It has long been a controversial issue in Kent and the government is already facing a backlash over its latest proposals to speed up the rate of house-building through special zones. The disquiet over the shake-up was underlined with the Conservative party's shock defeat in the Chesham and Amersham by-election.

But do the claims that the government's reforms risk concreting over the Garden of England stack up? Political editor Paul Francis crunches the numbers.

MP Gordon Henderson talks about the issue of the plans

There are few issues which divide opinion quite as much as house-building and in Kent, developers are frequently at odds with residents and councillors over their plans.

Consensus on the question of whether we need more houses and if we do, where should they be built and how many there should be, is generally hard to find.

But the latest government plans to reform the planning system have succeeded in bringing about a cross-party coalition united in its opposition to the latest government blueprint for housing.

The ink was barely dry on the parchment paper used for the Queen’s speech in May when Conservative MPs started declaring their opposition.

They were led by the former Prime Minister Theresa May, who gave a withering assessment of the reforms saying they would lead to the wrong houses in the wrong places.

One month on and that claim has been echoed not just by Conservatives but by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey. Celebrating a stunning by-election victory, he appropriated the same soundbite almost word-for-word.

Kent Conservative MPs have also focused on the idea of ‘zones’ in which housing development could get the go-ahead without the need for planning permission.

The government argues that zones will actually help councils safeguard the environment. Documents explaining the proposals said they would “significantly decrease the time it takes for developments to go through the planning system” and there would be “more certainty for communities and developers, particularly smaller developers, about what is permitted where, through clear land allocations in local plans and stronger rules on design.”

The claims have failed to assuage the fears of councils, who will not surrender their right to determine planning applications without a fight. The idea that councils could be bypassed in the planning process was the political equivalent of sticking a very large stick into a wasps nest.

MPs lined up to condemn the idea, no doubt anticipating a revolt among council leaders and residents.

One of the areas in Kent where house-building has proved politically sensitive is Swale. In the recent county council election, the independent Mike Baldock defeated the incumbent Conservative Mike Whiting in the Swale West division where house-building was a particular campaign issue.

Cllr Baldock believes the system is already skewed against residents and zones will only strengthen the developers’ hands.

“It’s a dreadful idea," he said. "It's going to make it more difficult for local communities to have any say on what happens in their area. At the same time, it's going to give developers even more of a free hand.

“There won't be the close scrutiny that we get at the moment. The onus will be on people to say why it's not a suitable development area already been marked as suitable.”

That stacks the cards against local residents even more - a fear that many MPs have already expressed.

"It's going to make it more difficult for local communities to have any say on what happens in their area..."

Cllr Baldock, who sits on Swale council’s ruling rainbow coalition, denies the charge of nimbyism, saying he supports housing development where it is appropriate.

“It's a matter of getting the right housing to meet local need as a priority, not just catering to whatever developers want to build. And they tend to want to build houses that will appeal to people moving down from London, because that's the way they make money. It is not affordable housing.”

The Labour leader of Swale council Roger Truelove says if the idea of zones goes ahead, it will create a democratic deficit, with councils simply bypassed.

“Local government is just going to be reduced to finding land allocations which will then have automatic planning permission without any input from the local community or the council about the desirability of sites, design and the construction of sites and whether they meet social need.

"The government wants us to have a role but it is a role where they would dictate what happens. They have this idea that development is being held back by local councils. But actually it is being held back by the cost of land.”

These sentiments cross the political divide. For Sevenoaks Conservative councillor Claire Nelson, the reforms represent the worst of all options.

“It will lead to the wrong houses built in the wrong places without infrastructure in place. What I would like to see is developers forced to build in land that in some cases they have held for in excess of ten years.”

She said it was too easy for developers to retain planning consent: “They can dig a trench and lay a row of bricks and say ‘there you are’ - that’s planning permission for another five years.”

One suggestion is that the government should enable councils to rescind planning consents after a certain period - at a local level, an idea that has broad political support.

Another is that developers be forced to pay some kind of charge on houses they have failed to build within the period they have permission for.

Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP Gordon Henderson believes the government has another agenda - paving the way for more development to account for a shortage of housing in London. He wants guarantees from the government that this is not what is going to happen.

“I believe that Kent is being expected to take more and more housing to offset the shortfall in London. We have seen more and more development and we have to say enough is enough and let’s put the houses somewhere else but not in Kent.

“I don't care what else is in the Bill; if it does not include these guarantees for Kent and my constituency, I will vote against it.”

This kind of threat is frustrating for the government, particularly when the motive is to increase the pace at which homes are built.

There is a political subplot too: Kent MPs sense the plans are directed at shoring up support in those red wall constituencies in the north of England.

In his characteristically forthright way, Thanet North MP Sir Roger Gale has warned of the consequences, saying: “As far as I’m concerned, this is a developers’ charter. I think Boris needs to be looking at the Blue Wall because he may find it crumbles.”

In what is possibly a sign the government wants to head off another damaging retreat, housing secretary Robert Jenrick has said ministers are considering introducing a levy on developers that fail to build on land with planning permission within a certain time limit.

Read more: Kent's biggest housing developments as thousands of homes are planned from Thanet to Ebbsfleet to Faversham and beyond

The political paradox is that in Kent, there has been a united front against the concept of zones that arguably would address what many want: an acceleration of house-building to help get first-time buyers on to the first rung of the housing ladder.

The figures tell their own story: in 2003-04, 59% of homeowners were aged 25-34; this fell to 41% in 2019-20. Over the same period, the proportion of households led by a 35-44 year old fell from 74% to 56%.

The Conservative solution is primarily based on creating an economy in which the housing market can thrive, although it has introduced initiatives to help first time buyers, with varying degrees of success.

Labour favours a more direct solution in which the government would be a broker, providing funding to enable councils to build homes. So, what do the figures tell us about the need for - or lack of demand for - more homes?

According to the Local Government Association, of 2.7m houses granted planning permission over the last ten years nationally, 1,627,000m have yet to be built.

But developers say these figures mask the fact that the LGA methodology categorises a site in their 1.1m number as incomplete until every house on it has been built.

So, a large site for 10,000 homes will be categorised as not fully built until the 10,000th is sold, despite the fact all of the others will have been completed, many that will have been lived in for months and even years.

Add in the time to navigate the planning process whereby ‘conditions’ have to be met - like drainage and landscaping - and the time lag is even longer before construction work can begin and be completed.

In Kent, figures appear to suggest there is a similar scenario, based on data compiled by the government indicating that of 48,775 housing ‘units’ granted permission, 40,496 had been built - leaving 8,279 that had not.

Other figures indicate building numbers are up: 2019 saw 7,377 so-called "dwelling completions" in Kent, the highest number since 2011.

Whether that trajectory continues or not, the government will face another battle to get its reforms through without some concessions - with the political resistance spearheaded by its own MPs.

Through the roof: how first time buyers are being priced out of the property market in Kent

If you need any evidence to support the contention that property prices are making it increasingly difficult for first time buyers, the affordability gap seems to be growing.

In other words, house prices are outstripping wage growth in a way that is making it even more difficult to get on the housing ladder.

Figures released earlier this year showed four Kent districts rank in the top 10 spots for the biggest rise in the gap between wages and property prices.

Top was Gravesham, where in 2011, the average full-time employee in the district could typically expect to spend around 6.03 times their annual salary on buying a home. This ratio has risen dramatically to 9.64, creating an increase in ratio of 3.62.

Canterbury which has seen a rise from 6.8 times the average salary to 10.1 - a ratio rise of 3.32.

Sevenoaks is next, up 3.22 - and requiring 11.5 times the average salary to buy the average house price.

Maidstone was up 2.94 with 9.8 times the salary required.

Being green

The environmental consequences of the government’s proposals have drawn a warning from campaign groups that they will see vast swathes of open countryside sacrificed for houses.

And while it is undoubtedly a threat, large parts of Kent remain undeveloped according to land use figures published by the government in 2019.

The figures come with a qualification: they were based on a snapshot of data in 2017.

Ashford, despite thousands of new homes built and being built, had the highest proportion of non-developed land (93.9%) and the lowest proportion of developed land (5.9%) in Kent. The bulk of this - 63% - was agricultural land.

In Maidstone - another development hotspot - 8% of land was developed.

Dartford had the highest proportion of developed land (22.6%) followed by Thanet (20%).

In Kent and Medway 72,240 hectares - equal to 178,505 acres - was designated as Green Belt across seven local authority areas; Dartford, Gravesham, Maidstone, Medway, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells.

Of these, Sevenoaks had the highest amount at 92%.

The amount of Green Belt land given over to development was highest in Dartford at 10.8%; set against a national figure of 7.9%.

Head to our politics page for expert analysis and all the latest news from your politicians and councils.

Read more: All the latest news from Kent