This report concerns monitoring information prepared by the Planning Service to meet statutory requirements for publishing data on infrastructure. It presents the Infrastructure Funding Statement, which sets out details of funding agreed, received and spent through developer contributions, and proposed spend on infrastructure.
Minutes:
Discussion:
The Committee received a report setting out the Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement. This was being presented to the Committee as the Committee had previously requested that the document be reported to its next meeting following approval by Cabinet. The IFS provided details of funding agreed, funding received and spent and details of proposed spend.
A Member said that the report highlighted that S106 developer contributions would not be sufficient to provide the infrastructure needed for development in Medway. It was questioned why there had been an underspend and in relation to protection of bird habitats on the north Kent Marshes, the use of developer contributions for this purpose was welcome.
In response, the Head of Planning agreed that developer contributions did not provide sufficient funding to deliver the required infrastructure. Developer contributions would be reviewed as part of the Local Plan development. Associated viability assessments would be undertaken and early work suggested that developer contributions could be increased, particularly in relation to greenfield sites. There was a need to investigate other funding sources. The spending set out in the report was a snapshot in time and the contributions received were held until they were needed. In relation to bird habitats, the contributions helped to offset the impact of development and ensure that legal obligations were met.
With regards to the repayment of borrowing related to education, a Member asked whether interest payments could be recovered and how much the interest payments were in addition to the borrowing figure of £2.2million set out in the IFS. The Head of Planning undertook to investigate this and provide information to the Committee.
A Member asked whether in the event that a developer was not able to pay the originally anticipated level of S106 contribution, this meant that the contribution would not be made. The Head of Planning said that circumstances could change, particularly increased costs. This could result in a development no longer being viable, which could cause the development not to proceed or to not make payments. Depending on the circumstances and the benefit that the development would bring to Medway, consideration could be given to a reduced S106 contribution being agreed. This would be a decision for the Planning Committee. Developers had to provide evidence of affordability through a viability assessment which was independently checked and there was also an appeal process in place.
It was suggested by a Member that there should be more Member involvement in setting strategic parameters for priorities relating to the use of S106 funding. The Head of Planning said that the allocation of S106 funding was in accordance with the Developer Contributions Guide and that this was agreed by Members. Where a full contribution being made was not viable, how the funding was used would be a matter for the Planning Committee. Consideration could be given as to how to make clear what the S106 requests were.
A comment was made by a Member that in addition to the provision of affordable housing, it also needed to be ensured that suitable adaptable housing was provided for the aging population.
Decision:
a) The Committee noted the Infrastructure Funding Statement, 2022 as set out at Appendix 1 to the report.
b) The Committee requested that the Head of Planning provide information to the Committee to set out whether interest payments relating to planning obligations could be recovered and the value of these interest payments.
Supporting documents: