The public inquiry into Maidstone's Local Plan Review has resumed – with some worrying news for Staplehurst.

The village is being promoted as the ideal place to concentrate additional housing by a number of development firms which are seeking to persuade the Government inspector, David Spencer, that the council has got it wrong.

In its bid to find sites for 17,660 new homes by 2031, Maidstone council has developed a "spatial strategy" that puts the main emphasis on creating two garden villages – at Lidsing and at Lenham Heath (to be known as Heathlands) – to hold 2,000 and 5,000 homes respectively.

Its "secondary focus" for development would be within Maidstone itself and then just 7% of new homes would go to the borough's designated "Rural Services Centres" – which include Staplehurst, Marden and Headcorn – with 4% going to designated "larger villages" and 3% to "smaller villages".

But Douglas Bond, speaking for Staplehurst Development Ltd and Farnham Homes, said: "The principal objective of a Local Plan is to ensure the delivery of new homes."

He argued in its earlier 2017 plan, the council had taken a different approach and adopted a "dispersal" strategy, spreading development across the borough.

He said: "It worked. The 2017 plan has delivered to date."

But said Mr Bond: "There is significant uncertainty about the deliverability of the council's garden villages."

He argued that the rural service centres should be the first, not secondary focus, of attention, and that of those, Staplehurst, stood out.

He said: "Staplehurst performs very very well amongst those other rural settlements.
"There is every ingredient there to ensure that development can occur from a location, transport and environmental perspective."

Jonathan Clay for housebuilder Croudace said: "Both garden settlements will have a damaging effect on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They are fundamentally unsuitable."

He said: "Staplehurst on the other hand is admitted in the plan to be a sustainable location and there is a combination of sites available just north of the railway and within walking distance of station.

"Staplehurst could make a much greater contribution.

"It should be treated as a primary focus for development, with the plan modified to delete one or more of the two garden settlements."

Richard Moules, representing Wates Developments, said: "Concentrating development on the rural service centres with railway connections is far more likely to achieve model shift (a lessening of car journeys).

"And Staplehurst should be receiving a proportionately larger amount of growth than the others."

Mr Moules said: "Staplehurst is the only rural service centre identified in the Maidstone Corporate Plan as having a regeneration process.

"Staplehurst has more than twice the number of non-residential premises as Lenham and Harrietsham added together."

Guy Osborne, of Country House Homes, said: "Whichever way you look at it, Staplehurst is the cream that rises to the top."

The inspector asked the council to explain why it had moved away from a dispersal strategy.

Mark Egerton, the council's director of regeneration, said there were constraints in the rural areas, and that infrastructure provision such as new schools or roads could not be achieved by having a "little bit of development here and a little bit there."

Concentrating on two garden villages gave the massing necessary to provide significant infrastructure gains such as schools, roads and at Lenham Heath, even a rail link.

He was supported by KCC highways officer, Brendan Wright, who said: "A fragmented pattern of development makes it more difficult to achieve highway improvements. And the more rural the location, the more difficult it is to establish development that is sustainable."

But the inspector asked: "Doesn't the fact that Staplehurst, Headcorn and Marden have train stations make them more sustainable?"

Mr Wright replied that the lines went to London and not to Maidstone, so there was still a high demand for travel to Maidstone as the nearest urban centre, but there were constraints on these radial routes.

Several developers' agents scoffed at that, with Guy Osborne from Country House Homes saying KCC already had developers' contributions for improvements along the Sutton Road, but it had sat on the money because "it doesn't want to encourage further development".

He said: "The highways are constrained simply because KCC's junction improvements have not gone ahead."

Patrick Daly, of Crest Nicholson, said: "There are considerable anxieties about both the Lidsing and Heathlands plans. Put them to the end of the plan and concentrate on a dispersal strategy in the meantime."

Jonathan Mellor, of Gleeson Land, agreed, saying "Clearly the rural services centres have the capacity for more growth – and Harrietsham does have a direct rail link to Maidstone."

Paula Carney, of Kitewood Estates, argued that: "To sustain the existing services in the rural service centres, it is important that growth there continues."

Chris Hawking, of Countryside Properties, said the alleged constraints on rural roads "only really applied when you hit Maidstone".

He said "None of the development that has already gone ahead has failed to deliver the money for mitigation measures. The highways authority has failed to implement the mitigation that it had the money and the plans for."

He argued that further development at the rural service centres should be allowed because the improved infrastructure "would also benefit existing residents, whereas new infrastructure at Lidsing and Heathlands will only benefit the new residents".

Paul McCreery, representing Lenham Parish Council, which is opposing the Heathlands Garden Village option, agreed: "All the garden communities will do is to consume their own smoke. They will take housing allocations away from the Maidstone urban fringe and the rural service centres such as Staplehurst, where mitigation money could be used to expand services for existing residents."

The inspector then moved on to discuss Maidstone's "settlement hierarchy" and why some communities were classed as rural services centres and others not.

He was particularly interested in why some villages had been given a different rating this time around than in 2017.

Boughton Monchelsea for example had been a large village in 2017, now it was classed as a smaller village

The council explained that it regarded Boughton Monchelsea as less of a village and more of "an outer neighbourhood of Maidstone".

Coxheath had become a rural service centre – the council said: "It is quite obvious now that Coxheath is punching at a different level.

Mr Egerton said: "It's true it has lost two butchers, but it has gained two funeral parlours, gained a Tesco and has a new medical centre being built."

The inspector asked: "East Farleigh has leapt straight in as a 'larger village' – why?"

The council said it has taken a "clean slate" look at East Farleigh and decided: "It is almost one of the better performing villages now. It has jobs; it has good connectivity – and it has the potential for more."

Finally the inspector wanted to know: "What's happened to poor old Loose? It seemed to be there one minute and not the next."

It was rated as a main village in 2017, and now has no rating.

The council said: "It is just countryside. It doesn't have a settlement boundary.

"It doesn't have the criteria to satisfy as a village. It relies on Maidstone town."

Mr Egerton expanded: "We didn't allocate Loose. It's very much on the edge of Maidstone rather than a settlement in its own right.

The inspector asked: "It's not of sufficient size to be classified as a smaller village?

Mr Egerton: "No."

The inquiry continues all this week in the Town Hall. The sessions are webcast here.

The hearings start at 10am. The public may attend.