Agenda item

Background:

This report provided an update on progress on the Future Hoo project and the related wider planning context, following the successful Housing Infrastructure Fund bid which will provide £170m to be spent on a Strategic Environmental Management Scheme as well as road and rail network upgrades. The report sought approval for the continuation of work to ensure that the infrastructure, which would support sustainable development on the Hoo Peninsula, was able to be delivered.

In particular the report presented a draft of the Hoo Development Framework (attached at Appendix 1 to the report) which was intended to be published for public consultation between 15 August and 30 September 2022.

The report had been circulated separately from the agenda but had been accepted as urgent to enable the timeline for the consultation period to be met.

It was noted that there was a typographical error at paragraph 4.25 on page 75 of Supplementary Agenda no. 2, within the Design Development Report for Road (Appendix 2). The second reference to the Bell’s Lane Roundabout, which was at the 3rd row underneath the header of the table, had been included in error and should have been removed from the document.

The Cabinet was advised that some minor amendments would be required to the documentation before it was issued for consultation, for example, the enhanced education provision section would benefit from greater clarity and accuracy. It was therefore proposed that an additional recommendation be added to those set out at paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 to the report so that these changes could be effected.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:56pm pending the publication of an updated Appendix 5, which was published as part of Supplementary Agenda No.6. The meeting resumed at 4:30pm.

The key changes made and further changes required to the document were highlighted as follows:

·       Funding remaining to be identified in a table on page 87 was incorrectly stated as circa 4.7 billion. The correct figure was £273,831,322

·       Appendix 1B to Appendix 5 contained matters that were entirely policy matters. Costs for these would be determined once policy had been determined.

·       With reference to passenger subsidies, it was noted that costs due to be incurred in six to ten years’ time would be a matter to be determined by those who were Members of the Council at that time. The budgetary pressure of £24million had therefore been removed.

·       Highways block wider implications had been correctly included in Appendix 1A to Appendix 5 but should not have been included in Appendix 1B as this specifically related to the Hoo Development Framework. Such references had been removed from Appendix 1B. Related spending had also been removed. It was not possible to accurately predict the costs and pressures for projects delivered as far ahead as 2037. The result of these changes was that the predicted Hoo Infrastructure cost had been revised downwards to £225million compared to £418million. Funds remaining to be identified were now £75 million.

·       The previous version of the document had included certain assumptions related to S106 funding. These were considered to be misleading due to the viability of certain housing assumptions and the difficulty of predicting future development and funding.

·       In relation to Health and Social Care, the funding identified column  primarily represented HIF funding and estimated costs were never more than best estimates.

·       The original report had set out that all construction costs incurred would have a 40% contingency. This had been removed as it was considered this amounted to a blank cheque that would enable costs to be inflated.

·       There were a significant number of costs marked as To be Determined (TBD) within the document. This was considered to be valid as a consultation document was being produced. This would inform actions to be taken and related Council policy and funding.

In relation to Appendix 1, as set out in Supplementary Agenda No.1 to the report, it was noted that the final bullet point in relation to Hogmarsh Valley on Page 33 of the agenda would be deleted. This would ensure that there would be no misunderstanding that development was required. The bullet point to be removed was as follows – “Development should respect landscape context, rural character, protect openness and retain views of prominent green wooded backdrop.”

Reasons:

To enable the Future Hoo programme to continue to meet its programme and funding requirements for delivery and to unlock £170m of Government Funding that has been secured to enable the delivery of infrastructure and sustainable development on the Hoo Peninsula.