Agenda item

(Item 5 – Report by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development and the Corporate Director of Business Strategy and Support, David Cockburn)

Cabinet received a report of the member and officer named above, the purpose of which was to provide Cabinet with details of ‘Development and Infrastructure: Creating Quality Places’, a revised approach to securing funding for community infrastructure. 

The report also set out the technical assessment process used in the Integrated Infrastructure and Finance Model (IIFM) which would identify the additional community infrastructure required as a consequence of forecast housing growth and help to create an estimate of when that infrastructure might be required, how much it would cost and any funding available. 

Barbara Cooper, Director of Economic & Spatial Developmentand Nigel Smith Head of Development, Business Strategy and Support were in attendance to speak to the item.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development, Mr Mark Dance introduced the report to Cabinet.  He informed members that the IIFM would take into account the various needs of any community, in consultation with the District Council and was flexible enough to take account of local need.  Meetings were being arranged with the Districts to continue to discuss specifics for each of them.

Mr Smith addressed Cabinet, he set the context within which the new approach had been designed and in particular he referred to the changes brought about by the localism agenda and the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) arrangements.  Currently Local Government was in a transition period between the S106 arrangements and the new CIL arrangements.  As a result of this transition and in preparation for change, work was commissioned to employ the IIFM to assess individual district housing trajectories and the potential impact on service provision for KCC.  This work would provide an evidence base for KCC’s service provision forecasts and in turn would support the district councils in setting their infrastructure delivery plans and charging schedules necessary for the setting of CIL levels.

He went on to report the consultation processes that had been employed which comprised informal internal and partner organisation informal consultations and a 12 week formal public consultation.  In addition the report had proceeded through the necessary level of the council’s governance processes before being considered for decision by the Cabinet.

In response to a question from the Leader of the County Council, Mr Smith confirmed the rate retention allocation as an 80/20 split, further information was not wholly clear and would be sought and distributed.

[Confirmed after the meeting had concluded: Gains and losses would be split 50:50 between central and local Govt.  The remainder would be distributed 80% to Districts, 20% to Upper Tier]

In response to further questioning from the Leader of the County Council, officers confirmed that there was huge potential for variance in CiL levels, not least in changes to central government policy and funding, but that a multitude of tools and strategies would be employed to manage this. In addition the Council could, with relative confidence, safely predict worst case scenarios which, with appropriate sensitivities in place, could be used as a basis on which to negotiate.  In addition various mitigation tools were employed on current S106 arrangements such as clawback clauses.

The Leader of the County Council commented on the difficulties faced by officers and members who tried to produce meaningful long term budgetary information in such a climate and hoped that more clear information might be forthcoming from Central Government in the future to aid this process, particularly in relation to funding for education. 

The Cabinet Member for Education, Learning and Skills, Mr Mike Whiting addressed Cabinet, he agreed with comments made by the Leader and reiterated the need referred to by officers to work on a worst case scenario basis when predicting Government funding for education provision. 

The Leader of the County Council requested that a more detailed paper be brought before cabinet for consideration after the planned meetings with the Districts had taken place.  At that time more would be known about the direction of travel for this work. He requested that paper should be received early in 2013 and not after the end of February.  He reminded Cabinet and Officers that at the core of CIL was the viability of schemes, and therefore monies which might be derived through CIL in the east of Kent were likely to be substantially less than in the west, whilst demand for infrastructure in both areas may be similar.  This situation would create financial challenges for the County Council.  The report to be considered by Cabinet in the New Year should focus not only on what Creating Quality Places would mean for Kent as a whole, but also on the different parts of Kent that would deliver variable contributions.  Once this had been established KCC could begin to calibrate what the shortfall might be in essentially needed infrastructure in some areas, before undertaking non-essential work elsewhere.  In addition the information from Districts would be essential to KCC when compiling the next Medium term Financial Plan.

Mrs Cooper confirmed that the aim of the planned meetings with the Districts was to discover the vision for development held by each of them and the infrastructure issues that this might create for KCC.  She assured the Leader and Cabinet that when negotiating with individual districts the KCC representatives would seek to ascertain where any funding gaps might lie and how they might be addressed but would also maintain a ‘helicopter view’ of the greater vision and ambition for the county as a whole.  Six Districts would have been visited by the end of November and this would be sufficient to present emerging principles at a Cabinet meeting in the New Year.

RECORD OF DECISION