|
Contact Full
Name
|
Agent Name
|
Organisation
|
Nature Of
Response:
|
Representation/Commnent
|
Officers
Response
|
Officers'
Recommendation
|
|
Mr
Ian Walsh
|
|
Bower
Mount Residents Association
|
Observations
|
Following
consultation with our members concerning this assessment, we have the
following comments for your consideration.
• We are concerned at the lack of teeth for the document, in the face of
developers’ reluctance to accept conditions that will put up costs, leading
to expensive appeals. A large number of the recommendations concerning, for
example, scale, period features, maintenance of views and trees, will impose
costs and it is important for the planning approvals process to be robust in
defending the key features of the areas identified in the report.
• The changes to planning regulations that make roofline and window
amendments simply development control matters, will also prevent
implementation of the recommendation that the ‘form, materials and character
of historic buildings’ should be respected even in small scale detailing.
• The boundaries of the area have been drawn to exclude the Kent County
Council owned land in Oakwood Park. Whilst we can speculate on the possible reasons
for this, the assessment of character should be blind to ownership. Oakwood
Park is the dominant environmental feature of this part of Maidstone, with
its mature trees, stone boundary walls and open vistas. In particular we are
concerned that the boundary between Bower Mount Road and Oakwood Park has
been too finely drawn to exclude the belt of trees running alongside the
boundary and worth protecting. The map/text should be amended.
• The emphasis on the requirement for development to reinforce the particular
character of the area and the quality of the surface of roads and footpaths
is to be welcomed. It is hoped that Kent Highways will find the funds to
maintain the degraded surfaces soon.
We would also suggest that, on completion and approval of the report, the
guidance therein is issued to residents by publication of a leaflet,
including examples of good and poor practice and photomontages of what may be
done. Residents are very aware of the benefits of improving their local
environment, not least because of the effect on the value of their
properties, and I am sure such information would be well received and ensure
that the benefits of the money spent on the consultants’ reports was
maximized.
|
Noted.
Development Control staff have participated in the production of the SPD and
will be responsible for implementing the document, which, once adopted as
part of the Council’s Local Development Framework, will be a material
consideration when dealing with planning applications. The Bower Mount Residents
Association will also be able to draw the Council’s attention to relevant
sections of the document as part of its scrutiny of planning applications.
In relation to small scale planning applications, the SPD cross references
the need to refer to the Borough Council’s Residential Extensions SPD which
the respondent would not have had the benefit of seeing at the time of making
this response.
The Pilot area was selected by Members as the appropriate area for the SPD.
There may be an opportunity for the adjoining area to be included in a future
SPD should Members decide to extend the pilot to other parts of Maidstone.
|
No
changes required to the document
|
|
Ms
Lorraine Smith
|
|
Natral
England South East Region
|
Support
|
Natural
England welcomes the aim to protect and enhance landscape features within
both the Loose Road Area and the London Road Area, in particular ensuring
that tree belts, individual trees and open spaces are protected from loss
through future development.
Natural England believes green infrastructure should be at the heart of all
development and recommends that such multifunctional greenspaces should be
integral to all housing developments proposed within the Borough. We would
draw the Council’s attention to the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards
(ANGSt) . These standards recommend that people living in towns and cities
should have:
• An accessible natural greenspace less than 300 metres from home;
• Statutory, Local Nature Reserves at a minimum of one hectare per thousand
of population;
• At least one accessible, 20 hectare site within two kilometres of home; one
accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home and one accessible
500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home.
A recent study has looked at accessible natural greenspace across the South
East. You may find it useful to make reference the following publication “An
Analysis of Accessible Natural Greenspace in the South East” which is
available from this link. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7d4mgd
|
The
Council has already adopted green space standards in the Open Space DPD.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
David Mill
|
|
|
Object
|
We
note that Oakwood Court is not covered by this proposal while Pembury Gardens
in a similar position is. When driving down Bower Mount Road Oakwood Court
appears to be an extension of this important road.
We should be included due to large expanse of ragstone walling which is
adjacent the Methodist church and continues to 130 Tonbridge Road, also the
backdrop of trees which enhance the view of the Methodist church and St
Michaels.
|
The
Pilot area was selected by Members as the appropriate area for the SPD. There
may be an opportunity for the adjoining area to be included in a future SPD
should Members decide to extend the pilot to other parts of Maidstone.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Observations
|
Sustainability
Appraisal and Sustainability Environmental Appraisal
The Trust would suggest that Maidstone borough council consider formulating a
number of positive features within the area and expectations relating to the
increase of biodiversity.
Sustainability Objectives
Objective 2 Flood Alleviation
The Trust would suggest that Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) be supplied
within new development From an environmental standpoint this would increase
permeability within the area and could alleviate flood risk.
Objective 12 Climate Change
Permeability within the built environment will assist species to move as a
result of climate change. This would strengthen the Borough’s resilience to
the effects of climate change
Objective 13 to conserve and enhance biodiversity
Enhancements and permeability could be included within the SPD attracting
wildlife into the urban environment bringing positive benefits for
biodiversity and the population alike
Objective 14
Research has proved that access to wildlife within the urban environment
increases population health and quality of life. For increased biodiversity
to become a reality the SPD should include expectations of development as
specified in question 8 and the Technical Biodiversity Appendix.
|
The
SPD is concerned with matters of design and other documents in the Local
Development Framework will deal with wider development issues such as the
incorporation of SUDs and biodiversity. The Green Infrastructure Strategy and
the Maidstone Borough Biodiversity Action Plan which are both in preparation
for publication next year are more appropriate vehicles for the suggestions provided,
including areas of opportunity which will be examined in relation to the
latter document.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
We
congratulate the Borough Council on commissioning this work, which seems to
have been carried out very professionally and painstakingly. We hope it will
be taken seriously as Supplementary Planning guidance to flesh out the LDF.
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
Jack Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
Support
the production of the Character Assessment and its use as a material
consideration in the determination of planning applications.
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
Jack Atkins
|
|
|
Object
|
Object
to omission of land north of Leafy Lane and between London Road and the
railway line as far north as the Queens Avenue junction. The omitted area is
an integral part of this stretch of the London Road and is in urgent need of
planning guidance in view of the impact of its users on the character of a
busy and important route into the town. The adverse impact of the omitted
area is mentioned on page 28 so why not formally include it as part of the
Assessment Area.
Oakwood Park is a very important open space in this part of the town and is
also in urgent need of planning guidance in view of the impact of its various
users on the character of the area. It should either be included within the
Assessment Area and a response made to the impact of its use or it should be
the subject of a separate assessment. In addition to its impact on its
surroundings its own character is being progressively eroded by continuing
development which should now be curtailed.
|
The
Pilot area was selected by Members as the appropriate area for the SPD. There
may be an opportunity for the adjoining area to be included in a future SPD
should Members decide to extend the pilot to other parts of Maidstone.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
Julian Dipper
|
|
Kent
County Council (County Planning Authority
|
Observations
|
I
suggest that this section should explain why SPDs have been produced for
only’ London Road, Bower Mount Road and Buckland Hill area’ and ‘Loose Road
Area’. Is the intention to cover the whole of the urban area (and larger
villages) with similar studies and if so, are these pilot studies for that
longer term objective?
|
The
SPDs are self-contained documents produced for the areas selected by Members
who will decide on any future programme of SPDs based on the feedback report.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
Julian Dipper
|
|
Kent
County Council (County Planning Authority
|
Observations
|
The
four objectives are supported. However, these are a somewhat limited. Rather
than just as an aid to providing design policies/guidance and development
control decisions, the report could be more useful to the LDF as a whole if
the conclusions on each of the character areas were to indicate the scope for
change within them i.e. whether the character attributes of a character area
are positive overall (implying emphasis on conservation), neutral, or negative
(implying the need for enhancement or change of character which new
development could bring). Such conclusions might be used to complement or
reinforce the findings of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
and Employment Land Review in indicating the scope for
development/redevelopment in significant parts of settlements. The evidence
base for the LDF, about the choices made on the scale and distribution of
development in particular parts of the main urban area or smaller individual
settlements, might thus be strengthened.
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Object
|
Many
of the character features identified both positive and negative, are of
course the result of decisions made by property owners outside planning
control. So surely one of the objectives of the SPG should also be to raise
the awareness of the public, inspire and persuade them to make decisions
which enhance the character (and the value of their property),also hopefully
to shame them into avoiding, reversing or rectifying negative features.
Otherwise the Borough Council can only preserve features or achieve
enhancement when development requiring planning permission occurs, or where
they are protected by Conservation Area designation or listing.
This approach is surely within the spirit of the Government Guidance
summarised in the next section which exhorts planning authorities to engage
with local communities.
|
The
aims of the SPDs should be widened to include raising awareness (to cover
changes which do not require planning consent) and to ensure successful
outcomes on the ground.
|
Page
3:
Amend the second aim and add a further aim to both SPDs:
• To raise the awareness and provide design guidance on the appropriateness
of, and potential for, types of development within an area
• To deliver improved designs on the ground which enhance the character of
the area
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
Jack Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
Support,
particularly the aim for it to assist in the appraisal of planning
applications and future proposed allocations (substitute planning policies
for allocations).
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
In
general I consider this to be a helpful document providing useful background
to the assessment of future development proposals within the study area.
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
The
Trust recognises that much of this area is urban and built up, but the area
also includes allotments often rich in reptile and invertebrate life and a
number of parks, school grounds; church a railway line and the river Medway
which could be enhanced for biodiversity. The Trust would suggest identifying
areas that could be enhanced be stated within this section.
|
The
SPD is concerned with matters of design and other documents in the Local
Development Framework will deal with wider development issues such as the
incorporation of SUDs and biodiversity. The Green Infrastructure Strategy and
the Maidstone Borough Biodiversity Action Plan which are both in preparation
for publication next year are more appropriate vehicles for the suggestions
provided, including areas of opportunity which will be examined in relation
to the latter document.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
Julian Dipper
|
|
Kent
County Council (County Planning Authority
|
Observations
|
KCC
notes that the SPD is to supplement Policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway
Structure Plan. Whilst this is perfectly in order it should be noted that the
Structure Plan now has a limited life as it will be superseded by the
Regional Spatial Strategy ;’The South East Plan’ within a few months.
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
The
general approach and level of detail are such as to engage the public in good
design decision making. A more technical or overly analytical approach might
be off-putting.
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
The
Trust recommends that consideration of biodiversity, permeability or
enhancement is included within the methodology. The site survey mentions the
open spaces present and the Trust would recommend that consideration be given
to their potential for biodiversity enhancement.
The key characteristics, habitats have been mapped and the Trust welcomes the
retention of the network of tree lines and hedges. Although important to
wildlife they are not the only factor which can be enhanced for biodiversity
within the urban environment. There is much potential within the open spaces
for the incorporation of corridors and stepping stones and permeability could
be requested within all new development and where possible within the built
environment present.
|
The
SPD is concerned with matters of design and other documents in the Local
Development Framework will deal with wider development issues such as the
incorporation of SUDs and biodiversity. The Green Infrastructure Strategy and
the Maidstone Borough Biodiversity Action Plan which are both in preparation
for publication next year are more appropriate vehicles for the suggestions
provided, including areas of opportunity which will be examined in relation
to the latter document.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Object
|
The
consultation exercise has left a good deal to be desired. I became aware of
it from a LDF email, from ‘Downsmail’ and from political parties’
newsletters. Well and good, but when I set out to look at a paper copy of the
Assessment, (97 pages on screen is too much) the new Borough Council
reception desk knew nothing of the documents, nor did the person sent down
from the Planning Department to talk to me. In fact she admitted she had never
heard of it. The Planning Officer I was referred to had had evidently had to
obtain a very rapid briefing from someone in Policy. No paper copy seemed to
be available, and I was urged to access it online. When I later rang up the
contact number given, I only ever got a voicemail. Eventually I was offered a
free copy, but it took several days to arrive, and then the package only
contained the Sustainability Report! I found a copy of all the papers in
Allington Library and after another phone call was presented with a copy at
the exhibition, but a less persistent resident might have given up.
The point of repeating all this is that if even the Borough Council’s own
staff are not aware of the exercise, what are the prospects for informing and
engaging the general public, and secondly, what are the chances of the SPG
being taken seriously in the control of development? Will DC officers receive
good briefing on and required to refer to the SPG when considering planning
applications?
Street enhancement will require the co-operation of utility companies and the
highway authorities - I trust they have are aware of the exercise and are on
board? The document could clarify this.
|
Noted.
Development Control staff have participated in the production of the SPD and
a training event is proposed with them to launch the adopted document.
Street enhancements will be implemented through negotiations with developers
and detailed discussions with utility companies would occur where relevant.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Observations
|
Information
is getting through to public, but something concise and clear to explain
project and encourage general public involvement would have promoted
participation.
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Object
|
We
feel the Oakwood Park area has historically been important influencing the
Bower Mount Road. For example, we believe the mature trees along the fronts
of houses on Bower Mount Road West, backs of the gardens and elsewhere around
Oakwood Park were all part of the old estate.
|
The
Pilot area was selected by Members as the appropriate area for the SPD. There
may be an opportunity for the adjoining area to be included in a future SPD
should Members decide to extend the pilot to other parts of Maidstone.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Object
|
We
think this document is very useful. It would have been great to have had it
some ten or twenty years ago. Also we feel one is needed to cover the area of
Oakwood Park as it is under severe development pressure. And it has a direct
bearing on the character of Bower Mount Road, from the point of view of the
height of the land - overlooking Bower Mount Road and the trees.
|
The
Pilot area was selected by Members as the appropriate area for the SPD. There
may be an opportunity for the adjoining area to be included in a future SPD
should Members decide to extend the pilot to other parts of Maidstone.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
Julian Dipper
|
|
Kent
County Council (County Planning Authority
|
Object
|
8.2
KCC property Group wishes to make the following points.
The Baptist Church site is in the London Road North Character Area. (There is
an adjacent area that includes Brunswick House School).
The assessment of character of the London Road North area does not
specifically mention the Baptist Church site, although views to the N. Downs
are mentioned, from the adjacent leafy Lane/A20 junction and across the top
of the retail warehouse units opposite. The bank of trees on the Leafy Lane
side of the KCC site are shown on the SPD reference plan.
We should support the proposal on Pp 26 that development will be expected to
respond to the scale, height, form, mass alignment, materials and character
of historic buildings. The reason is that the ABC site has capacity to accept
3-4 storey development and is currently an unsightly feature making no
contribution to the character that has been evaluated in the document as
being worth retaining.
Generally however we regard the references to the detailed design of existing
historic buildings as too limiting to designers for new buildings, stifling
modern design and initiatives. We support the intention to reinforce the
ragstone walling on London Road and appreciate that there is a predominance
of yellow stock brick in the area of course, but nothing should be done to
prescribe the type of designs that are regarded as capable of responding to
the context.
|
The
remarks appear somewhat contradictory. Nothing in the document prescribes
designs – rather the key visual cues which provide the distinctive local
character and context for new development are set out and appropriate
responses to that context are for the designer.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mrs
Susan Atkins
|
|
|
Object
|
Omissions:
I am mainly concerned here with Queens Road and London Road. Along with
Queens Avenue, Bower Mount Road, Buckland Hill and Somerfield Road these
character areas are all more important than the other minor character areas
in terms of defining the wider area’s special character and providing local
distinctiveness, not just for local residents, but for the wider public and
to the character of the town as a whole. They are much more vulnerable to
loss or erosion of character than modern cul de sacs and estates.
Whilst the consultants have picked up on most of the existing features which
are important to the character of the areas surveyed, as a long term resident
I am aware of some omissions. I realise that the Assessment can only be a
snapshot in time, and of course the surveyors will not necessarily be aware
of some past changes and current trends affecting the area’s character, which
worry residents.
Most residents will be worried about traffic and parking issues which I agree
are to some extent matters which can only be addressed in the wider planning
context. However there are problems specific to this area, particularly those
caused by over-development of Oakwood Park, drawing in excessive amounts of
school and other traffic and university parking. This could be noted.
Even more important to the areas’ future character is the threat of losing
the remaining large Victorian and early 20th century villas set in large
gardens, with their ragstone and brick walls - often 6 feet high, mature
front gardens and trees. Several have already been completely lost and
replaced with standardised flats and houses.. Notable examples include two
beautiful ragstone villas at the London Road end of Queens Road(one was
called ‘Akiva’), now replaced with Greyfriars Close; Etom House on Queens Road
near Warden Close; now replaced with a block of flats; Brunswick House in
Buckland Road; and the property adjacent to ‘Pippins’ on London Road. Efforts
to retain the front walls and trees have been appreciated, but in some cases
the walls have ended up lower than previously, exposing ugly car park areas
and rubbish bins instead of gardens, and some important trees have been lost.
The development at ‘Cedardale’ in Queens Road is current example.
While the retention of many larger properties as old age care homes has
helped to retain the spacious leafy feel in the street scene, extensions into
their rear gardens has in some cases resulted in a threat to the character of
neighbouring properties. Examples include buildings at the rear of Bower
Mount Road properties which now threaten the viability of Somerfield Road’s
spacious character, and at the care home near the junction of Queens Road and
Langdale Rise.
Suggested Conservation Area:
Bearing in mind my point made under Section 2, that loss of important character
features and unsympathetic alterations by property owners can occur any time,
without any planning or other control, there are surely some features which
are identified as so important as landmarks, not just to the survey areas but
to the town as a whole that need more formal protection. In particular, I
feel that the remaining unlisted large villas on London Road should be
protected. If they do not qualify for listing, or even if they do, the
existing Conservation Area at Terrace Road should be extended at least to
Somerfield Hospital and Fanum House,(listed building on the corner of London
Road and Queens Road now part of Brachers) -with possible extensions also
considered, for instance along Bower Mount Road north.
Perhaps the only way to preserve our ragstone walls is to list them all? The
ragstone barn and wall in Oakwood Road at the former school farm, important
landmarks just outside the survey area, are now neglected and partially
demolished either by KCC or the developers - an example of what can happen.
Other Detailed Omissions:
Trees - in the roadside verge on Queens Road between Court Drive and Warden
Close should be marked as feature and subject to a TPO, if not already. They
are extremely important to the leafy character of the road. Also there has
been a loss of trees in front gardens of large houses lower down Queens Road
- re-instatement would be good.
Queens Ave - the boundary of the character area is illogical. The special
character of this road applies to both sides equally. Far too few feature
trees are shown in Queens Ave. The threat of further plot subdivision and
loss of character buildings applies to both sides of the road.
Somerfield Road is part of an important pedestrian route and its spacious
leafy character has been subject to much pressure over the years. There are
several large older character properties in addition to the old Vicarage and
other landmark features identified. ‘Rockstow’ is as important as the
Vicarage, and perhaps should be listed, if it not already. Possibly this road
should be included in the Conservation Area suggested above.
|
The
document deliberately does not distinguish between the importance of the
character of some areas in comparison with others. Rather, each area has a
distinct character to which new development will be expected to respond and,
where possible, enhance. Other than this respondent, local residents have not
responded that the named areas were more important than others.
Traffic matters are noted as negative features in 8.1 Tonbridge Road/ London
Road South; 8.2 London Road North and 8.8 Buckland Hill Character Areas.
Additional text in relation to traffic in the Bower Mount Road Character
Areas is proposed.
Large Victorian and early 20th century villas set in large gardens, with
ragstone and brick walls mature front gardens and trees are mentioned in the
contextual and positive features and appropriate policy criteria are included
in the SPD. In relation to ragstone walls, the text could clarify that the
retention of traditional boundary treatment of walls and mature landscape
refers to loss or reduction of these features.
In relation to extensions, the SPD cross references the need to refer to the
Borough Council’s Residential Extensions SPD which the respondent would not
have had the benefit of seeing at the time of making this response. The
Borough Council is now preparing a Residential Extensions Supplementary
Planning Document which, in addition to the Character Are Assessment SPDs
will be available on the website and also seeks to raise awareness of good
design.
There is a distinct break in the character of London Road between the Rocky
Hill Conservation Area and the area being proposed as a conservation area (as
defined by different character areas). Most of the buildings fronting London
Road in the area proposed are either listed buildings or are modern
development and not in keeping with the character of the historic buildings.
Other areas lack sufficient cohesive architectural or historic character to
justify Conservation Area status. For these reasons, there is no
justification for an extension of the conservation area.
Trees - in the roadside verge on Queens Road between Court Drive and Warden
Close are an important feature which should be added to the Townscape
Analysis Map.
The Pilot area was selected by Members as the appropriate area for the SPD.
There may be an opportunity for the adjoining area to be included in a future
SPD should Members decide to extend the pilot to other parts of Maidstone.
|
Pages
43 and 50:
For areas 8.4 Bower Mount Road South Character Area and
8.5 Bower Mount Road North Character Area, add the following additional
bullet point to the Negative Features text box:
Traffic associated with school or cutting between London Road and Tonbridge
Road
Pages 44 and 50:
Add an additional paragraph on Traffic:
Traffic
The issue of traffic, whilst affecting the character of the area, is beyond
the scope of this SPD. Wider proposals will be brought forward by the
relevant authorities which should aim at improving the residential amenity
within the area.
Amend each section of the SPDs:
Retain traditional boundary
treatment of walls and mature landscape
Development should not erode this unique feature along this strategic approach
to the town through the loss, or reduction, of walls, hedges/ trees or the
use of unsympathetic boundary treatment such as close boarded fences or brick
walls.
Page 74:
Add trees - in the roadside verge on the north side of Queens Road between
Court Drive and Warden Close to the Queens Road Townscape Analysis Map.
|
|
Mr
Ian Walsh
|
|
Bower
Mount Residents Association
|
Object
|
In
Bower Mount Road South Character Area in particular:
• The characteristic ‘Retain or create defensible space’, present in the North
Character Area, has been left out. We believe this to be an error rather than
a deliberate omission. For example Cornwallis Park could be significantly
affected by this oversight .
• The absence of any mention of the allotments behind Cornwallis Road/Bower
Mount Road/Bower Street. This is an important feature in the Area; well used,
well respected and providing a delightful green enclave that is under
pressure from developers for infilling.
• Whilst the trees at the south end on the corner with Oakwood Road and those
opposite the Cornwallis Road junction are singled out as important, as well
as, surprisingly, the Leylandii adjacent to Scrubbs Lane, the remaining belt
of Douglas fir trees along the west side of Bower Mount Road are not
mentioned and should be added to the map. Some of these are the subject of
protection orders.
• The highlighting of 18A Cornwallis Road as a detractor in the report seems
harsh, even though the property it is actually rather bland.
In Bower Mount Road North Character Area in particular:
• There is no mention of ‘Seeking streetscape enhancement’. This would appear
to be an omission as the poor streetscape in Bower Close is commented on.
• Many residents are more than happy with the open layout of Whitchurch
Close, although the report author criticises it for reducing ‘defensible
space’ . The public areas seem to be well overlooked by properties and the
presence of strangers on foot is readily visible.
• The attractiveness of the ragstone boundary wall on the west side at the
north end is noted, as it has been at risk.
Whilst the Association welcomes the descriptions and analysis, we think that
some recommendations are unrealistic. For example the space available for
planting specimen trees, e.g. Page 44 b) is very limited. It could be better
rephrased as ‘replace existing mature trees with similar approved tree
species when they reach the end of their current lives’. Maidstone Borough
Council may like to consider tree grants for this purpose.
|
The
Bower Mount Road South Character Area contains some open plan frontages and
it would be appropriate to add an additional criterion to cover this point.
The allotments behind Cornwallis Road/Bower Mount Road/Bower Street are not
visually prominent from the public domain and are consequently not
highlighted as a key feature which should be retained.
The Leylandii is not a native tree characteristic of this area and is not
specifically included as a feature worthy of protection.
The remaining belt of Douglas fir trees along the west side of Bower Mount
Road are important to the character of the area and have been added to the
Townscape Map.
It is important that 18A Cornwallis Road is not used as a precedent for
future designs and therefore a specific mention is justified.
There are no specific examples of public realm improvements identified which
would merit seeking streetscape enhancement other than through the criteria
already set out in the SPD.
The Borough Council is keen to see replacement of specimen trees wherever
possible.
|
Page
43:
Add additional criterion:
When assessing development proposals within the Bower Mount Road South
Character Area, the Borough Council will expect development to:
Retain or create defensible space
Clear definition of space enables residents to exercise control over their
environment and to know who should or should not be there. There are examples
where open frontages are created to the road leaving no definition of the
space, reducing security and privacy.
Wherever possible, private space should be defined by a boundary –
characteristically a ragstone wall topped by hedge or trees in this area.
Page 41:
Add Douglas fir trees along the west side of Bower Mount Road to the
Townscape Map.
|
|
Ms
Kirsty Lidington
|
David
Hicken Associates
|
|
Object
|
KCC
- Property Group currently own the Allington Baptist Church site at the
corner of London Road and Leafy Lane and therefore have an interest in the
SPD in terms of the way in which it may influence future development
potential for their site. As framework consultants for KCC Property Group, we
therefore make the following comments on the draft SPD on behalf of our
client.
The Allington Baptist Church site is not mentioned specifically within the
SPD which we address below when considering the SPD proposals, yet the site
is the one readily available development opportunity in the area, containing
only temporary buildings in poor condition. Its corner position also means
that it is potentially important in reinforcing the areas character. The site
is however shown on the Townscape Map at Page 25 as containing a tree screen
along the northern boundary with Leafy Lane. This bank of trees is subject of
a number of TPO’s and its importance in screening and landscape effect is
noted and supported.
The area around the Queens Road/Leafy Lane/London Road crossroads is of
particular interest as it provides the context of built form for the
Allington Baptist Church Site. At page 23 the SPD recognises the Kingsgate
development on the corner of Queens Road and London Road, opposite the
Allington Baptist Church site as a landmark building and it is acknowledged
that at four storeys its scale and height are appropriate to its prominent
position. 1-4 storey development is recognised as being a contextual feature
and this is supported as it provides confirmation of the scale and height
context to which future development can compare.
At Page 26 it is proposed at sub paragraph a) that new development in the
London Road North Character Assessment Area be required to respond to the
scale, height, form, mass, alignment, materials and character of historic
buildings. The Allington Baptist Church site currently presents modern
development that does nothing to respond to these broad contextual aspects and
makes no contribution to the historic character evaluated in the SPD as being
worth retaining. The site presents the opportunity to provide a more
appropriate and harmonious development and the proposed requirement is
therefore welcomed.
Having said this however, there are numerous references made to individual
listed and historic buildings along the northern part of London Road and in
particular to their detailed design. Whilst the protection and enhancement of
the character and integrity of the historic environment in this location is
supported and should be respected it is considered that to adhere rigidly to
these existing historic aspects of design would be limiting for designers
when creating new buildings and would stifle modern design initiatives. Referring
in such detail to the various architectural merits of the historic buildings,
promotes pastiche development which does not allow for progression and goes
against basic urban design principles. It is felt that the role of the SPD
should not be to prescribe the type of designs that are regarded as capable
of responding to context.
At sub paragraph b) on page 27 it is recognised that ragstone walls are a
prevalent feature along London Road and later on at page 29 sub paragraph c)
it is proposed to reinforce the landscape character of this area with
ragstone boundary walls. This is supported.
At page 28, subparagraph a) it is proposed that the Borough Council will seek
improvements to the character of the North London Road area by replacing or
screening features that detract. In particular the void of space that is
formed by the sunken car park of the retail outlets opposite Kingsgate is
identified as an area in need of development to enclose the space at the
junction. Whilst this corner is desirable for development of a landmark
building to signify the importance of the intersection, it is unlikely to
become available. It is considered that the Allington Baptist Church site on
the corner of Leafy Lane should also be included in this section as it is
equally suitable for development of a landmark building and I available. The
site is currently under-developed with small scale development that does not
contribute to the grander forms of development at this intersection which the
Borough Council considers are appropriate. Furthermore, development of the
Allington Baptist Church Site has the ability to bring the footbridge over
London Road into better scale with the townscape generally and with the
substantial trees already identified near the site. We would therefore
request that the Allington Baptist Church site be specifically identified at
this section as constituting a site that detracts from the streetscene but
which is appropriate and capable of accommodating a landmark style
development.
|
Nothing
in the document prescribes designs – rather the key visual cues which provide
the distinctive local character and context for new development are set out
and appropriate responses to that context are for the designer.
The loss of enclosure on Queens Road junction, and reference to some modern
buildings on London Road lacking height are already listed as negative
features within the character area. However, specific reference should be
made to the important site of Allington Church and the opportunity for enhancement.
|
Page
23:
Add a paragraph after the Kingsgate reference:
The Allington Baptist Church site currently presents a low rise modern
development which is out of scale with surrounding development and does not
respond to contextual features such as the prominent building materials or
boundary treatment.
Add detractor symbol to the site on the Townscape Analysis Map.
Page 28:
Amend as follows:
a) Replacing or screening features which detract
Road junctions form nodal points for the area where development is often
given greater scale to signify the importance of the intersection. Opposite
Kingsgate, at this important junction, there is a void of space formed by a
large sunken car park set well below the road level. Although some trees are
growing on the slope down to the car park, it will be a long time before they
enclose the junction at this point. Enhancement would be brought about if the
space were to be developed (provided sufficient alternative parking was
available and the new development was well designed and respected the
character of the area). Similarly, the site of Allington Church is a low rise
modern development which is out of scale with surrounding development and
enhancement could be brought about by the redevelopment of the site provided
the new development was well designed and respected the character of the
area. The location at this junction makes these sites appropriate for new
landmark buildings.
|
|
Mr
Jack Atkins
|
|
|
Support
|
Page
15: Strongly support the requirement that proposals should be accompanied by
a design statement that explains how those proposals respond to the
assessment.
Page 75: Strongly support the identification of Ragstone walls as a positive
feature in Queens Road (and in other parts of the Assessment Area) and the
need for this unique feature not to be eroded. This protection should also
include the prevention proposals to lower the wall as has occurred at the
property between Littleton and The Knoll Queens Road.
|
Pages
15 and 75: Noted.
In relation to ragstone walls, the text could clarify that the retention of
traditional boundary treatment of walls and mature landscape refers to loss
or reduction of such features.
|
Amend
each section of the SPDs:
Retain traditional boundary
treatment of walls and mature landscape
Development should not erode this unique feature along this strategic
approach to the town through the loss, or reduction, of walls, hedges/ trees
or the use of unsympathetic boundary treatment such as close boarded fences
or brick walls
|
|
Mr
Jack Atkins
|
|
|
Object
|
Page
23: In addition to the poor quality street furniture, the frequent attachment
of advertising banners to the railings which border the highway at this point
also adds to the clutter which disfigures this prominent location on a major
route into the town. The Assessment should refer to this and set out the
Council’s intention to take enforcement action against illegal advertising.
Page 35: The Assessment identifies the open space of the allotments to the
rear of Bower Mount Road and Bower Street as a positive feature but contains
no commitment to protect this feature. This omission should be rectified.
Page 50: The Nursing Home curtilage is listed as a negative feature but is
not identified on the map as a detractor.
Page 53: The requirement that development should not erode these features
through the loss of trees or the generation of traffic should add that the
glass houses or the wall mentioned in the previous paragraph will also be
protected.
Page 74: The map does not include the trees in the grass verge on the north
west side of Queens Road between Court Drive and Warden Close. These are
important to the character of Queens Road and should be shown and protected
by a Tree preservation Order if they are not already.
Page 76: The box of negative features should include the large tarmacced car
parks in the frontages of the property referred to in the previous paragraph
and 327 Queens Road, the latter including a large unsightly refuse bin
prominently located on the frontage boundary. The policy response should make
it clear that such car parking will be resisted as harmful to the character
of the area and also that proposals for the change of use of family homes to
institutional uses such as residential care establishments will be resisted
because they are likely to result in pressures for large areas of car parking
to the detriment of the character of the area.
The paragraph on traffic should give some indication of what these wider
proposals are, who is preparing them, when they will be published and when we
will be consulted on them.
|
Page
23: The temporary use of advertising does not significantly affect the
overall character of the London Road North area.
Page 35: The allotments between Bower Mount Road and Bower Street are not
visually prominent from the public domain and are consequently not
highlighted as a key feature which should be retained. However, the Scrubbs
Lane allotments are such a feature, offering long views from this compact
residential area to open countryside to the north east. This area of open
space should be protected and text should be amended to clarify.
Page 50: The Nursing Home curtilage should be shown on the Townscape Analysis
Map as a detractor.
Page 53: The value of the glass houses is mentioned as part of the low key
buildings set well back from the road which contribute to the character of
this area and further clarification about the character of any new
development should be added to the text.
Page 74: trees in the grass verge on the north west side of Queens Road
between Court Drive and Warden Close should be added to the Townscape
Analysis Map.
Page 76: Agree addition of the negative feature to the text box.
It should be clear from the text that such car parking is a detractor and
should not set a precedent for future development. The SPD cannot prevent the
change of use of family homes to institutional uses such as residential care
establishments as a matter of principle. However, any conversions should
comply with the criteria in the SPD which include protecting traditional
boundary treatment of walls and mature landscape and landscape features.
|
Page
35:
Within Positive Features text box:
Amend text to Open space of the Scrubbs Lane allotments.
Page 36:
Add additional criterion in 8.3 Bower Street Character Area:
When assessing development proposals within the Bower Street Character Area,
the Borough Council will expect development to:
Protect Landscape Features
The appraisal identifies a number of individual trees and open spaces,
including the Scrubbs Lane allotments which are visible from the public
domain (shown on the Townscape Analysis Map) which perform an important
function within the Character Area and which should be protected.
Page 47:
Add The Nursing Home curtilage as a detractor on the Bower Mount Road North
Townscape Analysis Map.
Page 53:
Amend text in 8.6 Somerfield Road Character Area:
When assessing development proposals within the Somerfield Road Character
area, the Borough Council will expect development to:
b) Respect the informal rural character of Somerfield Road
The character is created through the informal layout of the road, with no
pavements for lengths of the road, low key buildings set well back, often
behind trees, and retained historic buildings such as glass houses and a
coach house topped with a weather vane next to an old brick wall which forms
the rear boundary of a Victorian house in Bower Mount Road.
Development should not erode these unique features through the loss of trees,
or the generation of substantial additional traffic that would cause the
erosion of the boundary features. New development should comprise unobtrusive
buildings set well back from the road.
Page 47:
Add trees on the north west side of Queens Road between Court Drive and
Warden Close to the Bower Mount Road North Townscape Analysis Map.
Page 76:
Add: Large tarmacced car parks in the frontages of properties to the Negative
Features Text box
|
|
Mr
& Mrs David and Penny Harris
|
|
|
Object
|
A
distinction should be made between historic (the mass of Edwardian and
Victorian) properties in Bower Mount Road and developments of buildings
within the last 2 decades. Section (b) refers to clues in new designs
(paragraph 2) being used as reference for future development. We are
concerned that some of the newer developments, e.g. Beaverbrook Mews and
Oakwood Court, are OUT of character with the majority of Edwardian and
Victorian housing in terms of height and density and architectural style. We
are concerned that these should not be used as a model for future
developments.
The Douglas Firs should be picked out on the street plan as character trees.
They run along the west side of Bower Mount Road South from the corner of
Oakwood Road to Scrubs Lane and are situated in many, but not all, of the
front gardens of these properties (see picture on page 37 which shows these
Douglas Firs). There are also many character trees bordering the Bower Mount
Road South area where it joins Oakwood Park KCC land.
On page 39 in the first paragraph, Beaverbrook Mews is described as fitting
in well in terms of bulk and height. However this is not our assessment of
this recent development. From the back of the houses on the east side of
Bower Mount Road the height is imposing. From the rear of houses on Pembury
Gardens, they are completely out of scale where the bedrooms are on the same
level as the ground floor of the Beaverbrook development. Also the density of
houses and miniscule garden space is far from in keeping with the surrounding
area.
|
The
SPD expects development to respond sensitively to the positive features
listed in the SPDs, including the character of historic buildings and states
that following clues from past developments in new designs will help retain
local distinctiveness and guard against development with no local references.
The SPD distinguishes between positive and negative features. Far from
setting a precedent for future development, isolated properties which are out
of keeping with the general character of the area are noted as areas of
opportunity which, over time, may provide an opportunity for more sensitive
redevelopment. However, it is proposed to clarify the text further to remove
any ambiguity.
The Douglas Firs and other mature garden trees which include holly and silver
birch should be added to the Bower Mount Road South Townscape Analysis Map
along the west side of Bower Mount Road South
The SPD is concerned with the character of an area from the public domain.
From the sloping Cornwallis Road, the bulk, height and other features of
Beaverbrook are considered broadly acceptable in relation to the general
character of the street.
|
Amend
text throughout the SPDs. Replace:
‘Following such clues in new designs will help retain and enhance local
distinctiveness… ‘
with
"Following such clues when designing new development will help retain
and enhance local distinctiveness…"
Page 41: Add Feature trees to the Bower Mount Road South Townscape Analysis
Map along the west side of Bower Mount Road South.
|
|
Ms
Lesley Cooke
|
|
|
Object
|
Page
28 Re: buildings lacking height. I disagree that development should be 3
storeys and pitched roofs, etc. E.g. Kingsgate is too high and too close to
the road, creating an overwhelming, monolithic structure. Also, the newer
development (where there was a single bungalow in a dip, surrounded by lawn
and trees) is now overdeveloped with particularly unprepossessing flats of
similar height. Apart from the unappealing look of these developments, the
infrastructure in terms of roads is not designed to cope with increase in
rush-hour traffic the increase in residents brings.
|
Most
of the grander historic buildings located along London Road are 3 storeys
high - some with tall steeply pitched roofs with gable ends facing the road
giving greater scale.
Within a document which aims to identify the distinctive features that define
the local character, and seeks high quality designs which place emphasis on
the local context, it is important to record such features.
The scale of buildings is appropriate for this strategic route into town,
reflecting the importance of the road and the imminence of the town centre.
In townscape terms a landmark building is appropriate at the junction which
forms an important intersection of routes. Kingsgate has responded to visual
clues from existing development in terms of height, steep gable ends and
materials. The bulk of the building is not monolithic. The location of the
flats may be outside the pilot area.
The SPD is concerned with matters of design and other documents in the Local
Development Framework will deal with the impacts of development on local
infrastructure.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Eric and Marion Churchyard
|
|
|
Observations
|
8.7
- Tree symbol should be moved to garden of no. 2 Kingsdown Close, i.e. two
properties N and in W top L.H. corner.
Contextual features - Age of buildings should read "1938 to present
day".
|
Agreed.
|
Page
56: Amend Kingsdown Close Townscape Analysis Map to move the tree symbol to
the garden of no. 2 Kingsdown Close.
Page 55: Amend Contextual Features - Age of Buildings to 1930s to present
day.
|
|
Mr
& Mrs Nigel and Helen Davison
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Noted
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|
|
Mr
James Forster
|
|
|
Support
|
As
a resident of Bower Mount Road I believe the principal features of the road
have been identified, although it appears that the document attached no great
significance to the mature trees in the front gardens of houses. The
Townscape Analysis Map identifies feature trees at the Oakwood Court junction
but other individual trees provide additional definition to the character of
the area.
Whilst I understand the document is concerned with development within the
study area this does have the drawback of excluding guidance on the
assessment of proposals immediately outside this area. Specifically any
further development at Oakwood Park (which lies on the boundary of area 8.4)
could potentially have a much more significant impact on the character of
Bower Mount Road than development within the study area itself.
In a number of character areas (e.g. areas 8.8 and 8.14) reference is made to
the adverse effects of traffic. There is no such reference in relation to
Bower Mount Road although there are already significant traffic movements
from outside the study area either accessing the schools at Oakwood Park or
rat running between London Road and Tonbridge Road. I believe traffic
represents the greatest risk to the character of Bower Mount Road, and that
it would therefore be helpful to include the effect of traffic as a
consideration in the assessment of future planning proposals.
The character of other parts of the study area has been adversely affected by
splitting relatively large houses into separate flats. Hopefully any proposals
for this form of development in Bower Mount Road could be resisted.
|
The
mature trees in the front gardens facing Bower Mount Road should be added to
the Townscape Analysis Map along the west side of Bower Mount Road South.
The Pilot area was selected by Members as the appropriate area for the SPD.
There may be an opportunity for the adjoining area to be included in a future
SPD should Members decide to extend the pilot to other parts of Maidstone.
Traffic associated with school or cutting between London Road and Tonbridge
Road is a local issue which could be mentioned in the negative features text
box.
The SPD cannot prevent conversion of single properties into flats as a matter
of principle. However, any conversions should comply with the criteria in the
SPD which include protecting traditional boundary treatment of walls and
mature landscape and landscape features.
|
Page
41:
Add Feature trees to the Bower Mount Road South Townscape Analysis Map along
the west side of Bower Mount Road South
Pages 43 and 50:
For areas 8.4 Bower Mount Road South Character Area and
8.5 Bower Mount Road North Character Area, add the following additional
bullet point to the Negative Features text box:
Traffic associated with school or cutting between London Road and Tonbridge
Road
Pages 43 and 50:
Add an additional paragraph on Traffic:
Traffic
The issue of traffic, whilst affecting the character of the area, is beyond
the scope of this SPD. Wider proposals will be brought forward by the
relevant authorities which should aim at improving the residential amenity
within the area.
|
|
Miss
Debbie Salmon
|
|
Kent
Wildlife Trust
|
Support
|
Consideration
should be given to biodiversity maintenance, enhancement and permeability.
The Trust acknowledges that this is an urban area and welcomes the retention
of the hedges, trees and tree lines, but there are more opportunities for
wildlife that retaining the hedge system enhancement of open spaces by
providing natural corridors or stepping stones wild flower rich verges and
enhancement of green space and gardens within new development, which will
attract wildlife into the urban setting providing contact with nature for the
population.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Within the design principles the Trust would recommend that permeability and
enhancement be mentioned as a design principle of new development.
BIODIVERSITY AND PERMEABILITY FEATURES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This should include :-
· Opportunities
to increase biodiversity as laid out in The Kent Design Guide Biodiversity
Technical Appendix to be found at
http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/559D0301-726C-440E-A77E-0F989AD8368C/0/Biodiversity.pdf.
Designs to increase biodiversity within open spaces such as playing· fields, parks, school grounds,
churchyards, allotments, roadside verges and country lanes
Positive biodiversity features and habitats could be· identified within the document.
If the built environment is to be·
intensified it is highly likely that green spaces, gardens, waste ground and
verges will be lost to wildlife. The Trust would wish to refer Maidstone
Borough Council to Let Our Gardens Live whose aims the Trust fully endorse
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/campaigns/breathingplaces/Docs/garden-manifesto.pdf
AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFIED FROM THE LONDON ROAD CHARACTER AREA
ASSESSMENT
8.1 Tonbridge Road and London Road South
St· Michaels
Churchyard
All Angels Churchyard·
Spiritualist· Church grounds
Methodist Church grounds·
Rocky Hill Terrace· Community
Gardens
Cordwallis Park·
Grassed bank west London·
Road
8.3 Bower Street
White Rock Place·
Allotments,· Especially
those disused
8.5 Bower Mount Road South
Road· verges along
Whitchurch Close
8.6 Somerfeild Road
Somerfeild· Lane
Ivy clad hospital wall·
East Somerfeild Road·
8.7 Buckland Hill
The Railway Line·
The Playing Fields·
8.8 Brunswick House School
Playing Fields·
Large· areas of open
space.
This list is not exhaustive
|
The
SPD is concerned with matters of design and other documents in the Local
Development Framework will deal with wider development issues such as the
incorporation of SUDs and biodiversity. The Green Infrastructure Strategy and
the Maidstone Borough Biodiversity Action Plan which are both in preparation
for publication next year are more appropriate vehicles for the suggestions
provided, including areas of opportunity which will be examined in relation
to the latter document.
|
No
changes required to the Assessment.
|