42-home residential development at Land South Of Ashford Road, Harrietsham

The site

The site is 3.15 hectares of agricultural grazing land south of Ashford Road, with northern and southern parcels and surrounding trees and hedges.

“Planning Committee Report 18 th December 2025 Relevant Planning History 21/506821/FULL Residential development comprising 58 new dwellings with access road to A20 with associated parking, including electric charging points, cycle storage, landscaping, refuse & recycling facilities, and children's play area – REFUSED 31/08/22 and DIMISSED AT APPEAL 29/05/24 MAIN REPORT 1.DESCRIPTION OF SITE & PLANNING HISTORY 1.01 The site is to the south of the A20 Ashford Road towards the…”

“For the northern parcel, there is a band of hedging and trees along the north boundary that falls upon highways land, to the west is a sporadic lane of trees and scrub with a fairly recent the housing development beyond, to the east some mature trees within the grounds of Firswood Lodge, and to the south the vegetated bank.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for 58 homes was refused and dismissed on appeal because of harm from its layout, road and apartment building.

“Planning Committee Report 18 th December 2025 the main access does not have speed restraint measures, there is no connectivity to the ‘Bluebell Walk’ development to the west and no sense of a locally inspired or otherwise distinctive character. The decision was taken to appeal and the Inspector dismissed the scheme with the concluding remarks below. His decision was made after the LPR was adopted and further details will be discussed in the assessment where relevant.”

“There would also be a conflict with LPR Policy LPRSA101 (part 2) insofar as the development would not be a high standard of design for reasons already given.” The refused layout for that development is shown below. Refused/Dismissed Layout (21/506821/FULL) APPENDIX 58”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the revised scheme overcame the appeal concerns, complied with the housing allocation and policies, and could provide the required biodiversity gain.

“The previous application for 58 dwellings was dismissed at appeal as the Inspector considered the central road would be overly dominant particularly due to the rising topography and it running up to the higher southern field; the southern and northern parcels would result in a discordant layout resulting in two relatively distinct and separate areas of housing; pockets of development with little visual coherence when travelling through the site; and the three storey…”

“Planning Committee Report 18 th December 2025 7.05 Otherwise, the pr oposals comply with the site allocation policy and other relevant Local Plan Review policies and therefore permission is recommended subject to conditions and a legal agreement. EIA Screening EIA Development No Comments The development is not of a nature or scale or within a location to have the potential for significant environmental impacts that warrant an EIA.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, ecology, flood management and other consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while education and other infrastructure contributions were requested.

“Planning Committee Report 18 th December 2025 •Lack of space in existing primary school and early years provision. •Impact upon local medical services. •Inadequate attention given to the flood risk. •Harrietsham is designated a Rural Service Centre yet has very few facilities and services. •The Doctors surgery is not fully operational with most appointments taking place at Lenham.”

“KCC Highways: No objections subject to conditions to secure the access, visibility splays, and works to the A20; parking; cycle parking; construction management; and to secure the applicant to use best endeavours to secure the proposed Traffic Regulation Order to alter the existing speed limit on the A20. KCC Ecology: No objections subject to conditions re. protected species and BNG.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Residents and the parish council objected over traffic, infrastructure, flooding, landscape, wildlife, privacy, design, facilities and construction impacts.

“3.POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Maidstone Local Plan Review 2024: LPRSS1, LPRSP6, LPRSP6(B), LPRSP10(A), LPRSP10(B), LPRSP12, LPRSP13, LPRSP14(A), LPRSP14(C), LPRSP15, LPRHOU5, LPRTRA1, LPRTRA2, LPRTRA4, LPRINF1, LPRINF2, LPRQD1, LPRQD2, LPRQD6, LPRQD7 Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2025: DM7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Supplementary Planning Documents: Maidstone Building for Life 12 (2018); Affordable and…”

“Planning Committee Report 18 th December 2025 •Path link to Bluebell Walk may result in people parking here. •Loss of privacy from houses/flats and top field. •Overshadowing. •Loss of trees. •Pollution. •Play area could lead to anti-social behaviour. •House designs not in keeping. •Layout and design poor. •North Downs will be adversely affected. •Lack of open space. •Loss of wildlife. •Flooding. •Noise, smell and disturbance. •Water pressure already poor.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector addressed the committee.

The decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions, completion of a legal agreement and delegated powers to settle or amend conditions and informatives.

“That permission be granted subject to the conditions and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the heads of terms set out in the report.”

“That the Head of Planning and Economic Development be given delegated powers to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions and/or informatives in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.”

Minutes