Consultation Statement February 2017 - Gravesham · Gravesham Rural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) – Consultation Statement

Gravesham Rural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management Plan

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Consultation Statement February 2017

Gravesham Rural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management

Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Consultation Statement

February 2017

Gravesham Rural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management Plan Supplementary

Planning Documents (SPD) – Consultation Statement February 2017

Introduction

This statement is the ‘Consultation Statement’ for the Gravesham Rural Conservation Areas

Appraisals and Management Plan SPD as required by the Town and Country Planning (Local

Planning ) (England) Regulations 2012. This statement sets out how the public and other

stakeholders were consulted upon the SPD. The consultation statement issued alongside

the draft SPD for consultation in March 2016 has now been updated to reflect the 2016

consultation and to accompany the adopted SPD.

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

The SCI was adopted in 2017and reflects the 2012 Regulations. It specifies measures that the Council will undertake in consulting upon draft SPDs and these have been reflected in the consultation process for the Gravesham Rural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management Plan SPD. As per the SCI, the Council has involved key stakeholders in the preparation of this draft SPD for consultation (as set out in the SPD). Consultation

Public consultation on the draft Rural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management Plan

was held for six weeks between 21st September–30th October 2015. During this consultation

period, a public meeting with exhibition was held on 29th September 2015 with the

exhibition being on display in the Civic Centre throughout the consultation period.

Information on the public consultation and public meeting was available via the following:

On the council’s web site together with all draft documents

Civic Centre - Exhibition of consultation information in Civic Centre foyer along with

copies of draft documents and paper copies of questionnaires throughout

consultation period

‘Your Borough’, article on public consultation and public meeting contained in the

council’s newsletter , available online and hard copy delivered to every household in

the borough during consultation period

iNovem, the council’s consultation portal - Email sent to 1400 individuals and

organisations and statutory bodies registered on iNovem inviting them to participate

in the consultation and informing them of the exhibition via the link to the council’s

website

Parish Councils - link and relevant consultation documents on websites of Cobham,

Higham, Luddesdown, Meopham, Shorne and Vigo Parish Councils

Exhibition and meeting – Old Town Hall, Gravesend 29th September 6pm – 9pm

public meeting with presentation followed by discussion

Gravesham Borough Council e-Newsletter – with information on consultation sent

to 620 residents.

Libraries – information on consultation, copies of documents and paper copies of

questionnaires available in Gravesend Central, Higham, Meopham, Riverview Park

and Vigo libraries.

Councillors - email sent to all Gravesham Borough Councillors

Facebook – invitation to participate in consultation sent out ahead of consultation

start date of 21 September

Twitter – regular tweets sent out during consultation period

Thirty six consultees submitted 122 comments to this consultation. The draft SPD

documents were modified as a result of comments received. A full schedule of comments

received to this consultation and the council’s response is set out in Table 1.

A Consultation Statement was prepared in accordance with Regulation 12(a) and, together

with the modified SPD was made available for representations between 21 March-17 April

2016 in accordance with Regulation 35.

The documents were made available:-

At the Civic Centre and on the council’s web site

Parish Councils - link and relevant consultation documents on websites of Cobham,

Higham, Luddesdown, Meopham, Shorne and Vigo Parish Councils

Libraries – information on consultation and copies of documents available in

Gravesend Central, Higham, Meopham, Riverview Park and Vigo libraries

Information about the documents’ availability was given via

Your Borough, the council’s newsletter with article on consultation, online and hard

copy delivered to every household in the borough during consultation period

iNovem, the council’s consultation portal - email sent to 1400 individuals and

organisations and statutory bodies registered on iNovem

Councillors - email sent to all Gravesham Borough Council councillors

.

Thirteen consultees submitted 30 representations on the draft SPD, suggesting only

relatively minor amendments and additional information to be referenced. Many of the

requested changes have been taken forward in the adopted SPD.

A full schedule of representations made and the council’s response is set out in Table 2

The SPD overall has been updated to reflect that it is no longer draft and that the

consultation has been undertaken.

No. Name Conservation

Area

Comment Response

1 NWKCP (Mark Pritchard) All These are good documents having taken into account the topographic, historic and landscape

character features of each area and moreover made reference to the Kent Downs AONB design

statement which give excellent example of what 'good' design looks like in this area. Noted - No Further Action (NFA)

2 Horace Sutherland All All agricultural land must be preserved for growing food. not concrete. with out land we cannot

proved home grown food and must import at a higher cost Noted - NFA

3 Horace Sutherland All As stated the protection of food growing land Noted - NFA

4 Horace Sutherland All Only the protection of food growing land Noted - NFA

5 Horace Sutherland All Any empty land within towns must be considered first Noted - NFA

6 Peter Wilson All It would be hypocritical of me to object to any of the appraisals and proposals as I live in an area

that when I was a kid during the war was all open fields as far as the A2. The country needs houses

now as it did then and sympathetic development is essential if the needs of the population are to be

met.Noted - NFA

7 Shorne Parish Council All Welcomes the Conservation Area Appraisal and suggests a summary of the effect of conservation

area status in protecting buildings and trees with a reminder of the need to obtain listed building

consent. A general explanation of the effect of Article 4 Directions may also be usefulNoted - reference to be made to information available in final

DTP version

8 Shorne Parish Council All Very much welcomes the preparation of a schedule of Locally Listed Buildings ona parish by parish

basis not necessarily restricted to just those in conservation areas. Noted - NFA

9 Shorne Parish Council All Page 5 Policy out of date. Noted - text to be revised

9 Gravesham Borough

Council

All Page 5 Policy out of date.Noted - text to be revised

10 Kent County Council

Heritage Conservation

All Please notify Historic Environment Record of all conservation area amendmentsNoted - on completion of the review all rural conservation area

maps to be forwarded to the KCC HER team.

Gravesham Borough Council

Rural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management PlanPublic consultation 21 September - 30 October 2015Schedule of comments received with the council's response

Page 1 of 14



All I would also suggest that in conformity with the guidance issues by Historic England

(“Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management”) section

2.1.5, a map of the Historic Environment Record (HER) entries and Areas of Archaeological

Potential should be included in the CA appraisal document. Kent County Council can provide the

HER information on request though it should be noted that this would only be a snapshot as HER

information is added continually. At the very least the document should identify the HER as a

resource for historic environment information and contain a pointer to the online database

(www.kent.gov.uk/HER).

Noted - reference to www.kent.gov.uk/HER to be referenced as

a minimum in the final DTP version

12 Susan Lindley Chestnut Green Agree with extension of Chestnut Green to include Shorne Common Rough.Noted - NFA

13 Susan Lindley Chestnut Green The Borough Council should take a stronger lead on the planning for translating the suggestions

into physical action. It is realised that funding is restricted and may have to come from many

sources, if achievable. The site-specific actions should be worded more strongly, as

recommendations.

Noted - NFA

14 Susan Lindley Chestnut Green These have obviously taken a huge amount of detailed research and the author(s) should be

thanked for their hard work. It would be nice if the authors could be listed somewhere. The maps,

e.g. of water sources, are very interesting and overall the documents will be very useful for future

planning purposes.

Noted - NFA

15 Shorne Parish Council Chestnut Green The Parish Council as land owner has no objection in principle to the extension of the Conservation

Area boundary to include Shorne Common Rough. Noted - NFA

16 Shorne Parish Council Chestnut Green Paragraph 9.6 refers. Welcomes the opportunity to investigate further the introduction of traffic

calming in Shorne Ridgeway. Would stress that it would be opposed to the introduction of "Tables",

"Cushions" and the like on the Ridgeway. Would like to investigate the extension of the footway on

the south side of the Ridgeway further to the east.

Noted - NFA



Chestnut Green Suggest an issue added to Section 9 - The Conservation Area has archaeological potential relating

to the prehistoric period, medieval and post-medieval periods. There is potential for further

archaeological remains to be discovered within the Conservation Area and in the event of

development proposals being submitted appropriate archaeological mitigation may be needed.Noted - text to be added to Section 9

18 Graham Simpkin Planning Church Street

Higham

Giles Dairy Farm is a working farm. Recently replacement buildings permitted. At Para 9.4,

reference should be made to working farm. Noted - amend text accordingly


Higham

At paragraph 9.7 relating to Character Area 6, the area of common land is gradually being brought

back into use as grazing land. Noted - amend text accordingly


Higham

In figure 9, the "L" shaped building within Giles Dairy Farm is a modern building on the site of a

historic farm building. It is therefore unclear what positive contribution this makes to the

Conservation Area.Noted - amend text accordingly



Church Street

Higham

Suggest an issue be added to section 9 - The Conservation Area contains known archaeological

sites relating to a Roman cemetery, early medieval pit and the medieval priory, church and village

buildings. There is potential for further archaeological remains to be discovered within the

Conservation Area and in the event of development proposals being submitted appropriate

archaeological mitigation may be needed.

Noted - amend text accordingly

Page 2 of 14

22 John Johnson Cobham Fully supportive Noted - No Further Action (NFA)

23 National Trust (Andrew

Shaw)

Cobham Support for, but would like to see details of the traffic calming / enhancements opposite Owletts

National Trust property, to ensure setting of the building is enhancedAny future traffic calming or enhancement schemes will be

publicised and consulted on - NFA

24 A Nailer Cobham There does not appear to be much consideration of the Halfpence Lane/The Street junction,

particularly the setting of the war memorial - unique to the village and designed by one of its most

influential residents. Recently there has been an increase in street furniture (for want of a better

description) on the grass triangle which risks cluttering the area, detracting from the setting of the

memorial and reducing the impact and perception of the vista along the Lime Avenue to Cobham

Hall. Surfaces are discussed but street furniture in general does not really seem to be considered -

it may not currently be an issue in this conservation area but that does not mean that it will not have

a negative impact in the future. I was surprised that the long view of the village from the south (Batts

Road) is not mentioned. I had also expected to see some mention of the impact of horsiculture (and

the buildings and vehicles associated with it), in the Cobhambury area.

Noted - referred to on page 43 and amend text on page 16

accordingly

25 A Nailer Cobham I'm not sure that a case is made for the continued inclusion of the southern part of the field south of

Rookery Farm (or rather the property called Burleigh) in the conservation area.Noted - The field is historically associated with the immediate

field boundary of Rookery Farm and follows the approach

adopted for the north side fo the village - NFA



Cobham Suggest an Issue be added to Section 9 - The Conservation Area has archaeological potential

relating to the prehistoric period, medieval and post-medieval periods. There is potential for further

archaeological remains to be discovered within the Conservation Area and in the event of


27 Gravesham Rights of Way

Committee (Patricia

Luxford)

Harvel The quality of the area has been damaged by the building of a huge modern house just outside the

"boundary" Noted - NFA


Committee (Patricia

Luxford)

Harvel The immediate approaches to the village are also important

Noted - NFA


Committee (Patricia

Luxford)

Harvel The area of the riding school to stop any further development (there are now two houses which

have been given planning permission relating to this incursion on the village area) Noted - NFA


Committee (Patricia

Luxford)

Harvel The pub has been a very good "centre" for the village and does not need "prettying up"

Noted - NFA

31 Joanne Latimer Harvel Whilst agreeing that the street frontage of the pub would benefit from some planting this must be

maintained so as not to obscure access in and out of the car park and the view to passing motorists

where there is already a bend in the road and the potential for traffic to be joining from the road

opposite

Noted - NFA

Page 3 of 14



Harvel Suggest an Issue be added to Section 9. The Conservation Area has archaeological potential

relating to the late medieval farmsteads of Crickfield Farm and Old Pond Farm. There is potential

for further archaeological remains to be discovered within the Conservation Area and in the event of


33 PDPDesign (Patrick

Parnell)

Lower Higham Although previously considered I feel more of the canal should be included. As stated in 9.2 the thin

canal area to the south adjacent to the existing south western boundary should be included. I also

feel the section north westward of the existing area should be reconsidered up to and including the

Obelisk. There is a significant area of canal bank throughout this length which with some planning

and effort could become a very attractive pedestrian walk area. This area is currently being

considered by Network Rail to ascertain what areas they own and permissions for improvement by

the Thames and Medway Canal Association.

The appraisal has considered and included a section of the

canal that responds to the existing conservation area boundary

- NFA


Parnell)

Lower Higham The canal route to the Obelisk as the canal was a major influence in the shaping of this area.Noted - No Further Action (NFA)


Parnell)

Lower Higham If not regulated somehow the volume of traffic will increase substantially when the re-development

of the Nuraltie buildings has been completed. As has been proved on many occasions Canal Road

is inadequate now to cope with heavy plant and has become a major problem. To concede any

change to the Canal and Towpath is against the TMCA aims, however if Canal Road were

considerably widened whilst maintaining and restoring the canal bed and a small cycleway/towpath I

feel that these gains to the Canal would offset the new road development. Whatever happens traffic

lights are required at the narrow section at the south eastern end of Canal Road adjacent to

'Verona'.

Acknowledged in the management plan as requiring an

appropriate traffic management scheme - NFA

36 Katy Hanks Lower Higham I would say that what constitutes Lower Higham extends beyond the boundary of the Conservation

Area and extends to include the houses on School Lane, Lake Drive and the Adelaide and leading

out of the village on the road towards Chalk. Page 3 of the Appraisal does not make this particularly

clear and seems to suggest that lower Higham is only that part of the village that is included within

the conservation area.

The reference is to the historic settlement rather than its

modern extension. The Statement of Special Interest will be

edited to clarify this.

37 Katy Hanks Lower Higham The Nuralite plant is not the only cause of large lorries - we also see a large amount of traffic from

RS Skips along the lower Higham road. Noted - amend text accordingly

38 Katy Hanks Lower Higham On page 11 it states that the Railway Tavern remains as a pub, but very sadly this was closed last

year and now stands empty with no clear plans as to its future. As a result, there is currently no

access to what was the car park for the pub, so page 17 needs to be updated.Noted - amend text accordingly

39 Katy Hanks Lower Higham I think consideration should be given to extending it further - there are other older buildings nearby,

e.g. Higham Hall and the related buildings, which don't appear to be covered by the Conservation

Area, also the older house with sloping gardens that is on School Lane just up from the station.Noted - The historic core of Lower Higham forms a distinct

area, separated by modern development. NFA

Page 4 of 14

40 Katy Hanks Lower Higham I'm not sure that the plans for the Railway Tavern are adequately assessed in light of it having

closed as a public house.Noted - Consent granted for conversion to residential - amend

text accordingly



Lower Higham Suggest adding an Issue to Section 9. The Conservation Area has archaeological potential relating

to the Thames and Medway Canal. There is potential for further archaeological remains to be

discovered within the Conservation Area and in the event of development proposals being

submitted appropriate archaeological mitigation may be needed.

Noted - text to be added to Section 9

42 Sava Medonos Meopham The Conservation Area should be extended to also include Culverstone Green.Noted - but the response does not explain why - NFA

43 Sava Medonos Meopham No further housing or industrial developments are needed or required in the Conservation Area and

any such attempts must be stopped.

Noted - the objectives of preserving or enhancing the special

character and appearance of the conservation area must be

assessed through the planning process - NFA44 Dawn Bramer Meopham

Green

Description of the former boot and clothing stores building/Wellington Hotel/bakery/art gallery needs

amending-now residential and financial services outlet(pg19), The Windmill cafe is now a cake

baking/decoration outlet

Pitfield Green is commonly known as Meopham Green with the small green opposite(with toilets) as

Pitfield Green

pg 20 South once more from the Victorian Terrace....entry now leads to a residential development

Pg 22 should Potfield Lodge be Pitfield Lodge?

Barnside is a cattery and the shop at the front a water softening company.

Pg 15 Across the road is an attractive milestone........I could not locate this

Pg 20 As the road curves...with a few white posts......The posts are not white


45 Dawn Bramer Meopham

Green

The Baptist Chapel could be considered as a locally listed building Noted - this to form a part of a future project on local listing,

subject to resources being available - NFA

46 Simon Westmacott Meopham

Green

There is reference at paragraph 9.6 to possible "traffic calming" measures at the south west corner

of the Green. I live on the Green and would be vigorously OPPOSED to any such measures. The

traffic at that pinch point is slow enough already, the A227 is extremely busy at times and any such

hindrance to traffic flow would be a disaster, causing delays of up to several minutes. Added to

which such measures add to noise and pollution as traffic is forced to stop, possibly queue and re-

start. As a pedestrian, I occasionally walk along that stretch of road and have no difficulty in

crossing as necessary.




Meopham

Green

Suggest adding an Issue to Section 9. The Conservation Area has archaeological potential relating

to the windmill and any earlier structures, to three historic farmsteads and the use of the Green

during the Second World War as a barrage balloon site. There is potential for further archaeological

remains to be discovered within the Conservation Area and in the event of development proposals

being submitted appropriate archaeological mitigation may be needed.


48 Julia Burgoyne Meopham Hook

Green

Page 24 Negative Features. Should be added:

The rough stone car park at the front of Waterditch detracts from and damages the overall setting of

the house and grounds.Noted - amend text accordingly

Page 5 of 14


Green

Page 25

9.7 Enhancement Potential

The rough stone car park at the front of Waterditch should be removed and replaced with

something more appropriate for an attractive historic building.



Green

Page 14 6.1 Building Types.

The 19th century 'serviced' building next to Victorian Nevill House HAS been modernised (to a high

standard).This is identified as being unmodernsed. Noted - amend text accordingly

51 Stuart Poulton Meopham Hook

Green

I believe it should extend further West to include more properties in Melliker Lane, probably up to

Longfield Road. Also Norwood Lane to the East has properties of character that need preserving. The conservation area boundary includes those buildings of

character associated with Hook Green - NFA

52 Sally and Andrew Morgan Meopham Hook

Green

Should be extended to include the field behind Melliker Lane which extends to New Road and is a

valuable green space.Not within the scope of conservation area designation no

explanation given of architectural or historic interest - NFA

53 Laura Vines Meopham Hook

Green

I do not agree with 9.6:Highways and Traffic - there are no highway and traffic issues in the

conservation area.

I believe the level of traffic passing through this area has increased considerably over the past few

years, with an increase in large HGV's travelling between the M20 and A2 respectively and would

like to see traffic calming measures installed or width restrictions in place to deter large industrial

vehicles from travelling and consequentially speeding through the village.


54 Laura Vines Meopham Hook

Green

The document accompanying this consultation is too long and drawn out. In future it would be good

to be provided with a 'summary' of proposals. Noted - No Further Action (NFA)

55 Paul Hancock Meopham Hook

Green

In the case of Hook Green, a reduction in the Conservation area would allow growth without

affecting significantly the amenity provided by the Green and its immediate surroundings.Noted - Not clearly defined. Contradicts the purpose of

conservation area designation - NFA

56 Valero Energy Corporation

Inc. (Gregory Pyemont)

Meopham Hook

Green

I think the area should be extended further towards Meopham Station to included several of the

larger Victorian houses as they provide much to the character, appeal etc of the village. To allow

major changes to these properties would be damaging to the area as a whole. I also feel that more

of Norwood lane (from Wrotham Road) should be included as there are also character properties

on this road not currently included in the area.

The area in question is too fragemented and compromised by

modern development. NFA



Meopham Hook

Green


to Pleistocene deposits, medieval buildings and late medieval farmsteads. There is potential for

further archaeological remains to be discovered and in the event of development proposals being

submitted appropriate archaeological mitigation may be needed.Noted - text to be added to Section 9

58 Max Bramer Meopham The

Street

Agree with the proposal to extend the boundary to include the Victorian walled garden at Meopham

Court-understand residents of Court are in favour of this and it is a unique feature currently partly

used as a vineyard.Noted - No Further Action (NFA)

59 Sue Bush Meopham The

Street

Not sure where the farm buildings and old vicarage are covered in Shipley hills lane.Noted - No Further Action (NFA)

Page 6 of 14

60 Sue Bush Meopham The

Street

This report needs to call out options for stopping traffic using the A227 through Meopham as a rat

run between the A2 and M20. Stopping sat nav's sending large lorries through the village and

informing the Kent Police force that it is not an acceptable option to divert traffic through the village

would be a good place to start. It will all be too late when there is an accident around the junction of

the Street and the A227and either the George or the Well House are irretrievably damaged.

Noted - Refer to management plan - NFA



Meopham The

Street


to the prehistoric, Roman, early medieval and medieval periods. There is potential for further

archaeological remains to be discovered and in the event of development proposals being

submitted appropriate archaeological mitigation may be needed.


62 Paul Hancock Queens Farm While Thong and Queens Farm have some interesting characteristics they are not unique. I wonder

if the benefit of development into a modern community should take precedence over the small cost

of significant removal of the existing communities.

Noted - contradicts the purpose of conservation area

designation - NFA

63 Susan Lindley Queens Farm Queens Farm - with increased traffic arising from Apex business park, and increased dwellings at

the Farm outbuildings conversion, there is now perhaps a need here as well for traffic calming to

protect residents/pedestrians.Noted - amend text accordingly

64 Susan Lindley Queens Farm The Borough Council should take a stronger lead on the planning for translating the suggestions



recommendations.

Noted - GBC seeks partnership funding opportunities were

possible - NFA

65 Susan Lindley Queens Farm These have obviously taken a huge amount of detailed research and the author(s) should be



planning purposes.Noted - NFA

66 Shorne Parish Council Queens Farm Would like to see more tree planting in the area and more effective screening of the modern

agricultural buildings to the west of the conservation area Noted - amend text accordingly

67 Shorne Parish Council Queens Farm With the conversion of the former farm buildings to residential some improvement to Queens Farm

Lane is desirable. Noted - amend text accordingly



Queens Farm Suggest adding an Issue to Section 9. The Conservation Area has archaeological potential relating

to the prehistoric, roman and Medieval periods. There is potential for further archaeological remains

to be discovered and in the event of development proposals being submitted appropriate





Queens Farm I agree that the management recommendations will preserve or/and enhance the special character

and appearance of the conservation areas Noted - NFA

70 Hilary Selby Shorne The 3 shops in Shorne now are Convenience Store, Hairdressers, Beauty Parlour also Lower

Shorne inc Green Farm Lane, Coutts Avenue, Burdett Avenue, should come under the rural

conservation area, as Lower Shorne, is the most rural part of Shorne and is where the majority of

wildlife lives and should have rural protection.

The review surveyed all areas of architecutral and historic

interest - NFA

Page 7 of 14

71 Hilary Selby Shorne It should include the whole of Shorne, including Lower Shorne as per above answer The review surveyed all areas of architecutral and historic

interest - NFA

72 Hilary Selby Shorne Lower Shorne, inc Green Farm Lane, Coutts Avenue and Burdett Avenue. Lower Shorne is the

most rural part of Shorne, and the marshes and Shorne Fort is of particular historic and

environmental interest and needs rural protection.

The review surveyed all areas of architecutral and historic

interest - NFA

73 Hilary Selby Shorne Shorne Village should be cut off from cut through traffic and become more pedestrianized. Too

many cars are now just cutting through from A2 to A226Acknowledged in the management plan as requiring an


74 Hilary Selby Shorne The whole of Shorne (not just the Green and Village, but Lower Shorne as well) needs to be

protected from cut through traffic, which is spoiling this little area. Too many heavy/large vehicles

are coming through the village and down Green Farm Lane.

Acknowledged in the management plan as requiring an


75 Susan Lindley Shorne The Borough Council should take a stronger lead on the planning for translating the suggestions



recommendations.

Agreed - Funding is an issue and GBC seeks partnership

funding opportunities were possible - NFA

76 Susan Lindley Shorne These have obviously taken a huge amount of detailed research and the author(s) should be



planning purposes.

Noted - NFA

77 Shorne Parish Council Shorne Request that the eastern boundary of the conservation area be reviewed with particular reference to

the wall between number 29 and 31 The Street. The wall is believed to be of historic interest

possible in connection with the former manor.

A study of the map regression suggests that the boundary wall

in question was partially altered to the south between 1923 and

1929. The northern section of the wqall inquestion forms the

eastern edge of the conservation area. NFA

78 Shorne Parish Council Shorne Reference to paragraph 9.6. The Parish Council is mindful that any restrictions on parking may

result in moving the vehicles to more vulnerable locations. Noted, amend text accordingly



Shorne Suggest adding an Issue to Section 9. The Conservation Area has archaeological potential relating

to the prehistoric, Roman and Medieval periods. There is potential for further archaeological

remains to be discovered and in the event of development proposals being submitted appropriate



80 Susan Lindley Thong The Borough Council should take a stronger lead on the planning for translating the suggestions



recommendations.

Noted - Funding is an issue and GBC seeks partnership

funding opportunities were possible - NFA

81 Susan Lindley Thong These have obviously taken a huge amount of detailed research and the author(s) should be



planning purposes.

Noted - NFA

82 R MAGUIRE Thong I think it could be enlarged by including the farm land between Thong and Riverview Park No explanation or justification given - NFA

Page 8 of 14

83 [Deleted] Roy Carlo Thong Whilst I agree that traffic calming measures and the introduction of pathways would be beneficial,

they would have to be done sympathetically and it is difficult to see how this could be achieved

without impinging on private land at the roadside of Thong Lane

Noted - Any traffic calming measure would form a part of

further public consultation - NFA

84 Martin Wilson Thong I'm only just on the verge of this area. It appears that it is unlikely to change much under the

recommendations which is fine. The only thing I would add is the need to keep Shorne Ifield road

clear of flytipped waste, or even better to catch and apprehend the culpritsNoted - KCC prosecutes fly tipping if evidence is found - NFA

85 Paul Hancock Thong While Thong and Queens Farm have some interesting characteristics they are not unique. I wonder

if the benefit of development into a modern community should take precedence over the small cost

of significant removal of the existing communities.Noted - NFA

86 Christoph Bull Thong Consider Thong Lodge for inclusion in the conservation area, the last of the Darnley Estate

entrance gates and close to Thong HamletNoted - Not possible to include due to remoteness from

conservation area and historical land association with the

conservation area. Consider for listing.

87 Christoph Bull The area of East Chalk should be seriously considered as a conservation area stretching from

Castle Lane eastwards to border with Shorne including Filborough Farm, Filborough Cottages,

Eastcourt Cottages, Eastcourt Manor, Church Lane, Sandpits in Lower Higham Road and

Deadman's Bottom.

The area in question is predominantly open farm land where

building of architectural and historic significance are protected

through listing. No architectural or historic justification given -

NFA

88 Christoph Bull The conservation areas in Gravesham are a vital part in protecting Green Belt and stopping urban

creep. Chalk and Thong especially important as they form the front line. Noted - NFA

89 Shorne Parish Council Thong Paragraph 9.7 refers. Welcomes the opportunity to investigate further the introduction of traffic

calming in Thong. Would stress that it would be opposed to the introduction of "Tables", "Cushions"

and the like on the Ridgeway. Would like to investigate the extension of the footway on the south

side of the Ridgeway further to the east.

Noted - NFA

90 Laura Hunter Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

(All) I agree with the issues and enhancement opportunities identified.

Noted - NFA

91 A Nailer Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

(Cobham) See previous comments re street furniture and the setting of the war memorial / Lime

AvenueNoted - amend text accordingly


Committee (Patricia

Luxford)

Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

(All) The character is also the people. Stop building huge houses and allow some cottages to be

includedNoted - NFA

93 Katy Hanks Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

(Lower Higham) I would be keen to see further development avoided, so that the area within the

conservation boundary is preserved as a hamlet. If, however, the appearance of parts of that hamlet

can be improved, sensitively, then I would be in favour of that. Noted - NFA

Page 9 of 14

94 Dawn Bramer Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

(Meopham) The small green with toilet block contains a small rose garden. In recent times this has

been poorly maintained by GBC meaning this year it was covered in weeds from March to

September giving a very poor impression and also meaning the roses were never seen in bloom.

The toilet block too could be better maintained-moss on roof etc

The small triangular green to the north of the main green is often used for parking despite the

restricting posts and sat navs appear to result in vehicles turning in to the access road when they

mean to access the road round the main green

The yellow salt/grit bin by the phone box is particularly garish and out of place-is a different colour

possible?.

Agree wholeheartedly with need for traffic calming and better pedestrian access at entry and exit to

the conservation area on A227

Noted - NFA

95 Simon Westmacott Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

(All) I don't recall any particular recommendations. The Article 4 appendix didn't seem to be

attached. Recommendations are included. List of Article 4 Directions is

available.

96 Laura Vines Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

(Meopham Hook Green) I believe the planting of shrubs around the car park of Bartellas would be

ascetically pleasing and enhance the areas natural beauty.Noted - NFA

97 Shorne Parish Council Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Chapter 2 requires reviewing in light of changes to regulations. Para 2.3 out of date. Local Plan

has interim approval until 2019 and Regional Plan withdrawn.Noted - amend text accordingly


Conservation

Management

Plan

Reference to paragraph 3.6 detailed guidance for replacement windows, doors, etc would be

welcomed by the Parish Council. Noted - NFA


Conservation

Management

Plan

With reference to paragraph 4.4 a list of those conservation areas subject to Article 4 Directions

would be useful. A list of Conservation Areas with Article 4 Directions is already

available - Amend text accordingly.


Conservation

Management

Plan

Would welcome the opportunity to discuss in more detail possible improvements to the

Conservation Areas in the parish.Noted - confirm with GBC



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Please notify Historic Environment Record of all conservation area amendments

Agreed - on completion of the review all rural conservation

area maps to be forwarded to the HER team.



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Regarding Action 2 It is also important for relevant GBC staff to have an understanding of how

archaeological remains and historic landscapes are managed during the development control

process. To help this, we would suggest an annual meeting between the KCC Heritage

Conservation team and GBC planning and conservation officers.

Noted - GBC & KCC to action

Page 10 of 14



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Regarding Action 3. The different policies and actions identified in the consultation document

depend very heavily on the Borough’s Conservation Officer. Conservation and other services are

under huge pressure in LPAs but it is important that there is sufficient capacity to provide

appropriate advice and influence policy.

Noted - Subject to resources - NFA



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Regarding Action 4. Although we generally support this action, it is important that developers

engaging in pre-application discussions with GBC are advised of the potential for their proposals to

impact on archaeological remains, whether inside or outside the Conservation Areas. The

Conservation Area boundary is not defined with archaeology in mind yet because Conservation

Areas tend to be historic in nature there is the potential for archaeological remains to exist both

within and beyond them. The Design and Access statement should also include an assessment of

this archaeological potential. A particular issue arises where new development may be under

consideration within a farmstead in a Conservation Area. KCC has also been working with English

Heritage (now Historic England) and the Kent Downs AONB to prepare guidance on how historic

farmsteads in Kent can be assessed for their suitability for new development or change of use. It is

intended that the guidance is adopted by local authorities as part of their Local Plan or as a

Supplementary Planning Document and we would encourage Gravesham Borough Council to do

so. We would be happy to discuss this further. Where such development is permitted it is important

that it is in keeping with the existing character in terms of size, layout, routeways, massing and

materials and that any archaeological remains associated with former phases of use are treated

appropriately in the development control process.

Noted - confirm with GBC



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Regarding Action 6. We support this action and would also ask that the KCC Conservation

Architect be consulted on all Conservation Area appraisals at an early stage.Noted - NFA



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Regarding Policy 1. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to “set out in their Local Plan a

positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment”. There is

considerable scope about how to do this but the most effective way may be to bring together all

policies and actions related to the historic environment into a Heritage Strategy. This allows the LPA

to review the heritage resource, consider the main historic environment themes of relevance to the

area and identify the heritage assets they comprise. The Strategy can also assess the main threats

to the historic environment of the Borough and suggest ways in which it can be enhanced and

exploited. Finally the Strategy provides an Action Plan and can be used to refine Policies to be

adopted by the Local Plan. The advantage of this approach is that it fully integrates all aspects of

historic environment policy. It prevents it from being developed piecemeal and in a fragmented

manner which can lead to the historic environment failing to play a full role in the life of the Borough.

Several LPAs in Kent either have a Heritage Strategy already or are in the process of developing

one and KCC Heritage Conservation (who wrote the Dover Heritage Strategy) would be happy to

discuss this further with Gravesham BC.

Noted - NFA



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Suggested wording for Policy 5. The Borough Council will continue to assess applications for Listed

Building Consent in line with Borough Council policy and guidance provided in the NPPF including

the preparation, where appropriate, of archaeological desk-based assessment and/or field

evaluation.

Noted - text to be revised for Policy 5

Page 11 of 14



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Regarding Policy 6. I support the establishment of a Local List as this will help the Borough Council

to conserve the historic character of the area more effectively that by just relying on the statutory

List. I also support the use of the community more widely in identifying and recording the heritage

assets that will be included on the List. The Historic Environment Record can be a key source of

candidate assets for this process and should also be a destination for information about assets

considered for the list. I would be happy to discuss how the KCC HER team can support this work.

I would suggest, however, that the List be expanded to include more than just historic buildings.

This is becoming increasingly common as it allows the LPA to include historic spaces, landscape or

urban features and archaeological sites on the List. It is thus often termed a ‘Local List of Heritage

Assets’. KCC has recently worked with the Kent Gardens Trust in Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks,

Medway and currently Dover to identify assets for inclusion on such lists. Volunteers from the Trust

have examined available archive material for a range of designed landscapes and urban green

spaces and assessed their heritage value against a range of criteria. For each a Statement of

Significance was produced which has been used by the LPAs to support their planning work. We

would be happy to discuss a similar project with Gravesham BC.

Noted - Supported subject to resources - NFA



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Regarding Policy 9 - Same comments as Policy 6

Noted - Supported subject to resources - NFA



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

4.4 The control of Scheduled Monuments and other archaeological features. Suggest the phrase

“pay for an archaeological watching brief” be replaced with “carry out archaeological investigation

and recording. This could include an archaeological watching brief or historic building recording.”

This is because it is not possible to insist that the developer pays – only that they ensure the work is

properly carried out and because there are more options than just a watching brief. Suggested

wording for Policy 10. The Borough Council will continue to monitor applications for development

which affect Scheduled Monuments or sites of archaeological potential extremely carefully, and

such applications may be refused if the significance of the site would be harmed by the proposals.

Noted - text to be revised for Policy 10



Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

I support the establishment of a Buildings at Risk register as this will be a useful tool in helping to

conserve key heritage assets in the Borough.Noted - No Further Action (NFA)

112 Historic England Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

2.1 bullet point 4: This should now read: “Planning permission is now required for the substantial

demolition of any unlisted building in a conservation area …”Noted - text to be revised

Page 12 of 14


Conservation

Management

Plan

2.3 The South East Plan and the Kent and Medway Structure Plan are no longer relevant planning

documents in this context and reference to them should now be removed. I would suggest the

Conservation Area Appraisals will be considered as part of the evidence base of the emerging

Local Plan, whilst the Management Plan may form a Supplementary Planning Document rather than

a Development Plan Document. Various Supplementary Planning Guidance Documents prepared

by the County Council may still be relevant documents, where they are recognised in the saved or

emerging Local Plan policies.

Noted - text to be revised

113 Gravesham Borough

Council

Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Chapter 2 requires reviewing in light of changes to regulations. Para 2.3 out of date. Local Plan

has interim approval until 2019 and Regional Plan withdrawn.Noted - text to be revised


Conservation

Management

Plan

Action 2. It would be helpful to update references to English Heritage to our new title ‘Historic

England’Noted - text to be revised


Conservation

Management

Plan

Action 5. It might be helpful to task the Heritage Champion with overseeing the implementation of

the Management Plan in order to ensure there is a focus to their role.Noted - text to be revised


Conservation

Management

Plan

Action 8. This seems a little indefinite. Is it now time to commit to establishing a Conservation Area

Advisory Committee? It would be helpful for the Action to identify the desirable composition of the

committee’s membership and how they will report to the Council or be consulted. For example a

four or six monthly meeting cycle to review major applications and or heritage at risk affecting the

district’s conservation areas with publicly available minutes may provide a basis for an influential

group without being overly time consuming. Membership may be made up of a mixed

representation of interested groups including amenity societies and special interest societies, as

well as representatives of landowners or local planning consultancies to provide a balanced

representation. Ideally the Heritage Champion would have a role as chair.



Conservation

Management

Plan

Action 17. Having prepared the appraisals it should now be clear what additional guidance is

required. We would recommend the action should now move forward to identify which documents

the Council will produce with a target date for these to be completed by. The Management Plan

should provide an opportunity for the Council to assess the costs of such projects and commit

resources to these where they are a priority.



Conservation

Management

Plan

4.1 The Policies appear to be sound and provide a suitably robust approach

Noted - NFA

Page 13 of 14


Conservation

Management

Plan

The conservation area specific policies are rather repetitive and this section might generally be

rationalised further to identify proposals that are identified for all areas and those that are specific to

individual conservation areas. Where proposals are identified for all areas it would also be helpful to

identify whether any areas are being given priority for action, possibly as a result of being identified

as most at risk due to decay or development pressure. The requirement for article 4 directions,

which have now been served, the preparation of a local list and the management of trees, are all

discussed earlier in the document and could be removed to rationalise this section to just include

the features specific to each area. This might as readily be tabulated to identify a. the issue, b. how

it is affecting the conservation area’s significance, c. a remedy that might be provided, and d. when

this is expected to take place and who will be responsible for providing it. In each case it isn’t clear

whether the discussion of uses and vitality should result in any action, it would be helpful to clarify

this.

Noted - NFA

120 Kent Wildlife Trust Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Recommend that Section 2 includes the need for any works to take into consideration the national

legislation on protected species, in particular in relation to bat roosts within buildings, trees and

hedgerows and the importance of undertaking works outside the sensitive seasons for both

breeding birds and bats.


121 Kent Wildlife Trust Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Recommend similar information inserted into section 4.2 and 4.4. Reference could be made to

Natural England standing advice.Noted - amend text accordingly

122 Natural England Rural

Conservation

Management

Plan

Suggest reference to landscape and habitat features referenced in setting of CA's Data available

on magic.govNoted - amend text accordingly

Page 14 of 14

Page 1 of 8

No. Name Conservation Area

Comment Response

1 Natural England (John Lister)

All In October 2015, we responded on your Rural CAA document as follows.Most of the matters covered in the documents lie beyond our remit, and we are not well placed to comment. I recognise the need to protect the setting of the CAs and wonder if some reference to landscape and habitat features in that setting may be helpful. Much of our data of things like BAP habitats (eg traditional orchards) is available on magic.gov.

On this basis we have not further comments

Noted - this was amended in the previous consulation

2 Environment Agency (Jennifer Wilson)

All Thank you for consulting us on the above.We have reviewed the above and have no concerns with the content.Kind regards

Noted - No Further Action

3 Southfleet Parish Council - J Harding - Clerk

(Northfleet Green)

Whilst Northfleet Green is not part of the consultation document, Southfleet Parish Council considers it should be included, as here has been a tremendous amount of building work that is not in keeping with this rural hamlet

Noted. Outside the scope of this exercise, but to be included in the next round of appraisals, subject to resources.

4 Bob Lane Chestnut Green 9.2 Conservation Area Boundary Review. I strongly agree with the inclusion of Shorne Common Rough.

You may wish to consider changing the name of this conservation area to better reflect the area it covers.

Noted. The conservation area name to remain, due to its familiarity.

5 Pauline Clifton Chestnut Green Consultation Document 20169.6 Highways and traffic. In spite of the 30mph speed limit and the installation of the interactive sign on The Ridgeway, much of the traffic is travelling past my house at between 40 and 50 mph. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to drive my car off the parking space in front of my house as nobody is prepared to give way.

Noted - NFA. Shorne PC commented previously (item 16 on previous consulation report): " Welcomes the opportunity to

investigate further the introduction of traffic calming in Shorne Ridgeway. Would stress that it would be opposed to the introduction of "Tables", "Cushions" and the like on the

Ridgeway. Would like to investigate the extension of the footway on the south side of the Ridgeway further to the east."

6 St. Mary the Virgin Church, Chalk, Kent - Barbara Millatt,

Chestnut Green Traffic using the Ridgeway as a 'rat run'. I think there should be a speed camera positioned to catch speeding cars along Shorne Ridgeway since the current 30 mph speed indicator board does not slow persistent offenders who ignore it.. Noted - See above

Gravesham Borough CouncilRural Conservation Areas Appraisals and Management PlanPublic consultation 21 March - 17 April 2016Schedule of representations with the council's response

Page 2 of 8

7 Lisa Hooper Chestnut Green With regards to section 9.6 regarding traffic management, I would like to demonstrate my support for traffic calming measures along The Ridgeway. I have written to my local councillors in the past month to highlight my concerns of the unacceptable level of speeding along the road. The road is treated like motorway, it's a rat run to the a2, and people do not drive at the 30mph limit nor do they treat it as a residential road. I have recently moved to The Ridgeway and have been mortified at the speed that people drive down the road, I did not expect this to be the case along a 30mph road nor in a conservation area. My 3 year old is terrified every time I open the front door to take her to the car, and covers her ears at the sound to cars roaring past. My 6 month old baby had been woken in the night at the sound of car engines as the speed past our house. It is affecting our daily life and it should not be happening, as we moved to a 30mph road, not a motorway. There are no paths along the road, which again add to the the dangerous nature of what is take place on our road. You take your life into your own hands if you dare to walk down the road you live on. Something needs to be done to deal with this problem. Cobham has been given adequate thought when it comes to this issue. Why not The Ridgeway? Traffic calming will protect the conservation area as it will encorage more responsible driving and ensure it is given the respect it deserves. We used to live in windmill hill, another conservation area and also another 30mph road. These problems would never have occurred along that road as it was not possible for cars to drive along there so quickly due to it being narrow. Which again suggests that traffic calming measure such as the ones in cobham would be effective at slowing down the traffic. Something must be done to ensure the ridgeway does not just become a speeders highway whilst residents and their homes suffer.

Noted - See above

8 Susan Lindley - Shorne Parish Council

Chestnut Green - Maps

Section 5.1.2 Extension to include Shorne Common Rough:

The parish Council is pleased that this is to happen but needs to point out that the plan in the document is incorrect as an error has crept into the OS basemap at some point after 1983. This was fully investigated in the Parish Council's response to the recent planning application number GR/2015/1031.

Historically, it would appear that at some time in the past Venesta might have encroached on the Common. In 1983 when the Darnley Trust sold the Common to the Parish Council, at the same time a small strip of land was sold to Venesta but that strip is still subject to "Subject to all existing common rights and all existing rights of way."

At this time we believe that the correct boundary of the Common and therefore the newly extended Conservation Area should be taken as being the western fence of Venesta which is a straight line with a curve to the east at the Woodlands Lane end reflecting the previous cart track.This annotated extract from the Parish Council's Deed Plan (e-mailed separately as can't be pasted into this response) shows in green what we believe should be the correct eastern boundary for the conservation area.

As can be seen, the boundary stated above is indicated on the base plan as being a recognisable boundary and the land east of the footpath is shown as linked to the main part of the common.

We will be pleased to discuss this further as needed.

Noted - Boundary to be adjusted to follow the western fence of Vanesta

Page 3 of 8


Chestnut Green - Management Plan

Chestnut Green Conservation Area – Section 5.1.6 Highways and traffic/parking:

Residents are experiencing problems due to parking obstructing sight lines, speeding and increasing numbers of business vehicles using the village as a through route. We suggest that as stated elsewhere (e.g. for Thong under section 5.11.6) a "comprehensive traffic calming scheme" is also needed here.

Noted - Highways & Traffic are under the remit of KCC. Text altered in Highways and Traffic/Parking, 5.1.6, Page 19 of the

Management Plan

10 Michael Donovan Church Street Higham

Map purporting to identify Higham Common. The above map shows this as being northwest of the railway, where the other maps identify it as being within the conservation area, to the southeast of the railway.

Noted - The Higham Common is bisected by the railway line, and only the part south of the railway line is included in the

conservation area. NFA 11 Michael Donovan Lower Higham Maps, and text on P11. I cannot recall there being a railway crossover at the London end of

Higham (and I've been involved in the railway for just short of fifty years!). An Ordnance Survey issue, no doubt. Contrary to the statement, the Railway Tavern is no longer open, and appears to be being converted into residential use.

Noted - Railway Tavern text revised after first consulation. NFA

12 Michael Donovan Meopham Green

para 9.6. A proper footpath along the road, and a pedestrian crossing, would help. Noted - Highways and Traffic are under the remit of KCC. Traffic measures and footway improvements are referred to.

NFA13 Susan Lindley - Shorne

Parish CouncilQueens Farm Management Plan

Queens Farm Conservation Area – Section 5.8.6: - see Appendix 1 of this document

Noted - Highways and Traffic are under the remit of KCC. Text revised in Highways and Traffic, 5.8 6, page 30 of the

Management Plan

14 Hilary Selby Shorne Methodist Chapel. The chapel was converted into a residence a few years ago.Noted - Text revised in Appendix 1, page 31 of the Shorne

Conservation Area Appraisal


Shorne Management Plan

Shorne Conservation Area – Section 5.9.6:

We disagree with the statement under section 5.9.6 that "vehicle speeds through the village are low" as our experience is that speeds through the village tend to be excessive when parked cars are not in place. A 20mph zone might be appropriate here. The parking problems due to the school and village hall block driveways and obstruct traffic and sightlines, and cause a lot of frustration to residents near these locations with the southern end of The Street and side roads additionally affected. Business traffic to Apex Business Park on Queens Farm Road is increasingly traveling through the village.We suggest that as stated elsewhere (e.g. for Thong under section 5.11.6) a "comprehensive traffic calming scheme" is also needed here.

Noted - Highways and Traffic are under the remit of KCC. Text revised in Highways and Traffic, 5.9.6, page 31 of the

Management Plan

Page 4 of 8


Thong Thong Lane Conservation Area:

No additional comments. Noted - NFA

17 Mr W.J.Elliott Thong Regarding Spatial Analysis 7.2 - see Appendix 2 of this document Any pre-planning application consultation advice on proposals for development within the conservation area and the green

belt are based on the information submitted. No design proposals were submitted with the pre-application inquiry and

therefore weight had to be given to the protection of green belt policy. On balance, based on the lack of information

submitted, the conclusion was therefore to retain the status quo.

18 Kent County Council Heritage Conservation

Rural Conservation Management Plan

GeneralWe were pleased to see that all the recommended changes that we made in our original consultation response in 2015 have been incorporated in the text. We support all of these amendments. We will, however, reiterate some of the additional points that we originally made below in the hope that they can be picked up after the process has completed. (See 19, 20 , 21, 22, and 23) Noted - NFA



Regarding Action 2 It is also important for relevant GBC staff to have an understanding of how archaeological remains and historic landscapes are managed during the development control process. To help this, we would suggest an annual meeting between the KCC Heritage Conservation team and GBC planning and conservation officers.

As previously stated in the first consulation - Noted - GBC & KCC to action



Regarding Action 4. Although we generally support this action, it is important that developers engaging in pre-application discussions with GBC are advised of the potential for their proposals to impact on archaeological remains, whether inside or outside the Conservation Areas. The Conservation Area boundary is not defined with archaeology in mind yet because Conservation Areas tend to be historic in nature there is the potential for archaeological remains to exist both within and beyond them. The Design and Access statement should also include an assessment of this archaeological potential. A particular issue arises where new development may be under consideration within a farmstead in a Conservation Area. KCC has also been working with English Heritage (now Historic England) and the Kent Downs AONB to prepare guidance on how historic farmsteads in Kent can be assessed for their suitability for new development or change of use. It is intended that the guidance is adopted by local authorities as part of their Local Plan or as a Supplementary Planning Document and we would encourage Gravesham Borough Council to do so. We would be happy to discuss this further. Where such development is permitted it is important that it is in keeping with the existing character in terms of size, layout, routeways, massing and materials and that any archaeological remains associated with former phases of use are treated appropriately in the development control process.

As previously stated in the first consulation - Noted - confirm with GBC

Page 5 of 8



Regarding Action 6. We support this action and would also ask that the KCC Conservation Architect be consulted on all Conservation Area appraisals at an early stage. Noted - NFA



Regarding Policy 1. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to “set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment”. There is considerable scope about how to do this but the most effective way may be to bring together all policies and actions related to the historic environment into a Heritage Strategy. This allows the LPA to review the heritage resource, consider the main historic environment themes of relevance to the area and identify the heritage assets they comprise. The Strategy can also assess the main threats to the historic environment of the Borough and suggest ways in which it can be enhanced and exploited. Finally the Strategy provides an Action Plan and can be used to refine Policies to be adopted by the Local Plan. The advantage of this approach is that it fully integrates all aspects of historic environment policy. It prevents it from being developed piecemeal and in a fragmented manner which can lead to the historic environment failing to play a full role in the life of the Borough.

Several LPAs in Kent either have a Heritage Strategy already or are in the process of developing one and KCC Heritage Conservation (who wrote the Dover Heritage Strategy) would be happy to discuss this further with Gravesham BC.

Noted - NFA



Regarding Policy 6. We support the establishment of a Local List as this will help the Borough Council to conserve the historic character of the area more effectively that by just relying on the statutory List. I also support the use of the community more widely in identifying and recording the heritage assets that will be included on the List. The Historic Environment Record can be a key source of candidate assets for this process and should also be a destination for information about assets considered for the list. I would be happy to discuss how the KCC HER team can support this work.

We would suggest, however, that the List be expanded to include more than just historic buildings. This is becoming increasingly common as it allows the LPA to include historic spaces, landscape or urban features and archaeological sites on the List. It is thus often termed a ‘Local List of Heritage Assets’. KCC has recently worked with the Kent Gardens Trust in Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks, Medway and currently Dover to identify assets for inclusion on such lists. Volunteers from the Trust have examined available archive material for a range of designed landscapes and urban green spaces and assessed their heritage value against a range of criteria. For each a Statement of Significance was produced which has been used by the LPAs to support their planning work. We would be happy to discuss a similar project with Gravesham BC.

As previously stated in the first consulation - Noted - Supported subject to resources - NFA

24 Gravesham Borough Council

All It should be noted under the Issues sections referred to in Highways and Traffic that these recommendations are within the remit of KCC and subject to their funding arrangements and further consultation with borough and parish councils.

Noted - text revised to make reference to KCC's remit in Highways and Traffic.

25 Historic England All Thank you for your email dated 18 March 2016 consulting us on your intention ofcarrying out a SEA/SA for the above plan.In light of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations2004, our view is that a SEA is not required in this instance.

Noted - NFA


Lower Higham CA Revised pages 13 due to new development withing the conservation area test revised on pages 13

Page 6 of 8


Management Plan

Management Plan: Generic Action by GBC Action 7 Assessment subject to availability of resources. text amended


Management Plan 5.8.3 Queens Farm CA 9.3

9.3 Consideration should be given to amending the Article 4 Direction to encompass all elevations of the farmhouse, as this building is readily experienced 'in the round' and has its earliest fabric to the side and rear elevations

With the recent residential conversion of the barn and associated agricultural buildings permitted developments rights have been removed for any further alterations and the Article 4 Direction is not solely relied on for these buildings.


All GBC actions will be subject to available resources Noted and amended in documents


Management Plan

Updated text to reflect existance of Articles 4's in most areas. Noted and amended in document

Page 7 of 8

No 17 - Mr W J Elliott Appendix 2 3: Comment – Gravesham Rural Conservation Area Appraisals – THONG HAMLET You state in your review our pair of prefabricated agricultural buildings (one built in the 1950’s the other in 1980’s at the south of the area, have negative features along with the modern open yard space. The yard is used for loading and unloading and on rare occasions overnight parking if the drivers hours are up or a breakdown occurs. Today 31 ton gross agricultural tractors and 44 ton artics are standard equipment, therefore it is crucial that no further road obstructions are put on our right of way especially as longer hauls and larger vehicles are to be used in the near future (Re Common Market rules) which will be out of my control. The authorities’ negative attitude towards our site forces us to continue its use. I have done my best to avoid confrontation with the authorities and Thong residents, which is why I asked Jane Scott of Hobbs Parker to seek the councils pre-application advice regarding the replacement of the isolated prefabricated agricultural buildings and the unwanted noise from the grain dryer with a small residential scheme including parking areas designed in keeping with the hamlet of Thong. This could have been more appropriate and safer for all concerned. Sadly the council concluded in their letter of 18th January 2016 Ref: PRE20150835 states whilst it is accepted that the level of detail provided in the submission is limited and a response is only requested at this stage on the principal of the proposal it is concluded that a residential scheme here would probably have to be treated as inappropriate development in the green belt for the reasons set out above. May I respectively remind the planning authority that I have already lost over the thousand green belt-green fields Defra registered acres in my name for what senior ministers and planning authorities call progress on over 70 projects on my tenanted farms. Today you can see Redrow grading the last 55 acres of New Barn Farm, Swanscombe of its green fields that were Defra registered in my name plus its trees and hedges that senior ministers and all in authority have called a Brown field site overnight. The owners are Nat Grid. On another site SOUTH of the A2 works is to start on 20 acres of green belt fields Defra registered in my name for the new Garden City NORTH of the A2. Owner Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd. We have also been notified by Highways England that a new network of roads regarding Bluewater which includes a new lane each side of the A2 which are again green belt-green fields Defra registered in my name. Owner Crown Estates (Oxshott). My family will be involved in Paramount if it goes ahead. I hope not as it will destroy their property and business which my grandfather started in 1897/8. Paramount has promised to rebuild the property on another site, which is now unlikely to happen owing to today’s inadequate planning laws that only support rich city quangos leaving individuals without local authorities help and support to replace their 5 acre site elsewhere.

No 13 - Susal Lindley, Shorne Parish Council Appendix 1 We disagree with statement under section 5.8.6 that there are no highway and traffic issues, the traffic passing through Queens Farm conservation area has increased considerably and conflicts with residents and recreational users of the road (access to the marshes and cycle route via Shornemead Crossing). We consider that some form of pedestrian/cycle protection and traffic calming, to reduce speeds, may also be appropriate there. Shorne Conservation Area – Section 5.9.6: We disagree with the statement under section 5.9.6 that "vehicle speeds through the village are low" as our experience is that speeds through the village tend to be excessive when parked cars are not in place. A 20mph zone might be appropriate here. The parking problems due to the school and village hall block driveways and obstruct traffic and sightlines, and cause a lot of frustration to residents near these locations with the southern end of The Street and side roads additionally affected. Business traffic to Apex Business Park on Queens Farm Road is increasingly traveling through the village. We suggest that as stated elsewhere (e.g. for Thong under section 5.11.6) a "comprehensive traffic calming scheme" is also needed here.