New MHCLG data show Kent’s 12 district councils recorded 7,724 net additional homes in 2024/25, up almost 12% in a year when England’s total fell. But the county’s affordable housing supply dropped by nearly 10%, while Folkestone and Hythe recorded just nine affordable homes — its lowest annual total in the 14-year dataset.
Kent added 803 more homes in 2024/25 than it did the year before. That should be an uncomplicated good-news story. It isn’t. Across the county’s 12 district-level authorities, total housing supply rose while affordable housing supply fell — and in Folkestone and Hythe, 326 net additional homes sat alongside just nine affordable homes. All nine were Affordable Rent. None were Social Rent.
Those nine homes were the lowest affordable housing total anywhere in Kent and the lowest figure recorded for Folkestone and Hythe in the dataset, which runs from 2011/12 to 2024/25. The district’s affordable housing supply fell from 23 homes in the previous year to nine, a drop of almost 61%.
The numbers come from a House of Commons Library workbook published on 9 March 2026, using Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government data. The workbook covers net housing supply and affordable housing supply for district-level and unitary authorities in England.
There is an important warning before the figures are compared. Net additional homes are the net change in the housing stock, including new-builds, conversions, changes of use and other gains, less demolitions. Affordable housing supply is a gross measure that can include homes acquired from the private sector and doesn’t subtract losses such as sales or demolitions. The figures are also reported by location, so they aren’t simply a count of homes built or owned by each council.
Kent’s housing increase was real, but it wasn’t evenly spread
Across Kent’s 12 districts, net additional homes rose from 6,921 in 2023/24 to 7,724 in 2024/25, an increase of 803 homes or 11.6%. That moved in the opposite direction to England as a whole, where annual net additions fell by 6% to 208,600.
Most of Kent’s increase came from new-build housing. The county recorded 6,911 new-build homes, equal to 89.5% of its net additions. A further 695 homes came from changes of use, 54 from conversions and 123 from other gains, while 59 demolitions reduced the final total.
Canterbury supplied the largest number of net additional homes, rising from 660 to 1,235 in a single year. Tonbridge and Malling rose from 377 to 689, while Gravesham rose from 293 to 546. Their combined gains amounted to 1,140 homes — more than the county-wide increase — because falls elsewhere offset part of their growth.
Maidstone recorded the largest fall, dropping from 1,066 net additional homes to 654. Swale fell by 147 homes, Dover by 85 and Folkestone and Hythe by 47. Thanet and Tunbridge Wells were almost unchanged, increasing by just four and five homes respectively.
The typical Kent district added about 625 homes in 2024/25, using the median rather than the average. Canterbury’s 1,235 homes were almost twice that typical figure, while Sevenoaks’ 146 were less than a quarter of it. The county total therefore hides a wide spread between districts.
Affordable rent was concentrated in three districts
Kent recorded 699 Affordable Rent homes in 2024/25. But those homes weren’t spread evenly across the county. Tonbridge and Malling recorded 159, Canterbury 138 and Swale 123. Together, those three districts supplied 420 Affordable Rent homes, or 60.1% of Kent’s total.
The district median was 42 Affordable Rent homes, well below the average of 58. Half of Kent’s districts recorded 40 or fewer. At the bottom of the table, Tunbridge Wells recorded none, Gravesham recorded six and Folkestone and Hythe recorded nine.
Affordable Rent and Social Rent aren’t interchangeable. Affordable Rent is a distinct tenure whose maximum initial rent can be linked to 80% of the relevant market rent, while Social Rent is low-cost rental housing governed by a different rent-setting system. The national definition of affordable housing also includes routes into home ownership, such as shared ownership and other discounted products.
That difference matters because a headline affordable housing total can conceal a very different tenure mix. Canterbury recorded 496 affordable homes, the highest total in Kent, but 337 were for affordable home ownership. Tonbridge and Malling recorded 271 affordable homes, including the county’s highest Affordable Rent total, but no Social Rent. Gravesham recorded only six Affordable Rent homes, yet supplied 60 Social Rent homes.
Tunbridge Wells shows why an Affordable Rent league table can’t tell the whole story. It recorded no Affordable Rent homes, but its total affordable housing supply was 48, including 14 Social Rent homes and 34 affordable home ownership homes. Folkestone and Hythe’s nine Affordable Rent homes, by contrast, were its entire affordable housing supply.
More homes overall, fewer affordable homes
Kent’s total affordable housing supply fell from 1,959 homes in 2023/24 to 1,771 in 2024/25, a reduction of 188 homes or 9.6%. Affordable Rent fell from 766 to 699, down 8.7%. Social Rent fell from 393 to 231, down 41.2%. Affordable home ownership moved in the opposite direction, rising from 789 to 841 homes.
That meant affordable home ownership accounted for 47.5% of Kent’s affordable housing supply, compared with 39.5% for Affordable Rent and just 13.0% for Social Rent. The county’s affordable housing total was therefore increasingly weighted towards ownership products rather than the lowest-cost rented tenure.
Kent also moved against the national trend. Across England, affordable housing completions increased by 1% in 2024/25, while Social Rent delivery reached its highest level since 2013/14. In Kent, total affordable housing and Social Rent both fell.
The Social Rent fall needs context. Kent’s 2023/24 figure of 393 was unusually high, and the 231 homes recorded in 2024/25 were still the county’s second-highest annual Social Rent total since 2012/13. MHCLG also warns that affordable housing delivery can vary considerably from year to year because completions are influenced by the timing of funding programmes and housebuilding cycles. The fall is real, but it shouldn’t be mistaken for proof of a simple long-term collapse.
Folkestone and Hythe’s position is harder to dismiss as a one-year fluctuation. Its nine affordable homes were the district’s lowest annual total in the 14-year dataset, and 2024/25 was the fifth consecutive year in which it recorded no Social Rent supply. The figures aren’t a direct count of council housebuilding, but they are a record of how little affordable housing appeared in the district.
The Housing Delivery Test asks a different question
The Housing Delivery Test doesn’t measure affordable housing. It compares the total number of net homes delivered with the number of homes required over a rolling three-year period. The latest official result is still the 2023 measurement, covering 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23. The Government says the test is operating to a delayed publication timetable and has considered combining future data collections.
That means there isn’t an official 2024/25 Housing Delivery Test. It would be misleading to compare one year’s latest supply figures with an older requirement and present the result as though it were the statutory test. The 2024/25 figures can show current momentum, but they can’t rewrite the published measurement.
Eight of Kent’s 12 districts fell below the 95% Housing Delivery Test threshold. Five — Canterbury, Gravesham, Sevenoaks, Thanet and Tonbridge and Malling — fell below 75%, bringing the presumption in favour of sustainable development into play. Folkestone and Hythe delivered 83% of its requirement, resulting in a 20% buffer on its five-year housing land supply.
Sevenoaks recorded the largest shortfall, delivering 1,073 fewer homes than required and achieving an official result of 44%. Tonbridge and Malling missed its requirement by 884 homes, Thanet by 867, Canterbury by 839 and Gravesham by 733. Folkestone and Hythe’s shortfall was 280 homes.
Four districts exceeded their published requirements. Maidstone delivered 1,364 more homes than required and achieved a result of 149%. Swale recorded a surplus of 509 homes, Ashford 398 and Dover 94.
If the 12 Kent rows are added together, they show a combined shortfall of 2,618 homes and an aggregate delivery rate of about 89.8%. That isn’t an official county-level Housing Delivery Test result, but it helps show the scale of the gap. The percentage result matters because it allows authorities of different sizes to be compared; the raw shortfall matters because it shows how many homes were missing.
The later 2024/25 data also show why an older test result and a newer annual total can point in different directions. Canterbury and Tonbridge and Malling performed poorly in the published Housing Delivery Test but recorded strong increases in their latest annual supply. Maidstone and Swale exceeded their test requirements, yet both recorded fewer net additional homes in 2024/25 than in the previous year.
What Kent’s housing data is really saying
Kent’s latest figures answer three different questions. How many homes were added? What kind of affordable homes appeared? And did councils meet the housing requirements used by the planning system? Treating those questions as though they were the same produces comforting headlines and poor journalism.
The county added more homes, and that matters. But it also delivered fewer affordable homes, fewer Affordable Rent homes and fewer Social Rent homes. In Folkestone and Hythe, the latest year produced 326 net additional homes but only nine affordable homes. For residents waiting for a secure home at a rent they can afford, the distinction isn’t statistical. It is the difference between a housing number and a front door.
Seen something the public should know about? Send tips, documents or concerns to TheShepwayVoxTeam(at)proton(dot)me. You can contact us in confidence, speak off the record in the first instance, and help us follow the evidence where it leads.
The Shepway Vox Team
Discernibly Different Dissent
