Agenda item

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development and Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

(Mr N Smith, Head of Development, was present for this item)

1.       The Chairman invited the Head of Development, Mr Smith, to introduce the report.  Mr Smith advised Members of the changes to secure the necessary funding and provision of infrastructure for new developments through Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  Kent was in a transition period from the old system for securing developer contributions through section 106s, planning obligations and the new regime under CIL.  He advised that advocates of the new Levy say that it was necessary because it offered consistency and transparency and therefore could speed up the planning process. He highlighted that critics of the process pointed out that the new process was borne in a time of economic prosperity and relatively strong land values.

2.       Mr Smith explained three fundamental points to CIL.  1. That the District and Borough Councils were “charging authorities”. They were responsible for setting local priorities, collecting money and where appropriate redistributing that money.   2. CIL was available for strategic infrastructure.  Significantly the viability needed to be taken into account when setting charging schedules for CIL  - a level of CIL can not be set that would inhibit a development coming forward.  3. There was an obligation to hand a meaningful proportion of CIL to Neighbourhood Funds, ie Parish and Town Councils although the level had yet to be defined.

3.       In the past 18 months, KCC had worked to produce finance modelling in the form of “Integrated Infrastructure and Finance Model” (IIFM), which sets out the need for KCC services against housing trajectories. This provided the evidence base for KCC services and therefore assisted and supported the District and Borough Councils to produce the infrastructure delivery plans and the charging schedules.

4.       There was a CIL pilot involving KCC, Dover District and Ashford Borough Councils.  This Pilot would include looking at sharing best practise and scenario testing.

5.       KCC had undertaken some early financial modelling showing likely income through CIL and New Homes Bonus against infrastructure requirements.  Although the figures were draft it was clear that there could be significant funding gaps in North Kent and East Kent.

6.       KCC was meeting with individual District and Borough Councils to help determine local priorities and to identify difficult decisions that would need to be resolved.  The issues had also been discussed at the Kent Forum.

7.       Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:

a)              A comment was made that it was difficult to determine what the gaps were in infrastructure because there was so little development taking place.

b)              A Members sought a response to two questions; 1.  What level of development was being assumed and 2. What level of development had to be supported through CIL. 

c)               It was considered unclear what definition was being use for the term “infrastructure”.

d)              In response to the comments and questions in (a), (b) and (c) above, Ms Cooper explained that it was inevitable that the figures put forward in the report would be incorrect as there would be different assumptions made by each local council. The graphs appended to the report show that there was a funding gap.  The Integrated Infrastructure and Finance Model (IIFM) collected information on indigenous growth and new growth though to 2026 as provided by each Borough and District Council. Based on indigenous growth, funding for schools would also be taken into account of in those figures.  The model gave a breakdown of schools, communities, Adult Social Care and all other services provided by KCC.  KCC then added in transport and at the same time the Borough and District Councils identified other services they required eg Police, Health etc. 

The report shows KCC’s service requirements and, even using those services alone, there was a funding gap.  The Government was saying that local government had the growth levers available in order to fund the infrastructure for growth.  Ms Cooper explained that KCC was showing, that even committing if all the New Homes Bonus and CIL there was a funding gap, particularly as you travelled East through the County.

The Leaders would be able to argue that Kent still had ambitions for growth in Dover, Ashford, and Thames Gateway, however, it was not possible to fund this growth even using 100% of the Homes Bonus and CIL as there was still a funding gap. 

Ms Cooper explained that meetings with the Borough and District councils had begun. 

e)              In response to a question, Ms Cooper advised that to date a meeting had been held with Dartford Borough Council whilst others had been arranged. The issues raised included; whether there was a CIL levy on energy, waste facilities and how were affordable homes to be funded.  Ms Cooper said that for KCC the most important infrastructure to fund would be roads and schools.  The question would then be; what would happen to the community aspects, where did affordable housing fit in?

Ms Cooper and Mr Smith agreed to keep the Cabinet Committee informed of the outcomes of the meetings held with the District and Borough Councils.

8.               RESOLVED that:-

a)    the responses to comments and questions by Members and the   report be noted with thanks; and

b)    the Cabinet Committee be kept informed of progress.