LOOSE VALLEY CONSERVATION AREA

              CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

                                         PRODUCED BY

Loose Valley Conservation Area  Partnership

                                     CONTENTS

Please note photos have been removed to improve download speed

                                                                                                                      Section      Page

Background to the LVCA Character Assessment …………………………….      1          1

Introduction to Loose Valley Conservation Area (LVCA)……………………       2          2

Development of Loose Valley ………………………………………………..      3          2

Character Assessment…………………………………………………………    4          2

         Water Features and The Mills………………………………………..….     4.1       2

         Mills, Ponds and Associated Waterworks………………………………      4.2       3

         Dip Wells and Wells…………………………………………………….     4.3       5

Character of Buildings………………………………………………...………      5          6

         Phasing of Building Development………………………………………        5.1       6

         Key Characteristics of Buildings………………………………………..       5.2       6

         Timber Framed Buildings……………………………………………….      5.3       7

         Brick Buildings………………………………………………………….     5.4       8

         Stone Buildings………………………………………………………….     5.5       8

         Policy Considerations……………………………………………………    5.6       9

         Table 1 Period Buildings Constructed in Timber……………………….        5.7       10

         Table 2 Brick Buildings…………………………………………………      5.8       12

         Table 3 Kentish Ragstone Buildings…………………………………….       5.9       14

Habitat: ponds, river, grassland, hedges, woodland and trees…………………       6          15

         Management……………………………………………………………..    6.1       15

         Trees & Hedgerows………………………….…………………………..   6.2       16

         River and Ponds………………………………………………………….   6.3       16

Public Rights of Way………………………………………………………….     7          17

         Footpaths and Bridleways……………………………………………….     7.1       17

         Roads and Lanes………………………………………………....………   8          17

         Traffic……………………………………………………………………   9          18         Parking…………………………………………………………………..    10        19  Signage and Street Furniture……………………………………………                                             11        19

         Streetlights………………………………………………………………     12        19

         Footways………………………………………………………………...   13        20

Special Features……………………………………………………………….    14        20

         What’s not There…………………………………………………………   15        22

Summary of Features to Preserve and Enhance…………………………….…                  23

Planning Control and Responsibilities of Property owners……………………                    24

Contacts………………………………………………………………………..               24

List of Maps……………………………………………………………………               25

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………..                25

List of Proposed Policies………………………………………………………                25

                                                                                                                                        Page

Map 1 Conservation Area Boundary ………………………………………….                 27

Map 2 Public Footpaths within the Conservation Area ……………………….                   28

Map 3 River Loose and associated Mill sites ………………………………….                 29

1. Background to the Character Assessment

The local planning authority (Maidstone Borough Council) has a duty imposed by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to:

More recent Government guidance on conservation areas can be found in PPG 15.

Under these powers Maidstone Borough Council has designated some 41 conservation areas that are considered to be of special architectural or historic interest. Each one has character or appearance of sufficient value for it to be preserved and/or enhanced. The Loose Valley Conservation Area was originally established in 1970 and extended by Maidstone Borough Council to become the Loose Valley Conservation Area (LVCA) on the 21/06/2000 (See Map 1)

The character of each conservation area derives not just from the age and style of individual buildings but also from the way groups of buildings and related works are arranged, the spaces between them, their historical significance in the development of the area and their use. Many other factors such as open spaces, landscaping, trees and important views all interact to form the overall character of an area.

No Character Assessment for the LVCA has ever been produced. In order to help counter threats to the area from insensitive developments, and enhance the area as an amenity for the many people living within walking distance of the area, local Parish Councils and amenity groups formed themselves into a partnership to help protect and enhance the area for the common good.

After discussion with officers and councillors from Maidstone Borough Council, the Loose Valley Conservation Area Management Partnership (LVCAMP) decided to produce this document to assist proper consideration of the LVCA in the review of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2003) which will guide future development until 2016.  The Borough wide local plan contains specific policies for the consideration of development affecting the historic environment and this character assessment will provide important reference for their implementation.

It is recognised that Conservation Area status does not mean that the area has to remain frozen in time. Change is often necessary to accommodate the demands of modern living. As our historic town and village centres are always likely to attract new development, the challenge is how to enhance, rather than detract from, their special, local character.

In order to make informed decisions about new development proposals that will affect the character of a conservation area, it is essential to have a clear understanding of what exactly makes the area special. The process of involving the community in identifying, describing and agreeing those features of a conservation area that constitute its essential character is important for subsequent ownership. The result of the process should be a Character Assessment that can be used by all participants in the planning process to protect and enhance the area together.

The main aims of this Character Assessment are to:

Enhance awareness, appreciation and enjoyment of our unique heritage

2. Introduction to Loose Valley Conservation Area (LVCA)

The LVCA is a long narrow ‘L’ shaped piece of largely green-field land laying some

1 to 3 miles south-west of Maidstone town centre, in Kent. It extends from near Boughton Quarries in the East, through Loose village, and down to Tovil in the North (see Map 1). The conserved area follows part of the steep-sided valley cut by the Loose river that rises near Langley and flows into the Medway at Tovil (a distance of 10 miles of which some 2-3miles are in the Conservation Area)

For several hundred years the area now conserved was a local centre of industry with a series of water-driven mills served by an extremely reliable supply of fast running river water. These activities were supplemented by the quarrying of ragstone from the valley sides that further enlarged the working area. Thus the essence of the Conservation Area is the industrially-based heritage that created the wealth in the area and produced the variety of work buildings and houses.

Today the Conservation Area is a post-industrial landscape. While conserved primarily for its water inspired heritage, the habitat value of the area is not negligible by reason of:- (a) the number of ponds and wetland areas next to the river:- (b) low density of buildings and people living in the valley, and (c) the rate that abandoned mill sites and quarries have been recolonised by vegetation and animals.

As conservation areas go, LVCA is relatively large at (1.5sq miles or 358 acres) including a large number of listed buildings and other heritage features.

3. Development of Loose Valley

Archival records show there being mills on the river from medieval times. During their life span they engaged in various activities from fulling, corn milling and papermaking to the making of gunpowder and oil from linseed and rape.

Throughout the working life of the mills the valley was a highly industrious area within a broad expanse of traditional agriculture. With the coming of the industrial revolution the need for water power soon diminished and the mills gradually shut down. Hayle Mill, producing high quality hand-made paper was the last to close in 1987.

4. Character Assessment

4.1. Water Features and the Mills

Waterways, water features and associated mill-works, together with rural land use practices are still a dominant characteristic of LVCA, though the number of mill buildings was much reduced during the C 20^th before the area was designated as a Conservation Area. The report of the Maidstone Borough Council which proposed the enlarged Loose Valley Conservation Area in 1999 said that “what holds the whole area together is the succession of watermill sites throughout the length of the valley which contributes the best continuous sequence of industrial archaeology sites within the Borough”.

4.1.1 Policy:

A top priority must be to protect all the remaining water features, mill buildings and associated land and water works, and to repair/enhance those in a state of disrepair.

4.2. Mills, Ponds and Associated Waterworks. Map 3

As the river leaves the village of Boughton it passes into the steeply wooded sides of the Upper Loose Valley and into the Conservation Area. On its journey the river passes through many man-made lakes (or ponds).

1.      Pond at Harts House: No associated Mill. Leaving here the river passes underground for 350yds. before emerging directly into:-

2.   Heron Pond, another man-made lake. Again no mill, but with a

traditional sheep dip

3.      Leg – o’- Mutton Pond.  So named because of its shape. Man made and recently restored and more visible from the nearby public right-of-way than earlier. The site of the highest of the thirteen watermills that were powered by the Loose river. The mill, for which there is documentary evidence of its use in the 18^th century for papermaking, had closed by 1839 and cottages replaced it. These, to, have long gone and there are now only scanty remains of the building. The water is retained by an earth dam.

 4.  Salts Pond.  Lying adjacent to Salts Lane, it used to be known as

Springhead Pond. It is spring fed and its water joins that of the Loose   river, but the pond itself has been lowered as the earth dam leaked water into the gardens of Upper Mill Cottage, and is now generally covered with watercress and other plants.

5.      Upper Mill.  Once stood in the garden of Upper Mill Cottage. Documents show that the mill was in existence at least since 1706, and served as a paper mill until about the mid 19^th century; the famous papermaker James Whatman probably rebuilt it in the 1770s. After that it was converted to a corn mill until its closure in 1908, by which time a steam powered mill had been built alongside the old water powered one. Only the arched foundations now survive and within these remains can be found two Ram Pumps. These at one time pumped water up to the Boughton Mount Estate in conjunction with a ram pump on Leg – o’ - Mutton. Water Mill House was the miller’s house; it appears to have received an extensive face-lift in the 1880s.

6.      Gurney’s Mill.  Sited immediately to the east of the viaduct and

                        named after the two brothers who last operated it.

Its mill pond survives behind houses in Salts Lane. Documents show it to have existed in 1647, when it was a fulling mill, but it seems to have been converted to papermaking in the late 1680s. It remained a paper mill for the rest of its life, though it turned to making millboard and finally roofing boards shortly before its closure in about 1913. The waterfall in the garden of the Old Mill House (the Miller’s house and Grade II listed) marks the position of the waterwheel, but latterly the mill also had a horizontal steam engine. Little remains now of the mill itself.

7.      Brooks Pond and Path.  Having passed under the garden of Vale House, the Loose river emerges into a rectangular ’trough‘ beside Old Loose Hill and then divides into two channels designed to serve the village mill. One channel feeds the mill pond, and the other the mill stream which is separated from the pond by a causeway path. The pond is now rather silted up and half covered with reeds and other water plants, but together with the mill stream and path, it is a prominent and attractive feature of the village centre. The two waterways converge before arriving at the mill site, but there are other culverts which act as a by-pass. These are not now in proper repair and require attention. 

8.      Loose Village Mill.  Possibly one of the three mills mentioned in the Domesday Book (1086) under East Farleigh (of which manor Loose was then part). It seems always to have been a corn mill, and was demolished in about 1920. The property known as Brooklyn in Bridge Street was formerly the miller’s house-before he built and moved into Westlawns nearby; and Dingley Dell was converted from the mill stables.  The waterfall at the end of Bridge Street used to power the waterwheel.

9.      Little Ivy Mill.  There has been a mill here since at least 1653, and until the 1850s it appears to have been engaged in paper manufacture, after which it was a corn mill. It was rebuilt in 1865 – as an inscription on one of the walls testifies – and instead of straddling the river as before, became two separate buildings, the unassuming mill and miller’s house, on either side. They survive, the mill having been converted to a dwelling following its closure in 1912. At one period in the 19^th century the mill seems to have been used for rag-breaking for use in the papermaking at Great Ivy Mill; a pair of donkeys would carry panniers down the valley and then bring cut rags back for breaking in. there were once two ponds serving the mill with an island of trees between them, but the west one was filled in about 1918-1919. The long vanished waterwheel was sited behind the wall alongside the mill where there is still a waterfall. On the east side of the pond are two cottages which were once a wheelwright’s shop.

10. Great Ivy Mill.  The earliest documentary reference to a mill here is

 1675. In 1685 it is known to have been producing paper, but it appears

  that it had probably been a fulling mill. It closed as a paper mill just

  before WW 1. The main building (with its drying lofts) was soon

                        demolished, but the western end of it – the foreman’s house –

                        survived and is now a Grade II listed building. Another fragment of the

                        mill exits alongside the pond dam, adjacent to the wheel pit. There

                        were originally four ponds associated with this mill, at least two of  

                        which were settling ponds; all of these remain, though the one furthest

                       upstream has partially silted up. The house was the home of the

                       famous naturalist and pioneer of wildlife photography, Cherry Kearton,

                       in the late 1920s.

11. Bockingford Mill.  Fulling seems to have been undertaken at this

 mill from at least the 17^th century, and the name of the hamlet probably derives from the dialect word “bucking” which meant a large wash of coarse linen. By 1839 it had become a washing mill and it is thought that rags were broken up here to be taken to Hayle Mill for paper making. By 1856 it had become a corn mill, and around1890 it ceased operating and was converted into a house, lived in initially by a foreman from Great Ivy Mill. The building as it survives – now a couple of cottages - does not look much like a mill, but underneath an arch are some remains of the overshot waterwheel. The mill pond is rather overgrown, but there are various other remains of the water management system.

12.  Hayle Mill.  The earliest documentary evidence for this mill is 1627, 

when it seems to have been engaged in Fulling. The present building – the most complete of the mill structures in the valley – dates from a complete rebuilding as a paper mill around 1808. Like the mills at Little Ivy and Great Ivy, the main part of Hayle Mill with its drying loft was built across the valley to make good use of the natural draughts. The entire group of buildings is listed Grade II. The 12ft diameter waterwheel still survives internally and is in working order, although the mill was also powered by steam engines from at least the 1830s and the boiler chimney is a prominent landmark in the valley. The water wheel is of the overshot type, but is not original as1838 sales particulars referring to an undershot wheel. The mill with its large attractive mill pond and row of workers cottages on the corner of Bockingford lane, built prior to 1838, is the major mill survival of the Loose valley and gives a very good idea of the nature of a complete paper mill complex of the early 19^th century. Unfortunately the Foreman’s house, so described in 1838 as a “genteel and convenient residence’” was destroyed by fire in June 2003.

13. Upper Crisbrook Mill.  This is another fine survival, the 18^th century

building (enlarged in 1888) with its waterwheel being a Grade II listed building. This however is not the first mill building on the site, where milling goes back to at least the 16^th century. In its time both fulling and corn milling have taken place here. The external, overshot water- wheel of 18ft diameter can still turn, and the mill, converted into a house in 1975, forms a highly attractive group with two pairs of Victorian cottages opposite which may have been workers cottages.

                 14. Lower Crisbrook Mill.  This has been the site of a mill since at least

 the 1660s when it was engaged in fulling. By 1839, however, it had gone over to flour milling, though it appears that it finished life grinding Fullers Earth. It had ceased working by 1920 when there were plans to convert the building into cottages, but this never happened. The wheel which was inside the building near the road was removed in 1935, and the shaft was found to have the date 1680 cast into it. The mill itself, which was four floors in height, and consisted of a stone base with weatherboarding above the first floor, was demolished in the early 1950s. Only some foundations now remain, together with a metal apron and trough which produces a waterfall, marking where the wheel would once have been. The weatherboarded house on the other side of the road – Crisbrook House was the miller’s house and is a listed building.   

4.3 Dip Wells and Wells.

At one time dip wells were the only source of fresh water for the residents of Loose. Springs supplying copious amounts of water feed the dip wells throughout the village. Within the aptly named Well Street there were once five such wells, of which only two remain today and these have now been declared unfit for extracting drinking water. Further dip wells are located in the grounds of the Sugar Loaves on Old Loose Hill and the Dairy House in Kirkdale.

Stone lined wells can still be found in other areas of the Conservation Area including Godlands and Mount Ararat.

5. Character of Buildings in the Conservation Area

The Loose Valley Conservation area contains two main areas of housing and commercial property, Loose Village and Tovil.   Both have undoubtedly developed as a consequence of the Loose river and most historic buildings are located very close to the river.

5.1 Phasing of Building Development

Building development falls into two broad periods, pre industrial and post industrial.

Pre industrial buildings are largely of oak frame construction with Kent peg tile roofs.

Post industrial buildings are largely of brick construction with slate or Kent peg tile roofs.

Since the Second World War there have been a significant number of modern houses constructed largely in the centre of Loose Village. A very substantial development of modern housing has taken place in the last ten years at the northern extreme of the Conservation Area at Tovil. Further residential development at Tovil is likely.

5.2 Key Characteristics of the Buildings in the Conservation Area

One of the principal reasons for establishing the conservation area was the quality and strong character of its numerous period properties, many of which are extremely good examples of Kentish architecture. The best examples of these buildings have been studied by historians and architects, and feature in books and specialist surveys. The Wool House and Wool House Cottage are both National Trust properties. In excess of 30 buildings are Grade II listed.

These period properties were built across a 500 year period and the wide range of styles and materials used in their construction reflects this long period of rural settlement. A small but important sub-set of these properties was originally constructed for commercial or farming purposes.  Several barns and oast

houses still exist although most have been converted to residential or office use.  Of the thirteen mills that once operated on the Loose River, only two large important water mills still exist. One has been converted to residential use and the other is empty, in poor condition, and at risk. Both mills are Grade II listed.

Other water mills have been partially or completely lost, although some ruins still survive.

The oldest standing building in the conservation area is the church in the heart of Loose Village.  The ragstone tower dates from the Norman period and its churchyard has one of the oldest yew trees in the UK, possibly in excess of 1500 years old.

The vast majority of period properties are in good condition and retain many of their original architectural features.  Many have been modified and added to over the centuries but these changes have been done tastefully and very little unsuitable modernisation (e.g. uPVC windows, flat roof extensions) have been added.

Unfortunately since the end of the last war in 1945, there has developed a pattern of development in the conservation area that is unsympathetic and has undoubtedly diminished the beauty of the area.  It is vitally important that this trend is arrested by the introduction of more considered and thoughtful planning.

5.2.1 Policy:

The listed period buildings should be preserved in good order, and protected from unsympathetic modifications and additions, as well as incongruous new housing developments.

5.3 Timber framed buildings Table No. 1

A number of medieval and post medieval houses were built, mostly in Loose Village.  The earliest of these were two and three bay Wealden Hall Houses. All such properties are of oak frame construction under traditional Kent peg tile roofs. Many are or were originally ‘jettied’.

Probably the best example of ‘jettied’ construction is Bockingford Steps,

at one time a public house ( Bockingford Arms), which is ‘jettied’ on the upper floor,

unlike The Chequers public house which is jettied’ on two floors.

Some houses have complex and decorative roof beams originally intended to be viewed when they were visible from the ground floor and elaborate mouldings to beams.

Originally the framing would have been filled-in with lathe and plaster so that the framing remained visible externally, or covered by a lime plaster rendering.  During the 20^th Century, some owners removed the lime render to expose the oak frame. 

During the 17^th and 18^th centuries, some of these properties were made more weatherproof by affixing softwood weatherboarding.

In the mid 20^th Century, planning approval was granted on several occasions to demolish timber framed buildings, namely:

·         Nos1 & 2 Bridge Street;

·         Loose Village Mill, Bridge Street;

·         Sugar Loaves, Old Loose Hill;

·         slaughter house,  High Banks; 

·         The Willows, opposite Church House;

The site of Loose Village Mill has been left as a garden to the adjoining brick property (Brooklyn). All other sites have been redeveloped with 20^th Century domestic houses.  Most have been constructed with little regard to the surrounding traditional architectural style and properties of this type can be found across the UK.

It is interesting to note that the Slaughter House was disassembled and reconstructed as a garage at Hollingbourne in Kent. 

 It was therefore in good condition and the property could have remained at High Banks.

5.4 Brick Buildings Table No. 2

Loose and Tovil have a significant number of brick built properties dating from the Georgian and Victorian eras. The elevations of these properties are constructed either of red or buff coloured brick work.

These properties were mostly built as domestic residences. They range between small labourers’ terrace houses and medium size country houses. The most noteworthy sizeable Georgian country houses include Hayle Place (Tovil) built during the mid 15^th century and renovated around 1752 with later Victorian additions. Crisbrook Mill House (Tovil) a large converted water mill, with its fully functional water- wheel restored by its owner in 2000 and Woodlawn and Vale House located in Loose.

Other cottages and houses in Tovil are rich in character with interesting architectural features such as decorative barge boards and decorative door canopies.

A row of brick and ragstone terraced cottages on the corner of Bockingford Lane are remarkable for the diminutive size of the cottages and the close proximity of the Loose river which bisects their back gardens.

A number of additions and modifications to period brick properties have been allowed in the mid to late C20th.  An obvious example being the complete alteration to the façade of Valley House in Busbridge Road.  The façade now gives the impression of being late C20th.

In direct contrast, Brook Vale on Old Loose Hill has recently removed its modern replacement windows and reinstated sash windows in keeping with the age of the

house.

5.5 Stone Buildings Table No.3

A number of Kentish ragstone properties have been built around Loose Village and Tovil.  These largely date from the 18^th and 19^th centuries. 

The majority of such properties were built as residential accommodation and range from small labourers’ terraced cottages through to substantial detached houses built for the middle classes and local businessmen.

The elevations of such properties are constructed either of coursed block work or ‘random rubble’ construction. Slate or Kent peg tiles are used as roof materials.

A number of agricultural buildings have also been built from Kentish ragstone.  The barn fronting Busbridge Road which belongs to Pympes Court Farm is probably one of the largest and oldest structures and it is characterised by extremely large stone buttresses.

The barn adjacent to Southgate on High Banks is a notable building. 

Loose village used to have a sizeable number of oast houses but the majority of these have been demolished since the demise of hop growing in this part of Kent. 

Those that remain have since been converted into domestic residences. The most noteworthy can be found in Salts Lane, next to and opposite Salts Place.

5.6 Policy Considerations

            5.6.1 Policy:

           Modifications and additions to an existing period property should be

           sympathetic and in keeping with the property. Modifications and additions

           should not appear incongruous. 

5.6.2 Policy:

           Period features should not be lost as a consequence of modifications and

           additions and house owners should be encouraged to retain and enhance

           period features.

Typical issues to consider would be:

·         Roof replacement with different materials (e.g. concrete tiles replacing Kent peg)

·         Flat roof extensions;

·         Replacement windows of a different design (sash replaced by casement) and material (UPVC instead of timber);

·         Use of different building materials (e.g. modern brick instead of ragstone)

·         Availability of grants to finance the retention of period features.

5.6.3 Policy:

New buildings should be in keeping with surrounding period properties so as to preserve the period look of the area and avoid clashes of architectural styles.

Typical issues to consider would be:

·         The construction  of new homes of a modern town or suburban design that have no design links with local period properties and are typically unimaginative;

·         The construction of high technology houses (e.g. extensive use of metals and sheet glass) designs that although likely to be imaginative and attractive, would clash with surrounding traditional buildings;

·         The construction of large modern ‘executive’ homes that are out of proportion with surrounding properties and clash architecturally.

            5.6.4 Policy:

The preservation and restoration of period properties should be encouraged.   Demolition should not normally be an option.

            5.6.5 Policy:

Traditional buildings in the Conservation Area were well spaced out. These gaps are an essential part of their character and infilling should not be entertained as an option.

5.7 Table 1: Period Buildings constructed in Timber (or mainly so)

Timber Buildings

Key:Construction 

5.8 Table 2: Brick Buildings    (or mainly so)

Brick Buildings

Key: Construction     

5.9 Table 3: Kentish Ragstone Buildings (or mainly so)

Key: Construction (front façade)

Previous/Current Use: