Marley Works Lenham: Kent Downs Objects to 18m Warehouses

The plan to demolish the former Marley Works at Lenham and replace it with almost 100,000 square metres of warehousing is now on the planning register, and the body that advises on the Kent Downs has told the council the scheme should be refused as drawn.

The application is reference 26/502880/EIHYB. It was validated on 13 August 2026 and the register gives a comments deadline of 3 October 2026.

We reported the scheme in August from the developer’s own announcement, before it reached the register, and said we would publish the reference number and the deadline as soon as it appeared. Those are both above.

What is proposed

The applicant is Maidstone Propco Ltd, part of Panattoni, with Stantec acting as agent. The site is the 27-hectare former tile works off Dickley Lane, north west of Lenham.

The application is a hybrid, which means two things are being asked for at once:

• Full permission for demolition of every existing building, two warehouses with ancillary offices, a Campus Hub, and a north to south spine road
• Outline permission, with all matters reserved, for further warehouse and light industrial buildings on the eastern half of the site
• Up to 99,256 sq m of commercial floorspace in total, across general industrial, storage and distribution, light industrial and office use
• A minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain, with the southern parcel kept for habitat creation and drainage
• Realignment of footpath KH394, which currently crosses the site

The two buildings in the detailed part of the application are 16 metres high. The parameter plans covering the outline half seek consent for buildings of up to 18 metres across most of that area, according to the Kent Downs National Landscape’s reading of the submitted drawings.

The Kent Downs objection

The Kent Downs National Landscape Unit responded on 1 September. Its head of planning and place, Katie Miller, sets out a straightforward objection.

The site sits at the base of the chalk escarpment, with the protected landscape wrapping around it to the west, north and east. It is visible from a swathe of land inside the National Landscape, including public footpaths KH287, KH385 and KH288B that climb the escarpment and link into the North Downs Way.

The unit’s conclusion is that the proposal:

• fails to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the Kent Downs and conflicts with policy N4 of the National Planning Policy Framework
• conflicts with adopted Local Plan Review policy LPRSP6 criterion 3, which requires countryside employment schemes to be appropriate to their setting and accompanied by significant landscaping within the site
• conflicts with LPRSP9(5), which requires proposals not to have significant adverse effects on the setting of the Kent Downs
• conflicts with principle SD8 of the Kent Downs Management Plan

The sharpest part of the response is technical. The applicant’s own landscape assessment grades the visual effect from two viewpoints north of the site as major adverse in year one, then drops it to moderate adverse by year 15 on the basis that planting will have grown up and screened the buildings. The Kent Downs unit says that judgement is “fundamentally incorrect”, because anyone looking from the higher ground is looking over the top of the trees, not through them. On its assessment, a significant adverse effect would remain.

The unit does accept that the design has moved away from Panattoni’s standard colour range, and agrees that impacts would be worse if it had not.

What the applicant says it would bring

The Economic Benefits Statement submitted with the application sets out the case for the scheme:

• 605 direct jobs during construction, with around £37m in gross value added over that period
• 1,050 to 2,695 direct jobs once operational, plus a further 680 to 1,750 indirect jobs
• Between 410 and 1,065 of those direct jobs expected to be taken by Maidstone residents
• An estimated £5.0m a year in business rates

That operational range is wide, and it is the applicant’s own estimate rather than a tested figure. The statement notes that gross value added per worker in Maidstone’s transport and storage sector is £26,552 a year, well below the South East average of £49,531.

The Environment Agency response

The Environment Agency replied on 27 August with no objection, subject to a planning condition on land contamination.

Its reasoning is that the site made roof tiles, plastics and drainage materials, so the land may be contaminated, and it sits on a principal aquifer. Without a condition requiring a contamination management strategy, the agency says it would object.

Traffic

The application proposes two junction changes:

• A20 Ashford Road and Dickley Lane, upgraded to traffic signals
• A20 Ashford Road and Penfold Hill, re-marked to lengthen the entry flare and widen the entry

The environmental statement assesses the operational effect on severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, cyclist amenity and road safety as negligible to minor adverse, and not significant, once that mitigation is in. Demolition and construction are expected to run for 24 months. M20 Junction 8 is about 7.2km north west of the site.

What it means for you

Anyone can comment on this application, and the deadline in the register is 3 October 2026.

• Reference: 26/502880/EIHYB
• Where: the Mid Kent planning register, which carries every document, including the environmental statement and the consultee responses quoted above
• Case officer: Rachael Elliott
• Ward: Harrietsham, Lenham and North Downs; parish of Lenham
• Expected decision level: delegated, meaning an officer rather than the planning committee, though that can change
• Timing: the register gives a determination deadline of 3 December 2026 and an agreed expiry date of 14 January 2027

As of 2 September the register carried one public comment, from UK Power Networks, which neither objects nor supports and asks the applicant to liaise about works near its substations.

Our Maidstone planning applications page explains how to search the register and how comments are handled.