Contact your Parish Council


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date: 2020-2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

1.          Introduction.. 2

2.          Maidstone Profile.. 4

3.          Development Plan and Associated Documents. 6

Local Development Scheme: Local Plan Review.. 7

Neighbourhood Plans. 9

Community Infrastructure Levy.. 10

Duty to Cooperate.. 11

Supplementary Planning Documents. 11

4.          Local Plan Performance: Maidstone Borough Local Plan – Monitoring Indicators   11

General/Whole Plan.. 12

Housing.. 14

Employment. 26

Retail 32

Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation.. 36

Heritage.. 39

Natural Environment – Biodiversity.. 39

Agricultural Land.. 40

Good Design and Sustainable Design.. 40

Open Space.. 41

Air Quality.. 46

Infrastructure.. 47

Transport. 48

5.          Sustainability Appraisal – Significant Effect Indicators. 54

Housing.. 54

Flooding.. 54

Health.. 55

Poverty.. 56

Education.. 59

Crime.. 60

Vibrant community.. 62

Accessibility.. 62

Culture.. 63

Land use.. 63

Congestion.. 64

Climate change.. 65

Biodiversity.. 65

Countryside and heritage.. 66

Waste.. 66

Water management. 68

Energy.. 71

Economy.. 72

6.          Appendices. 74

Appendix 1 – Built and Natural Environment Assets and Constraints. 74

Appendix 2 – Infrastructure Funding Statement. 77

Appendix 3 – Duty to Cooperate.. 83

Appendix 4 – Glossary.. 87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.         Introduction

 

1.1 The Maidstone Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) provides a framework with which to monitor and review the effectiveness of local plan policies that address local issues for the monitoring period 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021.  The AMR should also assess whether policies and related targets or "milestones" set out in the Local Development Scheme have been met, or whether progress has been made in meeting them. Where targets are not being met or are not on track to be achieved, the AMR must set out the reasons why and the appropriate action to be taken.

1.2 The AMR includes a brief profile of Maidstone Borough (section 2).  It reviews the progress of the Maidstone Development Plan (section 3) against the timetable for plan making set out in the Local Development Scheme, i.e. for the preparation of the Local Plan Review.  The report includes updates on neighbourhood development plans, the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy, and the ‘duty to cooperate’ requirement for continued collaboration with partners over strategic cross-boundary issues.  The performance of local plan policies (sections 4 and 5) is monitored in accordance with the monitoring indicators of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and Sustainability Appraisal Statement (2017). This AMR is a corporate document with input from a range of Council departments. The report often includes a series of data so that changes over time can be understood.  Appendix 1 contains tables and maps illustrating the Borough’s heritage and environment assets and constraints, Appendix 2 provides an extract from the Infrastructure Funding Statement covering CIL matters, Appendix 3 shows progress under the Council’s duty to cooperate, and Appendix 4 sets out a glossary of terms to assist the reader.

1.3 The key points highlighted in the AMR 2021 include:

·         Between December 2020 and January 2021, a consultation was held on the Local Plan Review – Regulation 18 Preferred Approaches in accordance with the LDS 2020-2022 (September 2020 edition).

·         The LDS adopted in September 2020 included a Regulation 19 consultation in June 2021. The decision was taken to adopt a new LDS which proposed a later commencement date of October 2021 for the Regulation 19 consultation. The Local Development Scheme 2021-2023 was adopted in July 2021.

·         Significant progress has been made on the LPR Regulation 19 document, including evidence base documents.

·         Since the last AMR was published the Lenham Neighbourhood Plan was subject to referendum on 6th May 2021 and then was formally made (adopted) by Council on 14th July 2021.

·         Regulation 16 consultation was undertaken on the Boughton Monchelsea Neighbourhood Plan between 14th August 2020 and 28th September 2020, followed by an independent examination. The examiner’s report was received on 17th December 2020. The Neighbourhood Plan was subject to referendum on 6th May 2021. The Neighbourhood Plan was made by Council on 14th July 2021.

·         The Otham Neighbourhood Plan was also subject to Regulation 16 consultation between 16th October 2020 and 27th November 2020 followed by an independent examination. The examiner’s report was received on 4th March 2021. The Neighbourhood Plan was then subject to referendum on 8th July 2021. The Neighbourhood Plan was made by Council on 29th September 2021.

·         Continued delivery of housing allocations and meeting the housing need, which is demonstrated through 5.6 years’ worth of housing land supply.

·         29% of completed dwellings were completed on previously developed land.

·         There has been a sustained low delivery of self-build plots.

·         The delivery of affordable housing is on target and does not significantly deviate from the indicative policy target.

·         Since 2016/17 there has been a total net loss of 36,282 sqm of employment floorspace.

·         There has been continued delivery of employment allocations but the delivery of allocations without planning permission will be reviewed as part of the Local Plan Review.  

·         At the 1st April 2020 the Council can demonstrate 6.2 years’ worth of deliverable planning gypsy and traveller pitches. The delivery of pitches is currently ahead of target.

·         There have been ongoing delays to delivery of the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package.

·         A total of 48 schemes have been delivered since the first iteration of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) in 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.         Maidstone Profile

 

2.1 Maidstone Borough has a population of 173,170 (ONS, June 2020) and a dwelling stock of 73,489 at 31st March 2020, whilst is the largest in the county (KCC Housing Stock 2021 update).  Maidstone is the county town of Kent and is an important administrative centre, strategically located between the Channel Tunnel and London with good road and rail links.  The urban area, located to the north-west of the borough, has a strong commercial and retail town centre.  Maidstone has an extensive rural hinterland, which is characterised by an abundance of villages and hamlets.

2.2 The borough benefits from a range of designated heritage assets, and its rural hinterland is of high landscape and environmental quality, much of which is protected by national and local designations.  Parts of the borough located adjacent to its rivers lie within a floodplain.  These assets and constraints are illustrated in Appendix 1.

2.3 Between mid-2019 and mid-2020 there has been an increase of 0.8% in Maidstone’s population. There has been no change in the split between male and female since 2017 (49% male and 51% female). The largest age group in 2020 remains the 50-54 years group, which accounted for 7% of the total population.

2.4 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) outlines the following key issues:

1.   Where, when and how much development will be distributed throughout the borough;

2.   Maintenance of the distinct character and identity of villages and the urban area;

3.   Protection of the built and natural heritage, including the Kent Downs AONB and its setting, the setting of the High Weald AONB and areas of local landscape value;

4.   Provision of strategic and local infrastructure to support new development and growth including a sustainable Integrated Transport Strategy, adequate water supply, sustainable waste management, energy infrastructure, and social infrastructure such as health, schools and other educational facilities;

5.   Improvements to quality of air within the air quality management area (AQMA);

6.   Regeneration of the town centre and areas of social and environmental deprivation;

7.   Redressing the low wage economy by expanding the employment skills base to target employment opportunities;

8.   Meeting housing needs by delivering affordable housing, local needs housing, accommodation for the elderly, accommodation to meet Gypsy and Traveller needs, and accommodation to meet rural housing needs;

9.   Promotion of the multi-functional nature of the borough’s open spaces, rivers and other watercourses;

10.Ensuring that all new development is built to a high standard of sustainable design and construction; and

11.Ensuring that applications for development adequately address:

i.             The impact of climate change;

ii.            The issues of flooding and water supply; and

iii.           The need for dependable infrastructure for the removal of sewage and waste water.

 

2.5 The borough is expected to meet the development needs outlined in the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017). Development must be managed in the context of Maidstone’s quality environment. The key monitoring indicators of the AMR (section 4) and the significant effect indicators (section 5) provide additional context, revealing further characteristics of the borough. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.         Development Plan and Associated Documents

 

3.1 The Maidstone Development Plan currently comprises the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and its Policies Map, North Loose Neighbourhood Plan (2016), Loose Neighbourhood Plan (2019), Marden Neighbourhood Plan (2020), Staplehurst Neighbourhood Plan (2020), Boughton Monchelsea Neighbourhood Plan (2021), Lenham Neighbourhood Plan (2021), Otham Neighbourhood Plan (2021), Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 as amended by Early Partial Review (2020) and Kent Minerals Sites Plan (2020) (Figure 3.1 below).  The Development Plan must conform to national policies and guidance, and is supported by a number of process documents, including the AMR.  Development Plan Documents are available to view and download from the Council's website, together with process documents and supplementary planning documents.

Figure 3.1: plan making diagram (Source: MBC 2018)

 

Local Development Scheme: Local Plan Review

3.2 The Council has a duty to review its local plan every five years and as such the adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) included a commitment to review the plan. Work is progressing on the Local Plan Review (LPR) and the delivery programme is set out in the Local Development Scheme (LDS). Since the adoption of the Local Plan in 2017 there have been four iterations of the LDS setting out the delivery programme for the Local Plan Review.

3.3 The Maidstone Local Development Scheme 2018-2022 was adopted by the Council in July 2018 and covered the period January 2018 to December 2022.The LDS 2018-2022 timetable stated that Regulation 18 – scoping/options consultation would take place between July and August 2019. The consultation milestone was met and extended to September to accommodate the summer holiday period, running from 19th July to 30th September 2019. The timetable then outlined that consultation on the preferred approaches would take place in February to March 2020.

3.4 The Council completed a Call for Sites exercise whereby people could submit information about land and sites which could potentially be developed in the future. The Call for Sites was open between 28th February and 24th May 2019 and approximately 330 site submissions were received. Due to the number of responses to the Call for Sites and the need for a thorough appraisal of each submission, but also the number of responses to the first stage of consultation and the time required to process and analyse those representations, the LDS was updated. The Maidstone Local Development Scheme 2020-2022 (July 2020 edition) was adopted by the Council in July 2020.

3.5 Since the LDS 2020-2022 (July 2020 edition) came into effect, central government published two key consultations on changes to the planning system in England. The changes proposed in the two consultations were likely to have a significant impact on plan making in the Borough. Among the proposed changes was an update to the standard methodology used to calculate housing need. The consultation also proposed transitional arrangements which, if met, could allow for the retention of the numbers around which the current Local Plan Review is being prepared. These changes in the standard methodology would have had implications for the number of houses the Borough Council is required to provide. In response, the Maidstone Local Development Scheme 2020-2022 (September 2020 edition) was adopted in September 2020.

 

3.6 The government did not continue with its proposed update to the standard methodology and reverted to the original standard methodology, meaning that the Council is required to build in the region of 1,200 houses per year (updated annually).

 

3.7 Since the LDS 2020-2022 (September 2020 edition) came into effect the Regulation 18 Preferred Approaches Consultation has taken place between 1st December 2020 and 8th January 2021. The Council received a large number of responses relating to a variety of key areas in the Local Plan Review. Significant progress has been made on the LPR Regulation 19 documents. The progress includes a series of studies and topic papers that will form part of the wider evidence base for the Local Plan Review, as well as the drafting of the Regulation 19 Local Plan Review documents themselves.

 

3.8 There is an inter-relationship between many components of the evidence base. For example, it is important for the implications of one specialist study to inform the potential, broader policies and proposals within the LPR documents.  Officers were mindful of the need to brief Members on the latest information and proposals, prior to public consultation commencing on the Regulation 19 documents and associated evidence. This includes changes to government policy with regard to affordable housing, with the introduction of First Homes, as well as emerging matters, such as biodiversity net gain.

 

3.9 The Local Plan Review Regulation 19 was subject to consultation between October and December 2021 in which stakeholders, the public and others with an interest in the borough had the opportunity to consider whether they believe the documents are sound and legally compliant. This is an important series of tests and will provide Maidstone Borough Council, as Local Planning Authority, with important information as it seeks to proceed to submission of the documents and associated evidence base. Indeed, if, following the Regulation 19 consultation, the Council decides to undertake further work and/or consultation on the Local Plan Review, there will be associated time, resource and cost implications.

 

3.10 The LDS adopted in September 2020 was superseded by the Maidstone Local Development Scheme 2021-2023, which was adopted in July 2021. Table 3.1 outlines the current timetable for delivering the Local Plan Review and whether the key milestones have been met.

 

Regulation

Stage of LPR Production

Target

Target met

19

Consultation

October 2021

On track

22

Submission

March 2022

 

-

24

Examination

August-September 2022

 

-

 

Main Modification Consultation

November 2022

 

26

Adoption

January 2023

-

Table 3.1: Stages of Local Plan Review Production (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Neighbourhood Plans

3.11 Neighbourhood development plans, also known as neighbourhood plans, are prepared by Parish Councils or designated Neighbourhood Forums for their areas.  Their production is subject to a legislative process, similar to that for local plans, and a local referendum.  Following a successful referendum, a neighbourhood plan becomes part of the Maidstone Development Plan, before being formally ‘made’ (adopted) by the Borough Council.  Further details regarding the neighbourhood planning process and the Council’s role in the preparation of neighbourhood plans are set out in the Maidstone Statement of Community Involvement 2018 (and associated addendum).

3.12 Neighbourhood planning is very active in Maidstone Borough, which has a total of 16 designated neighbourhood areas: 15 submitted by parish councils and one by the North Loose Neighbourhood Forum. 

3.13 As at September 2021, there are seven made (adopted) plans that form part of the Maidstone Development Plan: Staplehurst Neighbourhood Plan (2016 and amended in August 2020), North Loose Neighbourhood Plan (2016), Loose Neighbourhood Plan (2019), Marden Neighbourhood Plan (2020), Boughton Monchelsea Neighbourhood Plan (2021), Lenham Neighbourhood Plan (2021), and Otham Neighbourhood Plan (2021).

3.14 Since the last AMR was published in December 2020 the Lenham Neighbourhood Plan was subject to referendum on 6th May 2021. The referendum was successful, and the Neighbourhood Plan was formally made (adopted) by Council on 14th July 2021.

3.15 Regulation 16 consultation was undertaken on the Boughton Monchelsea Neighbourhood Plan between 14th August 2020 and 28th September 2020. The consultation was followed by an independent examination and the examiner’s report was received on 17th December 2020. The Neighbourhood Plan was subject to referendum on 6th May 2021 which was successful. The Neighbourhood Plan made by Council on 14th July 2021.

3.16 The Otham Neighbourhood Plan was subject to Regulation 16 consultation between 16th October 2020 and 27th November 2020 followed by an independent examination. The examiner’s report was received on 4th March 2021. The Neighbourhood Plan was then subject to referendum on 8th July 2021, which was successful. The Neighbourhood Plan was made by Council on 29th September 2021.

3.17 Plans for Sutton Valence, Tovil and Yalding are in the early stages of preparation. Neighbourhood plans and their production stages are regularly updated on the Council’s website.

 

Community Infrastructure Levy

3.18 The Council adopted its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule in October 2017, and it took effect from 1 October 2018.  The CIL Charging Schedule was approved by the Council, together with a list of the types of infrastructure that may be funded in whole or part by CIL (formerly known as the Regulation 123 List). An extract of this monitoring year’s Infrastructure Funding Statement can be found at Appendix 2 and provides information on CIL income and expenditure matters. The primary purpose of the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is to identify the infrastructure schemes considered necessary to support the development proposed in the adopted Local Plan and to outline how and when these schemes will be delivered.  The Council has committed to an annual review of the IDP. As part of the Local Plan Review a separate IDP has been created.

 

Duty to Cooperate

3.19 The 'duty to cooperate' places a legal duty on local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with certain organisations, in order to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.  It is not a duty to agree, but every effort should be made to resolve any outstanding strategic cross boundary matters before local plans are submitted for examination. 

3.20 Local planning authorities must demonstrate how they have complied with the duty at the independent examination of their local plans. The Duty to Cooperate Statement forms part of the evidence-base for the Local Plan Review and sets out the Council’s approach to cooperation on key strategic issues in the Local Plan Review. The statement identifies the requirements set out in the NPPF, guidance, and legislation; and demonstrates how the Council has met those requirements. Appendix A of the Duty to Cooperate Statement provides a summary of meetings and correspondence with relevant authorities since 2017 (the adoption of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan.

3.21 Appendix 3 of this AMR provides a summary of those meetings and correspondence which has taken place during the monitoring year.

 

Supplementary Planning Documents

3.22 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) provide further detail to a policy or group of policies set out in a local plan.  Although SPDs are not part of the Development Plan, once adopted, they are a material consideration in development decisions and should be considered alongside the policies in the Local Plan.  SPDs are governed by regulations that require public consultation, but they are not subject to examination.

3.23 The adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan includes a commitment to produce an Affordable and Local Needs Housing SPD.  Its purpose is to provide advice on how the Council’s Local Plan housing policies are to be implemented.  This includes guidance on the range of approaches, standards and mechanisms required to deliver a range of housing to meet identified needs.  The SPD is intended to facilitate negotiations and provide certainty for landowners, lenders, housebuilders and Registered Providers regarding the Council’s expectations for affordable and local needs housing provision in specific schemes.

3.24 Following a period of consultation the SPD was appropriately amended and adopted by the Council on 7th July 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.         Local Plan Performance: Maidstone Borough Local Plan – Monitoring Indicators

 

4.1 Key monitoring indicators (KMI) enable the Council to understand the progress being made towards its local plan objectives and targets.  The KMIs focus on the quantitative and qualitative delivery of homes and economic development, including supporting infrastructure, provision of recreational open space, and the protection and enhancement of the built and natural environment.  The indicators are carried forward from the adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and the Sustainability Appraisal Statement (2017).

 

General/Whole Plan

Indicator M1: Number and nature of departures from the Local Plan granted consent per year
4.2 There is no specific target for the indicator but during the reporting year there were five reported departures from the Local Plan. The details of the applications and the nature of the departure are outlined below:

·         20/505195/OUT, Land at Woodcut Farm Ashford Road (mixed commercial development) – the application varies conditions of a previously approved outline permission. As such, there is no requirement to review the implementation of policies.

·         20/503109/FULL, Land to West Of 70 Church Street (24 extra care retirement homes and associated works) – the site is within the countryside and initially covered by Policy SP17 The Countryside. The application summaries that “it is considered that meeting a need and the lack of additional countryside or landscape harm when considered to the fallback position, taken together are considered to outweigh the harm due to its location outside the settlement boundary and would justify the departure from the development plan."

·         19/506387/FULL, Ledian Farm Upper Street (44 assisted living units with associated parking and landscaping) - the site is within the countryside. However, the application is an amendment to approved outline permission and Reserved Matters consent. As such, there is no requirement to review the implementation of Policy SP17.

·         20/500778/FULL, Land South of Sheephurst Lane (switching station with associated apparatus and landscaping) – the application summaries that “there is national support for the promotion of improved infrastructure which is more resilient to the effects of climate change and growing populations and to promote the transition to a low carbon economy”. There is policy support in the form of SS1 and ID1 of the LP which supports infrastructure schemes that provide for the needs arising from new development. However, there are also policies which seek to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Whilst the principle of development of such infrastructure is established, careful consideration with regard to the landscape and other constraints is required to ensure the balance between any harm arising from the development can be appropriately mitigated for or alternatively the need for the infrastructure outweighs the harm.” As such, there is no requirement to review the implementation of Policy SP17.

·         19/505281/FULL, Land West of The Old Goods Yard Headcorn Road (50 residential dwellings) – the site is initially covered by Policy SP17 The Countryside which seeks to ensure development does not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, unless development accords with other policies in the plan. As a rural service centre, Lenham is amongst the second most sustainable settlements in the hierarchy to accommodate growth (Policy SP8 Lenham Rural Service Centre). Therefore, SP8 has taken precedence over SP17 in the determining this case. As such, there is no requirement to review the implementation of Policy SP17.

 

Indicator M2: Appeals lost against Local Plan policy per year

4.3 There is no specific target for this indicator. Between 2017/18 and 2020/21 the number of appeals lodged against the Council’s planning decisions has fluctuated (Table 4.1). In total 10% of appeals were withdrawn, an increase from the previous year (4%). Of the 67 appeals decisions included in the calculations below, 22% were allowed. The main reasons given by the planning inspectors were because of disagreements with the Council’s planning decisions on character and landscape matters.

Appeal decision

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

Allowed

22

28

31

15

Dismissed

64

42

64

45

Withdrawn

6

7

4

7

Disqualified

3

0

0

0

Part allowed/ part dismissed

0

1

0

0

Total

95

78

99

67

 

Table 4.1: Planning appeal decisions (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M3: Successful delivery of the schemes in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan

4.4 The Council monitors the progress of all schemes in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and updates the IDP on an annual basis. The most recently updated IDP was published on the Council’s website in November 2020.

4.5 A total of 48 schemes have been delivered since the first iteration of the IDP in 2016. Schemes delivered include highways and transportation, education, health and green and blue infrastructure. For the reporting year, 32 critical projects were identified for delivery in the short term (26 highways and transportation; 2 community facilities; and 4 utilities projects).

4.6 Of these schemes, two highways schemes: HTNW4 - 'capacity improvements at the junction of Fountain Lane and the A26/Tonbridge Road' and HTC1 - 'Linton crossroads junction improvements' are categorised as having a high risk to delivery. In both cases, this is due to a significant shortfall in funding as a result of the currently agreed scheme design. MBC continues to work with KCC to progress the delivery of these critical schemes.

4.7 To date, the delivery of planned development has not been affected by the non-delivery of infrastructure.

Housing

Indicator M4: Progress on allocated housing sites per annum

 

 

Dwellings

Percentage

 

Completed

3,875

40%

 

Commenced

2,156

22%

 

Not started

2,203

22%

 

Application submitted

19

0%

 

Application awaited

1,540

16%

 

Total

9,793

 

4.8 Sites allocated in the Local Plan 2017 have continued to make excellent progress in gaining planning permissions over the plan period to 2031 (Figure 4.1). In total 22% has not started.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1: Progress on allocated housing sites (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M5: Predicted housing delivery in the next 5 years

4.9 Since 2011, the base date of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, a total of 9,095 dwellings have been completed.  Previous years had seen a shortfall in delivery, however strong delivery in the year 2020/21 met this shortfall. In respect of the Council’s five year land supply Table 4.2 demonstrates a surplus of 512 dwellings above the target of 4,636. This represents 5.6 years' worth of housing land supply at the base date for calculations of 1 April 2021.

 

5 - year housing land supply - 'Maidstone Hybrid' method

Dwellings (net)

Dwellings (net)

1

Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) 2011 - 2031

17,660

 

2

Annual need 17,660/20 years

883

 

 

 

 

 

3

Delivery target 01.04.11 to 31.03.21 (883 x 10 years)

8,830

 

4

Minus completed dwellings 01.04.11 to 31.03.21

9,095

 

5

Shortfall against target 01.04.11 to 31.03.21

-265

 

6

Annual delivery of shortfall 206/6 years (Maidstone Hybrid)

-44

 

 

 

 

 

7

Five-year delivery target 01.04.21 to 31.03.26 (883x5)

4,415

 

8

Plus shortfall against OAN 34x5 years[1]

0

 

9

5% buffer (Housing Delivery Test @ November 2021 166%)

221

 

10

Total five year housing land target at 01.04.21

 

4,636

 

 

 

 

11

Five-year land supply at 01.04.21

 

5,147

 

 

 

 

12

Surplus

 

512

13

No. years' worth of housing land supply (4,636/5 =963 ; 5,147/963. = 5.6)

 

5.6

Table 4.2: 5 year housing land supply at 1st April 2021 (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M6: Housing trajectory: Predicted housing delivery to 2031

4.10 Table 4.3 breaks down the various elements of the Council’s housing land supply and demonstrates a surplus of 2,130 dwellings. Figure 4.2 illustrates how the target is delivered over the 20-year housing trajectory between 2011 and 2031. The trajectory shows that the Council has a healthy housing land supply. It is important to note that the surplus of 2,130 is against current annual requirement of 883 dwellings and the housing target for the Borough will increase. New housing targets are being considered through the Local Plan Review (LPR) which will set out the strategy for meeting new targets and allocate additional land to meet the need. The LPR has a target adoption date of 2022, this is when the new targets will apply.

 

Housing land supply 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2031

Dwellings (net)

Dwellings (net)

1

Objectively assessed housing need / Local Plan housing target

 

17,660

2

Completed dwellings 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2021

9,095

 

3

Extant planning permission as at 1 April 2021 (including a 5% non-implementation discount)

6,461

 

4

Local Plan allocated sites (balance of Local Plan allocations not included in line 3 above)

1,559

 

5

Local Plan broad locations for future housing development

1,337

 

6

Windfall sites contribution

1,338

 

7

Total housing land supply

 

19,790

 

 

 

 

8

Housing land supply surplus 2011/2031

 

2,130

Table 4.3: 20 year housing land supply 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2031 (Source: MBC 2021)

 

 

Figure 4.2: Housing Trajectory 2011/31 (Source: MBC 2012)

Indicator M7: Windfalls: delivery of housing on identified sites

4.11 The Housing Topic Paper 2021 sets out the methodology used to calculate the windfall allowance, justifying the criteria for excluding certain sites from calculations and the discount rates applied. Table 4.4 lists the number of dwellings completed on large and small windfall sites between 2008/09 and 2020/21, using the 2018 NPPF definition of a windfall site (historical pre-2018 data has been updated to reflect the new NPPF definition) and applying the Topic Paper methodology. The result is an increase in the completion rates on small sites between 2008/09 and 2018/19, followed by a gradual decrease.  The average per annum is 115 averaged over 13 years.  2020/21 saw a small decrease in the number of large site windfalls completed, which results in an average 13 year delivery of 181 dwellings per annum.

Year

Large

Small

Total

2008/09

54

89

143

2009/10

265

85

350

2010/11

214

73

287

2011/12

177

115

292

2012/13

183

118

301

2013/14

137

103

240

2014/15

86

61

147

2015/16

140

126

266

2016/17

304

130

434

2017/18

213

146

359

2018/19

145

178

323

2019/20

246

141

387

2020/21

193

124

317

Average pa

181

115

296

Total

2357

1489

3846

Table 4.4: Completed windfall dwellings 2020/21 (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M8: Prior notification office to residential conversions in the town centre

4.12 The Local Plan housing trajectory sets out a Town Centre broad location for 350 dwellings from the conversion of identified poor office stock to residential dwellings. In the monitoring year 2020/21 one application was permitted on the identified poor office stock. To date, 176[2] dwellings out of the 350 dwellings have been approved under permitted development rights (50% of target). See Indicator M18 for details on the loss of office space as a result of conversions.

Indicator M9: Number of entries on the self-build register and number of plots for self-build consented per annum

4.13 The Council is required under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) to keep a register of individuals and associations who are seeking serviced plots of land for self-build and custom housebuilding. In addition, the Council has a duty to grant planning permission for enough suitable serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding. The demand is the number of entries added to the register during a base period. Each base period runs from 31 October to 30 October the following year[3]. At the end of each base period, the Council has 3 years in which to granted permission to meet demand for that base period. In total over the three base periods 203 individuals and 3 associations have registered (Table 4.5). 

4.14 Since the introduction of the self-build register there have been 120 applications for self-build dwellings permitted. However, there has been a sustained low delivery of self-build plots. The Local Plan Review outlines that the Council supports the principles of self and custom build housing, with an aim of meeting the need as outlined on the register.  A policy review will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan Review. Please note, in 2020/21 figures were corrected to discount self builds where these replaced an existing dwelling.  The table below provides amended figures for previous base periods.

Base Period

Individuals Registered

Associations Registered

Number of plots approved

31 October 2016 to 30 October 2017

124

2

0

31 October 2017 to 30 October 2018

49

0

3

31 October 2018 to 30 October 2019

90

1

41

31 October 2019 to 30 October 2020

83

1

76

Total[4]

346

4

120

Table 4.5: Maidstone Self Build Custom House building base dates (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M10: Number of dwellings of different sizes (measured by number of bedrooms) consented per annum

4.15 Table 4.6 outlines the number of bedrooms per dwelling that have been granted planning permission during 2020/21 against the targets set out within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2014. The figures demonstrate general compliance with the targets. However, the table demonstrates that there has been an under delivery of housing for 3 bed market and affordable, and an over delivery of 4+ market and affordable.  These issues will be assessed through a new SHMA and the Local Plan Review.

 

All Dwelling Types

Market

Affordable

2020/21

2020/21

SHMA 2014

Difference

2020/21

SHMA 2014

Difference

1 Bedroom

280

20%

11%

5% to 10%

+1% to 6%

25%

30% to 35%

Within range

2 Bedroom

456

33%

32%

30% to 35%

Within range

32%

30% to 35%

Within range

3 Bedrooms

364

27%

31%

40% to 45%

-9% to -14%

16%

25% to 30%

-9% to -14%

4+ Bedrooms

257

19%

25%

15% to 20%

+5% to 10%

28%

5% to 10%

+15% to +23%

Unknown

10

1%

Table 4.6: Bedroom size of dwellings granted planning permission 2020/21 (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M11: Number and tenure of affordable homes delivered (including starter homes)

4.16 When looking at the target for affordable housing as a percentage, more intermediate affordable housing has been delivered during the monitoring year. Whilst the delivery of affordable housing units does not significantly deviate from the indicative policy target (Table 4.7). The Council will continue to monitor the delivery of affordable homes against current and future indicative policy targets.

Tenure

Total affordable units

Affordable rented, social rented or a mixture of the two

Intermediate affordable housing (shared ownership and/or intermediate rent)

Affordable target percentage

 

70%

30%

Number of affordable delivered 2020/21

373

190

183

Percentage achieved 2020/21

 

51%

49%

Table 4.7: Affordable housing by tenure delivered on qualifying sites (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M12: Affordable housing as a proportion of overall housing delivery in qualifying geographical areas consented/completed relative to Policy SP20 requirements

4.17 Table 4.8 demonstrates that in the reporting year, the Council has successfully secured affordable homes on qualifying development sites in strong alignment with the requirements of Local Plan Policy SP20. Looking at the cumulative totals from 2015/16 onwards, the percentage of affordable homes secured in qualifying geographical areas remains broadly aligned with the percentage targets as set out in Local Plan policy SP20.

4.18 The Council will continue to monitor this indicator, particularly in relation to Springfield, Royal Engineers Road geographical location, to ensure it continues to provide appropriate levels of affordable housing on site. For 19/20 the methodology for monitoring the tenure of affordable housing changed from monitoring approved development to monitoring development that has actually been delivered, to better reflect the indicator requirements.

 

Maidstone, urban

Policy H1 (11) Springfield, Royal Engineers Road

Countryside, rural service centre and larger villages

Total dwellings delivered

Affordable dwellings delivered

Total dwellings delivered

Affordable dwellings delivered

Total dwellings delivered

Affordable dwellings delivered

2020/21

447

93

0

0

842

280

Total %

21%

 -

33%

Target %

30%

 -

40%

Difference %

-9%

 -

-7%

Cumulative totals

2015/16

996

250

246

49

1,070

398

2016/17

605

155

0

0

1,517

577

2017/18

1,078

250

310

0

1,086

381

2018/19

1,232

336

295

59

538

191

2019/20

606

177

0

0

436

148

2020/21

447

93

0

0

842

280

TOTAL

4,964

1,261

851

108

5,489

1,975

Total as %

25%

13%

36%

Target %

30%

20%

40%

Difference %

-5%

-7%

-4%

Table 4.8: Affordable dwelling completions as a proportion of total dwelling completions on qualifying sites (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M13: Density of housing in Policies DM12, H1

4.19 Between 2016/17 and 2020/21, within the town centre and urban area, planning permissions have been granted for developments of considerably higher densities compared to the targets set out in the adopted Local Plan (Table 4.9). The high density in the town centre is accounted for by changes of use of single properties and offices into flatted developments, resulting in exceedingly high DPH.  It is important however to keep this policy under review as part of the Local Plan Review to ensure that it is being implemented correctly and consistently. Permissions granted in sites adjacent to rural service centres and large villages remain broadly in line with targets.

 

Density (dwellings per hectare)

 

Area

Target

Average

2016/17

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

Sites within and adjacent to the town centre

45-170

252

306

220

155

326

175

Other sites within and adjacent to the urban area

35

82

81

88

70

87

97

Sites within and adjacent to rural service centres and larger villages

30

27

33

26

23

27

32

Other rural

No target

36

20

36

31

57

49

Table 4.9: Average density of permitted large (5+ dwellings) (Source: MBC 2021)

Indicator M14: Number of nursing and care home bedspaces delivered

4.20 The adopted Local Plan sets out a gross requirement of 980 nursing and care home bedspaces (49 per year) to be provided over the plan period to 2031. If provided at a steady rate throughout the plan period, it would be expected that 490 bedspaces would have been delivered by 1st April 2021 (10 years x 49 bedspaces). This requirement was based on the projected ageing population at the time and estimated likely demand for care and nursing homes, particularly for the frailer elderly.

4.21 Whilst nursing and care home provision falls under the C2 Use Class, this Use Class category also encompasses a much wider range of specialist accommodation. During the reporting year, a net total of 143 bed spaces were provided within the C2 Use Class. The two main sources of this provision were: the completion of the 65-bed Cygnet Hospital, specialising in adult mental health; and the 75-bed Invicta Court Care Home which provides a full range of permanent residential care and short-term respite care, including nursing care, as well as dementia care and end of life care for up to 75 older people. A further 4 bed spaces were completed at a residential care home for children aged 8 to 18 years.

4.22 Whilst the above bed spaces all make an important contribution to meeting a specialist accommodation need, only the 75-bed care home is considered to count towards the delivery of nursing and care home bed spaces for the elderly, as is the intention of Policy DM14 and indicator M14.

4.23 This Local Plan policy and associated indicator are to be reviewed as part of the Local Plan Review to ensure the identified needs of all specialist accommodation are planned for and monitored, in accordance with the requirements of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) evidence. No suitable C2 sites were put forward during the Local Plan Review call for sites. Consequently, the plan review does not allocate specific sites for nursing and care-home bedspaces but instead allows a permissive approach to enable the development of C2 uses on the edge of settlements where C3 market housing would not normally be permitted.  This approach recognises the specific requirements and arrangements for C2 uses which limit the practicality of delivering C2 use through larger general housing sites.

 

Indicator M15: Number of applications on the housing register

4.24 There is no specific target for this indictor. It is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in social housing demand. Table 4.10 shows the change since 2011 (base date of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan). The criteria for joining the housing register changed some years ago, hence the reason for the significant reduction over the past 10 years. There has been a significant increase in the number of applicants who have applied to join the housing register during 2020/21. However, this hasn’t resulted in an increase in the number of applicants on the register due to the number of unsuccessful applications to join the register combined with an increase in the number of applicants successfully housed from the register.

Year

Number of households

2011/12

3674

2012/13

3187

2013/14

1339

2014/15

1461

2015/16

758

2016/17

610

2017/18

618

2018/19

776

2019/20

853

2020/21

840

2011-2020 % change

-77%

Table 4.10: Number of households on the housing register at 1st April each year (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M16: Number of homeless households in the borough

4.25 There is no specific target for this indictor. It is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in social housing demand. Between 2018/19 and 2019/20, new duties introduced decreased the number of households accepted as being owed the main housing duty. This is because many households were either prevented from being homeless or relieved of their homelessness, before decisions are made on the main housing duty being owed. The number of applicants accepted as being eligible and threatened with homelessness (owed the Prevention Duty) has increased to 534 at the 1st April 2021. The number of applicants accepted as being Eligible and Homeless (owed the Relief Duty) is 333.

4.26 For the year 2020/21 the number of applicants who have gone on to be owed the main housing duty, following the Relief Duty ending is 96[5]. This is an increase from 2019/20.  

Year

Number of applicants accepted as being eligible and threatened with homelessness

Number of applicants accepted as being eligible and homeless

Number of applicants accepted as owed the main housing duty

2018/19

486

390

99

2019/20

478

553

80

2020/21

534

333

96

Table 4.11: Number of homeless households in the borough (Source: MBC 2021).

 

Indicator M17: House price: earnings ratio

4.27 There is no specific target for this indicator. It is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in the local housing market. Figure 4.3 outlines the change since 2011, the base date of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan. 

Figure 4.3: Ratio of house price to workplace-based earnings (Source: ONS 2021)

 

Employment

Indicator M18: Total amount of B class employment floorspace consented/completed by type per annum

4.28 Policy SS1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan identifies the amount of office, industrial, warehousing and medical use floorspace to be delivered over the plan period (a net requirement of 13,955 sqm across all B use class employment types). Since 2016/17 there has been a total net loss of 36,282 sqm of employment floorspace, thereby increasing the overall net floorspace requirement to 50,237 sqm by 2031. However, the current net pipeline supply of employment floorspace (i.e. extant permissions) is 49,288 sqm. In purely quantitative terms, this pipeline supply of floorspace results in an overall remaining need to provide just 948 sqm of additional employment floorspace to 2031 (see table 4.12).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use Class

 

 

B1a

E(g)(i)

B1b

E(g)(ii)

B1c

E(g)(iii)

B2

B8

Total

Net requirement 2016-31 (sqm)

24,600

-18,610

7,965

13,955

Completions (per annum)

2016/17

-14,472

132

3,678

5,361

1,805

-3,496

2017/18

-10,048

28

-1,305

-3,656

-2,734

-17,715

2018/19

-11,085

8

-4,359

-4,108

1,153

-18,391

2019/20

-320

960

1,148

638

4,671

7,097

2020/21

-2,515

20

-1,010

2,612

-2,884

-3,777

Net total (sqm)

-38,440

1,148

-1,848

847

2,011

-36,282

Consent (extant permissions)

Net total (sqm)

1,877

7,069

16,008

1,663

22,672

49,288

 

Remaining net total floorspace (sqm) required to 2031

 

38,786

-21,120

-16,718

948

Table 4.12: Net delivery of B use class floorspace, by type since 2016/17 (Source: MBC 2021).

4.29 It should be noted that although this indicator monitors B1, B2 and B8 use classes, changes were made to the national Use Class Order in 2020 and 2021[6]. Use Class B1 has been deleted and replaced by Use Class E(g). There are no changes to B2 and B8 use class categories. The table references both the former B1 use class and current E(g) use class.

4.30 As is evident from the above table, whilst the quantity of overall floorspace provision is well on target to meet the requirements by 2031, the mix of floorspace being delivered does not accord with the requirements. There is an apparent oversupply of B2 and B8 uses, whilst there is a significant under delivery of office floorspace (B1 or E(g) use). A considerable amount of this office floorspace loss since 2016/17 can be attributed to conversion to residential under permitted development rights.

 

Indicator M19: Amount of B class floorspace by type consented/completed within Economic Development Areas per annum

4.31 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan includes the designation of Economic Development Areas (EDAs). Policy SP22 Retention of employment sites protects the EDAs for employment use. Table 4.13 indicated that over the monitoring year there has been an increase of 2,019sqm in B class floorspace from completions within designated Economic Development Areas. It should be noted that although this indicator monitors B1, B2 and B8 use classes, changes were made to the national Use Class Order in 2020 and 2021. Use Class B1 has been deleted and replaced by Use Class E(g). There are no changes to B2 and B8 use class categories. The table below references both the former B1 use class and current E(g) use class.

 

B1a

E(g)(i)

B1b

E(g)(ii)

B1c

E(g)(iii)

B2

B8

Total

Completed

405

0

0

1168

446

2,019

Consent

-290

0

-41

687

370

726

Table 4.13: Net gain for completed and consented B class development by type within Economic Development Areas (Source: MBC 2021).

 

Indicator M20: Amount of B class floorspace by type consented/completed on allocated sites per annum

4.32 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan includes allocations for employment uses. Table 4.14 below outlines the delivery of the allocated sites in 2020/21. Two separate developments are under construction at RMX1(1) Newnham Park but not for B class uses. EMP1(1) West of Barradale Farm has consent and has completed, although the remainder of the allocation remains available for future development; whilst EMP1(4) Woodcut Farm has outline permission. Since the adoption of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan in 2017, EMP1(2), RMX1(4) and RMX1(6) have yet to gain planning permission. The site promoters of EMP1(2) have confirmed through the Local Plan Review Regulation 18b consultation that their site remains suitable and available for development. The former Syngenta Works (RMX1(4)) has an application for up to 46,447sqm B1/B2/B8 currently pending decision. Similarly, site RMX1(6) Mote Road has an application pending decision (20/505707/FULL) for 172 units and 1,169sqm office floorspace. Should these applications be permitted, this will be reflected in next year’s AMR. 

Site Allocation

 

Allocation Progress

B1a (sqm)

B1b

(sqm)

B1c (sqm)

B2 (sqm)

B8 (sqm)

Total (sqm)

EMP1 (1) West of Barradale Farm, Maidstone Road, Headcorn

Complete.

Remainder of allocation – no application

0

0

0

967.7

967.7

1,935.4

EMP1 (2) South of Claygate, Pattenden Lane, Marden

No application

0

0

0

0

0

0

EMP1 (3) West of Wheelbarrow Industrial Estate, Pattenden Lane, Marden

Partly developed, remaining part of the site yet to be developed.

0

0

0

0

0

0

EMP1 (4) Woodcut Farm, Bearsted Road, Bearsted

Not started

2906

5182

14,934

0

22,273

45,295

RMX1 (1) Newnham Park, Bearsted Road, Maidstone

Not started

12,375

12,375

0

0

0

24,750

RMX1 (2) – Maidstone East and forming Royal Mail sorting office, Maidstone

Previous temporary permission completed

0

0

0

0

0

0

RMX1 (4) Former Syngenta works, Hampstead Lane, Yalding

Application pending decision

0

0

0

0

0

0

RMX1 (5) Powerhub Building and Baltic Wharf, St Peter’s Street, Maidstone

Expired permission for foodstore

0

0

0

0

0

0

RMX1 (6) Mote Road, Maidstone

Application pending decision

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

15,281

17,557

14,934

967.7

23,240.7

71,980.4

Table 4.14: Net gain for completed and consented B class development by type for allocated sites (Source: MBC 2021).

Indicator M21: Amount of land/floorspace within Economic Development Areas and allocated sites and elsewhere lost to non B class uses

4.33 As noted in indicator M19, there have been changes to the use class order in this regard. However, Table 4.15 below show the breakdown of net floorspace completed and consented, by location. A positive (+) figure represents a net increase in B Use Class floorspace whilst a negative (-) figure represents a net loss of B Use Class floorspace. Over the monitoring year, a net total of -1,860sqm of B Use Class floorspace was lost to other non- B Use Classes across the borough. Whilst both the EDAs and Allocations had positive net B Use Class floorspace completions (+3,954sqm), ‘elsewhere’ in the borough saw a net loss of -5,814sqm of B Use Class floorspace completed. This loss is primarily of office (B1a Use Class) and warehousing (B8 Use Class) floorspace. By far the largest single loss of office floorspace ‘elsewhere’ in the borough in the monitoring year was the completion of the conversion of Medvale House office block in Maidstone town centre, to residential units under permitted development rights (-1,800sqm).

4.34 As at 1st April 2021, a net total of +48,459sqm of B Use Class floorspace had consent. The majority of this floorspace is on allocated sites, specifically Woodcut Farm (EMP1(4)). There is, however, a net loss of -14sqm of floorspace consented within the EDAs. Whilst the target is for no net loss, Local Plan Policy SP22 does allow for mixed use proposals incorporating elements of non-B Use Classes subject to certain criteria. This small amount of consented floorspace loss in the EDAs is therefore not considered to be of concern.

 

B1a

B1b

B1c

B2

B8

Total

Economic Development Area

Completed

405

0

0

1,168

445

2,018

Consent

-290

0

-41

687

-370

-14

Allocations

Completed

0

0

0

968

968

1,936

Consent

4,810

6,923

14,934

-400

22,273

48,540

Elsewhere

Completed

-2,937

20

-1,010

1,444

-3,331

-5814

Consent

-2,643

146

1,115

1,376

29

23

Completed total:

-1,860

Consented total:

48,459

Table 4.15: Net B Use Class land/floorspace gained/lost within Economic Development Areas, allocated sites and elsewhere, 2020/21 (Source: MBC 2021)

 

 

 

Indicator M22: Percentage unemployment rate

4.35 There is no specific target for this indicator. It monitors wider changes in the local economy. With the introduction of Universal Credit, which requires a broader span of claimants to look for work than under Jobseeker’s Allowance, the number of people recorded as being on the Claimant Count will increase. The number of people recorded as being on the Claimant Count is a proportion of the resident population. Table 4.16 shows the change in claimants since 2011.

Date

Maidstone (%)

South East (%)

Great Britain (%)

2011/12

2.5

2.6

3.8

2012/13

2.5

2.5

3.8

2013/14

2.0

2

3.2

2014/15

1.4

1.3

2.2

2015/16

1.2

1.0

1.8

2016/17

1.2

1.1

1.8

2017/18

1.2

1.2

2.0

2018/19

1.2

1.5

2.3

2019/20

1.9

1.9

2.9

2020/21

5.1

5.1

6.2

Table 4.16: Percentage of claimants as a proportion of the resident population in 2020/21 (Source: Nomis 2021)

4.36 Figure 4.4 shows how the percentage of those who are unemployed has reduced from previous years, with a small increase in 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.4: Percentage of unemployed 2020/21 (Source: Nomis 2021)

Indicator M23: Number of jobs in the Borough

4.37 This indicator does not have a specific target as it monitors wider changes in the local economy. Figure 4.5 shows the change in the number of jobs between 2011 and 2019 using the latest information available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.5: Number of jobs in Maidstone Borough (Source: Nomis 2021)

 

Retail

Indicator M24: Amount of additional comparison and convenience retail floorspace consented/completed per annum

4.38 Policy SS1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan identifies the need for an additional 6,100sqm of convenience retail floorspace and 23,700sqm of comparison retail floorspace to be delivered over the plan period. Since 2016/17 there has been a total net gain across the A1 use class retail floorspace of 2,065 sqm, thereby reducing the overall net floorspace requirement to 27,735 sqm by 2031. However, the current net pipeline supply of A1 retail use floorspace (i.e. extant permissions) is -494 sqm (i.e. a net loss). In purely quantitative terms, this pipeline supply of floorspace results in an overall remaining need to provide 28,229 sqm of additional A1 retail floorspace to 2031 (see table 4.17).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use Class

 

 

A1 [E(a)]

convenience

 

A1 [E(a)] comparison

 

A1

unspecified

 

Total

Net requirement 2016-31 (sqm)

6,100

23,700

0

29,800

Completions (per annum)

2016/17

728

-127

353

954

2017/18

1,794

395

-47

2,12

2018/19

1,593

-897

20

716

2019/20

407

-9,439

-951

-9,983

2020/21

1,409

6,435

402

8,246

Net total (sqm)

5,931

-3,633

-223

2,065

Consent (extant permissions)

Net total (sqm)

322

-1,683

867

-494

 

Remaining net total floorspace (sqm) required to 2031

 

-153

29,016

-1,090

28,229

Table 4.17: Net gain for completed and consented retail floor space by type (Source: MBC 2021). 

4.39 It should be noted that although this indicator monitors A1 use class, changes were made to the national Use Class Order in 2020 and 2021. Use Class A1 has been deleted and replaced by Use Class E(a). The table references both the former A1 use class and current E(a) use class.

4.40 As is evident from the above table, the quantity of overall floorspace provision is well below target to meet the requirements by 2031. However, upon analysis of the provision of different types of retail floorspace, it is evident that the requirement for convenience retail has already been exceeded, whilst there is a significant under delivery of comparison retail floorspace.

4.41 The first three years of the plan saw a relatively modest net loss in comparison retail floorspace (629sqm). However, this loss was compounded during 2019/20, when there was a significant net comparison retail floorspace loss (9,439sqm) primarily due to the demolition of Grafty Green Garden Centre. This has meant that despite the strong net floorspace gains in 2020/21 (6,435sqm) predominately through the completion of a new Marks and Spencer store at Eclipse Park, the growth has not been significant enough to counteract the previous years’ cumulative net losses.

4.42 As part of the Local Plan Review, new evidence is being produced to look at future retail, food/drink and leisure floorspace requirements, particularly as new ways of retailing and use of high streets evolve in a post-Brexit and post-Covid economic market. The borough’s floorspace requirements will be ‘reset’ from the start of the new plan period (2022). The Council’s approach to retail land supply and delivery is therefore being reviewed in light of the updated evidence to ensure that the floorspace provision is aligned as closely as possible to future market requirements.

 

Indicator M25: Amount of convenience and comparison retail floorspace consented/completed on allocated sites per annum

4.43 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan allocates land for both comparison and convenience retail development. Over the monitoring year, no planning permissions were granted or completed on retail allocations.

4.44 There is an extant permission at RMX1 (1) Newnham Park, Bearsted Road, Maidstone for refurbishment and extension of existing garden centre buildings (including the enclosure of 2,570 sqm gross internal area of 31 existing external retail floor space). However, this permission is yet to be implemented. Temporary permission was previously granted for a mix of uses including offices (873sqm), warehousing (1,214sqm net gain) and retail (450sqm) at RMX1 (2) Maidstone East and former Royal Mail sorting office, Maidstone. This permission was completed in the monitoring year 2017/18. Permission was also granted for a foodstore at RMX1 (5) Powerhub Building and Baltic Wharf, St Peter’s Street, Maidstone. However, this has since expired.

4.45 The Council approved planning guidance documents for five Town Centre Opportunity Sites in 2019. One of these opportunity sites, titled Maidstone Riverside, includes land allocated under RMX1(5) Powerhub and Baltic Wharf.

4.46 All allocations will be reviewed through the Local Plan Review, particularly as new ways of retailing and use of high streets evolve in a post-Brexit and post-Covid economic market. The Council’s approach to retail land supply and delivery will be reviewed in light of the updated evidence to ensure that the floorspace provision is aligned as closely as possible to future market requirements.

 

Indicator M26: Proportion of non-A1 uses in primary shopping frontages

4.47 There are eight primary frontages identified within Maidstone town centre. These are areas where retail uses are concentrated and in order to maintain this concentration, the indicator requires primary frontages to contain at or above 85% retail (A1 Use Class) uses. In 2020 and 2021, changes were made to both the national Use Class Order and to Permitted Development Rights, including, among other things, the introduction of a new E Use Class (Commercial, Business and Service) and the deletion of the A Use Class. Retail shops previously falling under A1 Use Class are now E(g) Use Class. These changes will be reflected in the Local Plan Review indicators, but for the purposes of this adopted Local Plan indicator, reference is made to both old and new Use Class categories.

 

4.48 Overall, in the monitoring year, the level of A1 (now E(g)) Uses within primary frontages has remained at the same percentage with none of the primary frontages falling below the 85% threshold, indicating that the primary frontage still remains effective in focusing a core retail provision in Maidstone Town Centre (see figure 4.6). However, in future years the ability to control the uses within these frontages will be significantly reduced given the aforementioned changes to permitted development rights, which allow a far greater flexibility of changes of use to non-retail within the same class.

 

Figure 4.6: Change in the percentage of primary shopping frontage in A1 (now E(g)) between 2019/20 and 2020/21 (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation

Indicator M27: Annual delivery of permanent pitches/plots (allocated and unidentified sites)

4.49 The Local Plan outlines a 187 pitch target over the plan period. Since 2011, the base date of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, a total of 246 pitches have been granted permanent consent (Table 4.18). At the 1st April 2021, the rate at which permanent permissions have been granted exceeds the target.

Permanent non-personal pitches

Permanent personal pitches

Temporary non-personal pitches

Temporary personal pitches

214

32

4

39

Table 4.18: Permitted gypsy and traveller pitches 2011-2021 (Source: MBC 2021)

4.50 Between 1st April 2020 and 31st March 2021 there has been permission for 21 permanent pitches (Table 4.19). This figure is made up of 21 non-personal and 2 personal permanent permissions.

 

Permanent non-personal pitches

Permanent personal pitches

Temporary non-personal pitches

Temporary personal pitches

Total

2020/2021

21

2

0

0

23

Table 4.19: Annual permissions of permanent pitches/plots (Source: MBC 2021)

4.51 At Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee on 9th November 2020 the preferred approach for the LPR was agreed. The preferred approach contained an approach for gypsy and traveller need which will be based on an updated assessment. The preferred approach was to create a separate DPD for gypsy and traveller need.

4.52 The new Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) has been commissioned to cover the Local Plan Review period and survey work was undertaken in Winter 2020.  However, due to the Covid-19 lockdowns and subsequent public health advice, the new GTAA has been delayed.

 

Indicator M28: Delivery of permanent pitches on allocated sites

4.53 Since the adoption of the Local Plan, 15 permanent pitches have been delivered on allocated sites (37% of the 41 pitch requirement). As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic the biannual caravan counts in July 2020 and January 2021 could not take place. This indicator relies on the caravan count to inform delivery. As such, where possible, delivery information has been taken from previous counts and information submitted at the application stage. 

 

Indicator M29: Five year supply position

4.54 The former Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (PTS) requires local plans to identify 5 years’ worth of deliverable Gypsy and Traveller pitches against the Local Plan’s pitch target. At 1st April 2021 the Council can demonstrate a 6.2 years’ worth of deliverable gypsy and traveller pitches. Tables 4.20 and 4.21 below outlines the calculation used.

 

 

 

Pitches

1

Pitch requirement 1 October 2011 to 31 March 2020 (10 years) (105 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5)

130

2

No of permanent pitches consented 1 October 2011 to 31 March 2021

246

3

5 year requirement 2021 - 2026 (5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4 + 5.4 = 27)

27

4

5% buffer brought forward from later in the Plan period (5% of line 3)

1.35

5

Total requirement 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026 (line 3 + line 4)

28.35

6

Total pitch supply 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026 (from Table 4.21)

35

 

5 year supply:

 

Yearly requirement = Total requirement 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026 ÷ 5 years

     28.35 ÷ 5 = 5.67 

 

5-year supply = Total pitch supply ÷ Yearly requirement 

     35 ÷ 5.67 = 6.17 rounded to 6.2 years

Table 4.20: Five year supply calculation (Source: MBC 2021)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pitches

Policy GT1 - allocated pitches (excl. consented and/or occupied pitches)

  • GT1(1) – The Kays, Linton (1)
  • GT1(2) – Greenacres, Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea (1)
  • GT1(6) – Rear of Granada, Lenham Rd, Headcorn (1)
  • GT1(8) – Kilnwood Farm, Old Ham Lane, Lenham (2)
  • GT1(10) – The Paddocks, George Street, Staplehurst (2)
  • GT1(13) – Flips Hole, South Street Rd, Stockbury (5)
  • GT1(15) Hawthorn Farm, Ulcombe (2)
  •  

14

Pitch turnover on 2 x public sites (5 x 1.1 pitches/annum)

6[7]

Windfall sites

15[8]

Total pitch supply 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026

35

Table 4.21: Components of total pitch supply 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2026 (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M30: Number of caravans recorded in the bi-annual caravan count

4.55 There is no specific target for this indicator. It provides a snapshot of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation provision in the Maidstone Borough. As a response to the Coronavirus pandemic the bi-annual caravan count was suspended for July 2020 and January 2021. Therefore, the most up to date figures published by the MHCLG (now Department for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities) are those which are reported below.

4.56 As reported in July 2019 there were 744 caravans and in January 2020 there were 727 caravans recorded. This figure includes both mobiles and tourers. There has been a significant increase in the number of caravans recorded between July 2018 and January 2020 (Table 4.23). This increase is due to the large gypsy and traveller population in Maidstone Borough and an improved monitoring and identification system.

 

 

Year

Total caravans

January 2020

727

July 2019

744

January 2019

572

July 2018

466

Table 4.22: Number of caravans recorded in the bi-annual caravan count (includes both mobiles and tourers) (Source: MHCLG, 2020).

 

Heritage

Indicator M31: Number of and nature of cases resulting in a loss of designated heritage assets as a result of development

4.57 There have been no applications permitted for demolition, or for the removal of a heritage asset during the monitoring year, so no action is required.

 

Indicator M32: Change in the number of entries on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register

4.58 There has been no change to the Heritage at Risk Register and as of April 2021 there are 13 designated heritage assets at risk.

 

Natural Environment – Biodiversity

Indicator M33: Loss of designated wildlife sites as a result of development (hectares)

4.59 There has been no loss of designated wildlife sites as a result of development during 2020/21 so no action is required.

 

Indicator M34: Loss of Ancient Woodland as a result of development (hectares)

4.60 There has been no loss of ancient woodland as a result of development permitted during the monitoring year of 2020/21. Loss of ancient woodland will be reviewed to ensure the correct application of Local Plan policies.

 

 

Agricultural Land

Indicator M35: Loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land as a result of development (hectares)

4.61 Agricultural land is graded into five categories according to versatility and suitability for growing crops. Grade 1 is excellent, Grade 2 very good, Grade 3 good to moderate, Grade 4 poor and Grade 5 as very poor. Grades 1 – 3a are the best and most versatile agricultural land. The target for this indicator is no overall loss of best and most versatile agricultural land as a result of consented development on non-allocated sites (major applications only).

 

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3a/b[9]

2016/17

0

3.06

0

2017/18

0

0

0

2018/19

0

1.93

0.26

2019/20

0

0

1.98

2020/21

0

0

0

Table 4.23: Hectares of agricultural land lost due to windfall planning consent on major sites (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Good Design and Sustainable Design

Indicator M36: Number of qualifying developments failing to provide BREEAM very good standards for water and energy credits

4.62 Of the 99 applications permitted during 2020/21 that qualify to provide BREEAM very goods standards, 95 did so. Of the four applications that failed to do so, two of those applications have conditions which require a final certificate to be submitted to certify that a very good BREEAM rating has been achieved. By adding a condition to a commercial application to meet the BREEAM standard, the applications meet the policy objective.

 

Indicator M37: Completed developments performing well in design reviews

4.63 Design quality is monitored through the planning decision and appeal process. There has been an increase in the number of applications allowed on appeal following a refusal on grounds of design quality since 2016/17 (Table 4.24 below). If this trend continues, the application of Policy DM1 ‘Principles of good design’ in the development management process will need to be reviewed. 

Year

Completed developments performing well in design reviews

2016/17

0

2017/18

0

2018/19

3

2019/20

5

2020/21

12

Table 4.24: Completed developments performing well in design reviews (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Open Space

Indicator M38: Loss of designated open space as a result of development (hectares)

4.64 There has been no loss of designated open space as a result of development during the reporting year 2020/21 so no action required.

 

Indicator M39: Delivery of open space allocations

4.65 There are 17 open space (OS) allocations listed under Policy OS1 in the Local Plan. These are directly linked to residential site allocations. Table 4.25 shows all 17 OS1 allocations and the status/progress of the development sites for the 2020/21 monitoring year. In the last year one site was completed: OS8 The Parsonage, Goudhurst Road, Marden.

 


Site name/address

LP17 OS1 allocation

LP17 OS1 size (hectares)

LP17 OS1 description

Development status

OS permitted (description)

Completion year

Oakapple Lane Barming

1

1.5

Natural/semi-natural OS

No application

Langley Park Sutton Road B. Monch

2

7.65

Informal OS (nature conservation area)

Started

South of Sutton Road, Langley

3

0.1

Natural/semi-natural OS

Started

Kent Police HQ, Sutton Road, Maidstone

4

1.6

Outdoor sports provision (3-5 sports pitches)

Not started

Cross Keys Bearsted

5

2.4

Natural/semi-natural OS

Started

South of Ashford Road Harrietsham

6

1.37
0.5

Natural/semi-natural OS
Allotments

Completed

Contributions towards refurbishment and replacement of offsite outdoor sports facilities and children's and young people's equipped play areas at Glebe Fields and improvements of infrastructure and provision of capacity at the existing allotments to the west of the land (due occupation of 35 dwelling)

2018/19

Church Road Harrietsham

7

0.91

Natural/semi-natural OS

Completed

Not to complete more than 75% of the dwellings of allow the same until land is made available for use the on site open space

2018/19

The Parsonage Goudhurst Rd Marden

8

2.1

Natural/semi-natural OS

Completed

2020-21

Land to the North of Henhurst Farm, Pinnock Lane, Staplehurst

9

1.22

Natural/semi-natural OS

No application

Land at Lenham Road Headcorn

10

0.1

Natural/semi-natural OS

Completed

£60,480 towards improvements (including equipped play) refurbishment and maintenance to Hoggs Bridge Green Play Area to mitigate the impact of the development (50% prior to commencement and 50% prior to occupation of 24th dwelling)

2017/18

(Gibbs Hill Farm) South of Grigg Lane Headcorn

11

1.18

Natural/semi-natural OS

Started

Land North Of, Heath Road (Older's Field), Coxheath, Maidstone, Kent, ME17 4TB

12

1.12

Natural/semi-natural OS

Started

Heathfield Heath Rd Coxheath

13

0.5

Natural/semi-natural OS

Completed

£97,924.20 towards the cost of improvements refurbishment and replacement of facilities (including pavilions play equipment and play areas ground works and facilities) at Stockett Lane Recreation Ground (prior to occupation of 55th dwelling)

2017/18

Land at Boughton Mount Boughton Lane

14

0.15

Natural/semi-natural OS

No application

Lyewood Farm, Green Lane. B. Monchelsea

15

0.15

Natural/semi-natural OS

Started

West of Church Road Otham

16

1.4

Natural/semi-natural OS

Appeal allowed

Tanyard Farm, Old Ashford Rd Lenham (Land North Of Old Ashford Road )

17

0.34

Natural/semi-natural OS

Not started

Table 4.25: Local Plan Allocations and open space delivered (Source: MBC 2021)


Indicator M40: Delivery of new or improvements to existing designated open space in association with housing and mixed use developments

4.66 This indicator looks at whether the delivery of new or improvements to existing designated open space has been fulfilled in accordance with Policy DM19 and, where appropriate, Policy H1 over the reporting year. Policy DM19 of the adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) sets out the Council's requirements for open space provision and Policy H1 sets out site specific housing allocation requirements, including for the provision of open space. In the reporting year 2020/21, qualifying residential and mixed-use sites provided over 3.2 hectares of on-site open space provision.

 

Air Quality

Indicator M41: Progress in achieving compliance with EU Directive/national regulatory requirements for air quality within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

4.67 The Air Quality Annual Status Report (June 2020)[10] explains that

“The 2019 monitoring results show that the annual mean NO2 […] objective has been met in majority of the monitoring locations. Also, in the vast majority of monitoring locations, NO2 levels had decreased from the 2018 levels, continuing the general trend of air quality improvements which has been ongoing in Maidstone in the last four or five years. There were six locations within the AQMA where NO2 levels were observed to exceed the annual mean objective for NO2 in 2019, when distance corrected to the nearest relevant exposure. Five of these locations were in Upper Stone Street and the other was at the Wheatsheaf Junction.

 

It is clear that air quality in Maidstone has improved over recent years, to the extent that a number of areas previously identified as air quality ‘hotspots,’ for example, the High Street and Well Road, no longer appear to exceed the NO2 annual mean objective. At the Wheatsheaf junction, whilst an exceedance is regularly measured at the Wheatsheaf pub, the pub appears to be the only property where the exceedance is measured. Neighbouring residential properties appear to be below the objective. A similar picture is emerging at the Fountain Lane/Tonbridge Road junction where the area of exceedance barely seems to extend outside the carriageway of the road to the residential properties.

 

An apparent exceedance of the hourly mean NO2 objective in Upper Stone Street was thought to be due to an instrument fault. […]

 

Therefore it is now very clear that Upper Stone Street is now the main area of concern in Maidstone with regards to air quality. Even here, there have been considerable improvements in recent years. […] Despite the improvements, the levels remain stubbornly in excess of the objective, and it’s clearly here that we need to prioritise our efforts in the coming years. That said, it is not hard to envisage a time in the not too distant future, when our relatively new AQMA might be revoked and replaced with a much smaller AQMA, probably only including Upper Stone Street and Loose Road, between Wrens Cross and the Wheatsheaf Junction.”

4.68 In conclusion, there has been continued improvements in air quality at the identified exceedance areas.

 

Indicator M42: Applications accompanied by an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) which demonstrate that the air quality impacts of development will be mitigated to acceptable levels

4.69 For this indicator, the Council reviewed the permissions granted for residential development in Maidstone urban area during the monitoring year.  The Council focused on the 19 permissions granted on large sites (5+ dwellings).  Of this number, 9 of the developments were found to have no specific air quality implications when the applications were assessed and 1 application was for a ‘Prior Notification’ proposal and, as such, exempt from air quality considerations.  The remaining 9 proposals made provision for air quality as follows; provision of electric vehicle charging points (7 sites), and air quality mitigation measures to be submitted and approved; (1 site, 2 applications).

 

Infrastructure

Indicator M43: Planning obligations – contributions prioritisation (Policy ID1(4))

4.70 There were 9 planning consent applications that had S106 agreements signed off in the 2020/21 reporting year. All 9 provided contributions sought in accordance with the priorities outlined in Policy ID1(4). In addition to the provision of affordable housing (where required), a total of £1,563,242.52 of developer contributions were agreed towards the provision, improvement or enhancement of community infrastructure. This included contributions towards primary education, healthcare facility improvements, cycleway and highways improvements, and open space and riverway enhancements.

 

 

Indicator M44: Planning obligations – number of relevant developments with planning obligations

4.71 There were 9 planning consent applications that had S106 agreements signed off in the 2020/21 reporting year. All 9 provided contributions where the needs generated by the development were identified. In addition to the provision of affordable housing (where required), a total of £1,564,242.52 of developer contributions were agreed towards the provision, improvement or enhancement of community infrastructure. This included contributions towards primary education, healthcare facility improvements, cycleway and highways improvements, and open space and riverway enhancements.

 

Indicator M45: Delivery of infrastructure through planning obligations/conditions

4.72 Where developer contributions are secured through Section 106 agreements, there are normally prescribed dates by which the funds are required to be spent or risk being returned to the payee. In this reporting year, the total amount of money from planning obligations received towards infrastructure was £5,256,410. Of this amount £4,996,714 was spent (£3,885,101 of which was transferred to a third party by Maidstone Borough Council). The remaining £261,025 was not spent during the reported year. Full details of all planning obligations secured/received/spent within the monitoring year are available to view in the published Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS).

 

Indicator M46: Introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy

4.73 The Council formally implemented CIL on 1st October 2018. Over the monitoring year 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021, 127 planning applications were received that were potentially liable for the CIL charge. In reality, this figure may be lower due to various exemptions and relief options available. e.g. self-build exemption or charitable relief.  In total over the monitoring year, £1,226,382 (gross) was collected by the Council in CIL payments.

 

Transport

Indicator M47: Identified transport improvements associated with Local Plan site allocations

4.74 The Council maintains an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) that identifies the projects needed to deliver the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017). It tracks the progress of all known infrastructure projects and updates the status of them annually. The Council also meets with KCC, as the highway authority, on a quarterly basis to discuss progress of identified highways improvement schemes and ensure their timely delivery – with a particular focus on the schemes identified as part of the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP). There are 48 transport improvements identified relevant to this indicator in the IDP. See table 4.26 below for details.

4.75 Of concern is the ongoing delays to delivery of the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package. This comprises a series of junction improvement schemes that seek to alleviate the pressure of additional growth contained within the adopted Local Plan 2017. Funding has been obtained but none of the schemes have been delivered by Kent County Council.

Over the reporting year 2020-21

Schemes completed:

·         HTHE2 - Signalisation of the Kings Road / Mill Bank junction, Headcorn

Schemes delayed:

·         HTJ73 – Capacity improvements at M2 J5 (located in Swale Borough)

·         HTJ74 – Upgrading of Bearsted Road to a dual carriageway between Bearsted roundabout and New Cut roundabout.

·         HTSE1 – Capacity improvements on the A274 Sutton Road between the junctions of Wallis Avenue and Loose Road, incorporating bus prioritisation measures from the Willington Street junction to the Wheatsheaf junction, together with bus infrastructure improvements.

·         HTSE6 – Improvements to capacity at the A229/A274 Wheatsheaf junction and improvements to the approaches to the Bridge Gyratory signal junctions from the Wheatsheaf junction

·         HTSE7 – Improvements to capacity at the A229/A274 Wheatsheaf junction and improvements to the approaches to the Bridge Gyratory signal junctions from the Wheatsheaf junction

·         HTNW3 – Enlargement of existing A20 Coldharbour roundabout and removal of traffic signals

·         HTNW4 – Capacity improvements at the junction of Fountain Lane and the A26/Tonbridge Road

·         HTUA1 – Highway improvements at Boughton Lane and at the junction of Boughton Lane and the A229 Loose Road.

·         HTUA2 - Improvements to capacity at the A20/Willington Street junction

 

In these cases, this is due to a significant shortfall in funding or due to the Covid-19 pandemic. MBC continues to work with KCC and partners to progress the delivery of these critical schemes.

One scheme had now completed its design:

·         HTNW10 - Provision of a new cycle lane along B2246 Hermitage Lane

A total of 39 schemes had no change in their status since 2019-20 IDP.  

Table 4.26: Identified transport improvements associated with Local Plan site allocations (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator M48: Sustainable transport measures to support the growth identified in the Local Plan and as set out in the Integrated Transport Strategy and the Walking and Cycling Strategy

4.76 In total 16% of the actions within the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) have not been actioned. A total 27% are on track to be actioned and 57% are being appropriately actioned. This has meant there has been an increase in the number of actions categorised as not being actioned due to growing concern at the lack of delivery of the highways schemes identified in the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP). Whilst the majority of sustainable transport measures to support the growth identified in the Local Plan remain broadly on track to be delivered within the time periods identified within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the MITP schemes are now at risk of being delivered beyond the timeframes identified in the IDP.

 

Indicator M49: Provision of Travel Plans for appropriate development

4.77 Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements are all ways of assessing and mitigating the negative transport impacts of development in order to promote sustainable development. They are required for all developments which generate significant amounts of movements. In 2020/21 the following developments submitted travel plans to the KCC travel plan officer through the consultation process:

·         19/506146 – Gibbs Farm Hill

·         20/501733 – Bearsted Road

·         19/502360 – Springfield Mill

·         20/501206 – Land South of Heath Road

·         20/505957 – Land South of Sutton Road

 

Indicator M50: Achievement of modal shift through:

·         No significant worsening of congestion as a result of development

·         Reduced long stay town centre car park usage

·         Improved ratio between car parking costs and bus fares

4.78 There is no specific target for this indicator. It purely monitors modal shift. The three parts of the indicator are discussed in turn below.

4.79 No significant worsening of congestion as a result of development: The figures below in Table 4.27 show the average vehicle speeds on five of the main A roads. Between 2019 and 2020 average speeds have increased on all five roads.

Road Name

2017

(mph)

2018

(mph)

2019 (mph)

2020 (mph)

Change in last year (%)

A20

32.2

31.3

30.7

33.0

7.5

A229

31.5

33.6

34.1

36.3

6.5

A249

42.9

47.9

48.4

51.5

6.4

A26

24.3

24.0

24.3

26.2

7.8

A274

27.4

27.2

26.2

27.0

3.1

Table 4.27: Average vehicle speeds on locally managed ‘A’ roads (Source: DfT 2021)

4.80 There is no further information regarding average combined journey times for public transport, bicycling and car to key services since 2018 (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7: Average journey times to key services 2016 (Source: DfT 2018[11])

4.81 Reduced long stay town centre car park usage: In total there were 108,546 transactions in the town centre long stay car parks (Table 4.28) a decrease of 69% from the previous year. This was in most part due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and several nationwide lockdowns which both restricted and discouraged members of the public visiting the Town Centre to improve public safety.

4.82 Interestingly, car parks closer to the town centre and frequently used by commuters saw a smaller drop off in patronage, but those located further away from the Town Centre or based around leisure offerings (e.g. Lockmeadow) were hit more significantly by the impact of COVID-19.

Car Park

Payment Method

Total

Pre-pay Unit

RingGo

CiCo (Check In, Check Out)

19/20

20/21

19/20

20/21

19/20

20/21

19/20

20/21

Barker Road

15,970

7,414

17,082

6,457

0

0

33,052

13,871

Brooks Place

1056

638

1,153

641

0

0

2,209

1,279

Brunswick Street

0

0

39

20

0

0

39

20

College Road

11,552

5,513

10,001

4,613

0

0

21,553

10,126

Lockmeadow

118,574

20,126

71,853

26,294

0

0

190,427

46,420

Lucerne Street

2258

2,279

3,475

2,541

0

0

5,733

4,820

Sandling Road

32,032

5,350

18,221

4,564

5,228

528

55,481

10,442

Sittingbourne Road

8,236

2,997

9,930

2,883

0

0

18,166

5,880

Union Street East

7,094

2,804

4,685

4,639

0

0

11,779

7,443

Union Street West

3,823

2,637

4,185

3,080

0

0

8,017

5,717

Well Road

2,301

1,343

4,462

1,185

0

0

6,763

2,528

Total

202,905

51,101

145,086

56,917

5,228

528

353,219

108,546

Table 4.28: Town Centre long stay car park transactions 2019/20 (Source: MBC 2021)

4.83 Improved ratio between car parking costs and bus fares: Since last year there has been no change to the cost of an Arriva day ticket (£5.50). There have been changes to the cost of parking in MBC carparks and Fremlin Walk carpark. All car park options remain more expensive than travelling by bus, with the exception of the Mall (4-5 hours) (Table 4.29). 

Car Parks

Long stay cost (over 4 hours) (2021)

Arriva day ticket cost (2021)

 

Ratio 2021

Ratio 2020

Ratio 2019

Ratio 2018

Ratio 2017

Change

MBC (up to 5 hours)

£5.75 (mode)

£5.50

1.05

0

0

1.38

1.25

1.05

MBC (over 5 hours)

£7.30

£5.50

1.33

1.27

1.28

 

 

0.06

Fremlin Walk (4-5 hours)

£5.80

£5.50

1.06

0.02

0

 

 

0.04

Fremlin Walk (over 5 hours)

£10.80

£5.50

1.96

1.91

1.89

1.96

1.83

0.05

The Mall (4-5 hours)

£4.50

£5.50

-0.82

-0.82

-0.83

 

 

0

The Mall

£9.00

£5.50

1.63

1.63

1.67

1.8

1.73

0

Table 4.29: Ratio of car parking costs compared to bus fares (Source: MBC 2021; Fremlin Walk 2021; and The Mall 2021)

 

 

 

 

5.         Sustainability Appraisal – Significant Effect Indicators

 

5.1 The Sustainability Appraisal for the adopted Maidstone Local Plan outlines measures that will be used to monitor the effects of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan. The monitoring of the significant effect indicators allows previously unforeseen effects to be identified early.

 

Housing

Indicator SA1: Number of households on the Housing Register

5.2 See Local Plan Indicator M15.

 

Indicator SA2: Number of new dwellings built compared to targets

5.3 There were 1,354 dwellings (net) completed during the monitoring year 2020/21, bringing the total completed dwellings to 9,095 for the plan period 2011/21. This represents an over delivery of +265 against the ten year target of 8,830 dwellings.

 

Indicator SA3: Net additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches

5.4 See Local Plan Indicators M27 and M29

 

Flooding

Indicator SA4: New development in the floodplain

5.5 There have been 111 applications permitted within the floodplain during the monitoring year of 2020/21. Of this number 28 included a flood risk assessment as part of the application. A further 17 applications included flood mitigation conditions such as details regarding floor level, materials and the submission of a floor risk assessment. The remaining applications did not include any flood risk mitigation as the developments were considered suitable.

 

Indicator SA5: Development permitted contrary to advice by the Environment Agency on flood risk

5.6 During the monitoring year, no development has been permitted contrary to advice by the environment agency on flood risk.

 

Indicator SA6: Percentage of developments implementing SUDs

5.7 Data for the indicator is unavailable as it is not currently held by the council.

 

Health

Indicator SA7: Percentage of residents that consider their health to be good

5.8 The 2011 Census data outlines that 48% of people within Maidstone consider their health to be very good, with a further 35% who consider their health to be good[12]. These figures are similar to the national averages, whereby a total of 47% consider their health to be very good and 34% consider their health to be good.

 

Indicator SA8: Distance travelled to services

5.9 Information on access to services has been gathered for the five Rural Service Centres (RSCs) and five larger villages as identified in the adopted Local Plan 2017. A revised Settlement Hierarchy (2021) has been commissioned as part of the Local Plan Review and amends the RSCs and larger villages. For the purposes of this AMR the RSCs and larger villages which have been analysed below are those set out in the adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017).  The RSCs are Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden and Staplehurst and the larger villages are Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Eyhorne Street (Hollingbourne), Sutton Valence and Yalding.

5.10 Table 5.1 shows the percentage of key villages with access to each service.  

 

Retail & services

Community & public

Library

Medical

Education

Harrietsham

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

Headcorn

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Lenham

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Marden

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Staplehurst

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Boughton Monchelsea

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

Coxheath

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Hollingbourne (Eyhorne St village boundary, there is no Hollingbourne village boundary)

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

Sutton Valence

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

Yalding

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

% of villages with access

100%

100%

60%

70%

90%

Table 5.1: Access to services in rural service centres and larger villages (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Poverty

Indicator SA9: Difference in levels of deprivation between the most and least deprived areas

5.11 The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks each Lower-layer Super Output Area (LSOA) in the country from 1 being the most deprived and 32,844 being the least deprived. As of 2019, according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation, the least deprived LSOA in Maidstone Borough is in Bearsted ward and is ranked as 32,648. The LSOA is E01024329 and is amongst the 10% least deprived areas in the country. Whilst the least deprived LSOA in Maidstone Borough in both 2015 and 2019 is in Bearsted, it is a different LSOA identified as the least deprived (E01024330 in 2015 and E01024329 in 2019). See Figure 5.1 for location.

5.12 The most deprived LSOA in the Borough is located in Parkwood ward and is ranked as 2914 in 2019 and 1979 in 2015, a change of 935 rankings. The LSOA is E01024389 and remains amongst the 10% most deprived areas in the country. See Figure 5.2 for location.

 

 


 

Figure 5.1 Location of E01024329 in Bearsted (left image) and Figure 5.2 Location of E01024389 in Parkwood (right image) (Source: MHCLG, 2021)

 

 


Indicator SA10: Levels of unemployment

5.13 See Local Plan Indicator M22.

 

Education

Indicator SA11: Number of schools that are at capacity/surplus

5.14 The Department for Education’s School Capacities return, shown in Figure 5.3, shows that secondary schools in 2017 were operating at a 90% level which has increased to 98% in 2021. The capacity for primary schools has only changed by 1%.

Figure 5.3 School capacities from 2017-2021 (Source: KELSI 2021).

 

Indicator SA12: Pupils achieving grades A-C

5.15 NVQ Level 2 equates to 4-5 GCSE grades A*-C (grades 4-9 under the new grading system). Between 2019 and 2020 there has been an increase in the number of pupils achieving NVQ 2 or above in Maidstone (Table 5.2). A trend which is also replicated across the South East and Great Britain. Since 2011, the base date of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, there has been an increase in the number of pupils achieving NVQ 2 or above of 14.8%, and this is in above the level for the rest of the south east (10.0%). However, it is below the national level of 26.5%[13].

Jan 2019 - Dec 2019

Jan 2020 - Dec 2020

NVQ 4 or above

Maidstone (%)

38.5

51.6

South East (%)

43.4

44.9

Great Britain (%)

40.3

43.1

NVQ 3 or above

Maidstone (%)

51.3

62.7

South East (%)

62.1

63.5

Great Britain (%)

58.5

61.4

NVQ 2 or above

Maidstone (%)

70.9

85.1

South East (%)

79.1

80.6

Great Britain (%)

75.6

87.9

NVQ 1 or above

Maidstone (%)

84.3

92.2

South East (%)

88.8

90.3

Great Britain (%)

85.6

87.9

Table 5.2: Percentage of pupils achieving grades A-C (Source: Nomis 2021)

 

Crime

Indicator SA13: Levels of crime in town centres

5.16 The town centre is located in the High Street ward. Figures provided by Kent Police show that overall between July-September 2017 and January-March 2021 there has been a decline in reported crime in the High Street ward from 1109 to 877 reported crimes (Figure 5.4). There was a spike in July-September 2020.

Figure 5.4: Crimes reported between July 2017 and March 2021 (Source: Kent Policy 2021)

Indicator SA14: Crime rates per 1000 population

5.17 There has been a decrease in all reported crime both within Maidstone and county wide between 2017/18 and 2020/21. With a reduction of 11% between 2019/20 and 2020/21 for Maidstone Borough (Table 5.3).

Crime rate per 1,000 population

2017/18

Maidstone

90

Kent

114

2018/19

Maidstone

104

Kent

127

2019/20

Maidstone

95

Kent

120

2020/21

Maidstone

85

Kent

104

% Change

Maidstone

-11%

Kent

-13%

Table 5.3: Crime rates per 1,000 population (Source: Home Office 2021)

 

 

 

Vibrant community

Indicator SA15: Loss/gain of community facilities

5.18 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan seeks to resist the net loss of community facilities. During 2020/21, 8 new community facilities were completed. This includes one performing arts studio; three dental surgeries; one veterinary practice; one doctors surgery; one ultrasound studio and one 65 bed hospital.

5.19 During 2020/21 there has also been a total loss of 5 community facilities, consisting of one nursery; one opticians, one community centre, one derelict building adjoining a hospital and one dentist. Overall, this equates to a net gain of three community facility in 2020/21.

 

Accessibility

Indicator SA16: Percentage of relevant applications where a Travel Plan is secured

5.20 See Local Plan Indicator M49

 

Indicator SA17: Percentage of trips to work, school, leisure using public transport, walking and cycling

5.21 Information produced by Public Health England[14] shows that in 2018/19 15.9% of adults in the Borough walk as their mode of travel at least three days per week, compared to 18% of adults in 2017/18. A further 2.4% of adults cycle for travel at least three days per week. This represents an increase since 2017/18, where this figure was just 1%.

5.22 Walking to school statistics published[15] indicate that over the monitoring year a total of 7,716 cars were taken off the road as a result of walking to school, a marked decrease from last year’s figure of 16,092 cars. It is likely that commuting patterns have changed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

 

 

Indicator SA18: Develop indicators to look at access issues in rural areas

5.23 The Council will develop indicators to look at access issues in rural areas. Table 5.1 for Indicator SA8 provides information on the level of access to services within the Rural Service Centres (RSCs) and five larger villages.

 

Culture

Indicator SA19: Number of visits to the Borough

5.24 In a report on the Economic Impact of Tourism in Maidstone – 2019 Results, commissioned by Visit Kent and published in November 2020, there has been a decrease in the number of visits to Maidstone Borough (Figure 5.5). This contrasts with the county as whole. Looking specifically at the number of day trips between 2017 and 2019, for Kent the number of visits increased from 60,100,000 to 61,700,000.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.5: Number of visitors to the Borough (Source: Destination Research, 2020 commissioned by Visit Kent)

 

Land use

Indicator SA20: Percentage of development on previously developed land

5.25 Out of the 1,354 dwellings (net) completed during the monitoring year 2020/21 a total of 351 dwellings were completed on previously developed land. This equates to 29%. Table 5.4 shows that there has been a decline in the percentage of completions on previously developed land, which is to be expected as greenfield sites allocated in the adopted Local Plan are delivered.   

Year

Percentage of completions on previously developed land

2011/12

92%

2012/13

84%

2013/14

77%

2014/15

77%

2015/16

69%

2016/17

60%

2017/18

47%

2018/19

51%

2019/20

27%

2020/21

29%

Table 5.4: Percentage of housing completions on previously developed land (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator SA21: Net loss of agricultural land

5.26 See Local Plan Indicator M35.

 

Indicator SA22: Number of new allotment pitches provided through development contributions

5.27 Over the monitoring year no new allotment pitches have been provided through development contributions.

 

Congestion

Indicator SA23: Peak traffic flow

5.28 See Local Plan Indicator M50.

 

Indicator SA24: Travel times

5.29 See Local Plan Indicator M50.

 

Indicator SA25: Investment in road infrastructure

5.30 A total of 25 highways and transportation schemes from the Infrastructure Delivery Plan have been completed since the adoption of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan in 2017. These schemes include works to reduce traffic congestion; improve sustainable transport options through the provision of bus lanes and cycle parking; footpath provision; and the enhancement of the public realm. All of these measures contribute to reducing congestion in the borough.

 

Climate change

Indicator SA26: CO2 emissions per capita

5.31 Between 2011 and 2019, CO2 emissions per capita in Maidstone has declined, a trend which is reflected in the Kent average (Table 5.5).

Per Capita Emissions (tonnes)

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

 

Maidstone

6.3

6.5

6.5

5.7

5.5

5.2

4.9

4.7

4.4

 

Kent

6.9

6.8

6.5

5.9

5.6

5.4

5.1

5.0

4.6

 

England

6.6

6.8

6.6

6.0

5.7

5.3

5.1

5.0

4.9

Table 5.5: Per Capita CO­2 Emissions (t) between 2011 and 2019 (Source: DEBIS 2021)

 

Indicator SA27: Number of new residential developments where the energy/emissions standards in the Building Regulations Part L have been exceeded

5.32 The Council assesses new residential developments to see if they meet Building Regulations Part L. What is not currently monitored, is to what extent developments exceed energy and emission standards.

 

Indicator SA28: Number of developments where ‘adaptation statements’ have been produced

5.33 Data for the indicator is unavailable as it is not currently held by the council.

 

Biodiversity

Indicator SA29: Net loss/gain of designated wildlife habitats

5.34 There has been no net change in designated wildlife habitats.

 

Indicator SA30: Condition of wildlife sites

5.35 Data for the indicator is unavailable as it is not currently held by the council.

 

Countryside and heritage

Indicator SA31: Landscape character appraisals and impacts

5.36 The Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment and Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment Supplement were produced in 2012. The Landscape Character Assessment identifies 58 borough wide landscape character areas. Each landscape area has been assessed against condition and sensitivity. The Council also commissioned the Maidstone Landscape Capacity Study: Sensitivity Assessment and the Maidstone Landscape Capacity Study: Site Assessments (both published in 2015) which assessed the sensitivity of the landscape character areas in more detail. The documents form part of the evidence base for the Local Plan and inform planning application decisions.

 

Indicator SA32: Number of heritage restoration projects completed

5.37 Data for the indicator is unavailable as it is not currently held by the council.

 

Waste

Indicator SA33: Number of complaints to the Council related to waste storage and collection at new developments

5.38 During the monitoring year, no complaints relating to waste storage and collection at new developments were received by the Council.

5.39 In previous years, the Council changed the standard collection service by providing additional collections on a weekly basis, rather than the standard alternative week system in a number of new build locations to accommodate for a lack of storage space. The Council has changed developer guidance in relation to the sizes of bins to be provided and has given additional guidance about communal bin stores to try to prevent service problems in the future.

 

Indicator SA34: Amount of construction and demolition waste

5.40 Across Kent there has been a reduction in the amount of non-household waste disposed between 2014/15 to 2019/20 of 59%, with 16,742 tonnes in 2019/20. In Maidstone there has been a decrease of 61% with 220 tonnes of non-household waste collected in 2019/20 (Table 5.6).

Financial Year

Maidstone (collected)

Kent (disposal)

2014/15

558

41,091

2015/16

523

40,266

2016/17

202

41,779

2017/18

357

39,119

2018/19

252

35,406

2019-20

220

16,742

Table 5.6: Amount of non-household waste collected (tonnes) (Source: DEFRA 2021)

 

Indicator SA35: Waste generated per capita

5.41 As demonstrated in the graph below there has been a decrease in the amount of household waste generated in Maidstone of 4%. Similarly, the amount of household waste collected per person in Kent has also seen a decrease of 9%.

Figure 5.6: Collected household waste per person (kg) (Source: DEFRA 2021)

Water management

Indicator SA36: Water availability/consumption ratios

5.42 The Southern Water ‘Water Resources Management Plan 2019’ outlines the future forecasts for demand and supply across Southern England. The Southern Water Management Plan includes four scenarios. Table 5.7 outlines that over the Management Plan period, across all four scenarios there will be an increase in water demand.

Planning scenario

2019-20 demand (Ml/d)

2069-70 demand (Ml/d)

Net change (Ml/d)

Net change (%)

Normal Year

535.1

594.9

59.8

11%

Dry Year

571.0

636.0

65.0

11%

Peak Demand

643.9

720.0

76.1

12%

Minimum DO

561.0

624.1

63.2

11%

Table 5.7 Increase in the demand over the 50 year planning period for each scenario (Source: Southern Water, 2019[16]).

5.43 The Southern Water Management Plan, has three areas of supply. Kent falls under the eastern area. At the start of the planning period (2020/21) in a 1 in 200 year drought, the water available for use is calculated as 165.05 Ml/d (million litres per day). At the end of the planning period (2070) the water available for use is estimated at 143.32 Ml/d. It is anticipated that in 2027-28, during a 1 in 200 year drought the supply demand balance for the eastern area will move from surplus to deficit as a result of potential sustainability reductions and water exported to South East Water.

5.44 The South East Water Resource Management Plan 2020 to 2080 also outlines that supply demand balance for Kent will move from surplus to deficit. Table 5.8 includes information taken from the South East Water Management Plan and indicates that by 2024/25 there will be a deficit of 2.8 Ml/d.  

Kent

Average (Ml/d)

Summer (Ml/d)

2020/21

0.5

4.2

2024/25

-2.8

0.1

2029/30

-8.2

-6.6

2033/34

-11.8

-11.3

2039/40

-39.8

-41.3

2044/45

-45.4

-48.7

2049/50

-48.9

-54.0

2054/55

-51.6

-58.1

2059/60

-54.9

-62.6

2064/65

-58.5

-67.3

2069/70

-62.6

-72.1

2074/75

-67.3

-78.0

2079/80

-71.1

-83.9

Table 5.8 Baseline supply demand balance for Kent (Source: South East Water, 2019[17])

Indicator SA37: Ecological/chemical status of water bodies

5.45 Information gathered by the Environment Agency in Table 5.9 shows the ecological and chemical status of water bodies in and around Maidstone. In total, 73% of water bodies have been classified as moderate in terms of ecological status or potential (this figure excludes groundwater bodies). 85% of water bodies have a chemical status of good.

5.46 Stodmarsh is a nationally and internationally important wildlife site and is located along the Stour river to the south of Canterbury.  Recent condition assessments have established that parts of this site are being adversely impacted by high levels of nitrates and phosphates which are deteriorating habitats.  In July 2020 Natural England issued an advice note to Local Authorities informing them that all new development proposals within the Stour catchment, or that connect to a Waste Water Treatment Works linked to the Stour catchment, will need to consider the impact that they would have on the nitrate and phosphate nutrient levels of the Stour via an appropriate assessment. The advice note was accompanied by a methodology which sets out how applicants and local planning authorities will need to undertake an Appropriate Assessment.  Lenham parish falls within the catchment of the Upper Stour, therefore the Local Plan will need to take its impact on nutrient levels in the Stour into account, and any potential mitigation will need to be included in the plan viability assessment.

Water Body Name

Water Body Category

Ecological status or potential

Chemical status

Alder Stream and Hammer Dyke

River

Moderate

Fail

Aylesford Stream

River

Poor

Fail

Bartley Mill Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

Beult

River

Moderate

Fail

Beult at Yalding

River

Moderate

Fail

Bewl

River

Moderate

Fail

Bewl Water

Lake

Moderate

Fail

Bourne (Medway)

River

Moderate

Fail

Cliffe Pools North Lake

Lake

Moderate

Fail

Cliffe Pools South Lake

Lake

Good

Fail

Ditton Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

East Stour

River

Moderate

Fail

Eccles Lake

Lake

Moderate

Fail

Great Stour between Ashford and Wye

River

Moderate

Fail

Hammer Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

Hilden Brook

River

Poor

Fail

Len

River

Moderate

Fail

Leybourne Stream

River

Poor

Fail

Little Hawden Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

Loose Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

Lower Teise

River

Moderate

Fail

Marden Meadow Ponds

Lake

Good

Fail

Marden Mill Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

MEDWAY

Transitional

Moderate

Fail

Medway at Maidstone

River

Moderate

Fail

Mid Medway from Eden Confluence to Yalding

River

Moderate

Fail

Murston Lakes

Transitional

Good

Fail

Murston Lakes, angling lakes

Lake

Moderate

Fail

Sherway

River

Moderate

Fail

Somerhill Stream

River

Bad

Fail

SWALE

Transitional

Moderate

Fail

Teise and Lesser Teise

River

Moderate

Fail

Teise at Lamberhurst

River

Poor

Fail

Tributary of Beult at Frittenden

River

Moderate

Fail

Tributary of Beult at Sutton Valance

River

Moderate

Fail

Tributary of Teise at Bedgebury

River

Moderate

Fail

Tudeley Brook

River

Moderate

Fail

Ulcombe Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

Upper Beult

River

Bad

Fail

Upper Beult - High Halden and Bethersden Stream

River

Poor

Fail

Upper Great Stour

River

Bad

Fail

Upper Teise

River

Moderate

Fail

Wateringbury Stream

River

Moderate

Fail

White Drain

River

Poor

Fail

Table 5.9 Water bodies classification status (Source: Environment Agency, 2019[18])

 

Energy

Indicator SA38: New installed renewable energy capacity

5.47 Information published by Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy states that between the end of 2014 and end of 2020 there has been an increase in the number of renewable energy installations in Maidstone Borough from 1,484 installations to 2,416. The largest contributor being photovoltaics. The installed capacity has increased from 56.3 MW to 66.8 MW at the end of 2020.

 

Indicator SA39: Total energy consumption

5.48 Total energy consumption in Maidstone has fluctuated between 2011 and 2019. Table 5.10 below shows the total energy consumption in the borough over the time period. There has been an overall decrease in energy consumption.

Coal Total (GWh)

Manufactured Fuels Total (GWh)

Petroleum products Total (GWh)

Gas Total (GWh)

Electricity Total (GWh)

Bioenergy & wastes Total (GWh)

All fuels Total (GWh)

2011

99

10

1,648

1,033

697

63

3,551

2012

91

11

1,638

1,024

685

85

3,533

2013

152

11

1,594

1,004

756

105

3,622

2014

158

13

1,621

965

669

101

3,527

2015

126

12

1,683

989

671

110

3,590

2016

86

10

1,693

988

643

118

3,538

2017

70

11

1,689

1,063

653

114

3,600

2018

83

13

1,436

894

558

373

3,557

2019

72

13

1,344

907

551

399

3,286

-27.45%

34.51%

-18.47%

-12.21%

-20.99%

533.63%

-7.46%

Table 5.10: Total energy consumption in Maidstone (Source: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS, 2020).

 

Economy

Indicator SA40: Total amount of additional floorspace by type

5.49 During 2020/21 there has been an increase of 101,884 sqm of commercial floorspace (Table 5.11) based on completed and consent permissions. This figure excludes C1 and C2 uses which are measured in number of bedspaces (see indicator M14 for the number of C2 bedspaces) and is based on completed and consent permissions.

 

Net sqm

Use class

2016/17

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

A1

-1,665

-5,189

-2,998

-1,428

10,832

A2

611

-1,351

-655

70

91

A3

1,930

1626

2,314

1,467

1,869

A4

-1,078

-1,418

-619

-2,191

1,504

A5

1,078

572

698

2,982

2,823

B1a

-17,166

-8,564

-195

22,170

-638

B1b

13,228

14,156

19,004

20,737

7,089

B1c

-5,377

-5,775

8,914

12,576

14,998

B2

-12,386

-13,613

-10,200

2,885

4,275

B8

-2,683

-6,714

23,829

28,783

19,788

D1

27,090

30,009

32,674

54,029

21,893

D2

-1,181

-608

-38,874

-40,411

5,609

Sui Generis

3,292

3,657

17,331

9,385

11,751

TOTAL

5,693

6,788

51,223

111,054

101,884

Table 5.11: Net additional floorspace by type 2020/21 (completed and consent permissions combined) (Source: MBC 2021)

 

Indicator SA41: Unemployment rate

5.50 See Local Plan Indicator M22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.         Appendices

Appendix 1 – Built and Natural Environment Assets and Constraints

Built Environment Assets

2020

2021

Conservation areas

41

41

Listed Buildings

2,023

2,023

Grade I

42

42

Grade II*

105

105

Grade II

1,876

1,876

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

26

26

Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest

5

5

Gardens of County Level historic importance

9

9

Table 6.1: Key assets of the built environment (Source: Historic England 2021)

2020

2021

Natural Environment Assets and Constraints

KM2

% of Borough

Number

KM2

% of Borough

Number

Total area of the Borough

391.88

391.88

Metropolitan Green Belt

5.27

1.34%

5.27

1.34%

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

106.8

27.25%

106.8

27.25%

National Flood Zone 3

41.39

10.56%

41.39

10.56%

National Flood Zone 2

25.05

6.39%

25.05

6.39%

Landscape of Local Value

75.58

19.29%

75.58

19.29%

Ancient Woodland (semi-natural and replanted)

23.13

7.18%

23.13

7.18%

Special Area of Conservation

1.42

0.36%

1.42

0.36%

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

4.92

1.25%

9

4.92

1.25%

9

Local Wildlife Sites

23.85

6.09%