Agenda item

Infrastructure Funding Statement

Minutes:

The Portfolio Holder for Development and Conservation presented the report, which outlined the proposed priorities for the Council’s new Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) which the Council was required to report to the Government by the end of the year. The Development & Conservation Advisory Committee had considered the same report and recommended it for adoption by Cabinet.

 

The Strategic Planning Manager explained that local authorities were not bound by the priorities detailed in the IFS but it provides transparency to developers and the community as to what the Council’s infrastructure funding priorities were.

 

Members were advised by the Infrastructure Delivery Officer of the current priorities for allocating CIL and Section 106 (s106) monies, including projects being identified within the Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP), and that the projects are related to new development. It was explained that from 2014 to date, 64% of CIL Funding was allocated to Community Facilities, and 92% of Section 106 funding was allocated to Affordable Housing.

 

The Infrastructure Delivery Officer advised that the proposed priorities within the IFS were controlled by the existing evidence base and the IDP. Infrastructure projects to support major development sites were also a consideration for the IFS priorities. The priorities were largely unchanged from last year, including Health and Social Care, and Highways and Transport, but Education was newly identified as a key infrastructure type for the upcoming year.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Officer – Planning and Regulatory Services updated Members on a recent appeal decision at Pinehurst House Care Home.  He in particular advised Members that the KCC request (albeit then withdrawn) - that the planning obligation included developer contributions towards primary and secondary education, libraries, community learning, youth services, social care and waste - was considered by the Inspector to not satisfy the tests for planning obligations as they were not necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.

 

Resolved: That

 

a)       the criteria for prioritising infrastructure projects for funding in the Infrastructure Funding Statement, as set out below, remain:

·        The projects fall with the infrastructure types/projects identified in the IFS report;

·        The projects have been identified in our Infrastructure Delivery Plan. (This ensures that the infrastructure prioritised supports the Local Plan);

·         The projects support and are clearly related to proposed or allocated development in the District. They therefore provide a strong link between development and the proposed project;

·        That there is a strong social, environmental or economic justification for the scheme;

·        That projects have not received CIL previously;

·        The scheme has support from infrastructure providers;       

·         That there is a need or it will be expected to be delivered within the next 5 years;

·        That it is identified as having a critical or high need where the project has to be delivered prior to any development to support it;

·        Where it is likely that the infrastructure project can be delivered within the plan period as there are little or no issues with funding or landownership;

·        Where there is a clear plan as to how the project would be funded; and

 

b)    the specific projects and types of Infrastructure recommended in paragraphs 25 – 34 of the report, be identified in the Infrastructure Funding Statement as having a priority for full or partial funding.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Back to top