Contact your Parish Council

Mr David Knight

Observations

The document is biased against employment. There is little employment opportunity within the area. Those that do exist are complained of eg. page 34 a) A commercial building on the western side of Loose Road detracts from the character of the area...

page 74 8.11.unsightly car park to rear of bank and flat roofed premises opposite.

Commercial premises need to be economic and not overelaborate. This bias will encourage loss of local employment ( and probable replacement with housing). This does not meet government and sustainability objectives of providing more local employment with less travel

The SPD assesses the character of the area and sets out examples of negative features which detract from the

Character. These are not exclusively employment uses, although there are some examples, as there are for residential uses. Conversely, some employment areas are described favourably (such as the South Park Business Village Character Area). There is no bias against employment uses and no intention within the SPD to see all employment sites redeveloped for housing development.

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr David Knight

Observations

The document attempts to incorporate the need to safeguard various views to protect the character of the area. The views mentioned are generally actually outside the area and it is not reasonable for the document to presume to control development within views that reach, for example, Bluebell Hill, Coxheath and Wrotham. The views are of other areas (including parts of Tonbridge and Malling) and which should properly be controlled only by thier own assessments if such assessments are appropriate. There is no comment on what changes to the views would be enhancements. It seems likely that such a broad selection of views will eventually fail on appeal and so does not achieve its intended purpose.

The protection of views from the public domain which form an important part of the character of the area is controlled from the source of the view within the planning control of Maidstone Borough Council. Decisions about whether a view would be blocked or adversely affected by development within the character area will be within the jurisdiction of the Borough Council. The countryside beyond Maidstone town is protected by a number of designations within, and beyond, its boundaries and by the general protection of the countryside. The Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all (PPS7).

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr Julian Dipper

Kent County Council (County Planning Authority

Observations

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.

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 Jan Capon

Loose Parish Council

Observations

The Loose Parish Council fully supports the document but wish to bring to your attention the following inaccuracies and observations; please also note that the following comments are confined to the area within the Loose Parish.

It is felt that the documents position and role in the planning framework could be made clearer. It is important that the status and linkage of the document is strong.

We could not find a reference to the Loose Road being the A229 Hastings Road.

It is felt that the document would benefit from each Character Area being given a new page.

Loose is proud of its association with ragstone. A material contributing to much of the character of the area. Please could 'stone' be referred to as 'ragstone' where appropriate?

The playing field north of Walnut Tree Lane should be referred to as King George V Playing Field. There are several wrong versions in the document.

Page 9:Reference needs to be made to the Loose Road now being the main 'Hastings' Road and the ever increasing volumes of traffic to and from Maidstone.

Page11: Areas not clear,increase size of Map 2.

Page 12: It is felt that the three design principles are unclear.

Page13 para3: Refers to the triangle of grass which is known as the 'Loose Village Green'. 'red letter box' should read 'red telephone box'.Also there are two memorial seats on the green which could be mentioned.Para 6 should read 'on the left' not 'on the right'.

Page14 para 3: This tree is on private property and does not constitute much of the landmark. Not worth mentioning.

Para 5: word missing'Leads up to the Public House'.

Page16, map8.1: There are long views southwards from the properties backing onto the path along the south side of Copper Tree Court. Show arrow.

Page 18: 'Loose Road Conservation Area' should read 'Loose Valley Conservation Area'.

Page 19 part a: Not sure of the meaning 'set back'.

Page 20: Line one col 2 typo error.'restthe' should be 'rest of the'.

Page 21 para 1: Add five a side football/basketball pitch and youth shelter to list. Para 4 :Hedge is not overgrown. The gate is not in this area perhaps it may be better if it is referred to in the next paragraph. Para 5 :Grove Cottage is 18th Century.Is 'works' the best description of Leonard Goulds? 'Commercial, Industrial' may be better?Para 6 :Insert Loose Valley before Conservation Area.

Page 22 :'North earst' should be 'north east'.Para 1 'sports ground' is a playing field. Heading to photo......from Loose Area should be from Loose Road.

Page 23:'predominantly' is misspelled.

Page 24: Map. Show long view to the south.

Page 25:(b) Split sentence after.......parking.The need......

Page 26 para 4: Typo Loose Valley para 4 & Para 1 'plotfor' should be 'plot for'.

Page 29 para 2: Insert 'large' before'detached inter-war'. Para3: Terrace only includes one shop not two.Standardise whether "Celsius" is an Industrial or Commercial unit.

Page 33: Negative Features. The Commercial unit has unsightly, unfinished front elevation.

Page 35 para 4: "With the exception of....."would be better as"With the notable exception of...."

Page 36:'At the entrance to' doesn't need the word 'of'.

Page 37 para 5:'The works site.....P 37 & 38 'Eddington' not 'Edderington'.

Page 41 pen para 1: After the first sentence add 'The spacious development is unique to the area'

Page 125 para 2: Not sure what 'toolkit' means in this context. Could it be explained some other way?.

The section What is the Supplementary Planning Document? in the SPDs should be updated following the consultation process and should also refer to the A229.

There are advantages for clarity in beginning each Character Area on a new page.

Most references have been made to ragstone throughout the document but two additional references are proposed.

Comments on the levels of traffic are less appropriate in the section on the location, landscape setting and evolution of the area than in the section on the character area assessments where they currently appear.

Map 2 is only for general reference as each area is illustrated by a larger scale map. However, improved cross-referencing to the relevant large scale map should be added to Map 2.

Typographical error has led to some lack of clarity in the Design Principles. This and a number of other typographical errors should be corrected.

Amend references to Loose Village Green and King George V Playing Fields.

The tree at the entrance to Walnut Tree Lane is part of the character and is worthy of mention.

Only views from public view points are shown in the Townscape Analysis as private views are not protected by the planning system.

Appendix 1 is an extract from a Government publication and cannot therefore be changed.

Page 1:

Amend to:

Government guidance (PPS3) advocates that Local Planning Authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the type(s) of residential environments they wish to see and develop design policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the local area.

This supplementary planning document (SPD) develops design policies through extensive community involvement and has been adopted as part of Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Development Framework. It provides further detail about how planning policies will be applied in a specific part of Maidstone town: the Loose Road area (see Map 1) which extends either side of the A229 Hastings road.

The SPD is a material consideration in determining planning applications in the Loose Road area. Developers, householders and the Borough Council should refer to the document in formulating proposals and in determining planning applications.

The document aims to raise the standard of design of new proposals such that they fit well with the locally distinctive character of an area. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area, should not be accepted.

Ensure a page break for each new Character Area.

Page 29:

Amend to:

The Victorian cottages are yellow stock brick with red brick detail, stone faced with ragstone or rendered and painted with tile or slate roofs.

Page 63:

Amend to:

The junction with Pheasant Lane is attractive with a triangle of grass, red post box and ragstone clad rustic style house.

Page 14:

Amend to:

From the entrance the faded weatherboarding of

Hope Cottages can be glimpsed together with the entrance to the King George V Playing Field.

Page 20:

Amend to:

This area comprises Copper Tree Court,

St King George’s V Playing Field, Walnut Tree Lane, Pickering Street (south) and

Walnut Tree Avenue.

The only buildings at that time were some cottages on the section of Walnut

Tree Lane adjoining the Loose Road and Grove Cottage on Pickering Street. Walnut Tree Avenue did not exist but

the footpath which today runs to the north of St King George V Playing Field is clearly visible.

Page 21:

Amend to:

St King George V playing field serves Loose Village.

Page 22:

Amend to:

They face away from

the road looking over the footpath and

St King George V Playing Field.

Page 23:

Amend to:

Houses in Walnut Tree Avenue

viewed from St King Georges V Playing

Field

Page 25:

Amend to:

Open space is present in the form of St King George 's V Playing Field and landscape features around the playing

field and in front gardens give a strong landscape structure to the area and

partially or completely screen development.

Page 26:

Amend to:

The entrance and parking area of St King Georges V Playing Field could be upgraded or better screened.

Page 11:

Map 2:

Improve cross-referencing to the relevant large scale map.

Page 12:

Separate the 3 design principles.

Page 13:

Amend to:

At the junction, just outside the Character Area but within the Loose

Village Conservation Area, a large oak

tree commemorating Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee stands on a small triangle of grass, which is known locally as the 'Loose Village Green', in front of the post office. Adjacent to the post office a recent development has been

sympathetically designed in terms of scale, vernacular materials, boundary treatment and detailing to reinforce

local distinctiveness and enhance the character of the area. A red letter telephone box, two memorial seats and old mounting block stand on the green. This attractive ensemble is marred by the volume of traffic on the Loose Road, railings and overhead telephone wires.

Old Loose Hill disappears off to the left right

steeply down towards the centre of the

old village giving long views to the

Greensand Ridge.

Page 14:

Amend to:

On the eastern side, an estate agent occupies the former builders yard and a row of terraced cottages leads up to the Public House.

Page 18:

Amend to:

Given that the Loose Road area is built on higher ground set above the Conservation Area, the impact of development could have greater impact on the surrounding area and it is

important that any development preserves or enhances the character of the Loose Road Valley Conservation Area.

Page 20:

Amend to:

The rest of the development in the area is post war.

Page21:

Amend to:

St George’s playing field serves Loose Village. It is well maintained and equipped with a modern pavilion, five a side football/basketball pitch, youth shelter, play equipment, picnic tables, CCTV and lighting.

Several spacious detached houses in large plots are set back behind verdant frontages including the 18 19th century Grove Cottage.

The street ends at the impressive gates of

Old Lakenham and a footpath leading south into the Loose Valley Conservation Area.

Page 22:

Amend to:

North earst

Amend title of photograph:

Entrance to Walnut Tree Avenue from the Loose Area Road

Page 29:

Amend to:

The row of terraced cottages and semi-detached cottages up to the industrial commercial unit all date from before

1840. The terrace includes two a shops.

A bulky industrial commercial unit and wide access road devoid of soft landscaping forms an intrusive element at this point.

Page 37:

Amend photograph caption to:

Halstow Close, Eddington Close

and Braddick Close, Norrington Road and Leigh Avenue

The tall trees to the north of the Pickering Street works provide a strong

green framework at the southern end of Halstow, Eddington and Braddick

Close.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

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.

In addition Natural England welcomes the aim to protect views of, and connections to, the open countryside as outlined in the Loose Road Area SPD. Measures to encourage people to access the countryside, such as retaining and enhancing existing or new footpaths, should be encouraged. Within the London Road SPD we note the aim to protect views of the open countryside. Natural England would encourage that this is expanded to encourage connections to and from the open countryside through retaining and enhancing existing or new footpaths. Links to other green networks or rural urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of a wider green infrastructure.

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.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs Jacqueline Day

North Loose Residents Association

Object

We were happy with the methods used to draw up this document, and note that the resulting document is well laid out and easy to read.

Page 5 gives a wrong name – this should read Pear Tree Lane, not Pear Tree Avenue, and the map on page 11 has the wrong title.

Apart from the above, we will only comment on the main principle of the document, as we will rely on our members to add their own comments about their immediate neighbourhoods.

Our first main point is that although the document states that traffic is outside the remit of this report, we feel it should nonetheless be mentioned as the increase in traffic has great significance for all residents. The amount, frequency and type of traffic has changed over the years – for example we now have huge lorries using roads that were not built for them – and this increase has the ability to change the character of the area, as identified in expressions such as “the quality of country life”. One example is that KCC are now very likely to install traffic lights at the Boughton Lane/Loose Road/Cripple Street junction – stating these are now required due to the increased traffic. These traffic signals will therefore change the character from predominantly rural to urban. We therefore think it is reasonable to include a note of traffic concerns when identifying key features of an area.

Our second point is to query where this document will fit into planning policy in the future and whether it will actually have any influence, and who will monitor its effectiveness.

Lastly, we would like to know when and how this document will be reviewed within the planning cycle.

It is assumed that the respondent is referring to page 64 which requires correction.

The issue of traffic on the principal roads (noise, pollution and severance) is mentioned throughout the document. In relation to traffic noise, the character of part of the Loose Road has improved through the installation of a new quiet surface road. Additional reference to this option is to be made throughout the document (see response to lse 25).

There are no plans to review the document at this stage. Once adopted, the document will be a material consideration in considering planning applications and the North Loose 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.

Page 64:

Amend text to Pear Tree Lane

Ms Susan Luckhurst

Object

I have to comment that their is a fantastic view missing from the document. If you walk along the footpath from the bottom of Lancet Lane travelling towards Maidstone as you come past the hedgerow dividing the field at the bottom of Cripple Street to the field owned by a connected company of Hilreed Homes (Middlefields Ltd?) a brilliant 180 degree view opens up across the Loose valley to the west and over Maidstone through to the North downs to the North. Please can this be noted and marked on the plan.

In addition just for historical context Lancet Lane used to be a single track lane with a gated entrance at the top. The lane was widened due to the developments in the 60's and the front gardens to the left hand side (looking down the lane) were shortened. The feature of the gable ends giving some rhthym to the lane is included in the narrative of Lancet Lane but not marked on the plan of the lane. In addition the narrative mentions semi detached houses in Lancet Lane and I believe that all the houses on Lancet Lane are detached.

Reference is already made to the extensive views in the Anglesey Avenue Character Area text but additional reference to the footpath could be made.

Additional history of Lancet Lane would be informative within the SPD.

Whist the gable ends give some rhythm to the street scene, this is not sufficiently strong to capture on the Townscape Analysis Map due to the distance between properties and the partial screening given by vegetation in front gardens.

Page 55:

Amend to:

Importantly, as a result of the topography, proximity of the countryside and gaps between development, the area has retained views from a large number of vantage points including the footpath to the west of the character area. Views are of the Loose Valley and beyond and the North Downs.

Page 42:

Amend to:

In 1875, Lancet Lane was a single track lane with a gated entrance leading through farmland from Loose Road to Old Loose Court. It was developed in the period between 1908 and 1936. As a result of development in the 1960’s, the lane was widened and the front gardens of properties on the south side were shortened.

Lancet Lane is relatively wide and straight, sloping gently westwards.

Mr Brian Clark

Object

Boughton Lane/Paynes Lane:

There is no mention of the substantial houses present in boughton lane from Paynes Junction to the far exit of Oldborough School (presumably the reviewers moved on to paynes lane at this point given the way the text flows). These are of similar quality to many listed in Lancet lane and have sizeable frontage behind tree/hedge cover. The following would be appropriate here:

The substantial detached 2 storey 1930's houses are set in substantial plots. Frontage treatment includes white render and brick, hung tiles, hardwood doors and vertical black timber apex treatment. Boundary treatments include fences, hedges and trees.

Also there are 3 turn of last century period houses between pheasant lane and paynes lane junction (on the left) with redbrick frontage and yellowbrick sides (these are the oldest properties in this part of the lane besides the pair of stone cottages close to pheasant lane junction).

It seems appropriate to mention these along with the substantial bungalow opposite the pheasant lane junction in boughton lane (the plot of which has been reduced in the past and developed into the 2 ajoining properties on the right of the bungalow).

Also Old Loose Court (in Old Drive) should have more mention - this is a very substantial Georgian House with a sizeable plot (of key interest to the area as it's grounds used to take in most of the surrounding area which is now developed).

Not every individual plot can be mentioned in the SPD but there is merit in adding reference to the row of houses to the west side of Boughton Lane, south of Paynes Lane.

The pair of stone cottages close to Pheasant lane junction are already mentioned on page 62.

Additional historic detail could be added to Old Loose Court.

Page 43:

Amend to:

Old Drive provides

access to Old Loose Court, a very substantial Victorian House with a sizeable plot various

former estate buildings and a small number of detached 1970s properties.

Page 63:

Amend to:

To the south, Boughton Lane is more heavily landscaped formed on the western side by hedge and tree front boundaries to properties. The lane also narrows and has no pavement south of the school entrance. On the western side of Boughton Lane south of Payne’s Lane, the large detached 2 storey 1930’s houses are set in substantial plots. The houses are fronted with white render, brick, hung tiles and mock Tudor wooden gable ends.

Mr & Mrs Stephen and Janet Crowther

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Stephen and Janet Crowther

Observations

Representatives of the indivdual areas should have been invited at a far earlier stage.

Representatives of the area were invited through the Borough Council at the beginning of the process of preparing the document and there has been extensive community engagement.

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Stephen and Janet Crowther

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Stephen and Janet Crowther

Object

Page 35 - shows a photo captioned "Paved/concrete frontages Pickering Street" whilst in the main text it states "The houses are set back behind landscaped front gardens with boundaries of brick walls, wooden fences, hedges and shrubs". Surely a photograph of a typical house should be used?

There are 3 photographs of Northleigh and none of Eddington or Braddick. A more balanced view of this area is required showing the detached and semi detached houses of these two roads. At the moment it only shows terraced housing and a garage block! This a very biased view of the estate as you have used the only terraced blocks on the estate. The remainder are all detached or semi detached. Even the view of the detached housing in Norrington you have managed to make look like terraced!

Will this be in place prior to the Leonard Gould planning application acceptance?

Agreed

Pages 35 – 37:

Add additional photographs showing the typical front garden curtilages from a selection of Pickering Street; Eddington and Braddick Closes and detached housing in Northleigh Close.

Mrs Christine Holland

Observations

The commercial unit between Norrington Road and Paynes Lane is an eyesore.

The bus stop outside 538 Loose Road could benefit from a rubbish bin.

The commercial unit between Norrington Road and Paynes Lane is marked as a detractor in the SPD.

The installation of additional rubbish bins is beyond the scope of this SPD.

No changes required to the Assessment

Mrs Christine Holland

Support

Loose Road 8.3 Negative Features (Traffic) - In July 2008 a short section of Loose Road - from Lancet Lane towards but not as far as Post Office and Village - was resurfaced. This new road surface has greatly reduced traffic noise. PLEASE can more resurfacing with some special surface be done on Loose Road from Lancet Lane towards Cripple Street. Thank you.

Since the draft SPD was published, a quiet road surface has been laid on Loose Road from Lancet Lane southwards towards but not as far as the Post Office and Loose village.

Since the draft SPD was published, a quiet road surface has been laid on Loose Road from Lancet Lane southwards towards but not as far as the Post Office and Loose village.

Mr W.C. Dunk

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr W.C. Dunk

Support

Penultimate paragraph does not list the community and special interest groups consulted. Were Loose Amenities Association and the North Loose Residents Association consulted. Also perhaps the Loose Valley Conservation Society.

The special interest groups listed by the respondent were consulted. The section on community engagement should be revised to list those groups who have participated in producing the SPD.

Section 5:

Revise and update to list those groups who have participated in producing the SPDs.

Mr W.C. Dunk

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr W.C. Dunk

Observations

Page 11 Map 2 - Says "London Road Area Character Area". Surely this should be Loose Road.

The proposals made in this document are commendable if they are enforced when developers submit their applications for planning permission.

Page 17 bottom paragraph - "Following such clues...no local references". This is the very substance that was ignored (in spite of objections) to the planning consent for the YMCA ground redevelopment.

Page 34 (a) - This would be excellent if it could be implemented.

Page 66 Map - 472 Loose Road (corner of Anglesey Avenue) is shown with a square marked on the roadside corner. Can you say what this represents. This also shows up on map page 31.

Page 48 - I can't agree that the fences at the entrance to Lancet Lane are a detracting feature. They ensure the privacy of the owners' properties, especially from headlights.

Page 57 - You may find that some of the trees bordering the Y Centre are disappearing in the current ugly development.

Page 61 - Y Centre is currently being redeveloped. The paragraph at the foot of the page referring to the redevelopment is utter rubbish. See planning consent.

Correct the title of Map 2

Previous planning decisions within this area, such as that in relation to the Y Centre, were made in the absence of the SPD. Future decisions should be influenced by the document. Development Control staff have participated in the production of the SPD and a training event is proposed with them to launch the adopted document.

The cross shape is part of the Ordinance Survey map and not the Assessment.

The visual impact of the fences is correctly stated. It is appreciated that defined boundaries are important to create defensible space around a building but there are other ways of achieving this which are more characteristic of the area such hedges and walls.

Page 11:

Amend title of map to Loose Road Area Character Areas

Mr W.C. Dunk

Support

Most of the maps need to be in much sharper focus.

The sharpness of focus of the maps is the clearest which could be produced and has not been an issue with other respondents.

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Nigel and Jennifer Slocombe

Object

8.7 Valley Drive:

The 5 properties at the southern end of Valley Drive were not built by the developer but privately built and are not of the same design.

Townscape Analysis Map - The anti-coalescence belt running from the large shed on the allotments across the rear gardens of the southern properties to Kirkdale is NOT shown on the drawing. NOR is the Area of Local Landscape Importance.

Positive Features - The low density. This was insisted on by the Council in the 1960s to protect the Conservation Area and the Valley.

The Negative Features does not carry substance because of the strict conditions applied by the Council in the 1960s to protect the Conservation Area.

Amend the text in relation to the five properties.

The Southern Anti-coalescence Belt and Area of Landscape Importance are designations in the Local Plan and these policies have been saved until superseded in forthcoming DPDs. The decision on whether to include the designations within the SPD and the Townscape Analysis Map depends on whether they affect the aims of the document and contribute to the purpose of the map respectively.

In relation to the current (and any future) Character Area SPDs, the areas covered are within the built up parts of the Borough. Thus, all aims relate to the locally distinctive features of the defined built up area. However, there is clearly an inter-relationship between the built up area and the surrounding countryside and where relevant this is noted in the Character Area Assessments.

In relation to the content of the Townscape Analysis Maps, the purpose is to record the features within each character area (and to note the relationship with the surrounding countryside).

As a result of the important interrelationship between the built up area and the countryside it is recommended that the designations relating to the surrounding countryside (including the Conservation Area) are shown on the Townscape Analysis Maps.

The features of the area may well have been a response to the setting of the Conservation Area in the 1960’s but today appear as negative features of standard architecture lacking in local references in terms of form, design or materials.

Page 52:

Amend to:

Tall conifers screen the five individually designed properties at the southern end and terminate the vista.

Add the Southern Anti- coalescence Belt and Area of Landscape Importance designations to the Townscape Analysis Maps for the Loose Road Character Area Assessment.

Mrs Catherine Pearce

Object

8.1 Boughton Lane/Pheasant Lane/Warnford gardens/Cripple Street Area:

Appropriateness and potential for development (section 2) - I have concerns regarding the FURTHER development of Loose as a whole, e.g. Fire Station land and YMCA land being developed with what I would consider to be very high density dwellings - 3/4 storey blocks of flats on YMCA land. Hardly in keeping with the area. Also Leonard Gould Factory site is up for development.

Contextual features table all clearly laid out.

Townscape Analysis Map - Not all feature trees are being recorded. Tree screens have not been included in Boughton Lane map from peoples gardens. "Enclosure of Space" on Boughton Lane marked from second Shernolds entrance up to bend on Boughton Lane - why?

Boughton Lane - No mention of development of the Oldborough Manor School site opposite the Paynes Lane exit onto Boughton Lane. Development at Fire Station land backing ONTO Pheasant Lane.

Negative Features - Overdevelopment - Warnford Gardens area - Runnymeade Gardens - Oaklands. Congestion/cars parked/lack of spaces for cars on properties. Only negative feature is the car park behind the bank!

Pheasant Lane - No negative/positive comments stated in document. Highlight rubbish/broken fencing along wooded areas - flytipping IS a problem.

No reference to applications for redevelopment (YMCA/Fire Station land/Leonard Gould) which WILL change the character of the area as both developments are of high density with flats being included which are not present in the area as reported in the document.

The SPD cannot prevent development as a matter of principle, rather the aim is to provide design guidance on the appropriateness of, and potential for, types of development within an area and to help in the assessment of future proposals. Future decisions should be influenced by the document. Development Control staff have participated in the production of the SPD and a training event is proposed with them to launch the adopted document.

Enclosure of Space is marked on the Townscape Analysis Map along Boughton Lane from second Shernolds entrance to bend on Boughton Lane to denote the narrow, curved lane enclosed on both sides by tall hedges and trees.

Additional garden trees along Boughton Lane are significant enough to be included on the Paynes Lane Townscape Analysis Map.

The Oldborough Manor school is located outside the Character Area.

Any development of the Fire Station site would back onto the Pheasant Lane (this section of which is not included within the Character Area), rather it is considered in the Local Plan to be within the countryside at this point.

Whist flytipping may be a problem in this location, it does not significantly affect the overall character of the character area for the purposes of this document.

It is not considered that all of the development listed at Warnford Gardens area, Runnymeade Gardens and Oaklands comprise negative features.

Page 66:

Paynes Lane Townscape Analysis Map;

Include additional garden trees along Boughton Lane.

Mr Robin Smith

Support

8.7 Valley Drive:

Fair and reasonable description of the area and agree with contextual features table.

Negative Features Box - General comments are fair but the points made do not constitute a major issue.

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mrs A Moorekite

Object

The whole length of Loose Road:

Trees should be planted along the whole area of Loose Road.

Some form of barrier to stop vehicles from parking on the pavement causing pedestrians to walk into the road.

Trees shown just before Plains Avenue junction do NOT exist on pavement area. there are some in a garden near there. We have lived in this area over 40 years. During that time the trees which lined the pavement have gradually disappeared. Trees are essential to help combat some of the traffic pollution.

All pavements where possible should be sectioned with a line through the middle designating separate usage for pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists using the road cause danger for both themselves and other vehicles.

Pavement parking by vehicles - the law against this should be rigorously enforced (or made impossible). It is extremely dangerous for pedestrians to walk into the road to pass these obstructions.

Where feasible, the re-introduction of large scale street trees, or trees in front gardens, could be pursued along Loose Road with the exception of the two commercial nodes where a more urban character is sought. This would act as a unifying feature, a deterrent to on street parking and help mitigate pollution. The traffic management measures proposed are beyond the scope of the SPD.

The trees shown on page 105 are in private gardens and are sufficiently large to contribute to the character of the street.

Page 19: Amend to:

b) Reinstating or reinforcing

positive features

Through the development process there will be opportunities to reinstate or reinforce the positive features which contribute to the character of the area. In the Loose Road South area this would

mean reinforcing the character with a limited palette of locally prominent materials which are well represented along Loose Road such as yellow stock bricks (with red brick detailing), red or

light painted bricks or ragstone for the building or boundary wall. Where feasible this could also mean the reintroduction of large scale street trees or trees in front garden.

c) Seeking streetscape

enhancements

Opportunity should be taken as part of development proposals to ameliorate the negative features of an area noted in this Supplementary Planning Document. Reductions in street clutter of signs, the introduction of street trees, where feasible, or improvements to street furniture or footway/ road surfaces, would contribute to improving the character of the area.

Page 34: Amend to:

c) Reinstating or reinforcing positive features

Through the development process there will be opportunities to reinstate or reinforce the positive features which contribute to the character of the area. In this character area this would mean

reinstating some of the original features to historic buildings and reinforcing the verdant landscape character, in front gardens and/or through the introduction of street trees, where feasible, with substantial specimen trees and ragstone boundary walls.

d) Seeking streetscape

enhancements

Opportunity should be taken as part of development proposals to ameliorate the negative features of an area noted

in this Supplementary Planning Document. Reductions in street clutter of signs, the introduction of street trees, where feasible, or improvements to street furniture or footway/road surfaces, would contribute to improving the character of the area.

Page 87: Amend to:

When assessing development

proposals within the Loose Road Character Area between the Swan and Wheatsheaf Public Houses, the

Borough Council will seek improvements to the character of the area by:

a) Focusing on areas of opportunity

Enhancement should be achieved along this strategic route by using a limited palette of locally prominent materials which are well represented along Loose

Road such as yellow stock bricks (with red brick detailing), red or light painted bricks or ragstone for the building or boundary wall. Where feasible this could also mean the reintroduction of large scale street trees or trees in front garden.

The use of vernacular

materials in enhancing local distinctiveness and a sense of place is particularly important along the strategic route. If the buildings are set well back from the road, there may be an opportunity for greater scale to create a sense of enclosure.

Page 107: Amend to:

b) Reinstating or reinforcing positive features

Through the development process there will be opportunities to reinstate or reinforce the positive features which contribute to the character of the area. In the Loose Road north of Wheatsheaf

Public House Junction Character Area this would mean reinforcing the landscape character in front gardens and/or through the introduction of street trees, where feasible, with substantial specimen trees and ragstone boundary walls.

Mr Michael Tillett

Support

Congratulations on producing such an informative detailed document, greatly enhanced by the many photographs. I hope the MBC Planning Department will study it closely and act upon your suggestions and recommendations.

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr Michael Tillett

Object

I take great exception to the central paragraph in the right hand column on page 81 – “There is an example of a sensitively developed backland development at Hazlitt Place”. NOT SO! This, the first example of back-garden development in this section of the Loose Road (between the Wheatsheaf and The Swan) was approved by MBC planning department in spite of strong opposition from individuals and local organisations who saw it as the first move in a once-started, inevitable on-going building process in this area. Moreover, after a new 4-bedroom detached house and a separate triple garage had been built in my next-door neighbour’s garden (no. 380), permission was subsequently given by a “delegated officer” to squeeze into the same garden a perfectly hideous bungalow that looks like a public convenience at the sea-side. So, instead of my back garden (no. 382) being bordered on each side by gardens of the same length running parallel with it, with “open” land beyond the bottom of the garden (making a wonderful quiet area, greatly enhanced by the now blotted out wonderful panoramic view of the North Downs) the whole nature of the area has been destroyed for ever. I do not consider this to be a “sensitive development”. As far as I know, before giving their approval, no representative of the planning department came to see what the effect might be going to be for the next door resident and his property, and for other near neighbours. Why, incidentally, is this development (in the gardens of 380, 378 + 376) referred to as “backland” rather than (private) “backgarden” development?

The SPD states that the Hazlitt Place development is an example of sensitively developed backland development as a result of a low key access road and its successful relationship in terms of scale and materials to the surrounding development. The planning term backland development is used as one which describes one development located behind another. Planning decisions are not able to protect views from private property. The visual impact of the development is correctly stated.

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs D & C Creasey

Object

Section 8.2 page 21 paragraph 5 – “the 19th century Grove Cottage” – Grove Cottage was in existence in the 18th century, ref. the deeds of Boughton Mount in the Centre for Kentish Studies.

Section 8.4 page 35 paragraph 3 – “The substantial Pickering House no longer remains” – Where was this? I have been interested in local history for years and never heard of it! Please let me have any reference you have found for it.

Page 35 paragraph 8 “Grade II Listed 1 and 2 Peartree Cottages…this 15th century building” – The Royal Commission of Historic Monuments of England gave these a date of 1380.

Page 36 paragraph 1 “The works site” – At present this is a factory site, destined for redevelopment as housing, but if you compare your map on page 39 with my enclosed map dated 1918 you can see that the factory buildings facing the road are actually remnants of Olive Farm. The oast has become Kiln Cottage, the curving wall shapes the road, the mature walnut tree gives pleasure to all of us. None of these features are mentioned in your survey! The farmhouse lies to the south of the farmyard. Originally called Olive House (Slade House since the 1950s) it was built around 1840 from local Ragstone and has impressive old conifers at the front. There is no mention of it in the survey. I enclose a picture. No mention either of the two great sweet-chestnut trees alongside the footpath opposite the factory. The footpath follows the alignment of an outlying linear earthwork associated with the Iron Age camp in Quarry Wood. These things tell the story of Pickering Street, which is just as important as its visual appearance. It is an ancient lane, at least as old as Peartree Cottages, and probably older, as it serviced the quarries in the valley which date from Roman times.

Page 36 paragraph 3 (Northleigh Close) “a communal garage block in a poor state of repair” – These garages belong to the first phase of 1960s housing, which had no adjacent garages. We live in one of these houses in Pickering Street itself. We rely on off-road parking in this narrow lane because of lorry traffic to the factory, and in the future extra traffic from the new houses to be built opposite.

Amend reference to Grove Cottage

The listing details 1 & 2 Peartree Cottages describe the cottages as ‘C15 with C17 and C18 alterations’ and this information is included in the Assessment.

Additional history and character of Pickering Lane and the works site would be informative within the SPD.

The chestnut trees are captured on the Walnut Tree Lane Townscape Analysis Map as part of a tree screen.

The SPD refers to the garage court in Northleigh Close as an area of opportunity for future development and visual improvement but the document makes it clear that this is subject to the impact on car parking provision.

Page 21: Amend to:

Several spacious detached houses in large plots are set back behind verdant frontages including the 18th century Grove Cottage.

Page 35: Add:

8.4 Pickering Street

Character Area

This area comprises Norrington Road, Leigh Avenue, Halstow Close, Eddington Close, Pickering Street (north),

Northleigh Close and Braddick Close.

Pickering Street is aligned along an ancient lane which serviced quarries in the valley.

With the exception of some properties in Pickering Street, much of the development in this area dates from the late 1960s and 1970s.

Page 36:Amend to:

Parts of the works site to the south which face the road represent remnants of Olive Farm. The oast has become Kiln Cottage, and the curving red brick and then ragstone wall with pillars shape the road. The ragstone farm house, Slade House (originally called Olive House) was built around the late 1830’s to early 1840’s and is located to the south of the works.

Miss Debbie Salmon

Kent Wildlife Trust

Support

The area includes allotments often rich in reptile and invertebrate life and a number of parks, school grounds; a reservoir and open space 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.

Miss Debbie Salmon

Kent Wildlife Trust

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Miss Debbie Salmon

Kent Wildlife Trust

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. 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.

Miss Debbie Salmon

Kent Wildlife Trust

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Miss Debbie Salmon

Kent Wildlife Trust

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Miss Debbie Salmon

Kent Wildlife Trust

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Miss Debbie Salmon

Kent Wildlife Trust

Support

Consideration should be given to biodiversity maintenance, enhancement and permeability. The Trust welcomes the retention of the hedges, trees and tree lines and the aim to retain the rural nature of this area. There are more opportunities for wildlife that can be worked in to the design of new development which will attract wildlife into the built environment increasing species range and providing the opportunity for the population to experience biodiversity on their own doorsteps. The Trust would suggest that enhancement of open spaces by providing natural corridors or stepping stones wild flower rich verges and enhancement of green space and gardens be incorporated into the design 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 LOOSE ROAD CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

8.1 playing fields ,Loose primary School

8.2 St Georges playing field, Copper Tree Court green space

8.3 Wooded area to South Payne Rd

8.4 Protected Woodland

8.5 Loose Infants School

8.8 Rushmead Drive Residential Home

8.13 Reservoir and allotments

8.15 Open space and Wide Grass verges

8.19 South Park

8.21 Open Space

OFF SITE MITIGATION AND LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENT

The Trust would feel that for the developer to fulfil their duty under PPS9, in mitigation for any habitat lost by intensification of development in the urban area and to ensure that the spatial planning model encapsulated within the Draft South East Plan MRM5, developers should be required to fund off site biodiversity enhancement within the more rural areas.

The Trust would respectfully suggest that Loose Valley LWS be enhanced to increase the condition of the habitats contained within it and increase its value to the many rare and protected species it contains. This valley is extremely valuable containing habitats of ancient woodland with 52 ancient woodland indicators being present, chalk grassland and network of mill ponds. Management to the mill ponds is labour intensive and funding would be very welcome for this habitat, the management of the ancient woodland and possibly to commence a grazing project within the chalk grassland habitats. The Valley contains 7 of the 18 British species of bat and a colony of badgers. Habitats may also support reptiles and invertebrate species.

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.

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.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Object

The area indicated fails to include Oldborough Manor School (now known as NLL) which is currently subject to significant development and therefore is an influential factor on the Loose Road and its infrastructure.

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.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Support

Noted

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Support

The map is labelled London Road, but shows Loose Road.

Correct the title of Map 2

Page 11:

Amend title of map to Loose Road Area Character Areas

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Support

A red telephone box not letter box stands on Loose Green.

8.6 Waldron Drive:

As far as we are aware we have an original garage, so it is untrue to say that car ports have been replaced by garages.

Bray Gardens has become Gray Gardens.

There is an error in referring to a letter box at Loose which should be corrected.

The reference to car ports should be amended.

The reference to Gray Gardens should be amended

Page 13:

Delete letter and substitute telephone

Page 48:

Amend ‘On several properties the original car ports have been replaced by garages’ to:

There is a mix of car ports and garages.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Object

Negative Features - Don't agree that fences are detracting in Waldron Drive and Bray Gardens. Contrary to the impression given in the document the majority of parking on pavements occurs with householders visitors and tradesmen, wishing not to create an obstruction to the flow of traffic.

The document envisages potential for development which cannot realistically exist if the spirit of the SPD document is to be upheld. It also seems to have unrealistic expectations of enhancements that might be made in the area without outlining how these can be achieved within the current environment.

Both Waldron Drive and Valley Drive (area 8.7) have no street lighting yet this is not remarked upon. To some this may be regarded as a positive feature given the SPD's enthusiasm for retaining a rural feel to this area of Maidstone. However others would see this as a negative point on the grounds of safety.

The visual impact of the fences is correctly stated. It is appreciated that defined boundaries are important to create defensible space around a building but there are other ways of achieving this which are more characteristic of the area such hedges and walls.

Parking on frontages and pavements has a negative impact on the character of the area even if caused by residents and tradesmen and is correctly stated.

The SPD accepts that areas such as the Waldron Drive character area are likely to remain largely unchanged over time but there may be opportunities for new development. If development were to come forward, the SPD gives appropriate guidance. The document acknowledges the possibility of residential extensions in such areas and cross-references the appropriate SPD. If development does not come forward it is accepted that there are limited opportunities for enhancement.

In relation to the Waldron Drive and Valley Drive character areas, the absence of street lights is noteworthy in relation to the character of the area. Whilst this is mentioned in relation to Valley Drive, reference should also be added to Waldron Drive.

Page 48:

Amend to:

Cars are parked on the pavements, drives and some paved frontages. There are no street lights. Attractive ornamental trees enhance the townscape.

Mr & Mrs Peter and Anne Rigby

Observations

The preparation of the SPD document is a worthy exercise and the consultation of interested parties and involvement of the local community must be applauded. However, the entire exercise and its credibility risks being undermined if the Council continues to cite national government policy and its dictates as a reason to override or overrule the considered opinions of the local community and their representatives.

The Borough Council has an opportunity to adopt this document and the responses to it as a blueprint for its planning policy in this area. To fail to do so risks exposing the exercise as another example of a local authority paying lip service to a consultation process which it then finds excuses to ignore at the expense of much public time and money.

Previous planning decisions within this area were made in the absence of the SPD. Future decisions should be influenced by the document. Development Control staff have participated in the production of the SPD and a training event is proposed with them to launch the adopted document. Local residents will also be able to draw the Council’s attention to relevant sections of the document as part of its scrutiny of planning applications.

No changes required to the Assessment.

Mr Robin Smith

Object

8.7 Valley Drive:

Townscape Analysis Map - The Southern Anti-coalescence Belt between the Valley Conservation Area and the properties nos. 54, 56, 39 and 41 should be indicated on the plan.

I would disagree with the suggestion of insisting on a limited palette of locally prominent materials. Good architecture should be able to accommodate modern materials and styles providing the overall scale and context is observed without it looking incongruous. It could, in fact, enhance the appearance and quality of a property.

As can be seen from the plan (and particularly when Anti-coalescence Belt is included) this area is fully developed and no future development could be absorbed without overriding the criteria set out in the assessment document. The comment regarding "areas of opportunity" is not applicable apart from minor extensions or like-for-like replacements.

The area should retain its character of being a low density transitional area linking the higher density developments of Bray Gardens and Waldron Drive with the Valley Conservation Area.

Generally the recommendations set out are laudible as long as they are implemented. I do, however, have concerns over recent applications for a development at the southern end of Valley Drive that were passed by your Planning Officers (but rejected by the Planning Committee) that would have fallen foul of all the suggested recommendations (out of scale, out of context, highly prominent from the Valley Conservation Area, removal of trees, lacking cohesion with the Conservation Area, and not respecting the quiet residential character).

Whilst appreciating that the document has a bias toward development I do feel that the current policy to identify and develop every spare scrap of land is detrimental to the area as a whole. Green corridors used to be encouraged by planners as being beneficial to both people and wildlife but the relentless tide to "urbanise" suburbia diametrically opposes this view.

One way that the landscape character could be reinforced would be to have trees within the footpaths of Valley Drive. It would prove apposite that such a tree lined drive towards the Valley would be appropriate for the epithet "Valley Drive".

The Anti-coalescence Belt is a designation in the Local Plan and the policy has been saved until superseded in forthcoming DPDs. The decision on whether to include the designation within the SPD and the Townscape Analysis Map depends on whether it affects the aims of the document and contributes to the purpose of the map respectively.

In relation to the current (and any future) Character Area SPDs, the areas covered are within the built up parts of the Borough. Thus, all aims relate to the locally distinctive features of the defined built up area. However, there is clearly an inter-relationship between the built up area and the surrounding countryside and this is noted in the Character Area Assessments.

In relation to the content of the Townscape Analysis Maps, the purpose is to record the features within each character area (and to note the relationship with the surrounding countryside).

As a result of the important interrelationship between the built up area and the countryside it is recommended that the Anti-coalescence Belt designation relating to the surrounding countryside is shown on the Townscape Analysis Maps.

The aim of the SPD is to set the overall context for any new development and the text stresses the importance in this character area of scale and materials. The Borough Council is keen to enhance local distinctiveness and these two aspects have an important role to play in this respect.

The SPD cannot prevent development as a matter of principle, rather the aim is to provide design guidance on the appropriateness of, and potential for, types of development within an area and to help in the assessment of future proposals. Green infrastructure and the surrounding countryside are identified in the SPD as important features to protect and enhance. In relation to Valley Drive, the document anticipates that the area is likely to remain largely unchanged. It also anticipates the potential for applications for residential extensions in criterion (e) by cross-referencing the Council’s Residential Extensions SPD.

No other respondents have suggested the inclusion of street trees as an enhancement to Valley Drive and most residents have retained open frontages to their gardens. Whilst trees may give a greater sense of enclosure to this street, the character of the area is currently open with long views. The suggestion, for which there has been no strong local support, would change the character of the area.

Previous planning decisions within this area were made in the absence of the SPD. Future decisions should be influenced by the document. Development Control staff have participated in the production of the SPD and a training event is proposed with them to launch the adopted document. Local residents will also be able to draw the Council’s attention to relevant sections of the document as part of its scrutiny of planning applications.

Add the Anti-coalescence Belt designation to the

Townscape Analysis Maps for the Loose Road Character Area Assessment.