Appendix B: consultation responses
Which housing issues do you think are most important for us to prioritise?
Respondents were asked to rank the four priorities from most important (1) to least important (4).
All four priorities received a mix of rankings, but Priorities 1, 2 and 3 were consistently rated as the most important.
Priority 1 – Making best use of existing homes and improving standards and sustainability
- 8 respondents ranked this as 1
- 6 ranked it as 2
- 5 ranked it as 3
- 5 ranked it as 4
Priority 2 – Improving housing options and opportunities to prevent homelessness
- 6 respondents ranked this as 1
- 7 ranked it as 2
- 8 ranked it as 3
- 3 ranked it as 4
Priority 3 – Delivering the homes our residents need in the places they are needed
- 8 respondents ranked this as 1
- 8 ranked it as 2
- 3 ranked it as 3
- 5 ranked it as 4
Priority 4 – Working in partnership
- 6 respondents ranked this as 1
- 2 ranked it as 2
- 3 ranked it as 3
- 13 ranked it as 4
How important do you view the priorities in the draft Strategy?
|
Priority |
Very important |
Important |
Neutral |
Less important |
Not important |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Priority 1 – Using existing homes better, improving housing quality and sustainability |
18 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Priority 2 – Improving housing options and preventing homelessness |
15 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
Priority 3 – Delivering homes in the right places |
13 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
Priority 4 – Working in partnership |
4 |
10 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
Priority 1 received the most responses stating it to be “very important”. Priority 4 received the most responses stating it to be “important”.
Do you agree with Priority 1?
All respondents agreed with Priority 1.
Additional comments on Priority 1
Respondents suggested strengthening the priority through actions such as:
- Improving management of empty social housing
- Raising build standards
- Prioritising long-term planning
- Ensuring sustainable retrofit solutions
- Using brownfield land instead of agricultural land
- Linking actions with Local Lettings Plans
- Improving approaches to empty homes enforcement
Do you agree with Priority 2?
All respondents agreed with Priority 2.
Additional comments on Priority 2
Comments focused on:
- More community involvement
- Considering Ukrainians within resettlement schemes
- Incentives to help residents move
- Using notifications of tenancy changes to reduce temporary accommodation
- Ensuring homelessness needs are reflected in Local Lettings Plans
- Increasing genuinely affordable housing
- Encouraging house shares via lighter regulation
- Working with private landlords to maintain affordability
If you are a private landlord or letting agent, what support would you like from the Council?
Responses included:
- Lease options to reduce management responsibilities
- Avoiding over-regulation
- Working jointly with other councils (e.g., Maidstone)
Would you like us to contact you about available rental properties?
Three respondents agreed to be contacted (one Registered Provider and two likely private landlords).
Do you agree with Priority 3?
Most respondents agreed. Two respondents did not agree.
Additional comments on Priority 3
Themes included:
- Locally determined housing targets
- Infrastructure before development, including transport and parking
- Broader housing options including self-build, community land trusts, and cooperative models
- Ensuring affordable housing is delivered early in developments
- More smaller homes for single residents
- Concerns about under-delivery of housing and planning delays
- Issues raised by a developer regarding historic supply, policy changes and planning timescales
- Ensuring new homes support local people
- Desire for more Council-owned housing
What can the Council do to help Registered Providers deliver more affordable homes?
Responses included:
- Bringing forward more schemes with a strong affordable housing focus
- Working closely with providers to support delivery
- Supporting 100% affordable schemes
- Improving nominations agreements
- Ensuring service charge caps
- Building more homes and increasing partnerships with landlords
Do you agree with Priority 4?
Most respondents agreed, with three stating they did not.
Additional comments on Priority 4
Comments focused on:
- Ensuring infrastructure is in place before development
- More diverse housing solutions including self-build and community-led schemes
- Better collaboration with other councils and organisations
- Improving links with parish councils and local community groups
- Strengthening connections with support services
- Ensuring planning processes are efficient and responsive
- Clearer alignment with wider strategies (economic, tenancy sustainment, homelessness)
Do you think the Strategy has the right priorities overall?
Comments raised included:
- Not clear how all concerns feed into the objectives
- Concerns about national housing pressures being placed on Kent
- Fears about countryside loss and infrastructure pressure
- Need for more engagement with local providers and communities
- Concern that the consultation supports existing council views rather than shaping new priorities
- Strong calls for more social housing and addressing homelessness
- Comments about domestic abuse and need for secure homes