Agenda item

Mr Colin Finch, Strategic Programme Manager, and Ms Victoria Thistlewood were in attendance for this item.

1.          Mr Murphy introduced the item and said it was essential that infrastructure was delivered alongside the number of developments being built, and strong communities required physical and social infrastructure. He said developer contributions could be used effectively as part of a wider corporate approach towards funding and delivering infrastructure and since 2014 the Council had secured £325million through Section 106 agreements to deliver necessary infrastructure for developments. Mr Murphy said the refresh of the Developer Contributions Guide was an important element of the Council’s Infrastructure First commitment as part of the Council’s strategy Framing Kent’s Future.

2.          Mr Finch introduced the report and presented a series of slides attached to these minutes.  Mr Finch advised Members that since the publication of the Agenda for this meeting the Developer Contributions Guide had been updated to reflect that the threshold for seeking contributions had changed to residential dwellings greater than 10 units, or greater than 0.5 hectares.

3.          Mr Finch and Ms Holt-Castle responded to the following questions and comments from Members:

(a)  Members expressed concern regarding the Council’s input in the decisions made by Local Planning Authorities (LPA), and the potential for developers to renege on developer contributions after planning consent, Mr Finch said through adoption of the guide it was hopeful that the Council could influence decisions made by Local Planning Authorities by making representations into local plans as they go through the consultation process. Ms Holt-Castle said the Council would respond to the government’s Community Infrastructure Levy consultation on the risks to upper tier authorities and emphasised the importance of the Council’s relationship with, and working alongside, each LPA so that they understood the infrastructure needed to benefit local communities and the importance of maximising developer contributions.

(b)  Asked whether there was potential for existing developments effected by building work to benefit from developer contributions, for example maintenance of paths and roads, Mr Finch said developer contributions had to meet the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) test and deficiencies in existing provision could not be considered. 

(c)  Members discussed the risk associated to the gap in funding required to fund infrastructure, and whether it would be possible to reduce the threshold of residential dwellings for seeking contributions, Mr Finch said the threshold also included 0.5 hectares which captured many smaller developments. Mr Finch said consultation had taken place with education and adult social care within KCC and requirements for demand, included in the guide, had been driven by their service areas and experience with residents.

(d)  A Member noted whether it would be helpful for the Kent Growth and Infrastructure Framework and Highway Improvement Plans to be referenced in the guide.

(e)  Members discussed viability assessments to mitigate the potential for developers reneging on agreements.

RESOLVED that the committee considered the draft Guide, provided comments on its content and recommended to the Cabinet Member that KCC proceeds with a targeted public consultation on the updated Developer Contributions Guide.