Contact your Parish Council
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
RECORD OF DECISION OF THE Cabinet Member for Regeneration
|
|
Decision Made: |
13 November 2009 |
Consultation Response to proposed changed to the 2010/11 Growth Point Allocation
Issue for Decision
To consider the Council’s response to the Government’s consultation document proposing to cut £1.1 million from the 2010-11 Growth Point allocation.
Decision Made
That the Council objects to the proposed cut and strongly urges the Government to reverse its decision for the reasons set out in Appendix 1 to the Report of the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy.
Reasons for Decision
The Government confirmed Growth Point funding allocations for 2009-10 and provisional funding for 2010-11 in December 2008. In July 2009 the Government announced its intention to switch funding from the Growth Fund to help stimulate house building during the current economic conditions, as set out in the housing pledge announced in Building Britain’s Future. The Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to each Growth Area and Growth Point on 17 July setting out the Government’s proposed approach to reducing funding allocations in 2010 -11, and what this would mean for their own allocation, but made clear that this was subject to consultation. The consultation began on 2nd October 2009 and lasts six weeks, closing on 13 November 2009.
The government’s approach is effectively to reduce the 2010-11 Growth Fund allocation in all Growth Areas and Growth Points by approximately 40%. This would result in a £1.1 million reduction in Maidstone’s provisional capital allocation for 2010-11 year.
In summary the Council objects to the proposed cut and strongly urges the Government to reverse its decision because:
· Maidstone continues to deliver housing numbers in spite of the recession.
· The equivalent lost funds will not be invested in the Borough through Housing Pledge initiatives such as Kick Start.
· It severely undermines the political support for Growth Point status.
· It undermines the policy approach of housing development, only where this is supported with adequate infrastructure.
· It reduces business confidence, and
· It reduces significantly the Council’s ability to plan for and to provide the necessary infrastructure to create sustainable communities.
Alternatives considered and why rejected
An alternative approach could be not to make a representation to this consultation or to rely on the letter sent to the Secretary of State earlier in the year objecting to the proposal when it was first announced. However to do so would undermine the message to Government that the proposed cut will seriously impact on the Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure to support growth.
Background Papers
None
The Cabinet Member determined his decision was urgent because in order to give the Government time to finalise the Local Government Finance Report for 2010-11 this consultation is shorter than the usual 12 week period. There is therefore a need to make a quick decision to meet the government’s timetable. In accordance with paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules of the Constitution, the Mayor, in consultation with the Head of Paid Services and the Chairman of the Regeneration and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that the decision was reasonable in all the circumstances and should be treated as a matter of urgency and not be subject to call in.