Volume 2: Sustainability Appraisal of the Maidstone Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document 2023–2040

Appendix B – Site Assessment Methodology and Assumptions

B.1 Introduction

B.1.1 Overview

B.1.1.1 This appendix sets out the methodology which has been used to appraise the sustainability performance of the reasonable alternatives as identified by Maidstone Borough Council (MBC), as part of the plan-making process for the Maidstone Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showperson (GTTS) Development Plan Document (DPD).

B.1.1.2 Topic-specific methodologies have been established within each of the SA Objectives and how different receptors should be considered for the appraisal of reasonable alternative sites. There are also a number of assumptions and limitations noted within the following sections, which should be borne in mind when considering the assessment findings.

B.1.1.3 The topic-specific methodologies set out in Tables B.2.1 to B.13.1 explain how the likely impact per receptor has been identified in line with the local context and the impact symbols presented in Table 2.4 of the main Regulation 18c SA (see Volume 1). For ease of reference the scoring is summarised below in Table B.1.1.

Table B.1.1: Site assessment scoring system

B.1.1.4 All distances stated in site assessments are measured 'as the crow flies' from the closest point of the site/receptor in question, unless otherwise stated. The level of detail that can be expressed through the SA assessments depends on the level of detail provided associated with the part of the plan in question.

B.1.1.5 Appendix C sets out the full appraisal of the reasonable alternative sites which have been identified and evaluated at the Regulation 19 stage. The appraisal evaluates the likely significant effects of each reasonable alternative against the 13 SA Objectives.

B.1.2 Using the SA Framework

B.1.2.1 The SA Framework, as presented in Appendix A, comprises the following SA Objectives:

1. Housing: To ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent, well- designed, suitably constructed and affordable home.
2. Transport and accessibility: To ensure ready access to essential services and facilities for all residents that also allows sustainable movement.
3. Community and crime:To strengthen community cohesion.
4. Health and wellbeing:To improve the population's health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities
5. Economy:To facilitate a sustainable and growing economy.
6. Natural resources: To ensure the land is being used effectively, conserving soils and mineral resources.
7. Water:To maintain and improve the quality of Maidstone's waters and achieve sustainable water resources management.
8. Air quality:To reduce air pollution ensuring lasting improvements in air quality.
9. Flooding:To avoid and mitigate flood risk.
10. Climate change: To minimise Maidstone's contribution to climate change.
11. Biodiversity:To conserve and/ or enhance Maidstone's historic environment.
12. Cultural heritage:To conserve and/ or enhance Maidstone's historic environment.
13. Landscape:To conserve and enhance the character and distinctiveness of the Maidstone's settlements and landscape.

B.2 SA Objective 1: Housing

B.2.1 Housing provision

B.2.1.1 The Council has prepared a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showperson Accommodation Assessment¹ (GTAA) in order to identify the GTTS needs in Maidstone over the Plan period. The Council also commissioned a Pitch Deliverability Assessment (PDA) (outputs in Chapter 9 of the GTAA) which has been undertaken to identify the level of need which can be met on sites, either through changes in planning permission, site expansion/intensification, or layout reconfiguration. Development proposals are assessed for the extent to which they will contribute towards meeting the accommodation needs of current and future GTTS residents in the Plan area.

B.2.1.2 Development proposals which will result in a net loss of pitches or plots across the Plan area would be expected to have an adverse impact on MBC's ability to meet the required GTTS housing demand. Development proposals which would result in a net gain of pitches or plots across the Plan area will be expected to have a positive impact on meeting housing demand.

B2.1.3 Table B.2.1 below sets out the appraisal process for the reasonable alternative sites against housing.

Table B.2.1: SA Objective 1 – Housing methodology

B.3 SA Objective 2: Transport and accessibility

B.3.1.1 Table B.3.1 sets out the specific methodology used to appraise the reasonable alternative sites against SA Objective 2: Transport and Accessibility.

B.3.2 Bus stops

B.3.2.1 It is desirable for site end users to be situated within a sustainable distance of a bus stop providing frequent services. For the purposes of assessment, frequent services have been defined as those running approximately every two hours.

B.3.2.2 A target distance of 400m has been applied to bus stops, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances². The bus stop data used in the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites has been provided by MBC based on National Public Transport Access Nodes (NaPTAN) data.

B.3.3 Railway stations

B.3.3.1 A target distance of 1.6km has been applied to railway stations for the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites, in line with Sustrans Walkable Neighbourhoods³ guidelines and a further stretch distance of 2km has been applied in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances⁴. sustainable distances. Railway line data is available from Ordnance Survey⁵.

B.3.4 Access to pedestrian routes/cycle routes

B.3.4.1 New development sites have been assessed in terms of their access to the surrounding footpath network and cycle network. Consideration has been given to safe access to and from the site, where footpaths and/or cycle routes are located adjacent to the site. Safe access is determined to be that which is suitable for wheelchair users and pushchairs.

B.3.4.2 Aerial photography (Google Maps⁶) has been used to determine the presence of pavements or footpaths, and cycle route data has been provided by MBC.

B.3.5 Food stores

B.3.5.1 A target distance of 600m and stretch distance of 800m from a food store has been applied, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances⁷. The data for food store locations has been taken from Google Maps⁸, with the assessments including local shops, convenience stores and supermarkets.

B.3.6 Access to schools/ education

B.3.6.1 It is assumed that new and existing residents in the Plan area require access to primary and secondary education services to help facilitate good levels of education, skills and qualifications of residents. This includes further educational facilities where the UK Government requires all 16–18-year-olds to be in education or training.

B.3.6.2 A target distance of 800m and stretch distance of 1km from a primary school, a 1.5km target distance and 2km stretch distance for a secondary school and 3km target distance for a further education facility have been identified, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances⁹. Data for schools has been provided by MBC.

B.3.6.3 It should be noted that school capacity information has not been available; the assessment is based on accessibility alone. Furthermore, it is recognised that not all schools within Maidstone are accessible to all pupils. For instance, independent, academically selective schools, and single sex schools may not be accessible to all. This has been considered within the assessment with distances drawn to state funded non-selective schools, or where development proposals are located in areas with sustainable access to schools providing for both sexes.

Table B.3.1: SA Objective 2 –Transport and accessibility methodology

B.4 SA Objective 3: Community and crime

B.4.1.1 Table B.4.1 sets out the specific methodology used to appraise the reasonable alternative sites against SA Objective 3: Community and Crime.

B.4.2 District and local centres

B.4.2.1 A target distance of 600m and stretch distance of 800m from a district and local centre has been applied in the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances¹⁰. Data for the district and local centres has been provided by MBC.

B.4.3 Indices of Multiple Deprivation

B.4.3.1 Indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) take into account various factors such as employment levels, income, crime and education, in order to determine relative levels of deprivation across England. The deciles relating to the overall relative deprivation identified within the IMD Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs)¹¹ have been used in the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites.

B.4.3.2 The IMD LSOAs in Maidstone are varied including some of the least and most deprived. There are 20 LSOAs in Maidstone which fall within the 10% least deprived areas, whereby sites located in these areas are likely improve social inclusion and avoid exacerbating inequalities. Two LSOAs fall within the 10% most deprived areas, which are likely to locate residents in areas which may increase fear of crime and put more pressures on local and social services. The remaining LSOAs in Maidstone range between the 10-90% most deprived deciles. The GTTS sites in this assessment fall within LSOAs with a range of deprivation levels.

Table B.4.1: SA Objective 3 – Community and crime methodology

B.5 SA Objective 4: Health and wellbeing

B.5.1.1 In order to facilitate healthy and active lifestyles for existing and new residents, it is expected that the DPD should seek to ensure that residents have access to National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, General Practitioner (GP) surgeries, leisure facilities and a diverse range of accessible natural habitats and the surrounding public right of way (PRoW) network.

B.5.1.2 It should be noted that healthcare capacity information has not been available; the assessment is based on accessibility alone and does not reflect the reality of difficulties in accessing services (for example, a number of GP surgeries are closed to new patients).

B.5.1.3 Table B.5.1 sets out the specific methodology used to appraise the reasonable alternative sites against SA Objective 4: Health and Wellbeing.B.5.2 Access to NHS hospitals with an A&E department

B.5.2.1 The Borough of Maidstone contains one NHS hospital providing an A&E facility, Maidstone Hospital, as well as two other nearby hospitals in neighbouring authorities: Tunbridge Wells Hospital and Medway Maritime Hospital.

B.5.2.2 A target distance of 5km and a stretch distance of 8km from an NHS hospital with an A&E department has been identified, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances¹². NHS hospital department information is available from the NHS website¹³.

B.5.3 Access to GP Surgeries

B.5.3.1 A target distance of 800m and a stretch distance of 1km from a GP surgery has been applied to the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances¹⁴. The GP surgery location data has been provided by MBC.

B.5.4 Access to Leisure Facilities

B.5.4.1 A target distance of 1.5km and a stretch distance of 2km from leisure facilities has been applied to the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances¹⁵. The data for the location of leisure facilities has been taken from Google Maps¹⁶.

B.5.5 Access to Greenspace

B.5.5.1 Access to high quality open and green spaces provides opportunities for sport, recreation and socialisation all of which is important in supporting the health and wellbeing of communities throughout Maidstone.

B.5.5.2 Data for open and green space has been provided by MBC which includes allotments, sports related open space, play related open space, natural open space and amenity open space. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) (CRoW)¹⁷ also sets out access points where PRoW, roads or paths are likely to provide access to open land; this data has been included under the natural open/green space category and is available from Natural England¹⁸.

B.5.5.3 The are various types of open and green space which have been assessed under this receptor including play areas, sports related open space, allotments, amenity open space and natural open space, each of which have different recommended access distances applied in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances¹⁹:

• Allotments - target distance of 200m;
• Play areas – target distance of 300m;
• Amenity open space – target distance of 400m;
• CRoW open space and natural open space – target distance of 600m; and
• Sports-related open space – target distance of 1km.

B.5.5.4 Development proposals located in an area that meets the recommended access distances for four or more types of open/green space are identified to have a major positive impact on access to greenspace; those that meet criteria for two or three types of open/green space are identified to have a minor positive impact; and where only one type of open/green space lies within the recommended distance a negligible impact is recorded. Development proposals which are not accessible to any type of green space are likely to have a minor negative impact on access to greenspace for the purpose of this assessment.

B.5.5.5 Development proposals which coincide with an existing greenspace could potentially result in a net loss in the provision of open and green space across the borough, leading to a major negative impact on this receptor. Conversely, development proposals which would include provision of new greenspace could lead to a major positive impact.

B.5.6 Access to PRoW and cycle routes

B.5.6.1 A target distance of 600m and a stretch distance of 800m from a PRoW and/or cycle route has been applied to the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances²⁰. PRoW and cycle route data has been provided by MBC.

Table B.5.1: SA Objective 4 – Health and wellbeing methodology

B.6 SA Objective 5: Economy

B.6.1.1 Table B.6.1 sets out the specific methodology used to appraise the reasonable alternative sites against SA Objective 5: Economy, where there is a need for residents to have sustainable access to employment opportunities.

B.6.2 Economic development areas

B.6.2.1 Economic Development Areas (EDAs) have been identified for areas which provide a wide range of employment opportunities, including business, retail and industrial parks. In addition, district and local centres are also likely to provide employment opportunities, such as through hospitality, retail and office-based opportunities. A sustainable target distance of 5km for access to an EDA or a local/district centre has been used in the assessment of the GTTS reasonable alternative sites, in line with Barton et al. sustainable distances²¹. Information regarding the EDAs and local/district centres, including industrial areas and business parks among others, has been provided by the MBC.

Table B.6.1: SA Objective 5 – Economy methodology

B.7 SA Objective 6: Natural resources

B.7.1.1 This SA Objective recognises the economic and environmental benefits of conserving natural resources and material assets. The DPD should seek to conserve high quality agricultural land, seeking opportunities for remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, as well as supporting a reduction in waste generation and promote increased recycling and reuse of materials.

B.7.1.2 Table B.7.1 sets out the specific methodology used to appraise the reasonable alternative sites against SA Objective 6: Natural Resources.

B.7.2 Agricultural Land Classification

B.7.2.1 Provisional Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) data is available from Natural England²². The ALC system classifies land into five categories according to versatility and suitability for growing crops. The top three grades, Grades 1, 2 and 3a, are referred to as the 'best and most versatile' (BMV) land. In the absence of site-specific surveys to identify Grades 3a and 3b, and in line with the precautionary principle, ALC Grade 3 is considered as BMV land. Where a site spans multiple ALC Grades, in line with the precautionary principle, the best grade is identified for that site.

B.7.2.2 Development proposals situated on previously undeveloped land will be expected to pose a threat to soil within the site perimeter due to excavation, compaction, erosion and an increased risk of pollution and contamination during construction. A 20ha threshold for BMV land has been used based on Natural England guidance²³.

B.7.2.3 Development proposals which are situated wholly on previously developed land (PDL) will not be assessed under ALC and are identified to have a positive effect on the efficient use of soil resources. It should be noted that for the purposes of this assessment the definition of previously developed land is in line with that in the NPPF, where land in built up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments do not constitute previously developed land²⁴. Additionally, development proposals which are situated on Grade 4 and 5 ALC land, or land classified as 'urban' or 'non-agricultural' and would therefore help prevent the loss of the Plan area's BMV land, are identified to have a minor positive impact for this objective.

B.7.3 Mineral Safeguarding Areas

B.7.3.1 Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) designated by mineral planning authorities cover known deposits of minerals which should be safeguarded from unnecessary sterilisation by non-mineral development. They should also be safeguarded where non-mineral development might otherwise affect their continued operation. Data detailing the MSAs within Maidstone has been provided by MBC.

Table B.7.1: SA Objective 6 – Natural resources methodology

B.8 SA Objective 7: Water

B.8.1.1 Table B.8.1 sets out the specific methodology used to appraise the reasonable alternative sites against SA Objective 7: Water.

B.8.1.2 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to protect and improve the water environment. Under the WFD there is a requirement for all waterbodies to meet 'Good Ecological Status or Potential' by 2027. The DPD must ensure that proposals do not jeopardise the current status of a WFD element or cause deterioration to a receiving waterbody.

B.8.2 Watercourses/ water quality

B.8.2.1 Construction activities in or near watercourses have the potential to cause pollution, impact upon the bed and banks of watercourses and impact on the quality of the water²⁵. A 10m buffer zone from a watercourse in which no works, clearance, storage or run-off should be permitted has been used as per available guidance²⁶²⁷. As such, a 10m zone has been applied in this assessment, using watercourse mapping data available from Ordnance Survey²⁸.

B.8.2.2 Additionally, a 200m buffer has been applied where development located in proximity to watercourses more likely to result in adverse impacts on water quality than development located further away.

B.8.2.3 It should be noted that development beyond 200m from a watercourse still have potential to lead to adverse effects such as those resulting from runoff; each development site would need to be evaluated according to land use type, size of development and exact location. Where detailed information is not available to inform the SA assessments, there is uncertainty in the identification of effects in this regard.

B.8.2.4 Where development incorporates Green Infrastructure (GI) in and around watercourses, or is likely to contribute to the naturalisation of watercourses, positive effects are likely where these are likely to benefit biodiversity, improve drainage channels, and minimise the exposure of the watercourse to sources of pollution.

¹ ORS (2025) Maidstone Borough Council Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) Final Report, April 2025. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18obwgzVDoV5jna3q6UxJFYUgGiQDLQfF/view [Date accessed: 12/08/25]

² Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010

³ Sustrans (2022) Walkable Neighbourhoods. Available at: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/10520/walkable-neighbourhoods- report.pdf [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴ Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010

⁵ Ordnance Survey (2024) Railway Link. Available at: https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/23ae0e38-4075-42b3-b6f0- 2cb31b8bb79d/railway-link [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁶ Google Maps (2024) Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/maps

⁷ Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010.

⁸ Google Maps (2024) Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/maps

9 Ibid.

¹⁰ Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010

¹¹ CDRC (2024) Index of Multiple Deprivation. Available at: https://data.cdrc.ac.uk/dataset/index-multiple-deprivation-imd [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

¹² Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010

¹³ NHS (2024) NHS hospitals overview. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/service-search/find-an-accident-and-emergency-service [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

¹⁴ Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010

¹⁵ Ibid.

16 Google Maps (2024)Available at:https://www.google.co.uk/maps

¹⁷ Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

¹⁸ Natural England (2024) CRoW Act 2000- Access Layer. Available at: https://naturalengland- defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/6ce15f2cd06c4536983d315694dad16b_0/explore [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

¹⁹ Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010

²⁰ Ibid

²¹ Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010

²² Natural England (2019) Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) (England). Available at: https://naturalengland- defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/5d2477d8d04b41d4bbc9a8742f858f4d_0/explore [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

²³ Natural England (2009) Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land. Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35012 [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

²⁴ Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2024) National Planning Policy Framework: Annex 2: Glossary. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67aafe8f3b41f783cca46251/NPPF_December_2024.pdf [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

²⁵ World Health Organisation (1996) Water Quality Monitoring - A Practical Guide to the Design and Implementation of Freshwater Quality Studies and Monitoring Programmes: Chapter 2 – Water Quality.

²⁶ DAERA (2019) Advice and Information for planning approval on land which is of nature conservation value. Available at: https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/advice-and-information-planning-approval-land-which-nature-conservation-value [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

²⁷ Wild Trout Trust. Buffer Zones. Available at: https://www.wildtrout.org/content/buffer-zones [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

²⁸ Ordnance Survey (2023) OS Open Rivers. Available at: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/open- map-rivers [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

²⁹ Environment Agency (2024) Source Protection Zones. Available at: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/09889a48-0439-4bbe-8f2a- 87bba26fbbf5/source-protection-zones-merged [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³⁰ Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2024) UK Air Information Resource. Available at: https://uk- air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/maps/ [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³¹ Department for Transport (2023) TAG unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66434490ae748c43d3793a87/tag-unit-a3-environmental-impact-appraisal.pdf [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³² Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2024) LA 105 Air Quality. Available at: https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/search/af7f4cda-08f7-4f16-a89f-e30da703f3f4 [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³³ Department for Transport (2023) TAG unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66434490ae748c43d3793a87/tag-unit-a3-environmental-impact-appraisal.pdf [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³⁴ Ordnance Survey (2023) OS Open Roads. Available at: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/products/os-open-roads [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³⁵ Ordnance Survey (2024) Railway Link. Available at: https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/23ae0e38-4075-42b3-b6f0- 2cb31b8bb79d/railway-link [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³⁶ Environment Agency (2025) Flood Map for Planning – Flood Zones (Published 25 March 2025). Available at: https://environment.data.gov.uk/dataset/04532375-a198-476e-985e-0579a0a11b47 [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³⁷ Environment Agency (2025) Risk of Flooding from Surface Water Extent: 3.3 percent annual chance, 1 percent annual chance, 0.1 percent annual chance (Published 16 June 2025). Available at: https://environment.data.gov.uk/explore/b5aaa28d-6eb9-460e- 8d6f-43caa71fbe0e [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

³⁸ Maidstone Borough Council (2012) Boxley Warren Local Nature Reserve Visitor Surveys. Main Results Tabulations by Location of Interview.

³⁹ LUC (2021) Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Maidstone Local Plan: Regulation 19 HRA Report. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WLBxCeATMzrAuq94lVwILUlBye3SYxRg/view [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴⁰ Lepus Consulting (2024) HRA of the Maidstone GTTS DPD.

⁴¹ Natural England (2024) Natural England Open Data Geoportal. Available at: https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴² Natural England (2024) Natural England's Impact Risk Zones for Sites of Special Scientific Interest, 28 May 2020. Available at: https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/sssi-impact-risk-zones-england [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴³ Forestry Commission and Natural England (2022) Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: protecting them from development. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴⁴ Natural England (2024) Ancient Woodland (England). Available at: https://naturalengland- defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ancient-woodland-england/explore [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴⁵ Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴⁶ Natural England (2025) Priority Habitat Inventory (England). Available at: https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/4b6ddab7-6c0f-4407- 946e-d6499f19fcde/priority-habitats-inventory-england [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴⁷ Historic England (2025) Open Data Hub. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/data-downloads/ [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴⁸ Historic England (2024) Search the Heritage at Risk Register. Available at: https://opendata- historicengland.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/3866e4532c5146ceb8ba23679bf8fc31_0 [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁴⁹ Natural England (2024) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (England). Available at: https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/8e3ae3b9- a827-47f1-b025-f08527a4e84e/areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty-england [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁵⁰ Kent Downs AONB Management Plan (2021-2026). Available at: https://kentdowns.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The- Kent-Downs-AONB-Management-Plan-2021-2026-Adopted.pdf [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁵¹ High Weald National Landscape (2024) High Weald Management Plan. Available at: https://highweald.org/aonb-management- plan/ [Date accessed: 25/09/25]

⁵² Jacobs (2013) Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment. Available at: https://services.maidstone.gov.uk/docs/Maidstone%20Landscape%20Character%20Assessment%202012%20(July%202013).pdf [Date accessed: 25/09/25]