Contact your Parish Council


 

Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

11 January 2022

 

Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Annual Review and Update 2020/21

 

Final Decision-Maker

Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

Lead Head of Service

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development

Lead Officer and Report Author

Helen Smith, Principal Planning Officer, Strategic Planning

Classification

Public

Wards affected

All

 

Executive Summary

 

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) identifies the infrastructure schemes considered necessary to support the development proposed in the adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and outlines how, when and by whom these are expected to be delivered. The IDP plays a key role in demonstrating that planned growth in terms of the provision of new homes and jobs can be accommodated in a sustainable manner, through the timely and coordinated delivery of supporting infrastructure.

 

However, the limitation of producing an IDP is that it can only provide a snapshot of the infrastructure requirements as they are known at the time of production. As such, the IDP is annually reviewed in order to maintain its relevance. The published 2020 IDP has therefore been reviewed and updated for 2021 and is the subject of this report. It contains four new infrastructure schemes and removes a further seven completed infrastructure schemes.

 

Crucially to note, there are two separate version of the 2021 IDP currently published. The first – the subject of this report – relates solely to the delivery of the adopted Local Plan (2017). The second version includes further infrastructure identified to support the additional growth as set out in the Local Plan Review (LPR). The LPR IDP has been published as supporting evidence to the Regulation 19 public consultation. It is not for consideration as part of this report.

 

Purpose of Report

 

Noting.

 

This report makes the following recommendation to this Committee:

1.   That the Maidstone Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2021 be noted.

 

 

Timetable

Meeting

Date

Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

11 January 2022



Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Annual Review and Update 2020/21

 

1.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

 

 

Issue

Implications

Sign-off

Impact on Corporate Priorities

The four Strategic Plan objectives are:

 

·         Embracing Growth and Enabling Infrastructure

·         Safe, Clean and Green

·         Homes and Communities

·         A Thriving Place

 

We do not expect the recommendation will by itself materially affect achievement of corporate priorities.  However, subsequent delivery of schemes within the IDP will support the Council’s overall achievement of its objectives, particularly ‘embracing Growth and Enabling Infrastructure’.

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development

Cross Cutting Objectives

The four cross-cutting objectives are:

 

·         Heritage is Respected

·         Health Inequalities are Addressed and Reduced

·         Deprivation and Social Mobility is Improved

·         Biodiversity and Environmental Sustainability is respected

 

We do not expect the recommendation will by itself materially affect achievement of corporate priorities.  However, subsequent delivery of schemes within the IDP will support the Council’s overall achievement of its cross-cutting objectives.

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development

Risk Management

There is a potential risk that some allocated housing sites are built without some of the associated infrastructure being delivered in a timely fashion.

 

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development

Financial

The proposals set out in the recommendation are all within already approved budgetary headings and so need no new funding for implementation.

Section 151 Officer & Finance Team

Staffing

We will deliver the recommendation with our current staffing.

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development

Legal

There are no legal implications arising from the report recommendation.

Cheryl Parks  Mid Kent Legal Services (Planning)

Privacy and Data Protection

There are no implications for Privacy and Data Protection.

Policy and Information Team

Equalities

The recommendation does not propose a change in service therefore will not require an equalities impact assessment.

Equalities and Communities Officer

Public Health

 

 

We recognise that whilst the publication of the IDP document itself does not impact on population health, the delivery of schemes contained within the IDP may have a positive impact on population health or that of individuals.

 

Public Health Officer

Crime and Disorder

The recommendation will not have an impact on Crime and Disorder.

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development

Procurement

No procurement matters arising from this report or its recommendation.

Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development

Biodiversity and Climate Change

We recognise that whilst the publication of the IDP document itself does not impact on biodiversity and climate change, the delivery of schemes contained within the IDP may have a positive impact on biodiversity and climate change.

 

In accordance with the Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan the IDP should prioritise pedestrians, active travel and EVs, enhance biodiversity, ensure adaptation and mitigation measures are integrated to reduce the risk to the impacts of climate change, and reduce CO2e through the procurement process and contracting terms with developers.

Biodiversity and Climate Change Manager

 

 

 

2.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

 

 

2.1     The original Maidstone Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) May 2016 was produced as supporting evidence to accompany the submission of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (MBLP). Thereafter followed a second iteration in 2017 submitted as evidence supporting the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule. The primary purpose of the IDP is to identify the infrastructure schemes considered necessary to support the development proposed in the adopted MBLP and to outline how, when and by whom these will be delivered. The IDP has three main roles:

 

1)   Firstly, it demonstrates that planned growth in terms of the provision of new homes and jobs can be accommodated in a sustainable manner, through the timely and coordinated delivery of supporting infrastructure;

2)   Secondly, it is an infrastructure planning tool, which can be used as a framework to guide decision making on infrastructure delivery, including the future allocations of monies received from the Community Infrastructure Levy; and thirdly,

3)   It has become an important enabling tool to help the Council achieve its priorities as set out in the Strategic Plan 2019-2045.

 

2.2     However, the limitation of producing an IDP is that it can only provide a snapshot in time of the infrastructure requirements as they are known at the time of production. To ensure the IDP continues to reflect the correct infrastructure requirements throughout the lifetime of the adopted Local Plan, regular reviews are necessary, and this involves recontacting infrastructure providers, asking for updates. The council does this annually to coincide with the Authority Monitoring report process and to help fulfil the monitoring indicators in the Local Plan 2017.

 

2.3     To this end, the IDP has been reviewed, updated and republished in both 2019 and 2020. It has now undergone a further review, update and publication for 2021 and is the subject of this report, for noting.

 

2.4     Crucially to note, there are two separate version of the 2021 IDP currently published. The first – the subject of this report – relates solely to the delivery of the adopted Local Plan (2017). The second version includes further infrastructure identified to support the additional growth as set out in the Local Plan Review (LPR). The LPR IDP has been published as supporting evidence to the Regulation 19 public consultation. It is not for consideration as part of this report. Further detail in this regard is provided in paragraphs 2.23-2.25.

 

 

 

 

Annual Review process

 

2.5     National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)[1], states that a planning authority should pay careful attention to “identifying what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward”. It is important to work alongside infrastructure providers, service delivery organisations and other strategic bodies to identify infrastructure deficits and requirements, and opportunities for addressing them. However, there is little national guidance as to how to undertake a review nor with what frequency. What is clear is that regular review is essential in order to update current scheme progress, acknowledge completed schemes, and to add new schemes where they are needed to support the sustainable delivery of the MBLP. As such, a review of the May 2016 IDP was undertaken in 2019 and again in 2020.

 

2.6     In undertaking this latest review, known infrastructure providers – both with and without projects currently listed in the IDP – were contacted by email in February 2021 and asked to provide updates on their schemes as well as to suggest new schemes for consideration where appropriate. The full list of those contacted and those who responded is provided in Appendix 1 of this report. It is important to contact infrastructure providers without schemes currently included in the IDP in case they have new schemes for consideration of inclusion as part of the review. Schemes which may not have been required or identified in earlier iterations of the IDP, perhaps due to changes in service delivery; for example, newly created bus routes or alternate healthcare service provision models delivered by partner organisations.

 

2.7     Given that this IDP is based on delivery of the adopted MBLP, the expectation is that very few new schemes would be identified as part of the review. However, it is recognised that organisational business plans and ways of working/delivering services change over time, particularly in a post-Covid world, and that schemes may come forward where they were previously not identified as necessary to support planned development.

 

2.8     As highlighted earlier in this report, newly identified infrastructure schemes required to support additional levels of growth proposed in the Local Plan Review are not included within this IDP. They are included within a separate LPR IDP that has been produced as part of the evidence base accompanying the Regulation 19 draft submission Local Plan Review document. See paragraphs 2.23-2.25 of this report.

 

2.9     Based on the responses received, plus further clarifying emails/discussions with infrastructure providers where required, a revised and updated IDP has been produced and is shown in Appendix 2 of this report. The overall content remains very similar to the 2020 IDP, however the structure is slightly different in that all infrastructure position statements are grouped together (Section B of the 2021 IDP), followed by a single Infrastructure Delivery Schedule table (Section C of the 2021 IDP). This provides an improved user experience and a more practical layout for the review process. Furthermore, all completed schemes from previous iterations of the IDP are now included in Appendix 1 of the 2021 IDP to demonstrate the progress being made on delivery of identified infrastructure.

 

Key facts/figures

 

2.10  There are a total of 132 infrastructure schemes included in this year’s IDP, across eight infrastructure categories. Projects range in scale and cost from the provision of multi-million-pound new schools, to the extension of 30mph limit and upgrading of road markings.  The greatest number of projects relate to highways and transportation (42%, 55 schemes). This is followed by healthcare (16%, 21 schemes), green and blue infrastructure (14%, 18 schemes), utilities (9%, 12 schemes), education (8%, 10 schemes), public services (6%, 8 schemes), social and community (4%, 6 schemes), and flood prevention and mitigation (1%, 2 schemes). See figure 1, below.

 

Figure 1: Infrastructure schemes, by broad type

 

2.11  In terms of where these schemes are located, almost half are within the Maidstone Urban Area and Town Centre (48%). This is to be expected given that the spatial strategy as set out in the 2017 Local Plan focuses development primarily in and around the edges of the urban area. The remaining schemes are located 24% within the Rural Service Centres, 12% in the Larger Villages, 4% in the countryside, and 11% borough wide. The borough wide schemes tend to be more generic in their description e.g., ‘SC5: youth services – measures to improve accessibility and provide additional capacity’. Individual projects under this broad category are expected to be identified and delivered over the lifetime of the plan, as and when development pressures necessitate their provision. 

 

2.12  With regards to scheme delivery timescales, these are divided into short, medium and long term, based on 5-year time blocks (2017/18-2021/22; 2022/23-2026/27; 2027/28-2031/32). Similarly, each scheme has been categorised in terms of priority for delivery: either critical, essential or desirable. The ‘critical’ infrastructure must be delivered to enable physical development to occur. Failure to provide this infrastructure could result in significant delays in the delivery of development. Table 1 shows the number of schemes within each timescale and priority category.

 

 

Delivery timescales

Prioritisation

Short term

Medium term

Long term

Varies

Total

Critical

30

7

5

3

45

Essential

18

46

5

6

75

Desirable

1

8

1

1

11

Varies

-

-

-

1

1

Total schemes

49

61

11

11

132

Table 1: Count of infrastructure schemes by delivery timescales and prioritisation.

 

2.13  Of the 132 schemes, 30 are prioritised as critical and are required in the short term. At the time of production, just under a quarter (23% or 7 total) of these schemes were under construction (all highways and transportation related). Of those, all but one are funded through direct legal agreements (Section 278 agreements) between Kent County Council and the developers. Two schemes (SC1 and SC2) are for the provision of community facilities as part of wider residential developments (H1(2) East of Hermitage Lane and H1(5) Langley Park, respectively). These are to be funded and constructed by the developers, as part of their planning permissions and are expected to be delivered on time alongside the new homes. Of the four utilities schemes, three (UT3, UT4 and UT5) relate to increasing water supply capacity at transfer mains in the urban area. They are to be funded via direct legal agreements (unilateral undertakings) between the developers and utilities company, plus the provider’s business plan funding. The fourth utilities scheme (UT9) is the expansion of the Lenham Waste Water Treatment Works and is related to the planned level of growth at Lenham Broad location. Since the preparation of this IDP, the trajectory for delivery of new homes in this location has been moved towards the end of the plan period. This revised delivery timescale will be reflected in next years iteration of the IDP.

 

2.14  The remaining 17 schemes are all highways and transportation related. One scheme relates to pedestrian safety improvements and bus stop provision at Woodcut Farm and was the subject of a live planning application at the time of updating the IDP, therefore works had not commenced. It is anticipated that the scheme will be delivered via a Section 278 agreement with KCC. Five of the schemes are part of the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP): schemes HTNW3 – Coldharbour roundabout; HTSE2 – Willington St/Wallis Avenue with Sutton Rd junction; HTSE6/HTSE7 – Wheatsheaf junction and signal junctions to Bridge gyratory; HTUA1 – Boughton Lane and junction of Boughton Lane/A229 Loose Rd; and HTUA2 – A20/Willington St junction. At the time of compiling this IDP, the first works were expected to begin in the summer of 2021 and take 12-18 months to complete. Other works were programmed in for construction beginning in 2022. However, there is growing concern at the lack of delivery of the MITP schemes and they are now at risk of being delivered beyond the timeframes identified in the IDP. Progress on these will be updated in the next review. In the interim, MBC continue to engage with KCC regarding the delivery of these critical highways infrastructure schemes through regular duty to cooperate meetings. Of the final 11 schemes, one (HTNW4 –capacity improvements at the junction of Fountain Lane and the A26/Tonbridge Road) is identified as having a potentially suitable scheme design but is lacking sufficient funding to undertake the works. Funding sources include Section 106 monies from Maidstone Borough Council and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, plus possible CIL funds.

 

2.15  The top ten most expensive schemes in this year’s IDP (where the estimated cost is known) are as follows (Table 2):

 

Scheme

reference

Service Area

Scheme description

Estimated costs

HTJ71

Highways

Capacity improvements and signalisation of Bearsted roundabout and capacity improvements at New Cut roundabout. Provision of a new signal pedestrian crossing and the provision of a combined foot/cycle way between these two roundabouts.

£11,399,000.00

HTTC13A

Public transport - rail

Provision of a multi-storey commuter car park to serve Maidstone East Rail Station

£9,000,000.00

UT12

Utilities - energy provision

The generation of heat and power, utilising ‘low carbon’ methods (including utilising latent heat within the River Medway and gas CHP) which is then piped via a subterranean piping network (to be installed as part of the project) to local council (offices, library, social housing) and HMT Maidstone estates. 

£9,000,000.00

EDM4

Primary education

Provision of a new 2FE primary school on site H1 (2) Land East of Hermitage Lane, Maidstone

£6,800,000.00

UT1

Utilities - water supply

8km of 300mm diameter main from Charing to Headcorn area

£6,251,000.00

EDM2

Secondary education

2FE expansion of The Maplesden Noakes School, Maidstone

£6,200,000.00

EDM6

Primary education

Provision of a new 1FE primary school on site H1 (10) South of Sutton Road, Maidstone

£6,000,000.00

EDM9

Primary education

Provision of a new 2FE primary school within Broad Location H2 (2) Invicta Barracks, Maidstone

£6,000,000.00

HTJ72

Highways

Traffic signalisation of the M20 J7 roundabout, widening of the coast bound off-slip and creation of a new signal-controlled pedestrian route through the junction.

£4,667,000.00

HTUA9

Public transport - buses

Move to zero emission bus fleet for Maidstone and surrounds.

£4,000,000.00

Total:

£69,317,000.00

Table 2: Top 10 most expensive infrastructure schemes (where costs are known)

 

2.16  Of the above listed schemes, one was under construction (EDM2) at the time of preparing the IDP, nine were not started. Work was due to commence on scheme HTJ71 (Bearsted roundabout and New Cut roundabout capacity improvements) in Spring 2021, however the scheme design is currently under review and work is yet to start. Of those seven remaining schemes, the three education schemes (EDM4, EDM6 and EDM9) are to be delivered in the later in the plan period, based on the rate of housing delivery and population growth required to trigger the need for the new school place provision. School place funding is primarily secured through S106 agreements related to development but may also include Department for Education grants and/or Community Infrastructure Levy fund allocations. Scheme UT1 is to be delivered in the medium term, again, based on the rate of housing delivery in the locality and is funded through south East Water business plan funding and unilateral undertakings directly with developers. There is currently a shortfall in funding identified for scheme HTJ72 due to increased costs since its original inclusion within the IDP, meaning that any secured S106 funds will need to be ‘topped up’ with funds from other sources. The final two schemes (UT12 and HTUA9) both relate to lowering carbon emissions, through construction of a combined heat and power network and upgrading the bus fleet respectively. Both schemes are identified for delivery in the short term, to 2022/23, however both currently lack the full funding required.

 

2.17  Overall, 24 of the 132 schemes (or 18%) were under construction at the time of preparing the IDP. 95 of the schemes (or 72%) were not yet started; however of these, over one third (36 schemes) are not due for delivery until the medium or long term. The remaining 59 schemes that were not yet started include projects under highways and transportation; health; green and blue; social and community; utilities; and public services. The reasons for not having commenced vary from scheme to scheme, but many relate to a lack of funding or development not having reached a sufficient level to trigger the need for the provision of the infrastructure.

 

2.18  Whilst the Council is holding an apparently significant amount of Section 106 monies, the provider (for audit reasons) has to provide details of the specific project on which the contribution is to be spent so that planning officers can be satisfied that the detail aligns with that set out in the applicable legal agreement before any money is transferred to an infrastructure provider (e.g. Kent County Council). These details include things such as costings and timelines. Business cases for infrastructure projects take time to be finalised. For example, whilst a road junction will have been identified for capacity improvements based on congestion and so is identified in local policies and the IDP, it takes time and resource to undertake detailed and comprehensive surveys. Furthermore, infrastructure providers are rarely in a position to forward fund infrastructure works. Where the development is to be phased or the contribution is being pooled with other developments, the infrastructure provider may only be able to carry out the works to which the contribution is to be paid once all the ‘pooled contributions’/monies have been received (i.e. once all the funds comprising the pooled contributions from the other developments have been received). Accordingly, in practice, there are often ‘lags’ in delivery. In addition, most infrastructure providers cover a much wider area than Maidstone Borough and so there are competing demands. Officers will continue to engage with infrastructure providers and update the progress of projects through the annual IDP review.

 

 

Completed schemes

 

2.19  This year, the IDP includes an appended list of all schemes that have been successfully delivered. In total 48 schemes have been completed across a range of infrastructure types since the first iteration of the IDP in 2016. The schemes are grouped by geographic location to make it easy to see what has been delivered in each area.

 

2.20  In 2020/21, there were seven schemes completed. These were:

 

·         New 6 form entry secondary school – Maidstone School of Science and Technology;

·         New 2 form entry primary school – Maidstone North Primary Free School;

·         Extension of the footway along Vicarage Road to site H1(65), Yalding;

·         Signalisation of the Kings Road/Mill bank junction, Headcorn;

·         Provision of open space associated with land South of Ashford Road;

·         Provision of open space at Church road, Harrietsham; and

·         Improvements to Maidstone East Rail Station forecourt and ticket office.

 

2.21  The successful refurbishment of Maidstone bus station was also completed in the 2021 calendar year however works were still ongoing during the preparation of the IDP. Its completion will therefore be reflected in the next IDP (2021/22). 

 

Key revisions

 

2.22  In summary, the key revisions of the latest IDP review are as follows:

 

·        Inclusion of all completed infrastructure schemes from previous iterations of the IDP (Appendix 1 of the 2021 IDP) and cross-reference to the relevant Local Plan indicator M3 as reported in the Authority’s Monitoring Report (AMR) 2020/21 (see December SPI agenda item);

·        Inclusion of a new section on Infrastructure Costs, setting out indicative overall costs, funds available or expected via CIL and Section 106, and the resultant infrastructure funding gap. Figures quoted are aligned with those in the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) 2020/21 (see December SPI item);

·        Amendments to existing schemes where changes may have occurred since 2020. Examples include:

o   Inclusion of reference to the March 2020 update of the former West Kent CCG GP Estates Strategy 2018;

o   Scheme status and delivery timescale updates for various GP surgery improvement projects;

o   Scheme status updates for the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP) projects to reflect anticipated commencement in Summer 2021 and delivery over a 12 month period;

o   Updated costs for the Maidstone Bus Station improvements scheme (reference HTTC3), plus various utilities water supply scheme cost updates.

·        Updates to the evidence/justification, for example, references made to planning applications which now have permission; and to the production of more recent evidence by infrastructure providers e.g. Schools Commissioning Plan;

·        Addition of four new infrastructure schemes required to sustainably deliver the adopted MBLP:

o   HTTC16 – Public realm improvements at Archbishop’s Palace/ Carriage Museum/ All Saints Church/ Lockmeadow, Maidstone Town Centre;

o   SC7 – Provision of a new Leisure Centre at the site of Maidstone Leisure Centre, Maidstone;

o   PS9 – Expansion of Tovil Household Waste & Recycling Centre site; and

o   PS10 – Relocation and expansion of an ambulance Make Ready Centre (MRC) for Maidstone Borough; and

·        Correction of any typographical errors.

 

 

Local Plan Review

 

2.23  Policy LPR1 of the adopted Local Plan commits the Council to undertaking a review of the Local Plan and sets out the matters such a review should address including housing needs; broad locations for development; employment land provision; spatial strategy; and transport matters.

 

2.24  To support this Local Plan Review (LPR), a new Infrastructure Delivery Plan was produced as part of the evidence base to accompany the Regulation 19 draft submission Local Plan Review document. Unlike the IDP appended to this report, the LPR IDP includes additional infrastructure required to sustainably support the additional levels of growth and development as set out in the LPR, over the extended plan period to 2037.

 

2.25  The two IDPs therefore serve different purposes; relate to different levels of growth and development as set out in either the adopted Local Plan or LPR; and should not be used interchangeably. Once the LPR is adopted, it will replace the current Maidstone Borough Local Plan and there will be only one IDP produced to support the newly adopted LPR. This consolidated IDP will include all projects associated with delivering the original Local Plan growth, plus further projects to support the additional growth contained in the LPR. This single, consolidated IDP will then be reviewed in the same way that the existing IDP is.

 

 

3.   AVAILABLE OPTIONS

 

3.1     The content of this report and appended items are for noting only.

 

 

4.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

4.1     This report is for noting only.

 

 

5.       RISK

5.1    This report is presented for information only and has no risk management implications.

 

 

 

6.       CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

 

6.1     As set out in section 2 of this report, infrastructure providers known to operate and/or deliver infrastructure in the borough were contacted as part of the review process. The responses received have informed the update of the schemes within the IDP, including the removal of a further seven completed schemes and the inclusion of four new schemes.

 

 

 

7.       NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

 

7.1     This report is for noting only. The 2021 Infrastructure Delivery Plan was published on the Council’s website in November 2021. It replaced the previous 2020 IDP and is to be used to aid in the timely delivery of infrastructure required to support planned development as set out in the adopted Local Plan.

 

7.2     Infrastructure providers and other relevant service delivery organisations were contacted via email to inform them of the publication of the 2021 IDP.

 

7.3     Subsequent to this committee meeting, the annual process of reviewing the published IDP will begin around March time.

 

 

 

8.        REPORT APPENDICES

 

·         Appendix 1: List of infrastructure providers contacted

·         Appendix 2: Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2021

 

 

 

9.        BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

None



[1] Paragraph 059 Reference ID: 61-059-20190315 (revision date 15/03/2019)