 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Andy Rumfitt, Senior Director |
|
Bindu Pokkyarath, Director |
|
Bindu Pokkyarath, Director |
|
Andy Rumfitt, Senior Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document Name |
Ref |
Prepared for |
Prepared by |
Date |
Reviewed by |
|
MAIP3000 |
MBC |
AR/BP |
27/01/23 |
BP |
|
|
1.1 |
MAIP3000 |
MBC |
AR/BP |
06/02/23 |
BP |
|
1.2 |
MAIP3000 |
MBC |
AR/BP |
08/02/23 |
BP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepared for: Maidstone Borough Council
Prepared by: Andy Rumfitt & Bindu Pokkyarath
Turley
Brownlow Yard
12 Roger Street
London WC1N 2JU
T 020 7851 4010
1. Introduction.......................................................................................... 5
1.1 The Purpose of this Report................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Approach......................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Moderation Review.......................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Document Structure......................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Declaration...................................................................................................................... 6
2. MBC CIL Bid Process................................................................................ 8
3. Current Ranking of Projects.................................................................... 11
4. Moderation Criteria: Policy Alignment and Delivery Risks........................... 12
5. Moderation – Independent Assessment of Projects for Funding.................. 14
6. Recommendations and Next Steps.......................................................... 20
Appendix 1 – Turley RAG Moderation Scoring of Projects............................................................. 22
Table 1. Moderation Categories
Table 2. Project Total CIL Funds
Table 3. MBC Selected of Projects for Funding
Table 4. Projects Ranked “Green” in Moderation
1. Introduction
1.1 The Purpose of this Report
Turley has been commissioned to provide an independent moderation report as a supporting document to Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) Officers’ report on projects proposed to be funded by MBC Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) allocations.
1.2 Approach
The Turley Business Case team has a well-developed approach for undertaking independent evidence-based business case reviews and due diligence from our work over the last ten years. We have independently reviewed more than 160 business cases and completed a number of prioritisation and ranking exercises.
For this moderation exercise we completed the following tasks:
· Review of the CIL application process including advice and forms.
· Review of scoring of each Strategic CIL application by MBC
· Workshop with MBC to review the scoring and rankings completed to date and to consider issues arising.
· Review and development of key criteria to consider against each bid as an independent assessment using relevant forms.
· Review of each application and providing independent observations to support moderation recommendations where relevant.
· Grouping of applications into four categories with different levels of potential for funding.
· Providing recommendations for the future.
1.3 Moderation Review
This moderation review of the CIL applications sets out detailed comments based on the application form provided and MBC’s internal scoring. Each project has been assigned to one of four categories to show the project’s relative attractiveness for Strategic CIL funding.
Table 1. Moderation Categories
|
Category |
Description |
|
Green |
Well-developed projects that should be considered for Strategic CIL Funding as grant and/or loan packages. |
|
Amber |
Strong potential for future funding in the short term with further work on the proposal, more certainty and/or receipts of match funding and when the delivery timeframe is more certain to reduce delivery risks. |
|
Yellow |
Moderate potential for future funding in the longer term with further work on the proposal, more certainty and/or receipts of match funding and when the delivery timeframe is more imminent to reduce delivery risks. |
|
Red |
Less well-developed projects that should not progress without significant additional development work or should be considered for funding from other sources such as Neighbourhood CIL. |
1.4 Document Structure
The remainder of this document is structured as follows:
· Section 2 – MBC CIL Bid Process
· Section 3 – Current ranking of projects
· Section 4 – Moderation Criteria: Policy Alignment and Delivery Risks
· Section 5 – Moderation – Independent Assessment of Projects for Funding
· Section 6 – Recommendations and Next Steps
1.6 Declaration
This review has been undertaken as part of the Turley contract with client. The moderation report has been undertaken independently by Andy Rumfitt and Bindu Pokkyarath from the Turley Business Case and Economics team based in London. We completed a Conflict of Interest (CoI) check and wish to disclose the following.
Turley has provided professional support to Countryside around the assessment of the required community facilities for the proposed Marden development, but the site was not allocated in the Local Plan. We are still retained as advisers.
Our consultants working on this commission have not been involved in advising Countryside and remained independent at all times while conducting this work.
2. MBC CIL Bid Process
The section summarises the Community Infrastructure Levy bidding process (2022-2025) of Maidstone Borough Council (MBC).
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge on certain types of development in Maidstone. The money collected is then used to support new development of the borough. The Council implemented CIL in October 2018.
In accordance with the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended), the expenditure of CIL funds is divided as follows:
· 5% is retained by MBC to fund the administration associated with the operation of the CIL.
· 15% is for ‘Neighbourhood CIL’ which is made available to parish councils (capped at £100 per Council Tax dwelling) where development has taken place, or 25% (uncapped) in areas with a ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan.
· 70-80% is for ‘Strategic CIL’ which will be allocated to strategic infrastructure projects by MBC, in accordance with the approved CIL Governance arrangements. This is the portion of CIL subject to allocation through the CIL bidding cycle.
The CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended), state that MBC must spend Strategic CIL funds on:
‘the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure necessary to support growth.’
Strategic CIL is intended to focus on the provision of new infrastructure and should not be used to remedy pre-existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision unless those deficiencies will be made more severe by new development.
The Planning Act 2008 prescribes that infrastructure includes:
· roads and other transport facilities
· flood defences
· schools and educational facilities
· medical facilities
· sporting and recreational facilities
· open spaces
The following projects are not eligible for Strategic CIL:
· Projects that do not meet the requirements of the CIL Regulation 59 2010 (as amended) i.e., for the provision, improvement, replacement, operation, or maintenance of infrastructure to support development of the borough
· Projects that are not defined as ‘infrastructure’
· Ongoing revenue costs for existing infrastructure
· Repayment of money or interest borrowed for the purposes of funding infrastructure
· Annual maintenance or repair for existing infrastructure
· VAT that you can recover
Following the implementation of the CIL charging schedule on 1 October 2018, CIL began being collected in 2019. To accumulate a sufficient amount of money towards infrastructure, MBC approved the CIL governance arrangements to allow for an annual bidding cycle for the allocation of Strategic CIL receipts from 2019 to 2021 to enable the delivery of specific infrastructure projects that will support development in the borough.
The 2021/22 MBC Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy bidding cycle was open for bids from 3 May 2022 until 15 July 2022. The original aim was for funding decisions in October 2022.
MBC forecasts that £11,776,168.45 of CIL will have been collected by 31 March 2025, and this will be combined with a £5 million contribution from their own capital resources, to give a total of £16.776 million of infrastructure funding potentially being available to bidders.
Table 2. Project Total CIL Funds
|
Sources of Funds |
Value (£) |
|
Strategic CIL collected (as of 1 February 2023) |
£4,280,886.45 |
|
Future CIL receipts (forecast) |
£7,495,282.00 |
|
Total CIL |
£11,776,168.45 |
|
Other MBC Capital Funding to Support Revolving Fund Investments |
£5,000,000.00 |
|
All Funds |
£16,776,168.45 |
Source: MBC February 2023.
While MBC intend to allocate the predicted CIL income for the period 2022-25 in the current bidding round, the ultimate final allocations will be subject to actual annual CIL income received.
Some successful bids will have funds made available to them immediately, whilst others will receive provisional allocations, while MBC await the accrual of further CIL monies over the course of 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25. Therefore, this period of accumulation of funds may reduce the annual frequency of the bidding rounds.
Whilst an
estimate of future CIL income can be made for the forthcoming years, actual
income is entirely dependent upon the rate at which any CIL liable development
is delivered, and the monies paid.
3. Current Ranking of Projects
This section summarises the scoring and ranking of projects that have been completed to date. MBC’s initial scoring and draft reporting had recommended the following five projects for funding with a total CIL cost of £12.032 million.
Table 3. MBC Selected of Projects for Funding
|
Applicant |
Project |
IDP Status |
Project Cost |
Recommended CIL Allocation |
|
Kent County Council
|
Linton Crossroads |
Critical Policy DM21 / LPR TRA2 Integrated Transport Strategy 2011-31 |
£2,071,392 with £839,378 from S106 developer contributions. |
They asked for £1,232,000 |
|
Kent County Council (Transport)
|
M20 J7 Upgrade |
Critical Policy DM21 / LPR TRA2 Planning |
£6,621,610 with £1,062,429 from S106 developer contributions |
They asked for £ 5,559,181 |
|
NHS Kent & Medway
|
Extension of Shepway Medical Centre
|
Essential Former West Kent CCG GP Estates Strategy 2018 & Update March 2020. |
£2,165,234 S106 funding 1%: £24,895 Balance to be funded by GP: 76%: £1,642,339 |
They asked for £498,000 |
|
Kent County Council (Transport)
|
Hermitage Lane Cycle/walking facility |
Essential Policy DM21 / LPR TRA2 Walking and Cycling Strategy 2011 -2031 Integrated Transport Strategy 2011 -31 |
£404,550 With £181,018 from S106 developer contributions |
They asked for £223,550 |
|
Kent County Council
(Education) |
1 FE Expansion of Maidstone Grammar School for Girls
|
Local Plan Policy ID 1 Infrastructure Delivery supports education infrastructure |
£8,986,481 £6,378,593 from the Basic Need Capital Programme Budget, £1,432,129 of Education Modernisation funding and the school will contribute £1,175,759 |
They asked for £4,519,310 as would have been calculated as previous S106 education contributions |
|
Total |
|
|
|
£12,031,991 |
4. Moderation Criteria: Policy Alignment and Delivery Risks
As an independent check, this section examines key investment criteria and considers potential delivery risks in the current environment that could be given increased weighting in selecting projects to be funded. We have considered the following:
· Alignment with Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) project listing
· Alignment with Local Plan growth areas
· Delivery time and duration
· Accuracy of costs and programme
· Match funding certainty as MBC’s proxy for Value for Money
In terms of policy alignment two key documents are the Local Plan (LP) and the Infrastructure Development Plan (Nov 2021) which is produced annually.
MBC’s approach was to welcome bids for Strategic CIL funds from those schemes with ‘CIL’ listed as a potential source of funding to deliver the Local Plan. Prioritisation is then given to those schemes whose delivery is identified in the IDP as both ‘critical’ and ‘short term.’
The IDP identifies 141 schemes costing £171.443 million, with an average cost £1.22 million. However, the funding gap identified is £144.124 million suggesting that based on average cost there is funding for just 22 projects or about 15% of the total.
Projects have been ranked as critical, essential, and desirable. There are 45 projects ranked as critical which on the basis of average costs would require just under £55 million of funding, more than three times the current total projected CIL budget. The IDP has been approved under delegated powers.
Of the submitted Strategic CIL applications the relevant IDP rankings were as follows:
· Critical (2) – Linton Crossroads, M20 J7 Upgrade
· Essential (3) - SECAMB- Vehicle prep scheme (MRC), KCC Hermitage Lane, NHSKM - Extension of Shepway Medical Centre
· Desirable (3) - MBC Parks Activation – Cycling and Wheeled sports Mote Park & South Park, MBC Maidstone Riverside Light Walk, EA Headcorn Flood Alleviation Scheme.
However, the challenge of using alignment with the IDP as the main mechanism for scoring is that: (a) there are many proposed projects so the approach would not necessarily screen them out on a priority or impact basis; and (b) all the most critical were not necessarily brought forward to the Strategic CIL application round.
The 2017 adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan sets the framework for development in the Borough until 2031 with the aim to provide about 18,000 homes. With a detailed evidence base, extensive consultation, and political sign off, the Local Plan gives a somewhat stronger basis on where to consider Strategic CIL investments. This can be to support growth and provide additional social infrastructure where there are identified housing allocations.
The 66 housing sites in the Local Plan can accommodate 8,409 homes with a spatial focus on development to the north west and south east of Maidstone including four strategic locations (see key diagram below). Other key locations for development are Maidstone Town Centre, Invicta Park Barracks and Lenham.
Diagram 1. Local Plan Key Diagram
In an era of high and fast-moving cost inflation pressures, there is an increased need to be mindful of the risks for projects without a clear and certain programme or limited project detail. Conversely, projects with an imminent start date or are underway with a confirmed delivery programme generally have a reduced delivery and cost risks.
In addition, projects with the most up to date cost information - ideally from recently tendered prices in line with the HMT Green Book requirements of a Full Business Case - pose less of a cost risk in the future.
Finally,
projects with all or very high levels of match funding in place – used as proxy
of Value for Money (VfM) by MBC – have lower funding delivery risks. Where this
match is significant (say 50% or more) these projects show the benefits of
financial leverage enabling MBC funds to go further.
5. Moderation – Independent Assessment of Projects for Funding
This section provides independent recommendations on the projects that could be selected for funding. These are presented in four categories:
· GREEN – Well-developed projects that should be considered for Strategic CIL Funding as grant and/or loan packages.
· AMBER – Strong potential for funding in the short term with further work on the proposal, more certainty and/or receipts of match funding and when the delivery timeframe is certain to reduce delivery risks.
· YELLOW – Moderate potential for funding in the longer term with further work on the proposal, more certainty and/or receipts of match funding and when the delivery timeframe is more imminent to reduce delivery risks. These projects need more development compared to the AMBER category.
· RED – Less well-developed projects that should not progress without significantly more additional work or should be considered for funding from other sources such as Neighbourhood CIL.
Our independent assessment and moderation, which takes a greater account of the Local Plan housing delivery focus and considering where the match funding is very well developed, suggests the following breakdown of the Strategic CIL applications:
GREEN (Four Projects) – Projects to be Considered for Funding (MBC Internal Scoring 54-108)
Project 18[1]. Kent County Council (KCC) Transport M20 J7 Upgrade - £4,822,469 (as recoverable loan in revolving fund) and £1,799,141 (as a CIL grant).
Project 12. KCC Transport A229 Linton Crossroads Improvements - £1,232,000 (CIL grant)
Project 21. MBC Redevelopment of Heather House Community Centre (Parkwood) - £956,420 (CIL grant)
Project 1. St Faiths Centre - £200,000 (CIL grant)
These comprise the two highest scoring transport projects when ranked by MBC’s internal assessment (both ranked critical in the IDP) and two projects which involve the provision of additional community facilities in areas of high housing growth with strong policy support. Further details are provided in the table below.
Total costs = £9,010,030 with £4,822,469 as recoverable CIL “loan” in revolving fund and £4,187,561 as CIL grant.
Current available CIL and Revolving Fund budget £9.281 million
For the M20 J7 project, the total scheme costs are £6,621,610 and the eventual S106 receipts to MBC will be £4,822,469 leaving a funding gap of £1,799,141.
MBC propose to "loan" the S106 value of £4,822,469 to KCC on a zero interest non-repayable basis but MBC will then recover the full amount from the S106 payments that MBC will receive from the developments linked to the scheme in the future. MBC has set aside up to £5 million of their capital funds to support this approach.
As these funds are recovered, they can then be used again on other key local infrastructure projects to support future growth as a form of revolving fund. In addition MBC will make a CIL grant of £1,799,141 to support the project.
AMBER (Five Projects) – Projects with strong potential for funding in the short term (MBC Internal Scoring 64 – 84)
Project 9. SECAMB Vehicle Preparation Scheme
Project 11. KCC Education Maidstone Grammar School
Project 13. KCC Transport Hermitage
Project 15. NHS Kent and Medway – Extension of Shepway Medical Centre
Project 22. Lenham Nursery School
YELLOW (Five Projects) - Projects with moderate potential for funding in the longer term (MBC Internal Scoring 44-51)
Project 5. Staplehurst Parish Council Sports Pitch
Project 10. MBC Parks Activation (Cycling and Wheeled Sports)
Project 14. MBC Maidstone Riverside Light Walk
Project 16. EA Headcorn Flood Alleviation Scheme
Project 17. KCC Transport Improvements at M2 J3 A229 & M20 J6
RED (Eight Projects) – Projects which should not progress for Strategic CIL funding (MBC Internal Scoring 0-42)
Project 2. Mote Cricket Club
Project 3. Lenham Public Toilets
Project 4. Staplehurst Parish Council Highway Works
Project 6. Staplehurst PC Youth Club Toilets
Project 7 Staplehurst Community Centre
Project 8. Staplehurst Parish Council Display Screen – Non-compliant as not infrastructure.
Project 19. KCC Transport Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)
Project 20. Staplehurst Golf Club Improvements
Further details are provided in the Appendix.
Table 4. Projects Ranked “Green” in Moderation
Further details of the projects suggested for potential funding are given below.
|
|
Project |
Grant Request / Cost |
Summary |
Scoring by MBC |
Moderation by Turley |
RAG / Recommendation |
|
18 |
KCC Transport -M20 J7 Upgrade |
£5,559,181 / £6,621,610 |
The proposal is to improve the capacity of the M20 Junction 7 (intersection between the M20 and the A249, and part of the Major Road Network (MRN)). The works are currently estimated to cost £6,621,610 based on estimates at Quarter 3 2022/23 FY and allowing for inflation over the construction period to early 2025. CIL application asks for £5.559 million with £1,062,429 coming from private S106 contributions already secured by KCC. |
89/145. Strong policy alignment (LP, IDP) and local support. Identified benefits and public consultation supportive. Delivery by Jan 2025. BCR 20:1. Further clarity needed on S106 contributions. Land owner is KCC. KCC and National Highways revenue costs in the future. Permitted development so lower risk. Potential for mix of grant and loan in advance of future S106 receipts. Various development sites linked to this project are sources of S106/CIL. |
Agree. In IDP (HTJ72). BCR while very high at 20:1 is good but may need checking. Up to 84% of costs being requested through CIL. Unsuccessful with LUF R2 bid. Confirm that the programme and costs are still current. Proposed “loan” basis does allow recovery of monies to fund other future projects. |
GREEN |
|
12 |
KCC Transport A229 Linton Crossroads Junction Improvement. |
£1,232,000 / £2,071,392 |
Widening of junction to include additional lanes on 3 approaches, upgrading traffic signals and improved pedestrian crossings. The total cost of the project is £2,071,392 (including construction costs of £1,182,070). The applicant is seeking £1,232,000 of CIL funding with additional funding of £846,557 coming from S106 developer contributions |
108/145. Strong policy alignment (LP, IDP) and local support. Detailed costs and all match in place. Land owner agreement. Range of transport benefits. Supporting documents. KCC revenue costs in the future. |
Agree. In IDP (HTC1) – Rated critical. Can be delivered Q4 2023. Confirm that the programme and costs are still current. |
GREEN |
|
21 |
MBC- Redevelopment of Heather House Community Centre (Parkwood) |
£956,420 / £1,771,101 |
Demolition of existing Heather House Community Centre and construction of a new replacement Community Centre, with associated landscaping and parking. The total estimated scheme cost for the new community centre is £1,771,101 with additional funding of £814,681 coming from the income generated from the residential housing development on the site. |
54/145. Some policy support (LP) and scheme submitted to IDP update (May 2022). Some benefits and local community support. Delivery July 2024. Planning secured (Nov 2022). Requires management organisation for the future. £100K grant secured. Match from income/subsidy from the residential housing (Pavilion Building) is £814,681. |
Recommend could be funded. Appears an advanced project with 54% funding from identified other sources. Supports an area of relative deprivation and an area of recent growth (SE Maidstone) and supports additional amenity provision after population growth. Local Plan alignment. Confirm that the programme and costs are still current. Confirm contractor position. |
GREEN |
|
1 |
St Faiths Centre |
£200,000 / £1.863 million |
Demolition of an existing hall and vicarage and building a specifically designed and purpose made community centre. Funding to cover escalating construction costs. Started Oct 2021. The overall project will cost £1,863,000 and a CIL bid has been sought for £200,000 which is just over 10% of the project total. Other funding has been raised totalling £1,574,000 from S106 contributions, sale of assets, Grants and Awards leaving a shortfall of £289,000 which if the bid is successful would leave £89,000 which would be sought from further grants and interest-free loans. |
61/145. Supports Local Plan objectives (increase provision), other finance in place (including S106), no planning consent required. |
Advanced project and therefore deliverable in 2023 subject to addressing cost inflation challenges. Area of relative deprivation. Area of recent growth (Maidstone TC) and supports additional amenity provision after population growth. Local Plan alignment. Confirm that the programme and costs are still current. |
GREEN |
6. Recommendations and Next Steps
This section provides some recommendations for future CIL rounds on the basis of this independent review.
· Consider producing a cohort of critical IDP projects that align with likely Strategic CIL budgets which will have the biggest impact on growth.
· Do some additional communications and promotional activity with the project promoters of the most critical projects where you would welcome Strategic CIL bids so these can be brought forward.
· Consider a pass/fail question for alignment with IDP elements and Local Plan key growth locations and policies to screen out bids at an early stage.
· Assessment of VfM would be improved with some output metrics (unit costs) and outcomes / impacts (e.g. number of houses, residents supported, jobs/GVA) as currently just based on costs and match funding.
· Consider having a screening question for the minimum size of project (>£500K) and minimum level of match funding (say 30%-50%) with immediate referral of smaller projects to Neighbourhood CIL funds.
Appendix 1 – Turley RAG Moderation Scoring of Projects
Tu
|
|
Project |
Grant Request / Cost |
Summary |
Scoring by MBC |
Moderation by Turley |
RAG / Recommendation |
|
1 |
St Faiths Centre |
£200,000 / £1.863 million |
Demolition of an existing hall and vicarage and building a specifically designed and purpose made community centre. Funding to cover escalating construction costs. Started Oct 2021. |
61/145. Supports Local Plan objectives (increase provision), other finance in place (including S106), no planning consent required. |
Advanced project and therefore deliverable in 2023 subject to addressing cost inflation challenges. Area of relative deprivation. Area of recent growth (Maidstone TC) and supports additional amenity provision after population growth. Local Plan |
GREEN Potential to Fund |
|
2 |
Mote Cricket Club |
Not provided |
Replacement of pavilion and squash club (linked to required residential development). |
13/145. Does not align with IDP, limited information, no financial information and requires planning consent. |
Agree. Does not delivery IDP objectives and longer term delivery timescale. |
RED Unsuccessful |
|
3 |
Lenham Public Toilets |
£115,138 / £115,138. |
Complete refurbishment of the existing (life expired) public toilets in the centre of Lenham including provision of currently unavailable accessible facilities. |
39/145. Does align with Local Plan. Councillor support. Needs permitted development. |
Agree. Not started but deliverable in a 12 week programme. Not an IDP project. No match funding. |
RED Unsuccessful. Neighbourhood CIL |
|
4 |
Staplehurst Parish Council Highway works |
£10,000 / £100,000 |
Road crossing and Bus stop improvements on Cranbrook Road. To install a Puffin Crossing, Bus stop waiting area and footpath. |
29/145. Support by Local Plan, highways strategy and IDP (HTS1). No match funding evidence or cost breakdown. Two years away from delivery. |
Agree. Early stage project. Relatively small investment and 10% of funds. |
RED. In IDP. Potential to Resubmit with a funded delivery plan. Local CIL? |
|
5 |
Staplehurst Parish Council Sports Pitch |
£100,000 / £1,000,000 |
To install a 3G sports Pitch for Staplehurst and surrounding areas. |
49/145. Links to neighbourhood plan but not IDP. Little detail of VfM. Further confirmation of finance required. Planning consent required. 2 years away from delivery. |
Agree. Needs to show other funding is in place as CIL is just 10%. Provide more quantitative evidence of needs and impacts. |
YELLOW. Align with LP/IDP and provide a funded delivery plan |
|
6 |
Staplehurst PC Youth Club Toilets |
£12,800 / £16,000 |
To install new toilet and accessible toilet in the Youth Club building. |
24/145. Links to neighbourhood plan but not IDP. Little detail of VfM or finance. 6-8 weeks to complete. |
Agree. Small project with no link to IDP. Small impacts. |
RED. Unsuccessful. Neighbourhood CIL |
|
7 |
Staplehurst Community Centre |
£400,000 / £1,000,000 (2019 prices) |
Redevelopment of Staplehurst Community Centre. |
37/145. No direct link to Local Plan or IDP. 60% of finance still required. Planning consent required. 3 years away from completion. |
Agree. Not currently costed. Little detail of need and impacts. |
RED. Further development work and a detailed and funded delivery plan |
|
8 |
Staplehurst Parish Council - Display Screen |
£6,000 |
Outdoor digital display signage. |
0/145. Rejected as not infrastructure |
Agreed. |
RED Non-Compliant |
|
9 |
SECAMB- Vehicle prep scheme |
£500,000+ / £8,220,000 |
Paddock Wood Make Ready Centre (MRC) was opened in 2011. It is in a converted leased building and now at operational capacity and in a sub-optimal location. A larger site on the outskirts of Maidstone with better access to the M20 is now being sought. |
64/145. Support Local Plan and IDP. Planning not secured but track record of delivery in the last. Delivery in March 2026 (current lease ends). |
In IDP (PS10). Establish match funding position (in capital plan). Better scale of project in area of critical need? |
AMBER Further detail on match funding when delivery imminent. |
|
10 |
MBC Parks Activation – Cycling and Wheeled sports Mote Park & South Park |
£1,180,000 / £1,180,000 |
Create: (1) new multi-use routes through Mote Park for pedestrians, joggers and cycling; and (2) wheeled sports facilities such as pump track, skate parks. |
44/145. Supports Local Plan and other strategy. Supports active modes. Limited costs and no match funding. 30 months to deliver and some experience. Revenue funding agreed. |
Agree. MBC could check whether in in IDP and level of funding leverage. |
YELLOW Further financial detail and match funding |
|
11 |
KCC Maidstone Grammar School |
£4,519,310 / £8,986,481 |
To meet the demand for Year 7 girls’ selective places in the Maidstone and Malling Planning Group, KCC propose to expand the Maidstone Grammar School for Girls by 1 FE, increasing its PAN from 180 to 210 from September 2023. |
74/145. In Local Plan but not in IDP. Construction by Sept 2023. Expands education. Carbon neutral building Request for 50% of costs. |
MBC to check whether in IDP and seek more detail on costs Additionality seems unclear. Additional spend on tourism centre for air raid shelters could just be on education. |
AMBER Further develop financial and cost case. |
|
12 |
KCC Linton Crossroads |
£1,232,000 / £2,071,392 |
A229 Linton Crossroads Junction Improvement. Widening of junction to include additional lanes on 3 approaches, upgrading traffic signals and improved pedestrian crossings. |
108/145. Strong policy alignment and local support. Detailed costs and all match in place. Land owner agreement. Range of transport benefits. Supporting documents. KCC revenue costs in the future. |
Agree. In IDP (HTC1) – Rated critical. Can be delivered Q4 2023 |
GREEN Potential to Fund |
|
13 |
KCC Hermitage Lane |
£223,550 / £404,550 |
Provision of a shared footway/cycleway adjacent to Hermitage Lane between Hermitage Park Development and Maidstone Hospital entrance. |
74/145. Good policy alignment and local support. Detailed costs and programme. No land or planning consent issues. Supporting documents. KCC revenue costs in the future. |
In IDP (HTNW10) – Essential. Can be delivered for March 2024. |
AMBER Additional match funding detail |
|
14 |
MBC Maidstone Riverside Light Walk |
£500,000 / £2.7-£4.7 million |
Improvements to the public realm to increase connectivity from Maidstone Town Centre to the Lockmeadow entertainment complex and Maidstone Riverside. |
49/145. Some policy and local support. Not in IDP. No detailed costs. Not all match in place. Two years to deliver. Planning probably not required. |
Agree. MBC to confirm if in IDP. Cost range very wide. Not all match in place. |
YELLOW Needs further development |
|
15 |
NHS Kent & Medway - Extension of Shepway Medical Centre |
£498,000 / £1,804,363 |
To carry out a reconfiguration of the first floor to provide additional consulting rooms and to add an extra storey to the premises to provide extra operational capacity. |
84/145. Good policy alignment and local support in area of need. Costs and programme. Planning consent required. Delivery by July 2024. £25K match from S106 but rest yet to be agreed. Private sector applicant. |
In IDP (HPU12). All funding not in place and planning required. Expensive for a refit – MBC to obtain QS review. Tendered costs in April 2023. |
AMBER Further detail on cost and match funding |
|
16 |
EA Headcorn Flood Alleviation Scheme |
£300,000 / £1,050,000 |
A flood alleviation scheme to mitigate the risks of flooding to properties (99), primary school and businesses that are currently at risk of flooding. |
46/145. Good policy alignment but community support not yet achieved. Match funding not in place (FDGiA). No programme of works. Delivery between 2024 and 2026. |
Agreed. In IDP (FP2). Need more certainty on match funding and programme. |
YELLOW Develop programme and secure match funding |
|
17 |
KCC Transport- Improvements at M2 J3 A229 & M20 J6 |
£5,000,000 / £230,000,000 |
Blue Bell Hill A229. Improvements at M2 J3 A229 southbound widening and improvements to the M20 J6. |
51/145. Strong Local Plan alignment but not in IDP. Journey time savings supported by TAG VfM calculations (BCR 2:1). Public consultation supportive. 85% of match from other sources but not yet secured. Dec 2028 delivery. Planning application (not DCO) and CPO required. Revenue covered by KCC and National Highways. |
Agreed. Very large project. One of the few projects with VfM. Need more certainty on KCC £35 million of match and LLM application. Detailed design starts in Nov 2024. |
YELLOW Develop further and secure match funding. |
|
18 |
KCC Transport -M20 J7 Upgrade |
£5,559,181 / £6,621,610 |
The proposal is to improve the capacity of the M20 Junction 7 (intersection between the M20 and the A249, and part of the Major Road Network (MRN)). The works are currently estimated to cost £6,621,610 based on estimates at Quarter 3 2022/23 FY and allowing for inflation over the construction period to early 2025. CIL application asks for £5.559 million with £1,062,429 coming from private S106 contributions already secured by KCC. |
89/145. Strong policy alignment (LP, IDP) and local support. Identified benefits and public consultation supportive. Delivery by Jan 2025. BCR 20:1. Further clarity needed on S106 contributions. Land owner is KCC. KCC and National Highways revenue costs in the future. Permitted development so lower risk. Potential for mix of grant and loan in advance of future S106 receipts. Various development sites linked to this project are sources of S106/CIL. |
Agree. In IDP (HTJ72). BCR while very high at 20:1 is good but may need checking. Up to 84% of costs being requested through CIL. Unsuccessful with LUF R2 bid. Confirm that the programme and costs are still current. Loan basis does allow recovery of monies to fund other future infrastructure projects. |
GREEN Potential to Fund |
|
19 |
KCC - Maidstone Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) |
£1,800,000 / £1,800,000 |
DRT service for the South Maidstone area to complement/replace existing bus routes. For the villages of Hunton, Yalding, Marden and Goudhurst with Maidstone Town Centre. Includes a back-office system which allows passengers to look at the transport options available and book tickets. Funding for the back-office system is being sought via the KCC Bus Service Improvement Plan with an indicative award having been made. Potential for low emission vehicles. |
42/145. Good policy alignment and indirect links to IDP. Reasonable benefits and support from public consultation. Delivery in 2024. No costs or match funding in place. CIL is 100% of operational costs (3 buses for 36 months). Potential £80K for back office from DfT. |
Indirect links to IDP (bus interventions). Needs TAG compliant business case. Future budgets for service? Depends on back office system first (IT risks). Check whether this is revenue spend for operations? |
RED Needs full TAG business case and match funding. |
|
20 |
Staplehurst Golf Club Improvements |
£126,079.80 |
To install new toilet/accessible toilet to the Golf Club, with power & improvements. |
24/145. Limited policy alignment and benefits. Limited detailed on costs, programme and risks. |
Agree |
RED Needs further development |
|
21 |
MBC- Redevelopment of Heather House Community Centre (Parkwood) |
£956,420 / £1,771,101 |
Demolition of existing Heather House Community Centre and construction of a new replacement Community Centre, with associated landscaping and parking. |
54/145. Some policy support and scheme submitted to IDP update (May 2022). Some benefits and local community support. Delivery July 2024. Planning secured in Nov 2022. . Requires management organisation for the future. £100K grant secured. Match from income/subsidy from the residential housing (Pavilion Building) is £814,681. |
Recommend could be funded. Appears an advanced project with 54% funding from identified other sources. Supports an area of relative deprivation and an area of recent growth (SE Maidstone) and supports additional amenity provision after population growth. Local Plan alignment. Confirm contractor procurement. |
GREEN Potential to Fund |
|
22 |
Lenham Nursery School |
£450,000 / £899,950 |
To construct a 52 child Nursery School that will serve the Parish of Lenham. Population is expected to double 2021 to 2031. Application was granted permission on 2nd December 2021, at the Allotment site on land owned by Lenham Parish Council, 1a High Street Lenham, Kent ME17 2QD. |
67/145. In Parish Plan but not IDP. Aug 2024 delivery. £10K raised. Benefits for early education for disadvantaged pupil and their families. Local support. Planning permission granted. Top level costs provided. |
Relatively low risk. Demand arising from increased residential development. Well-developed bid. 50% grant request. Further evidence of timing of match funding? |
AMBER Provide evidence of match funding |
