6.12.
The SPD cannot go into the detail of all potential measures and solutions enabling flexibility for proposals to reflect advances in technologies and changes in user behaviours over time.
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: 839

Received: 16/12/2025

Respondent: Kent County Council

1. Infrastructure Commitments – lack of clear information on what infrastructure will be provided and when.
• It has been stated for years now that for the development to be viable there must be a station but there is still no confirmed commitment from Network Rail to deliver a new station, nor is there any clarity on rail service for Lenham.
• Healthcare provision is inadequately addressed; there is no clear plan for expanding Len Valley Practice or providing a new surgery, nor details on funding.
• There is also very little on the provision for the elderly members of the community and this is vital given our ageing population
• The issue of waste removal and foul water treatment is barely covered by the report
• Kent already has many issues with water supplies – we are currently living with a hose pipe ban. There is no mention how the building of 5000 homes will be serviced
• There is no clear plan for the road network. The SPD states that a traffic assessment will be carried out to the North and South side of the site as well through Lenham in respect of any outline planning application. This is insufficient and any assessment should encompass the overall scheme
• There are ambiguities around the provision of schooling and nursery care

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, new or improved wastewater facilities, new schools and community facilities, a new rail station and other transport improvements.
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.
The SPD sets out the requirements that future planning applications will need to consider and address.
Infrastructure will be secured through the use of planning conditions and legal agreements, as part of the consideration and determination of future planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 840

Received: 16/12/2025

Respondent: Kent County Council

2. Funding and Viability
• The SPD lacks a detailed cost breakdown – figures in the region of £100m are mentioned but there is no detailed analysis of the costs,
• The SPD does not state how much land will be available for housing
• There is no updated viability report or sensitivity analysis, particularly if the aspiration of 5,000 jobs is not achieved.
• Assumptions regarding developer contributions are unclear, and the impact of slower development rates has not been assessed.

Objection noted.
The issues raised are not relevant to Long Term Stewardship.
The SPD takes forward the requirements of Policy LPRSP4(A) of the Local Plan Review which established the necessary scope of infrastructure.
The viability of the proposal was considered during the examination of the Local Plan Review and is not a matter needing to be revaluated to prepare the SPD.
An indicative breakdown of land uses including for housing is set out at Figure 12 and shown as part of Figure 13 the Land Use Framework,

Comment

Representation ID: 841

Received: 16/12/2025

Respondent: Kent County Council

3. Governance and Delivery Risks
• MBC’s dual role as Local Planning Authority and project promoter raises concerns about transparency
• The SPD provides no guarantees for timely infrastructure delivery, creating a risk that housing will be delivered without essential services.
• There does not appear to be a contingency plan for land acquisition, nor clarity on what land has been secured for Phase 1.

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: 842

Received: 16/12/2025

Respondent: Kent County Council

4. Design and Sustainability
• There is no way to ascertain whether the housing and infrastructure will work and fit onto the site
• There is no Design Code in the SPD, leaving scope for piecemeal development.
• The SPD references a “landscape-led approach” but provides no detail on implementation.
• Density, open space allocation, and light pollution impacts are unclear.

Comment noted.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines in relation to ""Placemaking, Density & Character"" at Chapter 6.6 which explains the approach to site capacity and density, and an indicative breakdown of land uses is set out at Figure 12 and shown as part of Figure 13 the Land Use Framework, which includes provision for wastewater facilities.
The principles set out at Chapter 10.1 require a site wide Strategic Masterplan and a Strategic Design Code must be submitted as part of the future outline planning application to secure a comprehensive approach.
The Spatial Framework illustrates how the landscape led approach can be applied, in particular through the 'Green and Blue Infrastructure Framework' at Figure 10 and the 'Composite Framework' at Figure 15.
Officers agree that a principle needs to be added in respect of lighting.

Comment

Representation ID: 843

Received: 16/12/2025

Respondent: Kent County Council

5. Transport and Employment
• Traffic modelling is using figures from 2019, given KCC will not be publishing its new Transport Model until Spring 2026, residents believe the SPD should be withdrawn and more work undertaken once the new model is available.
• Residents are concerned that without proper analysis the development will only bring gridlock to already stretched rural roads and the A20 which regularly sees slow moving traffic queueing to join the M20 at junction 8
• The Lenham train line runs into Victoria station, and this journey takes approx. 1 and 25 mins. The same journey into London Bridge from Headcorn takes just over one hour and there are regular trains throughout the day. Ashford, the Kent Coast and the High Speed line are also accessible from Headcorn. The station also has ample parking. The SPD does not address the superior rail service from Headcorn, which will undoubtedly influence commuting patterns.
• Employment targets of 5000 are aspirational, there is a lack of meaningful analysis to show that a rural location such as Heathlands could be a site that could support such a level of employment. A proportion of skilled jobs would need to be brought to the site to facilitate the purchase of the higher end properties otherwise the area will become an isolated commuter town.
• Whilst the doubt around the railway station persists, there is no clear plan to support the required bus routes. It seems additional services could be delayed until phase 3
• Whilst a walking, wheeling and cycling strategy is admirable, is this a practical concept in modern day living

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.
The SPD sets out principles and guidelines relating to 'Movement & Connectivity' (6.11) which includes the need for active travel and for enhanced bus provision to link the site into the wider area from the outset of development.
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 noted.
Section 6.10 sets out guidelines and principles for employment, and the types of new employment space to be provided.
Appendix C of the SPD sets out the anticipated planning application requirements which includes the need for an ""Employment & Economic Strategy"" to establish a strategy to consider commercial opportunities and business sectors in more detail.