Agenda item

This paper updates Members on the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid and covers developments of the road, rail and environment infrastructure, and the first round of HIF consultation.

This report has been circulated separately to the main agenda as it was necessary to undertake further work to finalise the report. The Chairman of the Committee is of the opinion that it should be considered at this meeting as a matter of urgency as permitted under section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable the Committee to consider this important issue in a timely manner, noting that the first stage of HIF consultation commenced on 11 January 2021 and finishes on 6 April 2021. The next scheduled meeting of the Regeneration, Culture and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee is not until 10 June 2021 (this date is provisional).

Discussion:

The Committee received a report providing an update on the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid and setting out information on the developments of the road, rail and environmental infrastructure and the first round of HIF consultation.

It was noted that the first round of HIF consultation had commenced on 11 January and would run for a period of 12 weeks during which virtual meetings had been arranged for Parish Councils, Ward Councillors, Statutory Consultees and residents. Further consultations on rail, road and SEMS would take place during their consenting processes. Feedback on the first round of consultation would be presented in the form of a Statement of Community Involvement based on an analysis of the online HIF questionnaire.

The following issues were discussed:

• 24% Costed risk for future unknowns – In response to questions, the Assistant Director Regeneration confirmed that a 24% costed risk had been built into the project as a contingency. He advised that in line with the decision of the Council on 23 January 2020, the £170 million HIF funding had been added to the Council’s Capital Programme. The full funding would be provided by Homes England but if an overspend was to occur, the Council would be required to fund the first 1% (£1.7 million) from its own resources. He confirmed that at this stage of the project, no overspend was anticipated.

• Consultation – In response to questions, the Assistant Director Regeneration confirmed that officers would be undertaking an analysis of the responses to the online questionnaire produced as part of the consultation process. Members expressed concern that there had been an indication that individuals could submit email responses and sought clarification that these would also be included in the analysis. The Assistant Director Regeneration advised that this would have a resource implication as they would need to be cross referenced with the completed questionnaires but he would investigate their possible inclusion.

• Major changes to proposals – The Assistant Director Regeneration confirmed that should there be any major changes to the road proposals, this would present a challenge as such major changes would need to be the subject of further consultation. Following the consultation process, the Council would publish a summary of the proposals which were to be taken forward and those that could not be included.

• Section 106 funding – Referring to Appendix 2 to the report (Summary of the HIF Recovery Strategy), the Committee expressed a view that any Section 106 funding should be directed for use on the Hoo Peninsula.

The Head of Planning confirmed that Section 106 funding was required to comply with the CIL test and specifically relate to the development e.g. provision of schools, road improvements etc. A bespoke Section 106 as referred to in Appendix 2 would see an increase in the standard Medway-wide Section 106 payable by potential developments coming forward on the Hoo peninsula in recognition of the up-front delivery of infrastructure through the HIF, but would still need to meet the CIL tariffs.

• Request for more detail in future reports – In response to concerns that the report did not include sufficient detail as to the proposals and timescales, the Assistant Director Regeneration confirmed that officers were in the process of going through the detailed design for the Programme and more information would be available in the next update report in six months.

• Implications of the removal of the Medway Curve from the HIF programme – The Committee expressed concern that the proposed rail curve connecting the Grain Freight Line to the North Kent Line had been removed from the HIF programme. In response, the Assistant Director Regeneration advised that the industry had undertaken a high level demand analysis with rail stakeholders and through this analysis, it had been determined that there was not sufficient demand for a local Medway service that would make it viable at this stage without a substantial Medway subsidy. He added that if, in the future, demand grew with the potential development of housing, this view could change but would then be dependent upon additional funding at the appropriate time.

Members expressed concern that the removal of the rail curve had reinforced the dominance of use of the car and sought clarification as to whether savings made from the removal of this part of the programme would provide funding for a free shuttle bus to connect Hoo with Strood or other areas of Medway or provide a priority bus lane on the road network.

Concern was also expressed that the original version of the HIF programme available in December 2020 had continued to include the rail curve but that the updated version had removed this part of the scheme. Concern was expressed that a decision to remove the rail curve had been undertaken before the consultation process had been completed.

The Assistant Director Regeneration explained the process by which a decision had been made to remove the rail curve from the programme and that the analysis had shown that demand and thus viability was higher for an electrified London Service as opposed to the Medway rail curve. Ultimately, the Council could not force a service provider to provide an unviable service. Whilst it may be possible to include this at a future date if there was proven demand, this could not be included in the current HIF programme. The Committee suggested that consideration be given to ring-fencing the land which may be required to provide the rail curve at a future date but it was noted that this would depend upon land ownership and possible third party involvement.

The Assistant Director Regeneration advised that as a result of this decision, consideration would be given to the provision of bus services and other alternative modes of transport. This would tie in with the Council’s Climate Change agenda and the Local Plan process.

In response to concerns that this decision had been undertaken before the end of the current consultation process, the Assistant Director Regeneration advised that an update leaflet had been produced and full information was available online. In addition, the consultation period had been extended by one month to take account of this change.

• Order of priority for provision of the road network - The Assistant Director Regeneration confirmed that within the HIF programme, there was a hierarchy of projects for the various road schemes. However, at the current time, all proposals were included in the programme and would include Compulsory Purchase Orders on a number of sites.

• Competition date of the programme - The Assistant Director Regeneration confirmed that the HIF programme completion date was March 2024 and acknowledged that this was a challenge but officers within various teams were working to a programme and he was confident that the project would be delivered in the timescale required. Further information on timescales would be included in the next update report.

• Consultations with developers – In response to concerns that developers at other sites were unaware of the HIF programme, the Assistant Director Regeneration and Head of Planning provided an assurance that the Planning and HIF teams worked closely together and, as a result, developers were fully aware of the HIF proposals.

• Local Growth Fund Scheme in Frindsbury at Berwick Way and Sans Pareil roundabout – In response to a question, the Assistant Director Regeneration confirmed that the former Local Growth Fund works in Frindsbury at Berwick Way and the Sans Pareil roundabout had now been incorporated into the HIF programme in consultation with the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP). Concern was expressed that the original plans for the road network in Frindsbury had been predicated on a 10 year forward projection but that this had not included the extra capacity from the Medway City Estate or from the additional homes provided on the Hoo Peninsula by the HIF programme.

• Relationship of HIF with Local Plan – The Head of Planning confirmed that the Local Plan process had been delayed for a number of reasons including the consideration of the HIF bid. Officers were now in the process of finalising an evidence base taking into account the HIF programme and were working on an area wide travel plan aimed at getting people out of their cars and onto buses.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)            noted the report.

b)            noted the officer’s response to questions and that consideration would be given to the points raised going forward and that a more detailed report would be submitted in six months.

c)            noted that the Assistant Director Regeneration has agreed to consider the cross-referencing of the email responses with questionnaires received in response to the consultation process.

In accordance with Council rule 12.6, Councillors Browne, Mahil and Andy Stamp requested that their votes in favour be recorded.