Agenda item

Mr Derek Murphy, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, summarised the report and explained that Economic Development (ED) had put themselves forward for a Short-Focused Inquiry two years ago to improve their governance and transparency for members. With regards to engaging with members more, an annual member briefing had been put in place with further ones to come.

a.    A member commented on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and their view that it deprived the County Council of the right to provide the right kind of infrastructure and was dependent on an amenable and fair relationship with the local councils. The Member asked for confirmation that KCC was asking for primacy in the matter of how CIL funds were spent in the future.

b.    Mr Murphy agreed that good relationships with the districts were important. The money was to be used for infrastructure projects within that district or area. He agreed that the interplay between CIL and S.106 needed improvement and that KCC would use its influence over the government to create a clearer system that would be of benefit to all and reduce the bureaucracy involved.

c.    A Member commented on the funding provided to Parish Councils through CIL and the potential to work with them to fund local infrastructure.  In response Mr Jones stated that KCC was always happy to work with Parishes, Resident’s Associations and Councils to help prioritise the way funding was spent.

d.    Regarding member engagement, Mr Murphy responded by reiterating the importance of members commenting on local plans as well as engaging with the weekly planning list that is published.  Mr Finch commented on the financial implications of unspent funding. There was a statutory requirement to produce an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) annually. Presentations to the GEDC Cabinet Committee on the output of the annual IFS only included details on spent funding and listed the priorities of the top projects holding the majority of the funding. Therefore, a significant amount of funding was held from an authority the size of Kent. Members were encouraged to email the team for information on specific details and requests on projects.

e.    Responding to the question on the progress of recommendation five, Mr  Marchant referred to the 2023 Biodiversity Act, work had been undertaken prior to this to try to articulate an ambition beyond the mandatory 10% which the Act sought to achieve. A lot of work had also gone into implementing the Biodiversity Net Gain in the planning application process. These were excellent examples of joint working between KCC and the districts across the county and Medway.

f.     A member posed a question if a local plan was not robust and a developer was refused planning permission, but then they won on appeal, how much 106 money was lost.

g.    In response to a question about developers winning on appeal, Mr Finch explained that KCC secured significant amounts of contributions through the planning inspector and appeals process. However, it was sometimes a decision taken at a Local Planning Authority (LPA) where money was being lost.

h.    A recommendation was posed by the Chair for local members to be kept informed of variations of conditions to planning applications.  Mr Jones explained that officers could provide advice and enable understanding of local priorities within communities, but officers must be allowed to exercise their independent, professional judgement and comply with standards and regulations to ensure that this was done in the appropriate way. 

The Scrutiny Committee note the further and updated responses to recommendations made in the Short Focused Inquiry Report into Section 106 contributions.