DOCSLIB.ORG

Larkfield Risk Profile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Larkfield Risk Profile Review of Emergency Response Provision: Larkfield Cluster Risk Profile RERP – Larkfield Cluster Risk Profile Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Description of Cluster ............................................................................................................ 4 Cluster Demographics and Population Risk Factors.............................................................. 5 Deprivation ............................................................................................................................ 8 Overall Cluster Risk .............................................................................................................. 9 Dwellings ........................................................................................................................... 9 Special Service ................................................................................................................ 10 Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................................... 11 Cluster Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................... 12 Building Usage as a Risk Identifier ...................................................................................... 14 Other Building Risk ............................................................................................................. 15 Sleeping Accommodation Risk ........................................................................................ 15 Hospitals ...................................................................................................................... 16 Care Homes ................................................................................................................. 17 HMOs .......................................................................................................................... 18 Hotels .......................................................................................................................... 19 Non Sleeping Accommodation Risk ................................................................................. 20 Factories or Warehouses ............................................................................................. 21 Further Education Establishments ............................................................................... 22 Licensed Premises ....................................................................................................... 23 Offices ......................................................................................................................... 24 Premises Open to the Public ........................................................................................ 25 Other Sleeping Accommodation ................................................................................... 26 Other Workplaces ........................................................................................................ 27 Public Buildings............................................................................................................ 28 Schools ........................................................................................................................ 29 Shops .......................................................................................................................... 30 Specific Risks within the Cluster ......................................................................................... 31 COMAH Sites...................................................................................................................... 33 Infrastructure Risk ............................................................................................................... 34 Roads .............................................................................................................................. 35 Rail .................................................................................................................................. 36 Aviation ........................................................................................................................... 37 Ports ................................................................................................................................ 38 Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) ........................................................................... 39 Flooding .............................................................................................................................. 40 Existing KFRS Arrangements .............................................................................................. 41 Future Development ........................................................................................................... 43 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 44 Major Developments ........................................................................................................ 44 2 RERP – Larkfield Cluster Risk Profile Introduction In order to effectively assess the fire cover provision which is required to achieve the stated aims of the Authority an assessment of the risk factors for Kent and Medway needs to be undertaken. This document forms part of a suite of Risk Profile documents which segment the county into 19 geographically identifiable areas thereby allowing for a simplification of the assessment of the county wide risk. Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority (KMFRA) divide the county into 19 clusters based on internal working arrangements and the day to day work activities of its personnel. These clusters have been in use since 2011 to analyse and report incident activity, creating a wealth of information which is used to gain a deep understanding of activity within each cluster. It therefore follows that these clusters be used as a backdrop to provide risk information, as this allows for a continuity of analysis across the RERP2 project. The map below illustrates these clusters. Information regarding risk factors has been obtained from a number of sources in order to provide a detailed level of risk for individual cluster. Much of the data within this document has been derived from information provided by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) a Government department charged with the collection and publication of statistics related to the economy, population and society. In March 2011 the ONS conducted the most recent census of the population. It is this information which is used extensively throughout this document as the most accurate census data available. 3 RERP – Larkfield Cluster Risk Profile Each Borough Council within Kent and Medway has produced a Local Development Plan. These documents detail the strategic developments which are planned for their area of responsibility, and as such are referenced to give an indication of the future risk within the cluster. KMFRA have significant experience in planning for emergencies in sites of specific risk; as such numerous sites have been identified through previous internal work. These sites have been included within this document. This document describes the risk factors found in the Larkfield cluster. Description of Cluster The Larkfield cluster covers a geographical area of approximately 48 square miles and has a population of 66,637 people, a figure which represents 3.86% of Kent and Medway’s population. A map showing the cluster can be seen below. 4 RERP – Larkfield Cluster Risk Profile Cluster Demographics and Population Risk Factors This is the most current and widely available information with which to highlight the population risk factors is the 2011 census data. This data has been used to describe the community composition of each cluster. The following charts and tables provide information regarding the population, age and gender of the community which live within the Larkfield cluster. The male to female ratio is comparable to the Kent and Medway average. 5 RERP – Larkfield Cluster Risk Profile The age breakdown when compared to the Kent and Medway average indicates a lower proportion of 20-34 year olds live within the cluster. Household types Total % One Family - Married or Civil Partnership Couple - Dependent Children 5,317 20.12 One Family - Married or Civil Partnership Couple - No Children 3,934 14.89 One Person - Other 3,102 11.74 One Person - Aged 65 and Over 2,897 10.97 One Family - All Aged 65 and Over 2,515 9.52 One Family - Lone Parent - Dependent Children 1,756 6.65 One Family - Married or Civil Partnership Couple - All Children Non- 1,711 6.48 Dependent One Family - Cohabiting Couple - No Children 1,453 5.50 One Family - Cohabiting Couple - Dependent Children 1,315 4.98 One Family - Lone Parent - All Children Non-Dependent 846 3.20 Other - Other 812 3.07 Other - With Dependent Children 514 1.95 One Family - Cohabiting Couple - All Children Non-Dependent 170 0.64 Other - All Aged 65 and Over 78 0.30 Other - All Full-Time Students 0 0.00 Total households 26,420 Notes for Household types: One family households are categorised by the presence of children into those with dependent children, those with non-dependent children only, and those with no children. Other households are categorised by the presence or absence of dependent children. Married includes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • November 2018 Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 & Kent Mineral Sites Plan Appropriate A
    Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 & Kent Mineral Sites Plan Appropriate Assessment Kent County Council Report prepared by: Ecus Ltd. Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW 0114 266 9292 November 2018 Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 & Kent Mineral Sites Plan Appropriate Assessment Ecus Ltd Report to: Kent County Council Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan Report Title: 2013-30 & Kent Mineral Sites Plan Appropriate Assessment Revision: Issue Issue Date: 14th November 2018 Report Ref: 12008 Originated By: Rachel Barker Principal Environmental Date: 7th November Consultant 2018 Reviewed By: Fergus Taylor Senior Environmental Date: 13th November 2018 Consultant Approved By: Paul Stephenson Date: 14th November 2018 Technical Director Prepared by: Ecus Ltd. Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW 0114 266 9292 The report and the site assessments carried out by ECUS on behalf of the client in accordance with the agreed terms of contract and/or written agreement form the agreed Services. The Services were performed by ECUS with the skill and care ordinarily exercised by a reasonable Environmental Consultant at the time the Services were performed. Further, and in particular, the Services were performed by ECUS taking into account the limits of the scope of works required by the client, the time scale involved and the resources, including financial and manpower resources, agreed between ECUS and the client. Other than that expressly contained in the paragraph above, ECUS provides no other representation or warranty whether express or implied, in relation to the services.
    [Show full text]
  • Display PDF in Separate
    EA - Southern EA LEAPs local environment agency plan MEDWAY LEAP ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW JANUARY 1999 EAST GRINSTEAD I En v ir o n m e n t Ag e n c y Medway Area Key Details General Water Quality Area (sq km) 1780.99 River ecosystem classification as % of the Medway catchment between 1995-1997 Administrative Details Class Councils and % of the RE1 8 Kent Area they Administer RE2 30 Kent CC 67.1 RE3 12 Medway C 9.9 RE4 15 Surrey CC 8.2 RE5 1 East Sussex CC 12.5 Chemical GQA as % of sites in each class for West Sussex CC 2.3 the Medway catchment rivers in 1995 Class Population A 9 Year Population B 35 1991 734 000 C 35 2001 (Estimate) 755 000 D * 14 E 6 F 1 Water Resources Rainfall (mm/yr) Average 729 Pollution Prevention & Control Drought Conditions 571 Licensed Waste Sites 96 Number of licensed abstractions Surface Water 265 Process Industry Regulations Groundwater 201 21 (PIus two proposed) Impoundments 42 Radioactive Substance Regulations Authorised sites to accumulate and dispose of Conservation radioactive waste 8. Sites of Special Scientific Interest 49 Water Dependant SSSIs 30 Special Areas of Conservation 0 Flood Defence Special Protection Areas 0 Length (km) Ramsar Sites 3 Main River including tidal lengths 259.74 National Nature Reserves 2 Sea Defences Agency responsibility 11.66 Local Nature Reserves 0 Tidal Banks 55.33 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 0 Length of Inland Navigation 31km Fisheries Length of EC Designated Fisheries (km): Cyprinid Freshwater 87.2 Tidal 0 Salmonid Freshwater Bewl Water Tidal 0 DPC This book is due for return on or before the last date shown below.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment Revision C
    Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment January 2019 Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Mott MacDonald Mott MacDonald House 8-10 Sydenham Road Croydon CR0 2EE United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 8774 2000 F +44 (0)20 8681 5706 mottmac.com Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Gibson Drive Tonbridge and Malling Kings Hill 323860 001 C West Malling Borough Council ME19 4LZ Mott MacDonald Habitats Regulations Assessment January 2019 Mott MacDonald Group Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1110949. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment Issue and Revision Record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description Draft 11/01/19 SW KA SM First Issue Second 22/01/19 SW KA CM Second Issue issue Third 29/01/19 SW CM CM Third Issue Issue Document reference: 323860 | 001 | C Information class: Standard This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
    [Show full text]
  • Sittingbourne Town Centre and Milton Creek: Supplementary Planning Document
    Sittingbourne Town Centre and Milton Creek: Supplementary Planning Document Habitats Regulations Assessment Report February 2009 Prepared by: Dr. Graeme Down Graduate Ecologist Checked and Approved for Issue by: Dr. James Riley Senior Ecological Consultant Scott Wilson Scott House Alencon Link Basingstoke RG21 7PP Tel: +44 (0)1256 310200 Fax: +44 (0)1256 310201 Email: [email protected] Sittingbourne and Milton Creek Appropriate Assessment Contents Report 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Current Legislation 1 1.2 Scope and objectives 2 2 Methodology 5 2.1 Key principles 5 2.2 Process 5 2.3 Likely Significant Effects (LSE) 6 2.4 Appropriate assessment and mitigation 6 2.5 Confirming other plans and projects that may act in combination 7 2.6 Physical scope of the assessment 11 2.7 Draft policies scoped into the assessment 11 3 Likely Significant Effects 13 3.1 Introduction 13 4 Blean Complex SAC 25 4.1 Introduction 25 4.2 Features of European Interest 25 4.3 Condition Assessment 25 4.4 Key Environmental Conditions 25 4.5 Potential Effects of the Plan 25 5 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and RAMSAR 27 5.1 Introduction 27 5.2 Features of European Interest 27 5.3 Features of International Interest: Ramsar criteria 27 5.4 Condition Assessment 28 5.5 Key Environmental Conditions 28 5.6 Potential Effects of the Plan 28 5.7 Avoidance and Mitigation 34 Sittingbourne and Milton Creek Appropriate Assessment Contents 6 North Downs Woodlands SAC 37 6.1 Introduction 37 6.2 Features of European Interest 37 6.3 Condition Assessment 37 6.4 Key Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Kent MWLP Sustainability Appraisal Scoping
    Kent County Council Sustainability Appraisal of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework Revision Schedule Scoping Report – Introductory Paper March 2010 Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 01 August Draft for Mark Fessey Steve Smith Jeremy Richardson 2009 consultation Assistant Consultant Associate Technical Director 02 March 2010 Final Scoping Mark Fessey Steve Smith Jeremy Richardson Report Consultant Associate Technical Director Ian Brenkley Consultant Scott Wilson 6-8 Greencoat Place London SW1P 1PL Tel: +44 (0)20 7798 5000 This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's Fax: +44 (0)20 7798 5001 appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed www.scottwilson.com to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion. © Scott Wilson Ltd 2010 Kent County Council Sustainability Appraisal of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework Table of Contents 1 Introduction .........................................................................................2 1.1 This report........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Medway Council Core Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment
    ATTACHMENT 4 Medway Council Core Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appropriate Assessment) Report December 2011 HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT (APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT) REPORT Medway Council Core Strategy date: December 2011 prepared for: Medway Council prepared by: Alastair Peattie Enfusion Toney Hallahan Enfusion Ruth Thomas Enfusion quality Barbara Carroll Enfusion assurance: Treenwood House Rowden Lane Bradford on Avon BA15 2AU t: 01225 867112 www.enfusion.co.uk Medway Council’s Core Strategy: Habitats Regulations Assessment Report CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 4 Background Consultation Structure of Report 2 HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT & THE PLAN 8 Requirement for Habitats Regulations Assessment Guidance and Good Practice The Medway Core Strategy Overview of Plan Area 3 SCREENING STAGE METHOD & FINDINGS 11 Scope of HRA Identification & Characterisation of European Sites Effects of the Plan Publication Draft Core Strategy Policy Screening Effects of the Plan - Alone Effects of the Plan - In combination Screening Assessment Screening Conclusions 4 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT STAGE METHOD & FINDINGS 20 Scope of AA AA Method Air Quality Disturbance Habitat (& species) Fragmentation & Loss Water Levels & Quality 5 HRA CONCLUSIONS 50 Consultation Arrangement BIBLIOGRAPHY 53 TABLES & FIGURES Table 1: Habitats Regulations Assessment: Key Stages Table 2: European Site within HRA Scope Table 3: PDCS Policies with potential for likely significant effects alone Table 4: PDCS Policies with potential for likely significant
    [Show full text]
  • Our Ref: 169.1 23Rd July 2012 Ms Lillian Harrison Integrated Strategy
    Our ref: 169.1 23rd July 2012 Ms Lillian Harrison Integrated Strategy and Planning Invicta House County Hall Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX Dear Ms Harrison Minerals and Waste Sites Development Plan Document Preferred Options 1. Introductory comments Thank you for consulting Kent Wildlife Trust on the Preferred Options for the Minerals Sites DPD and the Waste Sites DPD. Kent Wildlife Trust wishes to supplement our comments submitted as part of the Issues and Options consultation in relation to some sites. Whereas previously we only had resources to investigate the ecology on site and whether the proposed activity would impact on designated sites and Biodiversity Action Plan habitats, with the reduction of sites to be assessed we have now had the opportunity to investigate potential in- combination impacts especially in relation to the European network and Local Wildlife Sites. 1.1 Habitat Loss We are concerned that in some instances, where clusters of sites are proposed within a limited geographical area, there is a risk that the impact will lead to irrevocable damage to the habitats contained within the designated sites. Although in many instances the restoration proposed will substantially enhance the ecological significance of the site to be developed, for colonisation of the re-created habitats to be viable the habitat and species already present will need to be conserved and where possible enhanced and managed. We are concerned that in many instances the site information does not include appropriate safeguards to ensure this is achieved. It is our view that before many sites are allocated there will need to be further investigation, to ascertain whether these sites are viable.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)
    Tonbridge and Malling Borough Local Development Framework Monitoring Report 2009 CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and content of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)........................................................ 1 Geography....................................................................................................................................... 1 History ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Employment and the Economy ....................................................................................................... 2 Population........................................................................................................................................ 3 Age Structure................................................................................................................................... 3 Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Environmental Protection ................................................................................................................ 4 SECTION 2 - LDF PROGRESS............................................................................................................. 7 Local Development Scheme ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download: Annual Monitoring Report
    ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT Monitoring the Local Development Framework for Tonbridge & Malling December 2012 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Local Development Framework Monitoring Report 2012 CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Content of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) ......................................................................................... 1 Geography ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Employment and the Economy .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Population and Households ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Environmental Protection .................................................................................................................................................. 4 SECTION 2 - LDF PROGRESS ............................................................................................................. 6 Local Development Scheme .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Plan DRAFT
    APPENDIX 1 Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Local Plan DRAFT Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Publication July 2018 Foreword The Borough of Tonbridge and Malling is a diverse and characterful place. It includes areas of recent development and growth together with historic environments. Its geography is varied and the physical characteristics have and will continue to reflect patterns of land use and activity. It is a place where traditional and modern businesses thrive, where established and new communities have flourished but where pressures on community facilities, transport infrastructure and the environment are challenging. The Borough Council, working with a wide range of partners, have embraced the benefit of strategic planning over decades. That has been beneficial in shaping development and properly addressing needs for homes, jobs and supporting facilities in a planned way. Moving forward the continuation of that approach is ever more challenging, but in providing a sustainable and planned approach to our borough and providing for local needs this Plan takes on that challenge. This Local Plan relates closely to the borough and communities it will serve. It reflects national planning policy and shapes that locally, based on what is seen locally as the most important planning issues taking account of locally derived evidence. It is designed as a plan that is responsible in facing up to difficult choices and one which is based upon fostering care in the way we plan for this and future generations of Tonbridge and Malling. It provides a sound basis on which to judge planning applications, achieve investment and provide confidence about future development and future preservation where both are appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment For: Maidstone Page B-1 Borough Local Plan - Publication (Regulation 19) February 2016
    AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment for: Maidstone Page B-1 Borough Local Plan - Publication (Regulation 19) February 2016 Appendix B. Background on Internationally Designated Sites. B.1 North Downs Woodlands SAC B.1.1 Introduction This site is composed of two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Wouldham to Detling Escarpment is located within Maidstone Borough. This is the eastern parcel of the SAC. This 10 km stretch of the chalk escarpment to the north of Maidstone includes representative examples of woodland, scrub and unimproved grassland habitats on chalk, which support a number of rare and scarce species of plants and invertebrates. The Culand Pits are also of importance because of their rich and unique fossil fauna which includes a variety of fish and reptiles. The second parcel of land is located 6.5km west of Maidstone Borough, this is Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment SSSI. This site consists of an extensive area of the North Downs west of the ‘Medway Gap’. The site is representative of Chalk grassland in west Kent and beech woodland on the chalk. Outstanding assemblages of plants and invertebrates are present. B.1.2 Reason for Designation Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Yew Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia) (*important orchid sites) B.1.3 Conservation Objectives With regard to the SAC and the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Maps for Individual Host Species and Lists of Designated Sites at Risk
    APPENDIX 2: RISK MAPS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOST SPECIES AND LISTS OF DESIGNATED SITES AT RISK. Figure 1 Risk posed to V. myrtillus under the three different risk scenarios. .......................... 2 Figure 2 Risk posed to V. vitis-idaea under the three different risk scenarios. ....................... 3 Figure 3. Risk posed to C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. .......................... 4 Figure 4 Risk posed to SSSIs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 5 Figure 5 Risk posed to SSSIs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 6 Risk posed to SPAs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 7 Figure 7 Risk posed to SPAs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ........................................................................................... 8 Figure 8 Risk posed to SACs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 9 Figure 9 Risk posed to SACs for species, V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ................................................................................... 10 Table 1 Lists of all SPAs selected out as potentially suitable, with details of the total suitable area and their inclusion in each of the risk scenarios. ................................................... 11 Table 2 Lists of all SACs selected out as potentially suitable, with details of the total suitable area and their inclusion in each of the risk scenarios.
    [Show full text]