Contact your Parish Council

MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET

13^th February 2008

REPORT OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Report prepared by John Foster   

1.                     Prioritisation of Growth Point Projects

1.1                 Issue for Decision

1.1.1            To consider which of the New Growth Point projects submitted to Communities and Local Government in the Council’s Programme of Development (Infrastructure Delivery) 2006-2026 should be funded in the light of CLG’s reduced grant offer. 

1.2                 Recommendation of the Assistant Director of Development and Community Services

1.2.1            That the prioritization of projects detailed in Table 2 is approved and that CLG funding allocated in 2008/9 is used to deliver the projects listed in Table 3.

1.3                 Reasons for Recommendation

1.4                 Background

1.4.1            Following Maidstone’s successful bid to become a Growth Point, Communities and Local Government required all Growth Points to submit a Programme of Development (POD).  The final draft was submitted on the 1^st October 2007.  The POD was based upon the emerging Core Strategy and Council policies.  The timescales for producing the POD did not leave room for detailed evaluation of each project or for public consultation.  Moreover, as no guidance was given as to the likelihood or scale of government funding or the mechanism by which projects will be funded, it was thought that more detailed work could be abortive.

1.4.2            For the period 2008 and 2011 Maidstone bid for £38,200,000 to fund 17 projects.  CLG strongly advised New Growth Points to avoid wish lists and to focus on physical, social and cultural infrastructure to support the early delivery of housing as the main priority but also the creation of sustainable communities.

1.4.3            In December 2007 CLG announced grant awards to all New Growth Points and Growth Areas.  All awards were significantly less than bid for.  Maidstone’s allocation is set out in Table 1 below.

.

1.4.4            Only the 2008/09 grant is guaranteed.  Maidstone bid for £4,350,000 for this year and as the table shows was awarded £1,808,535.  There is still scope for future years indicative allocations to be increased.  CLG have asked for revised Programmes of Delivery to be submitted in the Spring, and held back £273 million to adjust allocations if a sufficiently strong case can be made.

1.4.5            Helpfully, and in a departure from current practice, the full grant will be paid to the Council in April 2008 rather than in arrears and the grant does not have to be spent in the year it is allocated.  Moreover CLG have stated that the grant is not ring fenced and not project specific.  Which projects are funded is a matter to be decided locally.

1.5                 Prioritisation of Projects

1.5.1            Clearly with less grant than expected many projects will not be funded.  As an aid to deciding which projects should be funded the following criteria has been suggested against which projects can be scored:

1.     Fit against Corporate policies and Key Objectives

2.     Transformational impact of project

3.     Realism of costs and delivery timetable.

4.     MBC revenue implications

5.     Significance of not doing project

1-4 are self explanatory. Number 5 “Significance of not doing the project” refers to the implications and risk to the long term prosperity of the Borough associated with not funding the project.  This might include any one of the following:

·       CLG condition of being a New Growth Point is not met

·       Opportunity to catalyse positive change lost

·      Opportunity to deliver on historic long term regeneration policies lost

·      Opportunity to future proof the town lost

Table 1: Priority Projects scoring matrix

1.5.2            In scoring the projects the flexibility within the allocations for each project has also been considered.   Some projects may cost more and some less.  Some projects can be scaled down and still achieve an impact but with less money.  Whilst in some cases the reason for high or low scores is self evident the following is a brief rationale for each project in the order they appear in Table 1:

1.5.3            The prosperity and vitality of the Town Centre is a high priority for the Council.  The quality of its environment impacts upon its success as a shopping destination, tourism and leisure centre (including the night time economy) and also adds to the quality of life necessary to attract new business.  The Town Centre pedestrianisation and street scene enhancement project includes environmental improvements to the town centre.  There is flexibility here as the scale of the area tackled and quality of materials used could be adjusted to fit any budget both in terms of the capital needed to install it and later the ongoing revenue costs of maintaining it.  Bespoke materials and street furniture may incur higher revenue costs for maintenance.  The first year funding for this project is for design and consultation costs.

1.5.4            Following the closure of Coombe Quarry Park and Ride, the Langley Park Farm Park and Ride is a high priority and is needed to reintroduce Park and Ride facilities for traffic coming from the south of the Town.  There is scope to deliver the project flexibily depending upon the structure of the land deal, and the size of Park and Ride.  A Project Initiation Document is required to ensure both revenue and capital costs are fully understood and deliverable.

1.5.5            The Borough Council has been strongly advised by the Environment Agency and Natural England to carry out an Integrated Water Strategy and Green Infrastructure Strategy respectively. The South East Plan supports both these pieces of work as well. Both agencies are key organizations reporting to CLG on Maidstone’s New Growth Point progress.

1.5.6            Newham Park Park and Ride is a priority and has been brought forward a year from that stated in the Programme of Delivery.  It offers the opportunity to double the size of Maidstone’s most popular Park and Ride, thereby increasing revenue – and reducing the annual deficit, but also frees up valuable employment land at Eclipse Business Park.

1.5.7            The High Street Ward Regeneration Plan and the Town Centre Area Action Plan are linked in that the comprehensive delivery of regeneration in this area will require planning policy support.  As a transformational project it is a high priority but costs and timing are dependant upon whether land can be purchased by agreement or whether CPO powers will have to be used.  Project costs are high and may be higher than estimated and so this scheme suffers from high risk. For the sake of clarity, The High Street Ward Regeneration Plan focuses on the south of the Town, including the area around the Archbishop’s Palace, All Saints and Lower and Upper Stone street areas. This differs significantly from the area included in the Town Centre Pedestrianisation and Street Scene enhancement project which includes the High Street, parts of Week Street and Kings Street and parts of Union Street and Earl Street.

1.5.8            The A229 Park and Ride site budget was estimated on the basis that the CTRL site would be acquired.  Investigative work is underway but the capital and revenue implications of this scheme are yet to be clarified.  It is thought possible to bring forward this project by a year from that stated in the Programme of Delivery.

1.5.9            The Maidstone Museum East Wing project has secured nearly £2 million in Heritage Lottery Funds but there is a project shortfall of about £1.6 million.  To secure the HLF money it would make sense for this project to remain a high priority.

1.5.10         Feedback from businesses has suggested a desire that Maidstone’s profile as a business location needs to be raised.  More funding from the Economic Development budget could be targeted at inward investment, subject to more detailed consultation through the Economic Development Strategy. 

1.5.11         As part of a balanced package of projects the Small Business Enterprise Hub would offer ‘easy in easy out’ businesses premises in partnership with the private sector.  The project was linked to enterprise in schools curriculum.  Discussions between the New Line Learning Schools and Basepoint Plc still need to take place which cast doubt on the realism of this project so early in the programme (2008/9).

1.5.12         ‘Maidstone Needs Skills’ is an embryonic project with its genesis in the Local Strategic Partnership.  It aimed to define where best the Council could intervene to support skills and education in the Borough.  Through the Economic Development Strategy further analysis of this issue will be progressed and actions if necessary will be developed and other funding sought.

1.5.13         Maidstone Mobility Network and improvements to existing Park and Ride sites at Willington and London Road did not score highly against the criteria used

1.5.14         Certainly the most significant project is the Library and History Centre led by Kent County Council at £12 million.  This is not the total capital cost of the project which appears very embryonic.  Funding is being sought from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the remaining will come from KCC partly through the disposal of the two existing Library sites for other uses. This appears a high risk project with regard to costs and timescales.

1.5.15         A Delivery Team was, prior to the grant award, thought essential if the range and scale of the projects proposed were to be delivered.  With a much reduced grant this is no longer thought necessary.  However a dedicated new Growth Point Project Manager, together with Administrative Support Officer, is proposal to coordinate Maidstone’s growth related to CLG conditions and funded projects, and to liaise with external organizations.  It is proposed that this post is filled by the Economic Development Manager, who is already carrying out this role, and an Economic Development Officer is recruited to support the Economic Development function of the Council.

1.5.16         Taking into the account the scores in Table 1 the projects submitted to CLG have been prioritized accordingly and listed in order of priority in Table 2.

Table 2

1.5.17     Taking into account the grant award for 2008/9, only the top 4 projects for 08/09 from Table 2 can be funded, together with the Economic Development Officer and staff to support infrastructure provision, as shown in Table 3.  This assumes a slightly reduced contribution to Langley Park Farm Park and Ride project.

Table 3

1.5.18     Design and consultation focused on environmental improvements to the High Street area only should enable the project to be delivered at less than originally estimated involving a much wider area.

1.5.19     Funding for projects in future years have not been addressed as a revised Programme of Delivery is required to be submitted in the Spring.

1.6                 Alternative Action and why not Recommended

1.6.1            The prioritisation of projects is necessary in the light of lower than expected grant award from CLG.  The scoring mechanism proposed attempts to take into account the benefits and risks of projects to enable them to be quantified and scored accordingly.  However different criteria and scores could result in an alternative list of priority projects.

1.7                 Impact on Corporate Objectives

1.7.1            A key component of the scoring criteria is how each project supports Corporate Objectives.  The projects proposed in 2008/9 aim to support the achievement of the Council’s ambitions in respect of the delivery of an overall high quality of life to its citizens in line with the aim of creating sustainable communities.

1.8        Risk Management

(Likelihood: A = very high; B = high; C = significant; D = low; E = very low; F = almost impossible)

(Seriousness or Impact: 1= catastrophic; 2 = critical; 3 = marginal; 4 = negligible)

1.8.1 It is important to note that NGP2 funding is paid in April each year and there is no requirement to spend it in the year it is allocated. This is a major and welcome departure from NGP1 and eliminates the risk of not spending the grant in year and losing it back to CLG.

1.9        Other Implications

1.9.1    

1.9.2               Financial:  The grant on the Langley Park Farm Park and Ride project is unlikely to cover the total costs of the project.  KCC have indicated a willingness to contribute a capital sum.  The Council will have to commit its own capital resources for any shortfall to deliver a new Park and Ride.  It will also need to commit revenue costs for running the service if this cannot be done commercially.  Supporting the design and consultation work for environmental improvements to High Street implies a capital commitment in future years to deliver such improvements.  This may be possible from CLG funds indicated in 2009/10.

1.9.3               Staffing: The delivery of the growth programme will require a commitment across all Council services and possibly new ways of working to ensure successful implementation.  Specific staffing requirements will need to be considered as part of the detailed projects.

1.9.4               Legal: Various legal agreements will be needed in the procurement process.

1.9.5               Social Inclusion: Ensuring that the benefits of growth are shared by parts of the community will be a priority.

1.9.6               Environmental/Sustainable Development: the creation of a sustainable community and more sustainable patterns of living are fundamental to Maidstone’s long term vision for the Borough, and will be reflected in all development proposals.  Maintenance and enhancement of the Boroughs environment is an intrinsic part of the commitment to new development and infrastructure provision.

1.9.7               Procurement: There will be resource implications for the procurement team as there will be a need to procure services to deliver projects and the growth plan.

1.10                 Background Documents

1.10.1            CLG issued guidance, 17^th August 2007 called “Draft Guidance for Growth Points and Growth Areas Producing a Programme of Development to Access Future Housing Growth Funding.”