Report number C/14/12

To: Cabinet Date: 30 July 2014 Status: Key Decision Head of service: Chris Lewis, Head of Planning Cabinet Member: Cllr. John Collier SUBJECT: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Preliminary

Draft Charging Schedule for Consultation SUMMARY: The Government’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations require that local authorities considering the introduction of CIL in their areas go through a number of stages, prior to formally adopting a CIL charging schedule. The purpose of this report is to:

• Provide a summary of the timetable and initial stages in preparing a CIL preliminary draft charging schedule for Shepway District Council; and the key viability evidence that supports it; and

• Present for consideration and approval by Cabinet, a CIL: preliminary draft charging schedule, to be issued for a minimum 6 week consultation period from mid August to early October 2014.

The preliminary draft charging schedule is informed by a ‘Whole Plan’ viability study prepared by specialist consultants on the council’s behalf.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out below given: a) The need to develop a CIL charging schedule in response to CIL

Regulations and changes to the planning obligations regime. b) To support delivery of the Core Strategy Local Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS:

a. Note the findings of the CIL and Whole Plan viability study

This report will be made public on 15 July 2014

b. Note the findings of the draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which updates the Core Strategy Local Plan’s infrastructure assessment

c. Approve the CIL: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for public consultation

d. Receive a further report on consultation responses and next stages of the CIL development process in due course.

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Planning Act 2008 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Regulations 2010 (as amended), provide for the introduction of CIL. The Regulations set out how local authorities can raise funds to support the infrastructure needs set out in an area’s Local Plan, by levying a charge on new floor space for residential, retail and commercial developments.

1.2 CIL is intended to be used for general infrastructure contributions, whilst

Section 106 obligations will continue to be available for site specific mitigation measures and affordable housing. Pooling limitations will however come into effect from April 2015, restricting s106 contributions to no more than 5 schemes for specific infrastructure projects.

1.3 The Government considers that CIL offers a more transparent and efficient

means to secure infrastructure funding from liable developments, than is the case with the current planning obligations system. The system also offers scope to capture funding contributions from smaller developments that over time may have a significant cumulative demand impact on infrastructure.

1.4 The CIL Regulations also outline the need for a proportion of CIL income to

be passed on to Parish and Town Councils, resulting from liable developments in their areas. This amounts to a capped 15% of CIL income for areas without a neighbourhood plan, and an uncapped 25% of CIL income for localities with an adopted neighbourhood plan.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF A CIL CHARGING SCHEDULE AND TIMESCALE 2.1 The core component of CIL is the establishment of a Charging Schedule.

This sets out levy rates per square metre of net new floor space, payable on different types of development in different locations. The process of developing a charging schedule involves several key stages, summarised as follows:

• An up-to-date local plan that sets out the amount and distribution of new developments to be built over the plan period. The Council’s adopted Core Strategy Local Plan serves this purpose.

• An infrastructure assessment and delivery plan, identifying the infrastructure required to support growth set out by the Local Plan, including estimates of infrastructure costs, funding sources and funding gaps. The Core Strategy Local Plan’s strategically critical and necessary infrastructure schedules, as reviewed and updated by a draft infrastructure delivery plan, provide this assessment.

• An independent economic viability study, which assess the impact of CIL rates on the deliverability of developments across the district. Dixon Searle Partnership has produced a CIL and Whole Plan viability study for Shepway.

• A CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS), to be issued for a minimum 6 week period of public consultation. The PDCS at annex 2 sets out the proposed CIL rates for the district, based on the evidence and analysis of the economic viability study.

2.2 CIL Regulations require that a Charging Authority consults with a range of

organisations on their CIL PDCS, including County Councils, Parish and Town Councils, the Homes and Communities Agency, developers and the wider property industry.

2.3 After the conclusion of the PDCS consultation, a further Draft CIL Charging

Schedule has to be prepared and made available for public representations. This is followed by an examination in public and an Inspectors report and recommendations. The Council then has to adopt its CIL Charging Schedule and set a commencement date for CIL to come into effect. Given this process, the CIL project plan indicates summer 2015 as the time when the Council will be in a position to adopt a CIL Charging Schedule.

2.4 The following sections of this report outline the headline findings from the infrastructure assessment and viability study, which have been used to inform the CIL PDCS included at appendix 2. 3. CORE STRATEGY LOCAL PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

AND DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN 3.1 CIL regulations require a Charging Authority to identify an infrastructure

funding gap as a key justification for seeking to introduce CIL. This should form part of an infrastructure assessment closely linked to the delivery of the planned growth outlined by an area’s local plan.

3.2 The draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) attached at appendix 3 is

therefore based on the agreed Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan’s infrastructure assessment and its strategically critical and necessary infrastructure priorities. It provides a June 2014 information update on a broad range of infrastructure categories, including – education; transport; flood defences and coastal engineering; green infrastructure and open space; public realm; leisure, sports and play facilities; community, health and social care facilities. Key points include:

• Up to 2031, infrastructure costs are estimated at over £112 million at 2014 prices (£47 million for critical infrastructure; and £65 million for necessary infrastructure).

• Up to 2031, a potential funding gap of over £19 million currently exists, if all infrastructure funding contributions currently under consideration and discussion come to fruition. In an unlikely worst case scenario, should no funding contributions materialise, the funding gap up to 2031 grows to over £69 million.

• Up to 2020, over £84 million of infrastructure investment has been identified by delivery partners (£45 million for critical infrastructure projects; and £39 million for necessary infrastructure projects). Available information puts confirmed funding at over £36 million, with over £48 million of funding to be confirmed and / or identified.

3.3 A number of the infrastructure projects considered are currently part of live and / or pending planning applications; subject to funding discussions with

partner organisations; bids for funding support to grant and investment making bodies; and s106 discussions, with agreements to be confirmed and signed off. Progress on this activity will therefore influence the parameters of the IDP’s infrastructure assessment and funding gap analysis, beyond the current June 2014 snapshot. 3.4 The lower range funding gap estimate of approximately £19 million, demonstrates in accordance with CIL regulations that CIL is required. The regulations state that CIL is only justified if there is a gap in infrastructure funding. 3.5 CIL will provide only part of the funding to address the infrastructure funding gap, and as such will need to be combined with other sources of funding. This is because CIL levels have to be set at rates to sustain development viability, rather than at levels to fill funding gaps. 3.6 Given funding gaps, the Council will need to work closely with Kent County

Council, the South East LEP, and other key funding bodies including the Environment Agency, to ensure the district’s infrastructure priorities are addressed and funding secured.

3.7 At a more local level, the Council will also need to work closely with Parish

and Town Councils so that infrastructure priorities are aligned and available funding is utilised to secure best outcomes for local communities.

4. CIL AND WHOLE PLAN VIABILITY STUDY 4.1 In April 2014, the Council commissioned Dixon Searle Partnership to

undertake a CIL and Whole Plan viability study. The assessment considered the cumulative impact of the Core Strategy Local Plan’s policy requirements, including those relating to affordable housing provision. The study also looked at a range of evidence and market information on land and property values. A residual land value model, and a typology of development sites and development scenarios that reflected the composition of development opportunities across the district, was also tested to assess the impact of CIL rates and Core Strategy Local Plan policies.

4.2 The CIL rates proposed in the PDCS are subsequently based on the

results of the viability study. Key findings include:

• Shepway has a wider range of residential sales value areas than found in many other local authority areas, ranging from comparatively low value locations including parts of East Folkestone and rural locations such as Lydd, and comparatively high value areas in the North Downs, including Ellham.

• The ability of residential developments to sustain a level of CIL is influenced by value areas and policy requirements, the most significant relating to affordable housing – e.g. a low value area plus full affordable housing requirement, equates to a scenario, which renders developments unviable if a significant CIL rate is also imposed.

• The above 2 points have combined to mean that the most appropriate way to ensure a viable level of CIL charge on residential developments is to differentiate CIL rates according to a range of charging zones that reflect value areas as far as is practicable, across the district.

• Larger convenience and comparison retail developments such as supermarkets and retail warehouses were found to be able to accommodate a significant CIL rate.

• All other development categories were found to be at the margins of viability if CIL were to apply.

• Given the higher on-site infrastructure costs associated with larger and more complex development sites, consideration should be given to exempting larger and strategic development sites from paying CIL, with the focus remaining on securing infrastructure contributions via s106 agreements, within the limits imposed by the scaling back of planning obligations from April 2015.

4.3 In the context of the final point above, the Core Strategy’s key sites at

Folkestone Harbour and Seafront, Shorncliffe Garrison and Sellindge, are subject to s106 discussions on the former site, and submission of planning applications for the latter 2 sites. It is therefore highly likely that these sites in particular will fall out with the CIL regime, given a combination of their complexity, the timing of their planning applications and respective s106 agreements, and the summer 2015 target date for the commencement of the Council’s CIL charging schedule.

4.4 Other larger sites that could also be considered for exemption from CIL

include – ‘master plan’ sites at New Romney; and larger remaining sites at Hawkinge. A view will therefore have to be taken on these and other larger sites as and when they reach the planning application stage.

4.5 According to CIL Regulations, all Planning consents granted and s106 agreements concluded before the adoption and commencement date of a CIL charging schedule are not liable to pay CIL. 5. PROPOSED CIL RATES AND ZONES 5.1 Based on the findings of the viability study, The CIL PDCS maps included

at appendix 1 proposes to charge the CIL rates indicated by tables 1 to 4, for residential and non-residential developments in the District.

5.2 The patchwork of residential zones for Folkestone reflects the viability study's findings in respect of the presence of a range of value areas across the town, which are not easily captured by a single CIL rate.

Table 1: Residential Developments

Zone Composition - Parish & Wards CIL rate / £ per sq m

A Parish - Lydd Folkestone wards - Harbour, Foord, part of East, part of Harvey Central , part of Morehall, part of Cheriton

£0

B Parish -New Romney, Old Romney, Ivychurch, Brookland, Snargate, Brenzett, Newchurch, St Mary

£50

in the Marsh, Dymchurch, Burmarsh, Hawkinge, Folkestone wards – Park, part of Harvey West, part of Harvey Central, part of East

C Parish - Lympne, Hythe, Sandgate, Saltwood Folkestone wards – part of Harvey West, part of Cheriton

£100

D Parish - Sellindge, Stanford, Postling, Newington, Monks, Horton, Stowting, Lyminge, Addlesworth, Swingfield, Acrise, Elham, Stelling Minnis, Elmsted

£125

Table 2: Retail development CIL Rate – per sq m

Large scale convenience retail £100

Large scale comparison retail £100

Table 3: Other developments CIL Rate – per sq m

All other developments £0

Table 4: Strategic / Large Residential Sites

CIL Rate – per sq m

Folkestone Harbour & Seafront £0

Shorncliffe £0

Sellindge £0

Note: The Council considers that the above strategic sites are more appropriately addressed through a s106 process given their current stage in the planning process. A s106 process will also be considered as an appropriate mechanism for other key site proposals, delivering significant amounts of residential and other developments. Sites are likely to include New Romney and Hawkinge.

5.3 The proposed rates will be levied according to the CIL residential charging

zone maps shown by appendix 1. Non residential CIL rates will apply district wide.

6. ESTIMATED CIL INCOME 6.1 The Core Strategy Local Plan proposes a minimum total of over 8,800 new dwellings across the district from 2006 to 2031. Of this total approximately 2,000 dwellings are likely to be CIL liable, given a combination of new dwellings developed in zero rated CIL zones, affordable housing needs, pre-existing planning permissions, and planning consents - particularly for larger strategic sites, likely to be concluded before the commencement date of a CIL charging schedule. 6.2 Based on the proposed CIL rates and zones stated in the PDCS - In terms

of estimated CIL income from residential dwellings, the indication is that approximately £9.2 million could be raised up to 2031, with 43% (£4 million) of the total potentially raised up to 2020, and the remaining 57% (£5.2 million) from 2020 to 2031. Caution does however need to be exercised on the estimates, given they are based on full delivery of residential development sites identified by the SHLAA, and benign market conditions prevailing over a long period of time.

6.3 In comparison, s106 contributions secured from 2009 to 2014 amounted to just over £4.2 million. About £1.4 million was accounted for by affordable housing contributions.

6.4 The amount available to fund infrastructure is however further reduced due

to the need to net off a 5% administration cost, and allocate neighbourhood funds to Parish and Town Councils. Up to 2031, this amounts to approximately £460,000 for administrative costs, and just over £1.3 million if the lower 15% allocation to Parish and Town Councils, is assumed. Therefore given the deductions, approximately £7.5 million could be available to the Council from residential CIL income up to 2031, to fund infrastructure.

6.5 The figures shown above are only estimates of the likely funds that could

be raised following the introduction of a CIL Charging Schedule. Estimates also exclude potential CIL income from liable retail developments. Ongoing s106 contributions will also add to the funds available for infrastructure, albeit they will have to be tied closely to site specific mitigation measures.

7. LIST OF RELEVANT INFRASTRUCTURE (Regulation 123 list) 7.1 CIL Regulations require that the Council publish a list of relevant infrastructure that it proposes will be wholly or partly funded by CIL, in a Regulation 123 list.

7.2 A draft Regulation 123 list will be produced for further consideration by the Cabinet following the conclusion of the PDCS consultation. 7.3 The Council’s CIL income can be used to support infrastructure projects

across the District as identified by the R123 list, and therefore need not be tied to a particular location where development is taking place.

7.4 CIL income received by Parish and Town Councils generally has to be

spent on projects within their areas, but scope also exists for joint working with the District Council and other organisations to fund wider infrastructure initiatives, if they directly benefit a Parish and Town Council’s communities.

8. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

8.1 The CIL PDCS is presented as a consultation document in order to invite views and observations from local communities, businesses, the development industry, and infrastructure delivery partners. This process therefore contains limited risk to the Council, given appropriate consultation responses can be addressed during the CIL development process.

8.2 Financial risks may arise should the proposed CIL rates be found to be non-viable. However, the independent viability study was commissioned to mitigate this risk.

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action Challenging comments from

Low Low Comments reviewed and reflected as

PDCS consultation

appropriate during CIL development process

Unviable CIL Rates

Low Low Viability study commissioned

9. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS 9.1 Legal Officer’s Comments (EC)

Any comments from the legal team.

9.2 Finance Officer’s Comments (MF)

Indicative financial implications are set out in the body of the report.

9.3 Diversities and Equalities Implications (BP) The report does not raise any diversities and equalities issues. 9.4 Communications Implications

The PDCS has to be issued for a minimum 6 week period of public consultation. This means that key consultees will need to be contacted directly, public notices issued in local media and newspapers, and information made available on the Council's website.

10. CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting:

Stephen Arnett, CIL Officer Telephone: 01303 853364 Email: Stephen.arnett@shepway.gov.uk

The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report:

• CIL and Whole Plan Economic Impact Assessment (July 2014)

Appendices: Appendix 1: CIL Residential Charging Zone maps Appendix 2: Community Infrastructure Levy: Preliminary Draft Charging

Schedule (July 2014) Appendix 3: Shepway District Council Core Strategy Local Plan:

Infrastructure Assessment & Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (June 2014)

Appendix 1: CIL Residential Charging Zone Maps

Folkestone & Sandgate Inset Map

CIL Charging Zones: Residential Developments

Zone Composition - Parish & Wards CIL rate / £ per sq m

A Parish - Lydd Folkestone wards - Harbour, Foord, part of East, part of Harvey Central , part of Morehall, part of Cheriton

£0

B Parish -New Romney, Old Romney, Ivychurch, Brookland, Snargate, Brenzett, Newchurch, St Mary in the Marsh, Dymchurch, Burmarsh, Hawkinge, Folkestone wards – Park, part of Harvey West, part of Harvey Central, part of East

£50

C Parish - Lympne, Hythe, Sandgate, Saltwood Folkestone wards – part of Harvey West, part of Cheriton

£100

D Parish - Sellindge, Stanford, Postling, Newington, Monks, Horton, Stowting, Lyminge, Addlesworth, Swingfield, Acrise, Elham, Stelling Minnis, Elmsted

£125

Appendix 2

Shepway District Council

Community Infrastructure Levy: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

(Draft date: 10th July 2014)

Shepway District Council Community Infrastructure Levy:

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation

The consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is the first stage in developing CIL in the district. All responses will be considered prior to a Draft Charging Schedule being prepared for further consideration during late 2014/ early 2015. The consultation period on the CIL: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule runs from Monday 18th August 2014, to Monday 13th October 2014 (comments to be received by 5pm). For further information, please visit the Council’s website at: http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/view/201786/206/ Or telephone: 01303 853364

Contents Page

1) The Charging Authority and Charging Area 4

2) The Consultation 4

• Purpose of consultation

• Responding to the consultation (key issues & questions)

• How to submit comments

• Timescale for submitting comments

• Timetable for development & adoption of a CIL Charging Schedule

3) The Community Infrastructure Levy 6

• What is CIL?

• Legislative context

• What are the advantages of CIL?

• Parish and Town Councils’ neighbourhood fund

• How does CIL relate to planning obligations & s106?

• What developments are CIL liable?

• Exemptions from CIL

• Instalment policy and when is CIL payable

• Discretionary charitable relief policy

• Payment in kind policy

• CIL and existing planning permissions

• The evidence base

4) Development and Infrastructure Context 10

• Core Strategy Local Plan

• Infrastructure Delivery Plan

5) Independent CIL & Whole Plan Economic Viabiltiy Assessment 11

6) Proposed CIL Rates and Zones 12

• Residential

• Retail

• Strategic development sites

• Other developments

7) CIL Income Estimates and Use 13

• Estimated CIL Income

• List of Relevant Infrastructure (Regulation 123 list)

8) Monitoring and Review 14 Appendices 15

1) CIL charging zones map for residential developments 2) Folkestone inset map 3) Consultation comments response form

1) The Charging Authority and Charging Area The Charging Authority is Shepway District Council. The charging area covers the administrative area of Shepway District. 2) The Consultation Purpose of Consultation This consultation document represents the first formal stage in Shepway District Council's preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule. The document sets out:

• The background and regulations governing CIL;

• It’s relationship to the delivery of the Local Plan;

• The viability methodology used to arrive at the proposed CIL rates;

• The proposed rates that developers will need to pay when undertaking different types of development in different parts of the District, once a CIL charging schedule is adopted; and

• An indication of how CIL receipts will be allocated in support of the infrastructure required to support development of the area.

The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and its consultation has been prepared in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended) and statutory guidance. CIL Regulations and guidance documents can be accessed via the following websites: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/giving-communities-more-power-in-planning-local-development/supporting-pages/community-infrastructure-levy http://www.pas.gov.uk/web/pas-test-site/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-/journal_content/56/332612/15149/ARTICLE Responding to the Consultation (key issues and questions) In responding to the consultation, the Council would in particular welcome comments and views on the following key issues and questions: 1) Given the viability assessment and the need to fund infrastructure, are the proposed

CIL rates set at a reasonable level, to enable developments to achieve viability? 2) Given the viability assessment’s analysis of value areas are the proposed CIL zones

set realistically, to enable developments to achieve viability within each zone? Comments are also invited on any points raised by this consultation document, whether related to the above questions or not. How to Submit Comments

Comments on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule can be submitted via the Council’s online consultation web page at: Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Alternatively, comments can be sent by completing and sending a consultation comments form, to the following addresses: planning.policy@shepway.gov.uk Or: CIL PDCS Consultation Shepway District Council Planning and Building Control Planning Policy Civic Centre, Castle Hill Avenue Folkestone, Kent CT20 2QY A copy of the consultation comments form can be found at appendix 3, or downloaded via the following web-link: http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/view/201786/206/ Timescale for Submitting Comments The consultation period on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, runs from Monday 18th August 2014, to Monday 13th October 2014 (comments to be received by 5pm). Please note all comments received will be made public. Timetable for Shepway District Councils Adoption of a CIL Charging Schedule The Government’s CIL regulations require the Council to go through a number of stages before it can adopt and set a commencement date for its CIL Charging Schedule. This is reflected in the following indicative timetable:

Activity Timing

CIL: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule consultation

18th August to 13th October 2014

Review of comments received and preparation of Draft CIL Charging Schedule

October to December 2014

Draft CIL Charging Schedule issued for further consultation and representations Draft of Regulation 123 List

January to February 2015

Submission of draft CIL Charging Schedule to Secretary of State

Early spring 2015

Examination in Public for Draft CIL charging schedule

Late Spring 2015 (exact date to be set)

Shepway District Council’s adoption of CIL charging schedule

Summer 2015

Commencement date of CIL charging schedule

Summer 2015

Note: The Council will use its best endeavours to keep to the above indicated timetable, but reserves the right to amend this if circumstances as they become known, determine this to be necessary.

3) The Community Infrastructure Levy

What is CIL? CIL allows local authorities in England and Wales (defined as Charging Authorities) to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects. It effectively replaces much of the existing process of planning obligations commonly known as 'Section 106' agreements. The primary use of CIL is to gain financial contributions from development to help fund new or improved infrastructure required to support the growth identified in Shepway District Council’s Core Strategy Local Plan, across the district to 2031. CIL will not however, be the sole funding source available to fund infrastructure needs. It therefore needs to be combined with other sources including those available from public sector bodies, infrastructure and service providers. CIL will also operate in parallel with a scaled back planning obligations / s106 system. Legislative Context

CIL was introduced in the Planning Act 2008 and defined in the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). Local Authorities have to meet a number of requirements in developing and adopting their CIL charging schedules, with these set out by:

• The Planning Act 2008 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011);

• The CIL Regulations 2010, as amended in 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and 2014; and

• The CIL Guidance issued under S221 of the Planning Act 2008, which is statutory guidance.

What are the advantages of CIL? The Government’s CIL regulations and guidance outlines a range of key advantages over the current system of Section 106 Agreements including:

• It will be less time consuming, reduce the levels of negotiation with applicants and help speed up the planning system;

• It is a non-negotiable charge which is transparent and predictable, meaning that applicants will know their CIL liability prior to submitting a planning application;

• CIL provides a fairer system in that it relates contributions to the size of liable developments in respect of net new floor space provided by a development, and new residential dwellings;

• CIL collects contributions from a wider range of developments than under section 106, providing additional funding to allow local authorities to carry out a range of infrastructure projects that not only support growth but benefit the local community;

Parish and Town Councils’ Neighbourhood Fund

Under the CIL Regulations, Parish and Town Council areas where CIL liable development

takes place, will receive their own portion of CIL to spend on the infrastructure they want.

In areas where there is no neighbourhood plan this will be 15%, capped at £100 per

existing council taxed dwelling. Where a neighbourhood plan is in place the portion is an

uncapped 25%.

How does CIL relate to planning obligations & s106? CIL regulations (as amended) require that Section 106 planning obligations are scaled back with pooling of obligations limited to no more than five schemes from April 2015. From then on, CIL is expected to provide the mechanism by which funding contributions are secured, to meet the cumulative and wider infrastructure needs, caused by developments.

Some site-specific infrastructure requirements will however remain without which, planning permission should not be granted. Some of these needs may be provided for by CIL funds, but some may also be subject to site or very local infrastructure needs. Typically this might be the situation for larger and / or more complex development sites. For this reason, the scaled back section 106 planning obligations system will operate in parallel to CIL. In addition, section 106 agreements will remain for meeting affordable housing provisions. To safeguard developers, authorities cannot charge for the same infrastructure items through both planning obligations and CIL. Under CIL Regulation 123, they should show which items or types will not be subject to planning obligations by publishing a list of infrastructure projects or types they intend will, or may be funded by CIL. The Regulation 123 list is presented as supporting evidence when the CIL Draft Charging Schedule is examined, but it is not part of the charging schedule as it can be reviewed and changed independently of it.

What developments are CIL liable?

CIL is a locally set charge on new development. It is based on setting a £s per square meter charge levied on the gross internal floor space of the net additional area, of liable developments identified by a CIL charging schedule.

CIL regulations outline that most buildings that people normally use are liable to pay the levy, whether the proposal is for a new building, or an extension resulting in 100 sq. m or more of net increase in gross internal floor space. Developments creating additional dwellings, which may be less that than 100 sq. m, are also liable.

If a charging authority chooses not to levy CIL on a particular type of development because of viability reasons, then it still has to identify this category of development as liable for £0 per sq. m, in its charging schedule.

Exemptions from CIL

The CIL Regulations outline as follows that some development will not be subject to a charge:

• Development of less than 100 sq. m, unless it is a whole house, in which case the levy is payable;

• Self-build dwellings and residential annexes and extensions, where self-build has been defined as private individuals who self-finance their own projects and build or commission the construction of their own home, working on their own or with builders;

• Those parts of a development which are to be used as affordable housing;

• Development by registered charities for the delivery of charitable purposes;

• Buildings into which people do not normally go; buildings which people only enter intermittently for the purposes of inspection or maintenance; and structures which are not buildings, such as pylons;

• Specified types of development which local authorities have decided should be subject to a ‘zero’ rate and specified as such in their charging schedules;

• Vacant buildings brought back into the same use, but where there is no increase in floor space; and

• Development where the levy liability is calculated to be less than £50.

The CIL Regulations state that discretionary relief can be made available for charitable investment if the charging authority chooses to make it available in its area and publishes a local policy. To be considered for relief, the whole or greater part of the chargeable development must be held as an investment from which the profits will be applied for charitable purposes.

The CIL Regulations also state that discretionary relief can also be made available for ‘exceptional circumstances’, if the charging authority considers that:

• Requiring payment of the charge would have an unacceptable impact on the economic viability of the chargeable development; and

• Granting relief would not constitute State Aid.

The Council considers however that the viability evidence shows that CIL rates will not have an unacceptable impact on economic viability of chargeable development. Accordingly, the Council does not propose to make discretionary relief available for this exceptional circumstance. Instalment Policy and when is CIL Payable Liability to pay CIL is triggered by commencement of the development. By default it must be paid within 60 days, but for schemes with phased outline permission payment will be triggered separately for each phase. In addition and in accordance with Regulation 69b of the CIL Regulations (as amended), a charging authority can set its own policy allowing all large liabilities to be paid by instalments. To implement this, a Council would be required to publish an instalment policy on its website. Such a policy would not be part of the charging schedule and could be changed independently of it. An instalment policy would apply to all developments and should contain the following:

• The number of instalment payments;

• The amount or proportion of CIL payable in any instalment;

• The time from commencement by which the first and subsequent instalments must be paid;

• Any minimum amount of CIL below which CIL may not be paid by instalment. The Council intends to consider the appropriateness of introducing an instalment policy prior to the adoption of its charging schedule during the summer of 2015.

Discretionary Charitable Relief Policy In accordance with Regulations 44 and 48 of the CIL Regulations (2010) (as amended), a charging authority can offer discretionary charitable relief for development proposals owned by charities, if they meet the qualifying criteria as set out in the CIL Regulations. The Council intends to consider the appropriateness of introducing a discretionary charitable relief policy prior to the adoption of its charging schedule during the summer of 2015. Payment in Kind Policy In accordance with Regulations 73 (A & B) and 74, CIL Regulations give a charging authority the discretion to accept payments in kind to allow land payments or infrastructure delivery (on or off site) ‘in kind’ for the whole or part of CIL, in respect of chargeable development. The Council intends to consider the appropriateness of introducing a discretionary payment in kind policy prior to the adoption of its charging schedule during the summer of 2015.

CIL and Existing Planning Permissions Developments which receive planning consent and have concluded section 106 agreements prior to the commencement date of a CIL Charging Schedule, will not be liable to CIL. This also applies to planning consents that have not started on site work, and have not time lapsed. Where a planning permission lapses, or is subject to significant modifications, after the commencement date of a CIL charging schedule, then the new consent will be subject to CIL. The Evidence Base When establishing a CIL Charging Schedule and CIL rates, a local authority must show that there’s need for infrastructure funding to support its Local Plan. The local authority also has to demonstrate available sources of infrastructure funding are insufficient to meet all infrastructure needs over the life span of the local plan, and that a funding gap therefore exists. Having established a funding gap, CIL regulations require a charging authority to seek balance between infrastructure contributions from developers in support of the Local Plan’s delivery, and their impact on development viability. A local authority is required to explain how it has achieved this balance at the examination in public stage of the CIL charging schedule process. Therefore, a CIL charging schedule must be informed by available evidence, which includes:

• The Local Plan, its envisaged development and infrastructure assessment;

• An infrastructure delivery plan to demonstrate broad needs and a funding gap; and

• A viability assessment to test the likely impact of CIL rates on the viability of developments envisaged by the Local Plan.

A summary of the above Shepway District Council evidence is provided below, with full documents accessed via the following web link: http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/view/201786/206/

4) Development and Infrastructure Context

Shepway District Council Core Strategy Local Plan The Core Strategy Local Plan sets out a long term vision for the district, and brings together the aims and actions of all interested parties, by directing and managing land-use and developments. The Core Strategy was adopted as part of the statutory development plan for the district on 18th September 2013, with the general plan period for the document running from 2006 to 2031. The document sets out policies to guide the scale, type and distribution of development. The Core Strategy’s Housing and Economic Growth Strategy (policy SS2), establishes the quantity of required development for housing and jobs. It sets out a long term objective of delivering an average minimum of 350 dwellings (Class C3) per annum, from 2006/7 and up to 2030/31. To support housing delivery, a target is set to provide for approximately 8,800 dwellings by 2030/31.

Allied to this rate of housing delivery, business activity and the provision of jobs will be facilitated through - supporting town centres; the protection of sufficient employment land across the district; and concerted efforts to deliver rural regeneration (especially in south and west Shepway). To support delivery, a target is set to enable development of approximately 20ha gross of industrial, warehousing and office developments (B classes), from 2006/7 to 2025/26; and approximately 35,000 sq. m gross of goods retailing space (Class A1). Core Strategy Local Plan Infrastructure Assessment and draft Delivery Plan The Core Strategy Local Plan Infrastructure Assessment and draft Delivery Plan (IDP) (June 2014) has been produced to support the delivery of the Core Strategy Local Plan’s long term vision and policies on the scale, type and distribution of development, in the district, over the time period 2006 to 2031. The document takes as its starting point the Core Strategy’s approach to infrastructure planning, its infrastructure assessment, and its emphasis on development providing or contributing towards, the district’s infrastructure needs currently, or in the future, as part of planned growth in housing and employment opportunities. The cornerstone of the IDP’s focus are the priority infrastructure initiatives and projects identified by the Core Strategy, which indicate in broad terms, the types of investments required to mitigate on-site, cumulative and wider impacts of developments, across the district, over the lifetime of the Local Plan. The IDP has taken a snapshot of infrastructure categories and associated projects so far identified by delivery partners over the Local Plan period, to determine total cost estimates, the level of confirmed funding, the extent of funding contributions currently

subject to agreement, and the extent of the funding gap. Key points from this assessment are summarised as follows:

• Up to 2031, infrastructure costs are estimated at over £112 million at 2014 prices.

• Up to 2031, a potential funding gap of over £19 million currently exists, if all infrastructure funding contributions currently under consideration and discussion come to fruition. In the worst case scenario, should no funding contributions materialise, the funding gap up to 2031 grows to over £69 million.

• Up to 2020, over £84 million of infrastructure investment has been identified by delivery partners. Available information puts confirmed funding at over £36 million, with approximately £48 million of funding to be confirmed and / or identified.

A number of the infrastructure projects identified by the IDP are however, currently part of live and / or pending planning applications; subject to funding discussions with partner organisations; bids for funding support to grant and investment making bodies; and s106 discussions. Progress on this activity will therefore influence the parameters of the IDP’s infrastructure assessment and funding gap analysis, beyond the current June 2014 snapshot. 5) Independent CIL and Whole Plan Economic Viability Assessment In April 2014, the Council commissioned Dixon Searle Partnership to undertake a CIL and Whole Plan viability study. The assessment considered the cumulative impact of the Core Strategy Local Plan’s policy requirements, including those relating to affordable housing provision. The study also looked at a range of evidence and market information on land and property values. A typology of development sites and development scenarios that reflected the composition of development opportunities across the district was also tested to assess the impact of CIL rates. The CIL rates proposed in the PDCS are subsequently based on the results of the viability study. Key findings include:

• Shepway has a wider range of residential sales value areas than found in many other local authority areas, ranging from comparatively low value locations including parts of East Folkestone and rural locations such as Lydd, and comparatively high value areas in the North Downs, including Ellham.

• The ability of residential developments to sustain a level of CIL is influenced by value areas and policy requirements, the most significant relating to affordable housing – e.g. a low value area plus full affordable housing requirement, equates to a scenario, which renders developments unviable if a significant CIL rate is also imposed.

• The above 2 points have combined to mean that the most appropriate way to ensure a viable level of CIL charge on residential developments is to differentiate CIL rates according to a range of charging zones that reflect value areas as far as is practicable, across the district.

• Larger convenience and comparison retail developments such as supermarkets and retail warehouses were found to be able to accommodate a significant CIL rate.

• All other development categories were found to be at the margins of viability if CIL were to apply.

• Given the higher on-site infrastructure costs associated with larger and more complex development sites, consideration should be given to exempting larger and strategic development sites from paying CIL, with the focus remaining on securing infrastructure contributions via s106 agreements, within the limits imposed by the scaling back of planning obligations from April 2015.

In the context of the final point above, the Core Strategy’s key sites at Folkestone Harbour and Seafront, Shorncliffe Garrison and Sellindge, are (at July 2014) subject to s106 discussions on the former site, and submission of planning applications for the latter 2 sites. It is therefore highly likely that these sites in particular will fall out with the CIL regime, given a combination of their complexity, the timing of their planning applications and respective s106 agreements, and the summer 2015 target date for the commencement of the Council’s CIL charging schedule.

6) Proposed CIL Rates and Zones

Residential Based on the findings of the viability study, the maps included at appendix1 and 2 propose the CIL rates indicated by the following tables for residential developments in the District:

Residential Developments

Zone (as per maps at Appendix 1 & 2) CIL rate /£ per sq m

A £0

B £50

C £100

D £125

Retail Based on the findings of the viability study, the following District wide CIL rates are proposed to apply to retail developments:

Retail Developments

Retail development CIL Rate – per sq m

Large scale convenience retail (a) £100

Large scale comparison retail (b) £100

All other retail development (c) £0

Notes (a) Includes non town-centre, large stores and supermarkets selling food

and non-food items. (b) Includes non town-centre large stores, retail warehouses and showrooms

selling items not normally obtained on a frequent basis including – clothing and footwear; DIY, gardening, leisure, sports and recreational items; household goods, carpets, furniture and electrical goods; and vehicles.

(c) Includes all other smaller scale town centre and local retail developments

Strategic Development Sites

Based on the findings of the viability study, the following CIL rates are proposed to apply to the identified Core Strategy Local Plan strategic development sites, and other key developments sites considered appropriate by the Council:

Strategic and Key Development Sites

Locations CIL Rate – per sq m (for all development)

Folkestone Harbour & Seafront – as defined by Core Strategy Local Plan policy SS6: Spatial Strategy for Folkestone Seafront

£0

Shorncliffe – as defined by Core Strategy Local Plan Policy SS7: Spatial Strategy for Shorncliffe Garrison

£0

Sellindge – as defined by Core Strategy Local Plan Policy CSDP: Sellindge Strategy

£0

Key development sites in New Romney – as defined by Core Strategy Local Plan Policy CSD8: New Romney Strategy

£0

Key development sites in Hawkinge – as defined by Core Strategy SS1: District Spatial Strategy (with reference to consolidation of Hawkinge’s growth).

£0

Note: The Council considers that the above strategic and key sites are more appropriately addressed through a s106 process given their current stage in the planning process.

Other Developments Based on the findings of the viability study, the following District wide CIL rates are proposed to apply to all other forms of development:

Other Developments

Other CIL Rate – per sq m

All other developments £0

7) CIL Income Estimates and Use

Estimated CIL Income For residential development, based on the projected growth and approximate timing of delivery outlined by the Core Strategy Local Plan, and the residential CIL rates and zones proposed by the PDCS - it is currently estimated that in the region of £9 million could be generated from CIL income over the plan period to 2031. Depending on timing of delivery, approximately 43% of the total could be raised by 2020, with the remaining 57%

generated from 2020 to 2031. Caution does however need to be exercised on the estimates, given they are based on full delivery of residential development sites identified by the SHLAA, and benign market conditions prevailing over a long period of time. The amount available to the Council to fund infrastructure will however, be reduced due to the need to net off a 5% administration cost, and allocate neighbourhood funds to Parish and Town Councils at either the 15% or 25% rate if an area has an adopted neighbourhood plan, where developments takes place. Revenues from CIL are therefore not expected to bridge the long term funding gap outlined by the Core Strategy Local Plan’s Infrastructure Assessment and draft IDP. It should however, play a key role to enable the District Council, it’s delivery partners, Parish and Town Councils, to bring forward the infrastructure required to support delivery of the Local Plan. List of Relevant Infrastructure (Regulation 123 list)

The list of relevant infrastructure that the council proposes will be wholly or partly funded by CIL will be identified in a Regulation 123 list. The draft IDP provides however, an indication as to which broad infrastructure categories are currently under consideration for inclusion in the Council’s draft Regulation 123 list. This will be further developed after the consultation closes on the CIL PDCS.

8) Monitoring and Review

So as to ensure an appropriate CIL rate that reflects changing market and other influences on development viability and deliverability, the Council will put in place an appropriate monitoring and review framework that consists of:

• Reporting of the level of housing market activity and development in the Council’s Authority Monitoring Report (AMR).

• Tracking of funding coming forward to meet infrastructure from CIL and other sources.

• The amount of CIL collected since the adoption and commencement dates of a CIL charging schedule; how it has been allocated; and the infrastructure projects part, or wholly supported through CIL.

• A continuation of existing s106 monitoring systems. It is also anticipated that the CIL charging schedule and its rates will be reviewed within a 3 to 5 year time period, from its adoption date, or at an earlier date if changing market conditions support this.

Appendices

Appendix 3 Shepway District Council

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS)

Consultation Comments Form Background The consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) is the first stage in developing CIL in the district. All responses will be considered prior to a Draft Charging Schedule being prepared for further consideration during late 2014/ early 2015. The consultation period on the CIL: PDCS runs from Monday 18th August 2014, to Monday 13th October 2014 (all comments are to be received by 5pm).

Before completing this form please note that:

• All appropriate comments and the name of the respondent will be made publically available. Personal contact details will however remain confidential.

• Comments should only relate to the CIL PDCS consultation.

• Only comments made on this form, or the version that can be downloaded and / or completed on-line, will be considered as part of this consultation.

How to Submit Comments Completed forms should be returned by post or email to: planning.policy@shepway.gov.uk Or: CIL PDCS Consultation Shepway District Council Planning and Building Control Planning Policy Civic Centre, Castle Hill Avenue Folkestone, Kent CT20 2QY A copy of the consultation comments form can downloaded via the following web-link: http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/view/201786/206/ All other relevant supporting information and documents can also be viewed via the above web-link.

Respondents Details All respondents to complete part A. Agents to also complete part B, if representing a client/company:

Part A: Respondents details

Title / Name:

Job title: (if applicable):

Organisation / Company (if applicable):

Address:

Tel. No:

E-mail address:

Part B: Agents Only – Client / Company details

Client / Company name:

Address:

Tel. No:

E-mail address:

For Shepway District Council use only:

Date received:

Reference:

Consultation Questions

Q1) Given the viability assessment and the need to fund infrastructure, are the proposed CIL rates set at a reasonable level, to enable developments to achieve viability?

Q2) Given the viability assessment’s analysis of value areas are the proposed CIL zones set realistically, to enable developments to achieve viability within each zone?

Please use the following space to raise any other points or issues that you consider relevant to the consultation document.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the consultation on the CIL PDCS.

APPENDIX 3

Shepway District Council Core Strategy Local Plan

Infrastructure Assessment & Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Draft Date: June 2014

Contents Page Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5

• What is the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)?

• Document structure Policy context 7

• NPPF (2012)

• National Infrastructure Plan (2013)

• Growth & Infrastructure Act (2013)

• Infrastructure Bill (2014)

• The Planning Act (2008)

• CIL Regulations

• SE LEP Strategic Economic Plan

• Localism Act (2011) and Duty to Co-operate Core Strategy Local Plan 11

• Background

• District spatial strategy

• Housing and economy growth strategy

• Strategic allocations

• District Infrastructure planning Infrastructure Assessment 13

• Process & Core Strategy Local Plan infrastructure assessment

• Types of Infrastructure covered by the IDP

• Nationally significant infrastructure

• IDP relationship to CIL and Regulation 123 List

• CIL and s106/278 development obligations

• IDP relationship to Parish and Town Councils

• Infrastructure cost estimates and funding gaps

• Estimated CIL income

• IDP Review & updating

Appendices 18

• Appendix 1: Infrastructure cost estimates and funding gaps

• Appendix 2: Infrastructure categories and project schedules

• Appendix 3: Infrastructure categories under consideration for Draft Regulation 123 list

Executive Summary What is the Infrastructure Delivery Plan? This Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (dated June 2014) has been produced to support the delivery of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan’s long term vision and policies on the scale, type and distribution of development, in the district, over the time period 2006 to 2031. It takes as its starting point the Core Strategy’s infrastructure assessment, and seeks to update this in respect of headline cost estimates, timing of delivery, funding sources and funding gaps. The Core Strategy Local Plan’s infrastructure assessment and the IDP update provide a reference document to assist the Council and its partners address infrastructure priorities. The Council will therefore, on an ongoing basis, discuss the assessment and IDP further with Kent County Council, Parish and Town Councils, the South East LEP, and Government Agencies. Link to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) The IDP provides evidence of an infrastructure funding gap that CIL can help to part fill. The IDP doesn’t however provide a definitive list of the infrastructure to be supported by CIL, with this to be the subject of further discussions between the Council and partner organisations, and publication of a draft Regulation 123 list during the latter part of 2014 / early 2015. Policy Context A range of national and sub-regional policy governs and influences infrastructure planning in the district, including – the national Planning Policy Framework; National Infrastructure Plan (2013); Growth and Infrastructure Act (2013); Infrastructure Bill (2014); The Planning Act (2008); CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended); South East LEP Strategic Economic Plan and local growth deal with Government; the Localism Act (2011) and Duty to Co-operate - the Council recently signed a duty to co-operate memorandum of understanding with East Kent Local Authorities, through which issues including infrastructure planning, will be considered. Core Strategy Local Plan The Core Strategy’s Housing and Economic Growth Strategy (Policy SS2), establishes the quantity of required development for housing and jobs, which needs to be supported by infrastructure investment. The Core Strategy sets a target of developing an average of 350 dwellings per year from 2006/7 and up to 2030/31; approximately 20ha gross of industrial, warehousing and office developments (B classes), from 2006/7 to 2025/26; and approximately 35,000 sq. m gross of goods retailing space (Class A1). Infrastructure Assessment The review of the Core Strategy Local Plan’s infrastructure assessment has produced a June 2014 snapshot of the strategically critical and necessary infrastructure projects required to support the quantum of development projected by the Core strategy up to 2031, across a broad range of infrastructure categories, including – education, flood defences, green infrastructure and transport. Key points include:

• Up to 2031, infrastructure costs are estimated at over £112 million at 2014 prices (£47 million for critical infrastructure; and £65 million for necessary infrastructure).

• Up to 2031, a potential funding gap of over £19 million exists, if all infrastructure funding contributions currently under consideration and discussion come to fruition. In the worst case scenario, should no funding contributions materialise, the funding gap up to 2031 grows to over £69 million.

• Up to 2020, over £84 million of infrastructure investment has been identified by delivery partners (£45 million for critical infrastructure projects; and £39 million for necessary infrastructure projects). Available information puts confirmed funding at over £36 million, with over £48 million of funding to be confirmed and / or identified.

The term ‘confirmed funding’ is used to describe infrastructure investment that has been identified in a delivery partner’s programme of investment or granted from an awarding organisation. It includes projects and funding allocations identified by the Environment Agency’s FCRM1 Medium Term Plan for 2015/16, which accounts for approximately £35 million of the ‘confirmed funding’ for critical and necessary infrastructure up to 2030/31. A number of the infrastructure projects considered are currently part of live and / or pending planning applications; subject to funding discussions with partner organisations; bids for funding support to grant and investment making bodies; and s106 discussions, with agreements to be confirmed and signed off. Progress on this activity will therefore influence the parameters of the IDP’s infrastructure assessment and funding gap analysis, beyond the current June 2014 snapshot.

Estimated CIL Income A review of the SHLAA 2011/12 indicates that just approximately 2,000 dwellings are likely to be CIL liable given a combination of new dwellings developed in zero rated CIL zones, affordable housing needs, pre-existing planning permissions, and planning consents likely to be concluded before the commencement date of a CIL charging schedule in 2015. Based on the proposed CIL rates stated in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule - In terms of estimated CIL income from residential dwellings, the indication is that approximately £9.2 million could be raised up to 2031. Caution does however need to be exercised on the estimates, given they are based on full delivery of residential development sites identified by the SHLAA, and benign market conditions prevailing over a long period of time. The amount available to fund infrastructure is however further reduced due to the need to net off a 5% administration cost, and allocate 15% or 25% for neighbourhood funds to Parish and Town Councils. With these deductions and assuming a lower 15% rate allocation to parish and town councils, approximately £7.5 million could be available from residential CIL income up to 2031, to fund infrastructure. Comparing these estimates with the figures shown in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates however that a significant funding gap currently exists over the life span of the Core Strategy Local Plan.

Introduction What is the Infrastructure Delivery Plan? This Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (dated June 2014) has been produced to support the delivery of the Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan’s long term vision and policies on the scale, type and distribution of development, in the district, over the time period 2006 to 2031. The document takes as its starting point the Core Strategy’s approach to infrastructure planning and its emphasis on development providing or contributing towards, the district’s infrastructure needs currently, or in the future, as part of planned growth in housing and employment opportunities. The cornerstone of the IDP’s focus are the priority infrastructure initiatives and projects identified by the Core Strategy, which indicate in broad terms, the types of investments required to mitigate on-site, cumulative and wider impacts of developments, across the district, over the lifetime of the Local Plan. Content is based on best available information at the time of IDP drafting, which means the identified infrastructure initiatives and projects have varying levels of detail in respect of design, programming, cost and funding sources. The IDP will therefore be subject to regular review and updating to ensure it provides Councils, partner organisations, service and infrastructure providers, with a living picture of the district’s infrastructure needs, costs and funding sources. It is not however, the role of the IDP to be the accountability framework, by which infrastructure not in the direct control of the Council, is delivered. These decisions will be down to individual service providers and partner organisations, who will decide their own investment priorities and timescales. The Council will however, endeavour to work in partnership with all service and infrastructure providers to influence investment decisions, and in this regard the Core Strategy Local Plan’s Infrastructure Assessment and IDP provide a key reference document to inform discussions and address priorities. The Council will therefore, on an ongoing basis, discuss the assessment and IDP further with Kent County Council, Parish and Town Councils, the South East LEP, and Government Agencies. Community Infrastructure Levy With regard to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), the IDP provides evidence of an infrastructure funding gap that CIL can help to part fill. The IDP doesn’t however provide a definitive list of the infrastructure to be supported by CIL, with this to be the subject of further discussions between the Council and partner organisations. CIL regulations require a charging authority to publish its intended priorities for CIL support in a Regulation 123 list. The Council will do this as part of the development of its CIL charging schedule, which is due to come into effect during the summer of 2015, following 2 rounds of consultation and an Examination in Public. Document Structure This IDP comprises 4 main parts:

• A review of the policy context governing infrastructure planning and the community infrastructure levy.

• A consideration of the Core Strategy Local Plan’s vision and policies on the scale, type and distribution of planned development, required across the district from 2006 to 2031.

• An infrastructure assessment which updates and expands upon the Core Strategy Local Plan’s indicated infrastructure needs.

• Provision of detailed information as far as is currently available, on estimated infrastructure costs, funding availability and funding gaps.

Policy Context The IDP responds to a national and sub-regional policy context, which governs and influences infrastructure planning in the district. The following national and legislative frameworks are considered to be the key policy influences on the infrastructure planning process. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) The NPPF highlights at paragraph 156, the need for plans to set out strategic priorities and policies for an area, to deliver:

• The homes and jobs needed in the area;

• The provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development;

• The provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);

• The provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities; and

• Climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.

At paragraph 157, the NPPF also highlights the need to plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives of the framework (NPPF). Local Plans should subsequently:

• Plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of the NPPF;

• Be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15-year time horizon, taking account of longer term requirements, and be kept up to date;

• Be based on co-operation with neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector organisations; indicate broad locations for strategic development on a key diagram and land-use designations on a proposals map;

• Allocate sites to promote development and flexible use of land, bringing forward new land where necessary, and provide detail on form, scale, access and quantum of development where appropriate;

• Identify areas where it may be necessary to limit freedom to change the uses of buildings, and support such restrictions with a clear explanation;

• Identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic significance; and

• Contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, and supporting Nature Improvement Areas where they have been identified.

Further to this, at paragraph 162, the NPPF stresses the need for local planning authorities to work with other authorities and providers to:

• Assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and

• Take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas.

National Infrastructure Plan (2013) The Government’s National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) (2013) brings together analysis of the UK’s infrastructure needs across different sectors now and in the future. It outlines a long term £375 billion investment programme from 2020, and a sector by sector approach on infrastructure needs, timing and funding. The potential role of innovative infrastructure funding schemes, including Tax Increment Financing, and business rates retention associated with Enterprise Zones, are highlighted. An £800 million Public Works Loan Board funding scheme to LEPs on a competitive basis, in line with that of the Local Growth Fund, is also outlined by the NIP. Growth and Infrastructure Act (2013) The Growth and Infrastructure Act (2013) sets out a series of reforms intended to reduce the red tape that the Government considers hampers business investment, new infrastructure and job creation. Measures affecting development and infrastructure include:

• The ability to reconsider economically unviable affordable housing provisions in Section 106 Agreements, which has been put on a formal statutory footing in England for an initial period of three years.

• Removing regulatory barriers to major infrastructure investments such as the roll out of superfast broadband.

• Allowing local authorities to dispose of land at less than best value in order to get more brownfield sites into productive use.

• Removal of the need for the Communities secretary to approve local development orders (LDOs), after they have been drawn up by Local Authorities.

Infrastructure Bill (2014) The Government announced its intentions to progress an Infrastructure Bill during June 2014, with the aim of bolstering investment in infrastructure and reforming of planning law to improve economic competitiveness. The Planning Act (2008) The Planning Act 2008 introduced the concept of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and gives a wide definition of the types of infrastructure that it can help to fund. The definition is based on the premise of providing Local Authorities and communities the flexibility to choose what infrastructure they deem necessary to support the delivery of an area’s development plan. Types of infrastructure covered include:

• Transport

• Flood defences

• Schools

• Hospitals, and other health and social care facilities

• Play areas, parks and green spaces

• Cultural and sports facilities

• District heating schemes

• Police stations and other community safety facilities CIL Regulations The Government is giving Local Authorities and other public bodies, such as national park authorities, that serve as a Local Planning Authority, the option to introduce the

Community Infrastructure Levy. The scope of CIL is governed by statute and CIL regulations initially introduced in 2010 and further amended in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. All Local Authorities and other bodies wishing to introduce CIL have to have due regard to the regulations. Key points are summarised as follows. CIL Liable Developments CIL is based on a set charge of £ per sq. m of net development, which is set out in a local authorities CIL charging schedule. Some developments are however exempt from CIL, including:

• Affordable housing

• Development by charitable institutions

• Changes of use that don’t increase floor space

• Buildings into which people don’t normally go (e.g. plant rooms)

• Buildings with only temporary planning permissions

• Self-build housing

• Residential annexes and extensions in the grounds of an individual’s home. Charging Schedule To compile a CIL charging schedule, Local Authorities have to go through a set process which includes:

• Providing a robust evidence base and analysis on how CIL could potentially impact on the economic viability of developments in an area.

• Production of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that identifies the infrastructure needed to support delivery of the range of developments supported by a Local Plan.

• 2 rounds of consultation on draft CIL charging schedules; an Examination in Public; followed by formal adoption and commencement by a local authority of a charging schedule.

CIL and s106 Whilst there is no compulsion to introduce CIL locally, there is a requirement to limit s106 agreements to 5 pooled contributions for any specific infrastructure requirement such as educational provision, from April 2015. From this date s106 agreements will increasingly have to be scaled back to just cover site specific infrastructure needs. The Government’s intention is that offsite and more generic infrastructure in an area will be part funded by CIL. CIL regulations require that local authorities publish the types of infrastructure to be supported via CIL in a Regulation 123 list. Where introduced, CIL will need to operate in conjunction with s106 agreements that are considered necessary to support site specific infrastructure requirements. Affordable housing will also continue to be governed by s106 agreements. Developments with planning permissions and s106 agreements that pre-date the commencement date of a CIL charging schedule in an area will not be liable for CIL.

Neighbourhood Fund Councils will be required to pass 15% of CIL receipts to relevant Parish and Town Councils arising from CIL liable developments in their areas. This rises to 25% in areas with an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. CIL payments to areas without a Neighbourhood Development Plan in place will be capped to £100 per council tax dwelling per year. In areas with a Neighbourhood Development Plan the amount to be passed over will be 25% with no cap. Parish and Town Councils that receive CIL income can choose to use it to support local infrastructure that it considers necessary for their area. It can do this independently, or in partnership with local authorities and other organisations. Specifically, CIL regulations state that Parish and Town Council CIL income can be used to support the development of the local area by funding:

• the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or

• Anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area.

South East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Strategic Economic Plan In the Government’s response to the Heseltine ‘No Stone Unturned’ Review, it tasked each Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to develop a new multi-year local growth strategy. In response the SE LEP has developed a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) for the South East LEP area. This will inform negotiations with Government over the resources and powers that the LEP wants to see devolved to stimulate economic growth. The SE LEP’s SEP was submitted during March 2014, and is now being followed by a process of negotiation with Government on the form and shape of its local growth deal. A decision is anticipated during the summer of 2014, with funding under the area’s local growth deal available for spending from April 2015. The SE LEP’s SEP is bidding for £1.2 billion of funding from Government, to invest in key projects that will support the growth of jobs and housing in Kent, East Sussex and Essex from 2015 to 2021. Key components of the SEP’s growth deal proposals include:

• Establishment of a property investment fund, drawing public, private and EU funding together to provide the infrastructure necessary to support business and jobs growth.

• Delivery of a local transport programme that improves connectivity and unlocks economic benefits.

• Promoting productivity gains by bringing together local and national business support services; improving business access to finance; and encouraging closer links between business, universities and colleges.

• Investing in skills projects, and strengthening employers’ influence over wider skills provision.

• Increasing the pace of housing development by piloting new models of housing delivery.

Localism Act (2011) and Duty to Co-operate Section 110 of the Localism Act (2011) sets out a 'duty to co-operate'. This applies to all local planning authorities, national park authorities and county councils in England. The duty:

• Relates to sustainable development or use of land that would have a significant impact on at least two local planning areas or on a planning matter that falls within the remit of a county council;

• Requires that councils set out planning policies to address such issues;

• Requires that councils and public bodies 'engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis' to develop strategic policies; and

• Requires councils to consider joint approaches to plan making.

Shepway District Council’s Cabinet has agreed and signed a ‘Duty to Co-operate’ memorandum of understanding with all East Kent Local Authorities. The Council therefore intends to consider issues of mutual concern and interest, including those relating to infrastructure, as part of this mechanism.

Core Strategy Local Plan Background The Core Strategy Local Plan sets out a long term vision for the district, and brings together the aims and actions of the government, District and County Councils, residents, businesses and voluntary groups, by directing and managing land-use and developments. The Core Strategy was adopted as part of the statutory development plan for the district on 18th September 2013, with the general plan period for the document running from 2006 to 2031. The document sets out policies to guide the scale, type and distribution of development. Key extracts are summarised as follows. District Spatial Strategy The District Spatial Strategy’s proposed key features of change, and major proposals for delivery, include:

• Develop Folkestone's centre, employment sites and deprived residential neighbourhoods, led by major opportunities on 'brownfield' land, and improved connectivity (policies SS1, SS3, SS4, SS6, SS7 & CSD6).

• Focus major new development in Hythe on regenerating the west/south of the town, and maintain the character and vitality of the town centre (policies SS2, SS3, SS4 & CSD7).

• Regenerate Romney Marsh through a positive approach to sustainable economic development and infrastructure opportunities, and through increasing the strategic role of New Romney town in serving the area (policies SS1, SS4, CSD3 & CSD8).

• Improve precious habitats, critical landscapes and efficiency of natural resource use (including water) in Shepway, and manage carbon emissions and flood risks in response to climate change (policies SS1, SS3, CSD4 & CSD5).

• Target construction of 400 dwellings per year (minimum 350) to 2026, with over two thirds on brownfield land (policies SS2 & SS3)

• Aim to deliver an average of approximately 1 hectare per year (to 2026) of office/industrial premises (policies SS3, SS4, & CSD6-8).

• Accommodate new retail, leisure and an improved public environment at Folkestone, Hythe and New Romney town centres (policies SS3, SS4 & CSD6-8).

• Secure resources from developers for new physical and social infrastructure through developer contributions/the Community Infrastructure Levy (policy SS5).

• Provide public access to major new green infrastructure for Folkestone, Hythe and the district at Seabrook Valley and elsewhere (policies SS7 & CSD4).

Housing and Economic Growth Strategy The Core Strategy’s Housing and Economic Growth Strategy (Policy SS2), establishes the quantity of required development for housing and jobs. It sets out a core long term objective of delivering an average minimum of 350 dwellings (Class C3) per annum, from 2006/7 and up to 2030/31. To support housing delivery, a target is set to provide for approximately 8,000 dwellings by the end of 2025/26. This equates to an initial target average of 400 dwellings per annum. Allied to this rate of housing delivery, business activity and the provision of jobs will be facilitated through - supporting town centres; the protection of sufficient employment land across the district; and concerted efforts to deliver rural regeneration (especially in south and west Shepway). To support delivery, a target is set to enable development of approximately 20ha gross of industrial, warehousing and office developments (B classes), from 2006/7 to 2025/26; and approximately 35,000 sq. m gross of goods retailing space (Class A1).

How the housing minimum requirement will be delivered through the plan period

Contribution (net dwellings)

1. Delivered in the first 5 years of plan period (2006/07 to 2011/12)

1,600

2. Delivery through allocated development sites (policies SS6-7 and saved Local Plan provisions)

3,300

3. Windfall sites 1,000

4. Delivery (minimum) through further Local Plan provisions and planning permissions

2,900

Total 2006/07 – 2030/31 (minimum) >8,800

Strategic Allocations The Core Strategy identifies two strategic site allocations at Folkestone Seafront, and Shorncliffe Garrison. Policies for each are summarised as follows:

• The spatial Strategy for Folkestone Seafront (Policy SS6) – allocated for mixed-use development, providing up to 1,000 homes, in the region of 10,000 sq. m of floor space comprising small shops and retail services (A use classes); office (class B1); and other community and leisure (C1, D1, D2 and sui generis uses); together with beach sports and sea sports facilities; and with associated and improved on and off site community and physical infrastructure.

• The spatial Strategy for Shorncliffe Garrison (Policy SS7) - allocated for a predominantly residential development of around 1,000 dwellings to 2026 (and up to 1,200 by 2031); an improved military establishment; together with a hub of new community facilities; associated enhancements to sports and green infrastructure; and on and off-site travel infrastructure upgrades.

District Infrastructure Planning The Core Strategy’s approach to District Infrastructure Planning (Policy SS5) highlights that development should provide, contribute to, or otherwise address Shepway’s current and future infrastructure needs.

The policy states that CIL and developer contributions will be used to secure resources contributing towards essential infrastructure needs. In addition to securing CIL and developer contributions as part of the planning application process, development proposals in the district will be expected to demonstrate that:

• The design of a development aims to reduce unnecessary or unsustainable demands on physical and social/community infrastructure or utility network capacity.

• Development does not jeopardise current or planned infrastructure.

• The location, design or management of development provides a choice of means of transport and allows sustainable travel patterns, for pedestrians, cyclists and / or public transport. All major trip-generating uses will provide travel plans.

• Developments reflect the principle that infrastructure should be used more efficiently, or demand managed more effectively, before the need to increase capacity or deliver new infrastructure is created.

Infrastructure Assessment The foregoing IDP narrative has provided the context influencing the shape of the IDP. The following sections provide the IDP’s detailed analysis on infrastructure needs to support the delivery of the Core Strategy Local Plan, with this structured around a consideration of:

• The process of updating the Core Strategy Local Plan’s infrastructure assessment;

• The Types of Infrastructure covered by the IDP;

• Nationally significant infrastructure;

• The IDP’s relationship to CIL and the Regulation 123 List (abbreviated as R123 list)

• CIL’s relationship to s106/278 development obligations

• The IDP’s relationship to Parish and Town Councils

• An Infrastructure funding and gap analysis; and

• The process for IDP review & updating Process and Core Strategy Local Plan Infrastructure Assessment This IDP takes as it starting point the infrastructure needs assessment and schedules of the Core Strategy Local Plan. These have been reviewed and updated, and circulated to stakeholders for comments and provision of further information, in particular on the following matters:

• The ongoing need for infrastructure projects identified by the Core Strategy Local Plan.

• Whether there are additional infrastructure projects not currently identified generally or specifically, that are key to supporting delivery of the Local Plan and the district’s wider infrastructure needs.

• If information is available, approximate timing of infrastructure delivery, headline total costs, and sources of funding.

Types of Infrastructure Covered by the IDP The broad range of infrastructure covered by the IDP consists of the schemes and projects considered to be strategically critical and necessary, to facilitate the delivery of the scale and distribution of developed proposed by the Core Strategy Local Plan. Appendices 1 and 2 summarise schemes and projects according to the following

categories, providing snapshot information on timing, total cost and funding sources, if currently available:

Critical Infrastructure Necessary Infrastructure

Education Flood defences Green infrastructure Transport

Broadband Community safety Education Employment & skills Flood defences & coastal engineering Green infrastructure & bio-diversity Health & social care Leisure, sports & play facilities Libraries, community & youth services Public realm Transport – highways, public transport, cycling & walking Utilities & wastewater

Nationally Significant Infrastructure The IDP will be updated to take account of any nationally significant infrastructure investments that have a local impact, as details become available, including those that may emerge in respect of - the Channel Tunnel and Eurotunnel terminal in Folkestone; the rail network; highways and transport; aviation; energy and utilities. IDP Relationship to CIL and the R123 List The IDP provides the broader reference framework for CIL in that it:

• Identifies a wide range of infrastructure required to support delivery of the Core Strategy Local Plan.

• Provides a reference framework for partner organisations, service and infrastructure providers, and stakeholders.

• An indication of Infrastructure costs and funding sources.

• Highlights funding gaps to be addressed by CIL receipts and other funding sources.

The IDP’s identification of infrastructure funding gaps in particular, and in accordance with CIL regulations, provides a key justification for a local authority seeking to establish a CIL charging schedule. CIL Regulations require that a local authority also publishes the types of infrastructure to be part funded by CIL income, via an R123 list. The list can focus on specific infrastructure projects or categories, identified by the IDP, and which a local authority considers appropriate for support by CIL income. Appendix 3 provides an indication of the types of infrastructure that are currently under consideration for the draft R123 list in Shepway. A finalised list will accompany publication of the Council’s draft CIL charging schedule, which will be available during the spring of 2015. CIL and s106/278 development obligations

The Government’s timetable requires that from April 2015, CIL charges will largely replace Section 106 planning obligations for non-site specific infrastructure requirements deemed necessary to mitigate the cumulative impacts of developments across the district. This approach will initially apply primarily in areas’ where a CIL charging schedule has come into effect. In other locations the existing s106 system will carry on with reference to pooling limits, until such a time a CIL charging schedule comes into effect. Affordable Housing will continue to be delivered by site specific s106 agreements. S278 highways agreements will continue to be negotiated and completed between developers and Highways Authorities, for development proposals that impact on an existing adopted highway, and require for example the construction of new access/junction improvements or safety related works. IDP relationship to Parish and Town Councils The IDP aims to provide a reference document for Parish and Town Councils, in respect of the local infrastructure that may be required in their areas to meet community needs. They are not however required to allocate any income they are due from CIL liable developments taking place within their areas, to projects identified by the IDP, although they do have discretion to work in partnership with a local authority and other service providers to fund infrastructure jointly, if appropriate. Infrastructure Cost Estimates and Funding Gaps The review of the Core Strategy Local Plan’s infrastructure assessment and stakeholder engagement has produced a June 2014 snapshot of the strategically critical and necessary infrastructure projects required to support the quantum of development projected by the Core strategy up to 2031. The review has sought to clarify from delivery partners across a broad range of infrastructure categories - the approximate timing of delivery; headline total costs; sources of funding; and for CIL purposes – identification of potential funding gaps. The review has also highlighted a number of remaining information gaps, which need to be filled as more detail becomes available. An infrastructure cost estimate and funding gap summary can be found at appendix 1, and more detailed information for each infrastructure category is given at appendix 2. The table below takes headline information from appendix 1, with key points including:

• Up to 2031, infrastructure costs are estimated at over £112 million at 2014 prices (£47 million for critical infrastructure; and £65 million for necessary infrastructure).

• Up to 2031, a potential funding gap of over £19 million currently exists, if all infrastructure funding contributions currently under consideration and discussion come to fruition. In the worst case scenario, should no funding contributions materialise, the funding gap up to 2031 grows to over £69 million.

• Up to 2020, over £84 million of infrastructure investment has been identified by delivery partners (£45 million for critical infrastructure projects; and £39 million for necessary infrastructure projects). Available information puts confirmed funding at over £36 million, with approximately £48 million of funding to be confirmed and / or identified.

The term ‘confirmed funding’ is used to describe infrastructure investment that has been identified in a delivery partner’s programme of investment, or granted by an awarding organisation. It includes projects and funding allocations identified by the Environment

Agency’s FCRM1 Medium Term Plan for 2015/16, which accounts for approximately £35 million of the ‘potential funding confirmed’ for critical and necessary infrastructure, identified by the following table.

At June 2014, a number of the infrastructure projects identified by appendix 2 currently form part of - live and / or pending planning applications; are currently subject to funding discussions with partner organisations; bids for funding support to grant and investment making bodies; and s106 discussions, with agreements to be confirmed and signed off. Progress on this activity will therefore influence the parameters of the IDP’s infrastructure assessment and funding gap analysis, beyond the current June 2014 snapshot. The following developments will in particular influence the IDP’s parameters, once planning application and s106 agreements have been finalised:

• Folkestone Harbour and Seafront – outline planning consent granted July 2013;

s106 agreement currently subject to discussion (status at June 2014);

• Shorncliffe Garrison – planning application submitted May 2014;

• Sellindge – planning application pending (status at June 2014);

• Outcome of Lympne airport planning enquiry (enquiry held July 2014). Estimated CIL Income The Core Strategy proposes a minimum total of over 8,800 new dwellings across the district from 2006 to 2031. Of this total approximately 2,000 dwellings are likely to be CIL liable, given a combination of new dwellings developed in zero rates CIL zones, affordable housing needs, pre-existing planning permissions, and planning consents likely to be concluded before the commencement date of a CIL charging schedule. Based on the proposed CIL rates stated in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule - In terms of estimated CIL income from residential dwellings, the indication is that approximately £9.2 million could be raised up to 2031, with about 40% of the total potentially raised up to 2020, and the remaining 60% from 2020 to 2031. Caution does however need to be exercised on the estimates, given they are based on full delivery of

Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan: Infrastructure Cost Estimates & Funding Gaps Funding tbc from

(June 2014 snapshot) potential contributors (ii)

Potential funding Funding gap if

Infrastructure Total cost Projected spend confirmed (i) Funding gap Amount contributions

category estimates up to 2020 2020-31 up to 2020 2020 - 31 up to 2020 2020-31 total tbc agreed

Crticial £47,788,501 £45,092,901 £2,695,600 £26,285,901 £513,000 £18,807,000 £2,182,600 £20,989,600 £10,947,150 £10,042,450

Necessary £65,065,801 £39,628,377 £25,437,424 £10,470,077 £6,513,000 £29,158,300 £18,924,424 £48,082,724 £38,411,966 £9,670,758

Totals £112,854,302 £84,721,278 £28,133,024 £36,755,978 £7,026,000 £47,965,300 £21,107,024 £69,072,324 £49,359,116 £19,713,208

Notes

i) Potential funding confirmed is defined as a commitment stated by an infrastructure delivery body, grant awarding organisation,

or other public sector body, in their investment programme or grant awarding intentions.

ii) Funding to be confirmed (tbc) is defined as:

a) contributions via s106 agreements that have been signed but where development hasn't commenced on site

b) contributions identified as part of s106 agreements currently at discussion stage

c) applications made or pending to grant awarding bodies e.g. the LEP, and Lottery Funding Boards, where a decision is awaited

d) funding contributions indicated by partner organisations, which are subject to match funding being identified and confirmed

residential development sites identified by the SHLAA, and benign market conditions prevailing over a long period of time. The amount available to fund infrastructure is however further reduced due to the need to net off a 5% administration cost, and allocate neighbourhood funds to Parish and Town Councils at either a 15% or 25% rate, the latter applying in areas with an adopted neighbourhood plan. Up to 2031, this amounts to approximately £460,000 for administrative costs, and just over £1.3 million if the lower 15% allocation to Parish and Town Councils is assumed. Therefore given the deductions, approximately £7.5 million could be available from residential CIL income up to 2031, to fund infrastructure. The figures shown above are only estimates of the likely funds that will be raised following the introduction of the CIL Charging Schedule. Comparing these estimates with the figures shown in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates however that a significant funding gap exists. IDP Review and Updating The first IDP review will take place within 12 to 18 months of the commencement date of Shepway District Council’s CIL charging schedule. Appendix 2 Infrastructure schedule information will however, be updated more frequently as and when information updates on projects, progress, costs and funding sources emerges.

Appendices Appendix 1: Infrastructure cost estimates and funding gaps

Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan: Critical Infrastructure Cost Estimates & Funding Gaps

(June 2014 snapshot)

Potential funding Funding tbc (ii) Funding gap if

Infrastructure Total cost Projected spend confirmed (i) Funding gap Potential Amount contributions

category estimates up to 2020 2020-31 up to 2020 2020 - 31 up to 2020 2020-31 total Contributors tbc agreed

Education £6,000,000 £4,500,000 £1,500,000 £0 £0 £4,500,000 £1,500,000 £6,000,000 s106 £2,987,550 £3,012,450

Flood £37,824,901 £37,311,901 £513,000 £25,811,901 £513,000 £11,500,000 £0 £11,500,000 SE LEP £5,000,000 £6,500,000

defence SE fund

Green £287,600 £105,000 £182,600 £105,000 £0 £0 £182,600 £182,600 s106 £182,600 £0

infrastructure

Transport £3,676,000 £3,176,000 £500,000 £369,000 £0 £2,807,000 £500,000 £3,307,000 s106 & £2,777,000 £530,000

LEP LGF

Totals £47,788,501 £45,092,901 £2,695,600 £26,285,901 £513,000 £18,807,000 £2,182,600 £20,989,600 £10,947,150 £10,042,450

Notes

i) Potential funding confirmed is defined as a commitment stated by an infrastructure delivery body, grant awarding organisation,

or other public sector body, in their investment programme or grant awarding intentions.

ii) Funding to be confirmed (tbc) is defined as:

a) contributions via s106 agreements that have been signed but where development hasn't commenced on site

b) contributions identified as part of s106 agreements currently at discussion stage

c) applications made or pending to grant awarding bodies e.g. the LEP, and Lottery Funding Boards, where a decision is awaited

d) funding contributions indicated by partner organisations, which are subject to match funding being identified and confirmed

Shepway Core Strategy Local Plan: Necessary Infrastructure Cost Estimates & Funding Gaps

(June 2014 snapshot)

Funding tbc (ii) Funding gap if

Infrastructure Total cost Projected spend Potential funding (ii) Funding gap Potential Amount contributions

category estimates up to 2020 2020-31 up to 2020 2020 - 31 up to 2020 2020-31 total contributors tbc agreed

Kent

Broadband 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broadband 0 0

(tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) programme (tbc) (tbc)

Community £937,785 £487,785 £450,000 £0 £0 £487,785 £450,000 £937,785 s106 £157,785 £780,000

safety

Education £7,600,321 £7,600,321 £0 £0 £0 £7,600,321 £0 £7,600,321 s106 £5,346,200 £2,254,121

Employment £5,000,000 £5,000,000 0 0 0 £5,000,000 0 £5,000,000 LEP /SFA £5,000,000 £0

& skills (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc)

Flood defence & £18,396,700 £11,883,700 £6,513,000 £9,758,825 £6,513,000 £2,124,875 £0 £2,124,875 £0 £2,124,875

coastal engineering

Green infrastructure & £3,412,000 £1,662,000 £1,750,000 £12,000 £0 £1,650,000 £1,750,000 £3,400,000 HLF £2,500,000 £900,000

bio-diversity Match funders

Health & £1,362,096 £152,096 £1,210,000 £91,115 £0 £60,981 £1,210,000 £1,270,981 s106 £1,270,981 £0

social care

Leisure £14,652,000 £10,372,000 £4,280,000 £0 £0 £10,372,000 £4,280,000 £14,652,000 s106 / other £13,302,000 £1,350,000

infrastructure contributions

Libraries, community £1,234,899 £405,475 £829,424 £373,137 £0 £32,338 £829,424 £861,762 £0 £861,762

& youth services

Public realm £11,075,000 £1,855,000 £9,220,000 £235,000 £0 £1,620,000 £9,220,000 £10,840,000 s106 £10,090,000 £750,000

Transport - local £1,395,000 £210,000 £1,185,000 £0 £0 £210,000 £1,185,000 £1,395,000 s106 £745,000 £650,000

highways schemes

Transport - public 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

transport, cycling & (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc)

walking

Transport - national 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

schemes (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc)

Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc) (tbc)

Totals £65,065,801 £39,628,377 £25,437,424 £10,470,077 £6,513,000 £29,158,300 £18,924,424 £48,082,724 £38,411,966 £9,670,758

Notes

i) Potential funding confirmed is defined as a commitment stated by an infrastructure delivery body, grant awarding organisation,

or other public sector body, in their investment programme or grant awarding intentions.

ii) Funding to be confirmed (tbc) is defined as:

a) contributions via s106 agreements that have been signed but where development hasn't commenced on site

b) contributions identified as part of s106 agreements currently at discussion stage

c) applications made or pending to grant awarding bodies e.g. the LEP, and Lottery Funding Boards, where a decision is awaited

d) funding contributions indicated by partner organisations, which are subject to match funding being identified and confirmed

Appendix 2: Infrastructure categories and project schedules Critical Infrastructure

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential funding Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate spend source confirmed fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

10. Shorncliffe Provision of new 2016 - 26 KCC £4,500,000 Up to 2018/19 KCC Up to 2018/19 1,2,3,4 Up to 2018/19 Taylor Wimpey £2,987,550

(Folketone West) 2-form-entry SDC for 1st FE £4,500,000 s106 tbc £0 £4,500,000 (Shorncliffe)

Strategic Site: primary school £1,500,000 2019 - 2028 Other 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 Folkestone HC

SS7 on strategic site for 2nd FE £1,500,000 contriutions £0 £1,500,000 (Harbour & seafront

in Folkestone West Total cost = tbc development)

Strategic site SS6: £6,000,000 Both via s106 tbc

Folkestone Harbour

& Seafront

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2018 £4,500,000 up to 2018 £0 up to 2018 £4,500,000 Total £2,987,550

2019 - 2028 £1,500,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £1,500,000

All years £6,000,000 £0 £6,000,000

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.1 Strategically Critical Infrastructure; SDC Local Plan Core Strategy

2) Cost of £4.5 million on KCC cost & funding schedule, circulated at SDC-KCC liaison meeting on 30th June 2014.

To be increased by further £1.5 million to cover 2FE.

3) Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Planning Application (Y120897/SH); and SDC Planning Report (A/13/17) (31st July 2013)

4) Shorncliffe Garrison planning application submitted by Taylor Wimpey, May 2014

Critical Infrastructure - Education

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential funding Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate spend source confirmed fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

12. Hythe Reinforcement of 2014 - 2026 EA £26,324,901 Up to 2019/20 EA Up to 2019/20 1,3, 4 Up to 2019/20

Ranges Scheme defences SDC £25,811,901 DEFRA £25,811,901 £0

including DEFRA 2021 - 2025 2021 - 2025 2021 - 2025

Policy SS5: District construction of MoD £513,000 £513,000 £0

Infrastructure Planning rock revetment

13. Folkestone Ground raising, flood By 2016 Landowner £11,500,000 Up to 2019/20 SELEP tbc Up to 2019/20 1,2,5 Up to 2019/20

Harbour & Seafront defences, surface Developer £11,500,000 s106 tbc £0 £11,500,000 SE LEP SE Fund £5,000,000

water draining works EA 2021 - 2025 Other 2021 - 2025 2021 - 2025 Application

Strategic Site: SS6 £0 contributions £0 £0 s106 tbc

tbc other contributions

tbc

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £37,311,901 up to 2020 £25,811,901 up to 2020 £11,500,000 Totals £5,000,000

2021 - 2025 £513,000 2021 - 2025 £513,000 2021 - 2025 £0

All years £37,824,901 £26,324,901 £11,500,000

Notes

1) Table 6.1, appendix 2, SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

2) Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Planning Application (Y120897/SH); and SDC Planning Report (A/13/17) (31st July 2013)

3) EA FCRM1 medium term plan (MTP) form for funding in 2015/16

4) Folkestone to Cliff End Flood & Erosion Management Strategy; EA (2010)

5) SE LEP SE Fund application / proposasl being considered by the LEP (as of June 2014)

Critical Infrastructure - Flood Defences

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential funding Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimates spend source confirmed fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

11. Seabrook/ Projects under 2016 - 26 Shorncliffe tbc up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2, 5 up to 2020

Shorncliffe consideration include: landowner / MOD (contribution

Developer / 2020 - 2031 from Shorncliffe 2020 - 2031 2020 -31

Policy SS7: Habitat & green Taylor Wimpey development)

Shorncliffe Garrison corridor creation, linking White Cliffs Country-

site to surrounding areas side Partnership

Policy CSD4: Green Romney Marsh

Infrastructure of Improvement & Countryside Project

Natural Networks, extension of existing SDC

Open Spaces & open space at 'The Parish & Town

Stadium' Councils

Creation of 'Seabrook

Valley Country Park' /

greenspace, &

appropriate PROW &

management

arrangements

Policy CSD4: Green Seabrook Valley - Up to 2018 Romney Marsh £105,000 up to 2020 SDC up to 2020 2, 5 up to 2020

Infrastructure of (Backdoor training area) Countryside Proejct £105,000 £105,000 £0

Natural Networks, Captital cost of water SDC 2019 - 2031 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

Open Spaces & troughs, gates, fences; Parish & Town £0 £0 £0

Recreation repair of steps & Councils

footpaths - costed

at £30k excluding

installation.

5 year management

plan (£15k per year)

Policy SS6: Access improvements 2016 - 2026 Developer £182,600 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 4, 5 up to 2020 s106 tbc £182,600

Folkestone Seafront to the Warren Natural England (contribution

SSSI SDC 2020 - 2031 from Folkestone 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

Policy CSD4: Green & White Cliffs Country- £182,600 Harbour

Infrastructure of Improvements to side Partnership development)

Natural Networks, pathways within Developer

Open Spaces & Coastal Park

Recreation

Policy CSD9: Creation of new village 2016 - 2026 Taylor Wimpey tbc up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 5 up to 2020

Sellindge Strategy green & habitats SDC (contribution

Parish Council 2020 - 2031 from Sellindge 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

Policy CSD4: Green Improved development)

Infrastructure of pedestrian / cycling

Natural Networks, environment

Open Spaces &

Recreation

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £105,000 up to 2018 £105,000 up to 2018 £0 Totals £182,600

2020 - 2031 £182,600 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £182,600

All years £287,600 £105,000 £182,600

Notes:

1) Table 6.1, appendix 2, SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

2) Shorncliffe Garriosn Planning Application submitted by Taylor Wimpey, May 2014

3) Shorncliffe Rationalisation Project - Seabrook Valley; Romney Marsh Countryside Project (March 2011)

4) Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Planning Application (Y120897/SH); and SDC Planning Report (A/13/17) (31st July 2013)

5) Shepway Green Infrastructure Report (2011)

Critical Infrastructure - Green Infrastructure

Critical Infrastructure - Transport Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential funding Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimates spend source confirmed fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

1. South Junction improvements By 2020 Landowners tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

Hawkinge to meet further residential Highway Authority 1, 2

A20/A260 development impacts, KCC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

junction in context of SDC

settlement consolidation

2. Cheriton High Carriagway and junciton By 2020 Landowners £600,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 4 up to 2020 s106 £270,000

Street A20/Spur re-alignment to ease Highway Authority £600,000 LGF (SELEP) £0 £600,000 SE LEP LGF £300,000

junction (towards traffic flows SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 proposal

M20 J12) £0 £0 £0

3. Newingreen - Junction improvements By 2016 Landowners £700,000 up to 2020 s106 up to 2020 1, 4 up to 2020

A20/A261/Stone or Highway Authority £700,000 LGF (SELEP) £289,000 £411,000 SE LEP LGF £411,000

Street junction(s) by 2017/18 SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 proposal

(indicated in £0 £0 £0

Growth

without

Gridlock)

4. Scanlon's Junction improvements By 2020 £80,000 up to 2020 s106 up to 2020 1 up to 2020

Bridge, Hythe - £80,000 £80,000 £0

A259/A261 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

junctions £0 £0 £0

5. New Romney Junction improvements By 2020 Landowners £250,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 7 up to 2020 s106 (?) £250,000

- A259/B2071/ considered as Highway Authority £0 £0 £0

Church Road part of masterplanning SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

junction for key development £250,000 £0 £250,000

sits in New Romney.

6. Folkestone Includes: 2015 - 2031 Landowners £1,546,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1,4,5 up to 2020 s106 £1,046,000

Seafront priority *Changes to Tram Rd/ KCC £1,546,000 LGF (SELEP) £0 £1,546,000 SE LEP LGF £500,000

connections, Tontine St SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 proposal

including Tram *Bus service support £0 £0 tbc

Road *Junction improvements

*Improved pedestrian

routes

7. Folkestone Upgrade to By 2016 Shepway tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

Central Railway facilities, Stations

Station pedestrian Partnership 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

accessibility and

public realm

8. Folkestone As above By 2016 Shepway tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

West Railway (Car park extention Stations

Station completed during 2014) Partnership 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

9. Bus network Incremental bus nertwork 2016 to 2031 Stagecoach tbc up to 2020 tbc / linked up to 2020 1, up to 2020

improvements kick-started KCC £250,000 to development £0 £250,000

by developer contributions Developers 2020 to 2031 site s106 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

& risk sharing by £250,000 agreements £0 £250,000

Stagecoach, in relation Stagecoach

Other

to key development sites contributions tbc

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £3,176,000 up to 2018 £369,000 up to 2018 £2,807,000 Totals £2,777,000

2020 - 2031 £500,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £500,000

All years £3,676,000 £369,000 £3,307,000

Notes:

1) Table 6.1, appendix 2, SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

2) Highways Agency Indicative Cost, based on settlement consolidation & limited further residential development in Hawkinge

3) Included in URS SDC 'Update to Transport Strategy Highway Impact' Report (January 2012)

4)Funding information from 'Growth Without Gridlock ', KCC

5) Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Planning Application (Y120897/SH); and SDC Planning Report (A/13/17) (31st July 2013)

6) Bus network k ick start funding based on an assumed per development site contribution of £250k (as suggested by Stagecoach)

�ecessary Infrastructure

Necessary Infrastructure - Broadband Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy SS5 Roll out of BDUK by 2015/16 KCC Kent prog. up to 2020 KCC up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020 Shepway

District Infrastructure Superfast Broadband Government cost approx. Government funding

Planning Programme in Kent BT £40,000,000 2020 to 2031 BT 2020 to 2031 2020 - 2031 drawn from

Kent prog.

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £0 up to 2020 £0 up to 2020 £0 Total

2020 - 2031 £0 2019 - 2031 £0 2020 - 2031 £0

All years £0 £0 £0

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Local Plan Core Strategy

2) Kent broadband programme information via:

http://www.kent.gov.uk/leisure-and-community/broadband

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimates spend funding source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy SS5: Contribution towards security Ongoing to Kent Police £780,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020

Infrastructure of new neighbourhoods and 2026 Other public bodies £330,000 £0 £0

Planning areas of change, e.g. 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

community safety £450,000 £0 £0

infrastructure /Emergency

Services (including police

& fire services), with need

generated from cumulative

impact of developments

Policy SS6: Police infrastructure: Developer £157,785 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 3 up to 2020 s106 £157,785

Spatial Strategy for Pooled contribution to cover Kent Police £157,785

Folkestone additional service Other public bodies 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Seafront demands

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £487,785 up to 2018 £0 up to 2018 £487,785 Total £157,785

2020 - 2031 £450,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £450,000

All years £937,785 £0 £937,785

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Local Plan Core Strategy

2) Cost estimates based on delivery of CIL liable housing sites listed by SHLAA, and assuming an average

community safety & associated facilities mitigation cost per dwelling developed.

3) Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Planning Application (Y120897/SH); and SDC Planning Report (A/13/17) (31st July 2013)

Necessary Infrastructure - Community Safety

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policies SS5, SS6 Fokestone East: 2014 - 2018 KCC £3,500,000 Up to 2018 s106 tbc Up to 2018 1 Up to 2018 s106 £3,153,000

New Primary School in £3,500,000 Other £0 £3,500,000

Eastcliffe, on St Mary's 2019 - 2028 contributions 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

playing field site £0 tbc £0 £0

Policies SS5, CSD7 Hythe: existing primary 2016 - 2019 KCC £2,084,985 Up to 2018 s106 tbc Up to 2018 1 Up to 2018/19 s106 £1,330,200

school expansion: £2,084,985 Other £0 £2,084,985

Enlargement of Palmarsh 2019 - 2028 contributions 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

PS to 2 FE, subject to £0 tbc £0 £0

development of Nickolls

Quarry

Policies SS5, CSD9 Sellindge - existing primary 2015 - 2018 KCC £863,000 Up to 2018 s106 tbc Up to 2018 1 Up to 2018/19 s106 £863,000

school expansion: £863,000 Other £0 £863,000

Subject to planned housing 2019 - 2028 contributions 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

development commencing, £0 tbc £0 £0

expand Sellindge to 1FE

Policies SS5 Lympne: 2018 KCC £326,000 Up to 2018 tbc Up to 2018 1 Up to 2018/19

Provision of 3 temporary £326,000 £0 £326,000

class bases 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£0 £0 £0

Policies SS5, CSD8 Romney Marsh 2018 KCC £826,336 Up to 2018 s106 tbc Up to 2018 1 Up to 2018/19

existing primary schools: £826,336 Other £0 £826,336

Expansion of St Nicholas & 2019 - 2028 contributions 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

Greatstone Primary £0 tbc £0 £0

schools

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2018 £7,600,321 up to 2018 £0 up to 2018 £7,600,321 Total £5,346,200

2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £0

All years £7,600,321 £0 £7,600,321

Notes

1) Project cost & funding details as per KCC schedule circulated at KCC - SDC Liaison meeting on 6th June 2014

Necessary Infrastructure - Education

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate Spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policies SS2, SS4, Key employment sites, tbc Landowners tbc up to 2020 Includes: up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020

CSD7, CSD8, inlcuding access, HCA s106

on-site infrastructure E.Kent Spatial Dev.Co. 2020 to 2031 SE LEP 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Policy SS5 & support for business SDC European

Infrastructure (e.g. incubators, & grow To be identified by Structural Invest-

Planning on space) Shepway Economic ment Fund

Development Strategy Strategy

SDC/ KCC

Private sector

Policy SS5 Shorncliffe Road East Kent College £5,000,000 up to 2020 £5,000,000 up to 2020 3 up to 2020 SE LEP / £5,000,000

Infrastructure Campus Project, Folkestone Government £5,000,000 subject to SFA funding

Planning SE LEP 2020 to 2031 outcome 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

of SELEP

funding

application

Policy SS5 Skills & work-readiness tbc To be Identified by the tbc up to 2020 Includes: up to 2020 2 up to 2020

Infrastructure programmes, to meet Shewpay Economic SE LEP

Planning business / employer Development Strategy 2020 to 2031 European 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

needs (e.g. for school & Structural Invest-

college leavers; & ment Fund

returners to the labour Strategy

market) SDC/ KCC

FE Colleges

Private sector

Policy SS5 Skill & work-readiness tbc To be Identified by the tbc up to 2020 SE LEP up to 2020 3 up to 2020

Infrastructure programmes for Shewpay Economic European

Planning hard to reach groups & Development Strategy 2020 to 2031 Structural Invest- 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

communities ment Fund

Strategy

SDC/ KCC

FE Colleges

Private sector

Policy SS5 FE and skills outreach tbc To be Identified by the tbc up to 2020 Includes: up to 2020 3 up to 2020

Infrastructure facilities (e.g. Romney Shewpay Economic SE LEP

Planning Marsh & rural communities) Development Strategy 2020 to 2031 European 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Structural Invest-

ment Fund

Strategy

SDC/ KCC

FE Colleges

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £5,000,000 up to 2020 £0 up to 2020 £5,000,000 Total £5,000,000

2020 - 2031 £0 2020 - 2031 £0 2020 - 2031 £0

All years £5,000,000 £0 £5,000,000

Notes

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

2) Shepway Economic Development Strategy 2012 to 2017 (& subesquent updates)

3) Subject to outcome of proposasls made to SFA/ BIS & SE LEP Sk ills Capital Fund

Necessary Infrastructure - Employment & Skills

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy SS5: Hythe to Folkestone 2015 - 2020 EA £1,520,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Beach Managment SDC £1,320,000 £1,320,000 £0

Planning DEFRA 2021 - 2025 2021 - 2025 2021 - 2025

£200,000 £200,000 £0

Hythe to Folkestone 2020 - 2025 £1,333,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

Beach Managment £25,000 £25,000 £0

2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

£1,308,000 £1,308,000 £0

Policy SS5: Littlestone Beach Recharge 2014 - 2016 EA £1,500,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure SDC £1,500,000 £1,500,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Marshlands Tidal Basin 2014 - 2017 EA £150,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Improvements SDC £150,000 £150,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Romney Marsh Conveynance2015/16 EA £100,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Improvenments SDC £100,000 £100,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Hythe to Folkestone 2019 - 2021 EA £5,035,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Beach Re-charge SDC £30,000 £30,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £5,005,000 £5,005,000 £0

Policy SS5: Greatstone Dunes 2012 - 2016 EA £90,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Management SDC £90,000 £90,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0

Policy SS5: Coronation Parade 2015/16 EA £5,148,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Works SDC £5,148,000 £3,342,625 £1,805,375

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Dymchurch Sea Wall 2015 - 2017 EA £425,700 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Access Remedials SDC £425,700 £425,700 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Seabrook Stream 2015 - 2017 EA £250,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Impovements SDC £250,000 £20,500 £229,500

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Hythe FAS 2012 - 2017 EA £535,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure SDC £535,000 £535,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Denge Secondary 2014 - 2016 EA £2,050,000 Up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Defence SDC £2,050,000 £2,050,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Downs Road, Folkestone, 2013 - 2016 EA £230,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Surface Water SDC £230,000 £140,000 £90,000

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Policy SS5: Romney Marsh 2015 - 2018 EA £30,000 up to 2019/20 EA up to 2019/20 1 up to 2019/20

District Infrastructure Living Landscape Project SDC £30,000 £30,000 £0

Planning 2020 - 2025 2020 - 2025 2021 - 2025

DEFRA £0 £0 £0

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £11,883,700 up to 2020 £9,758,825 up to 2020 £2,124,875 Total

2021 - 2025 £6,513,000 2021 - 2025 £6,513,000 2021 - 2025 £0

All years £18,396,700 £16,271,825 £2,124,875

Notes

1) Environment Agency - FCRM1 Medium term plan (MTP) form for funding in 2015/16

Necessary Infrastructure - Flood Defences & coastal engineering

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total Cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimates Spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy CSD4: Green Management and 2014 - 2031 Natural England £940,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1,2, 3,4 up to 2020

Infrastructure Implementation KWT £400,000 £0 £400,000

recommendations from studies Voluntary Sector 2020 to 2031 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

Policy SS5 & plans that aim to address EA £500,000 £0 £500,000

Infrastructure the cumulative impact of KCC

Planning residential and other SDC

developments across the Developers

district Parish & Town

Councils

Policy CSD4: Green Sutainable access Includes: Stage 1: up to 2020 Government up to 2020 2,4 up to 2020

Infrastructure strtategy for SDC £12,000 £12,000 Partners £12,000 £0

Dungeness & Rother DC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Policy SS5 Romney Marsh Area Natural England £0 £0 £0

Infrastructure Kent & Sussex

Planning Planned activities: Wildlife Trusts

Romney Marsh CP

* first stage includes a year Stage 1: 2014 RSPB

long series of visitor surveys

at Dungeness

* second stage includes Stages 2 & 3:

drafting of access stratgy & from 2015

identification of necessary (& tied into

access & management works the HLF bid

* third stage includes below)

implementation of capital

works

Policy CSD4: Green HLF Romney Marsh Landscape HLF Bid: 2014 Includes: £2,500,000 up to 2020 HLF tbc up to 2020 up to 2020 HLF £1,250,000

Infrastructure Partnership Scheme Implement- SDC £1,250,000 Match funding £0 4,5 £1,250,000 Other £1,250,000

(Linked to to the Sustainable ation from HLF 2020 to 2031 partners tbc 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 Contributors

Policy SS5 access strategy for 2015, if HLF £1,250,000 £0 £1,250,000 tbc

Infrastructure Dungeness & Romney Marsh) successful

Planning

White Cliffs Countryside Includes: tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 4,6 up to 2020

Partnership (WCCP) & WCCP

Romney Marsh Countryside RMCP 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Partnership (RMCP) Developers

Porgramme of capital works & SDC

access imprivesments KCC

Policy CSD4: Green Natural England's Report on proposals due Natural England tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 4,7 up to 2020

Infrastructure Coastal Access Programme: 2014, then to be KCC

Programme submitted to Secretary SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Policy SS5 Folkestone to Camber Sands of State; followed Rother DC

Infrastructure Project by consultation East Sussex CC

Planning Natural England's Proposals Natural England tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

Coastal Access programme: submitted to Secretary of KCC 4,7

Folkestone to Ramsgate State, October 2013. SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Project Consultation Dover DC

responses by Dec. 2014 Thanet DC

Work to start on route

2014 / 15

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £1,662,000 up to 2018 £12,000 up to 2018 £1,650,000 Total £2,500,000

2020 - 2031 £1,750,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £1,750,000

All years £3,412,000 £12,000 £3,400,000

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Local Plan Core Strategy

2) An East Kent Approach to Green Infrastructure & Recreation (April 2014)

3) Cost estimates based on delivery of CIL liable housing sites listed by SHLAA, and assuming an average

green infrastructure mitigation cost per dwellng developed.

4) Shepway Green Infrastructure Report (2011)

5) Project subject to oucome of HLF Landscape Partnerhsip Scheme proposal(decision due autumn 2014)

6) As per WCCP & RMCP plans

7) Natural England Coastal Access programme:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork /access/coastalaccess/southeastmappage.aspx

Necessary Infrastructure - Green Infrastructure & bio-diversity

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy SS5: Improvement/ reprovision By 2026 NHS £1,080,000 up to 2018 s106 tbc up to 2018 1 up to 2018 s106 £1,080,000

District of surgeries in central (Folkestone

Infrastructure Folkestone 2019 - 2028 Seafront) 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

Planning £1,080,000

Contributions towards needs 2014 - 2031 KCC 1

Funding requirements for Adult Social Services SDC

for infrastructure & arising from development, landowners

service enhancements including: developers

linked to delivery Assistive Technologies 2014 - 2031 £180,000 up to 2018 s106 tbc up to 2018 2 up to 2018 s106 £155,678

of quantum of in Shepway £50,000 Other £24,322 £25,678

residential 2019 - 2028 contributions 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

developments £130,000 KCC £0 £130,000

projected up to 2031, Building Community 2014 - 2031 £12,096 up to 2018 Other up to 2018 2 up to 2018

in Core Strategy Local Capacity in Shepway, £12,096 contributions £12,096 £0

Plan. primarily in rural areas 2019 - 2028 KCC 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£0 £0 £0

Weelchair accessible 2014 - 2018 £90,000 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 2 up to 2018 tbc £35,303

housing in Shepway £90,000 s106 tbc £54,697 £35,303

(cost estimate = £30k per 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

house) £0 £0 £0

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2018 £152,096 up to 2018 £91,115 up to 2018 £60,981 Total £1,270,981

2019 - 2028 £1,210,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £1,210,000

All years £1,362,096 £91,115 £1,270,981

Notes

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

2) Project costs from KCC schedule circulated at KCC-SDC liaison meeting on 30th January 2014: & 6th June 2014

Necessary Infrastructure - Health & Social Services

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimates spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy SS7: On site play space & By 2026 Landowner /MOD tbc up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020

Shorncliffe Garrison facilities, as part of Taylor Wimpey (contribution

development proposals SDC 2020 - 2031 from Shorncliffe 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

development)

Policy CSD4: Upgrade of key open 2014 - 31 SDC £1,350,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 3 up to 2020

Green Infrastructure spaces, sports pitches, town/parish £570,000 £0 £570,000

play spaces, & associated councils 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

facilities, across the £780,000 £0 £780,000

District, with need

generated from cumulative

impact of developments

Policy CSD7: Replacement for Hythe By 2026 SDC £9,500,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 4, 5 up to 2020 s106 £3,200,000

Hythe Strategy Swimming Pool, & Hythe TC £9,500,000 (Nickolls Quarry) Other £6,300,000

community facilities, Nickolls Quarry 2020 - 2031Other contributions 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031 contributions

Princes Parade landowner / developer tbc

Policy SS6: Contribution toward off- By 2026 Developer £302,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 6 up to 2020 s106 £302,000

Folkestone Seafront site play equipment SDC £302,000 (contribution

(within the Coastal Park) 2020 - 2031 from Folkestone 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

Harbour

development)

Policy SS6: High quality beach & water By 2021 Landowners £3,500,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 6 up to 2020 s106 £3,500,000

Folkestone Seafront sports for Folkestone and Folkestone

Hythe Seafront developer 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

Nickols Quarry £3,500,000

developer

Policy CSD4: Forthcoming Revised From SDC tbc up to 2020 To be identified up to 2020 up to 2020

Green Infrastructure District Play Strategy for 2015 by District

Shepway District (due to be 2020 - 2031 Play Strategy 2020 - 2031 2020 - 2031

produced during 2015), & its

priorities, initiatives & key

projects

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £10,372,000 up to 2018 £0 up to 2018 £10,372,000 Total £13,302,000

2020 - 2031 £4,280,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £4,280,000

All years £14,652,000 £0 £14,652,000

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Local Plan Core Strategy

2) Shorncliffe Garrison Planning Application submitted by Taylor Wimpey, May 2014

3) Cost estimates based on delivery of CIL liable housing sites listed by SHLAA, and assuming an average

open space / play facilities mitigation cost per dwelling developed.

4) Revised Princes Parade cost options presented to SDC Cabinet meeting on 28th May 2014 - Cabinet Report & viabiltiy study also highlights

other site & infrastructure costs. Identified funding assumes achievement of approach outlined by report.

5) s106 Nickolls Quarry contribution of £3.2 million detailed in SDC DC report (DC/13/02), 25th June 2013: Planning Application Y06/1079/SH

6) Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Planning Application (Y120897/SH); and SDC Planning Report (A/13/17) (31st July 2013)

Necessary Infrastructure - Open / Playspace, Sports & Leisure Facilities

Necessary Infrastructure - Libraries, Community & Youth Services Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy SS5 Library services @ 2014 - 2031 KCC £141,647 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

District Infrastructure Cheriton library £25,869 £9,900 £15,969

Planning service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£115,778 £0 £115,778

Funding requirements Library services @ 2014 - 2026 KCC £223,977 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

for infrastructure & Folkestone library £89,005 £102,901 -£13,896

service enhancements service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

linked to delivery £134,971 £0 £134,971

of quantum of Library services @ 2014 - 2026 KCC £212,779 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

residential Hythe £68,588 £37,581 £31,007

developments service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

projected up to 2031, £144,191 £0 £144,191

in Core Strategy Local Library services @ 2014 - 2016 KCC £4,131 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

Plan. Lydd Library £4,131 £807 £3,324

service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£0 £0 £0

Library services @ KCC £0 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

Lyminge Library £0 £0 £0

service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£0 £0 £0

Library service @ 2014 - 2026 KCC £32,971 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

New Romney library £10,643 £14,191 -£3,548

service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£22,329 £0 £22,329

Library service @ 2014 - 2021 KCC £64,608 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

Sandgate library £40,317 £529 £39,788

service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£24,291 £0 £24,291

Library service @ 2014 - 2026 KCC £189,263 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

Shepway Mobile library £96,131 £0 £96,131

service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£96,131 £0 £96,131

Library service @ 2014 - 2016 KCC £589 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

Wood Ave library £589 £0 £589

service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£0 £0 £0

Shewpway 2014 - 2031 KCC £157,690 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

Community Learning £70,202 £2,984 £67,218

service enhancements 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

£87,489 £0 £87,489

Shepway Youth 2022 - 26 KCC £204,244 up to 2018 KCC up to 2018 1, 2 up to 2018

Service £0 £204,244 -£204,244

Enhancement of café IT 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

in District hub & £204,244 £0 £204,244

add. Youth work sessions

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2018 £405,475 up to 2018 £373,137 up to 2018 £32,338 Total

2019 - 2028 £829,424 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £829,424

All years £1,234,899 £373,137 £861,762

Notes

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

2) Project costs from KCC schedule circulated at KCC-SDC liaison meeting on 30th January 2014: & 6th June 2014

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimates Spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy CSD6: Central Upgrade of public realm 2015/16 KCC £750,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020

Folkestone Strategy spaces, & associated to 2031 SDC £320,000 £0 £320,000

facilities, across the Parish & Town 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Policy CSD8: New District, with need Councils £430,000 £0 £430,000

Romney Strategy generated from cumulative Creative Foundation

impact of developments Landowners

Policy SS4: Priority Property owners

Centres of Activity

Strategy

Policy CSD6: Central Folkestone Townscape From 2014 Heritage Lottery Fund £1,300,000 up to 2020 HLF up to 2020 3 up to 2020 HLF £1,300,000

Folkestone Strategy Heritage Initiative Creative Foundation £1,300,000 Creative Foundation £0 £1,300,000 Match

KCC 2020 to 2031 KCC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 funding

SDC £0 SDC £0 £0 partners

Property owners Property owners

Policy CSD7: Hythe Town Centre By 2016 SDC £235,000 up to 2020 S106 up to 2020 4 up to 2020

Hythe Strategy improvements Town Council (£200k for £235,000 £235,000 £0

public realm; 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

£35k for £0 £0 £0

highways)

Policy SS6: Removal of structures & Developer £3,660,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 5 up to 2020 s106 £3,660,000

Folkestone Seafront restoration to create public SDC Other contributions Other

open space on Harbour Arm Public bodies / LEP 2020 to 2031 tbc 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 Contributors

£3,660,000

Part retention of former Developer £5,130,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 5 up to 2020 s106 £5,130,000

customs house; retention of SDC Other contributions Other

other heritage assets; works Public Bodies / LEP 2020 to 2031 tbc 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 Contributors

to the harbour arm; creation £5,130,000

of a green walk, across the

listed harbour bridge;

re-alignment & alteration to

Marine Parade

Policy SS7: Public realm creation Shorncliffe tbc up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2018 1, 6 up to 2018

Shorncliffe Garrison through site development landowner / MOD (contribution

& linked off-site Developer / 2020 - 2031 from Shorncliffe 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

enhancements Taylor Wimpey development)

Public bodies / LEP Other contributions

tbc

Policy CSD9: Public realm enhancements 2016 - 2026 Taylor Wimpey tbc up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2018 1, 7 up to 2018

Sellindge Strategy (New village green listed SDC (contribution

under green infrastructure) Parish Council 2020 - 2031 from Sellindge 2019 - 2028 2019 - 2028

development)

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £1,855,000 up to 2018 £235,000 up to 2018 £1,620,000 Total £10,090,000

2020 - 2031 £9,220,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £9,220,000

All years £11,075,000 £235,000 £10,840,000

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

2) Cost estimates based on delivery of CIL liable housing sites listed by SHLAA, and assuming an average

public realm & associated facilities mitigation cost per dwelling developed.

3) Folkestone Townscape Heritage Initiative: http://www.folkestonethi.org/about

4) Public realm & highways s106 contributions as per Planning application Y09/0627/SH

5) Folkestone Harbour & Seafront Development Planning Application (Y120897/SH); and SDC Planning Report (A/13/17) (31st July 2013)

6) Shorncliffe Garriosn Planning Application submitted by Taylor Wimpey, May 2014

7) Sellindge Planning Application pending, from Taylor Wimpey (June 2014)

Necessary Infrastructure - Public Realm

Necessary Infrastructure - Transport (Local Highways Schemes) Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate Spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

1. Shorncliffe site: SS7 Horn Street railway bridges: By 2016 Shorncliffe landowner £80,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020 s106 £80,000

vehicular safety and landowner / MOD £80,000

pedestrian environment Developer 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

scheme KCC

SDC

2. Shorncliffe site: SS7 B2063 Risborough Lane/ By 2016 Shorncliffe landowner £130,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020 s106 £130,000

Church Road junction KCC £130,000

upgrade SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

phase 1

3. Shorncliffe site: SS7 B2063 Risborough Lane/ 2016 - 2021 Shorncliffe landowner £105,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020 s106 £105,000

Shorncliffe Road junction KCC

upgrade SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Phase 2 £105,000

4. Shorncliffe site: SS7 A20 Cheriton High Street/ 2016 - 2021 Shorncliffe landowner £60,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020 s106 £60,000

B2063 Risborough Lane KCC

junction improvements SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

£60,000

5. Shorncliffe site: SS7 Cheriton High Street/ Horn 2016 - 2021 Shorncliffe landowner £245,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020 s106 £245,000

Street junction KCC 1, 2

improvements SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

£245,000

6. Shorncliffe site: SS7 Pedestrian/Cycle path By 2021 Shorncliffe landowner £25,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020 s106 £25,000

improvements from KCC

Shorncliffe site to Cheriton SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

High Street and Seabrook £25,000

Valley

6a. Shorncliffe Travel Plan Travel plan set up & 10 year Shorncliffe landowner £100,000 up to 2020 s106 tbc up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020 s106 £100,000

cost

2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

£100,000

7 Cheriton Road crossroads By 2026 KCC £100,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 3, 5 up to 2020

(A20/ A2034) junction SDC

improvements 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

£100,000

8. DCLG and DoT decision Hammonds Corner west of tbc London Ashford £100,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 3, 5 up to 2020

notices ref: New Romney A259/ B2075 Airport Lydd

junction improvement landowner 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

APP/L2250/V/10/2131934 KCC £100,000

&

APP/L2250/V/10/2131936

9. Seafront site: SS6 Grace Hill system/ Tontine 2021 - 2026 KCC £100,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 3, 5 up to 2020

Street (A260/ A259/ A2033) SDC

junctions Seafront landowner 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Other developments £100,000

10 Traffic calming at Sellindge 2021 - 2026 KCC £100,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 5 up to 2020

including A20/Swan Lane SDC

area broad location 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

landowners £100,000

21. A20/A260 junction Junction improvements tbc KCC / KHS £250,000 up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1, 4 up to 2020

improvements required subject to scale Highways Agency

of residential development SDC 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

(Similar scheme also listed acceptable in Hawkinge, landowners £250,000

on Critical list) within context of Local Plan's developers

consolidated settlement

policy on Hawkinge

A259 Sandgate High St Included in URS SDC 'Update tbc tbc tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

Link Assessment to Transport Strategy Highway

Impact Report' 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

(Jan 2012) - predicted to

operate at Peak time over

capacity

Local traffic Horn Street impropvements tbc Parish & Town tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

management schemes Councils

Identified by Parish & Lympne Hill improvements KCC / KHS 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Town Councils, including: SDC

Traffic calming measures in Botolphs tbc Parish & Town tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

Bridge Road, West Hythe Road & Councils

Aldington Road KCC / KHS 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

SDC

Speed restraint measures at tbc Parish & Town tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

Dymchurch Road, near development Councils

site accesses KCC / KHS 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

SDC

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £210,000 up to 2018 £0 up to 2018 £210,000 Total £745,000

2020 - 2031 £1,185,000 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £1,185,000

All years £1,395,000 £0 £1,395,000

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Local Plan Core Strategy

2) Section 6, Shorncliffe Garrison Masterplan; Annex 1 - Transport Strategy (May 2011)

3) Included in URS SDC 'Update to Transport Strategy Highway Impact' Report (January 2012)

4) Highways Agency Indicative Cost, based on settlement consolidation & limited further residential development in Hawk inge

5) Cost estimate based on similar schemes elsewhere.

Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate Spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

11 Increase sustainable usage 2021 - 2026 Shepway Stations tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

of Westenhanger station Partnership

through better local linkages, Racecourse 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

and improved cycle and car landowner

parking

12. Hythe policy: CSD7 Integrate rail and bus travel By 2026 Shepway Stations tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

and improve existing parking Station Partnership

provision at Sandling and Ashford BC, 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Appledore stations, and Stagecoach

further linkages to Hythe and

Romney Marsh respectively

13 Promote cycle network, cycle By 2026 Sustrans / KCC tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

safety awareness and SDC

parking at destinations Shepway Cycling 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Forum

14 Review and enhance bus Quality Bus tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

routes in rural corridors. To By 2021 Partnership

provide an enhanced bus 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

network which builds on the

existing five key corridors

and promotes accessibility

15 To inform those who travel By 2016 Quality Bus tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

of the choice that is Partnership

available. Improve ease of NHS 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

access to bus service KCC

information, e.g. real-time

information, travel plans for

businesses, health facilities

and service providers

Stagecoach Redesign of bus station, tbc tbc tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

suggestion to accommodate bus increase,

and larger DDA compliant 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

buses

16. Bus services @ Improve bus services, By 2016 Quality Bus tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

Hawkinge provide new shelters, and Partnership

improve pedestrian Stagecoach 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

environment in Hawkinge KCC

17. Folkestone central Manage on-street parking By 2016 KCC tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

policy: CSD6 and encourage better SDC

utilisation of car parks in 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

town centres through

enhancements/and

promotional information

18. New Romney Promote awareness of 2016 - 2021 KCC tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

policy: CSD8 modes and transport SDC

integration between Romney Stagecoach 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Marsh and the Urban Areas RHD light railway

along Shepway's coastal Landowners at

routes. Better use of A259, Nickolls Quarry &

Hastings–Dover bus, RHD New Romney

light rail, long distance cycle

route: starting with New

Romney to Hythe Town

Centre section

19. Hythe policy: CSD7 Improve use of Romney, 2016 - 2021 SDC tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

Hythe & Dymchurch (RHD) Landowner at

light railway: starting with a Nickolls Quarry 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

new halt to connect Nickolls

Quarry

Proposed closure of Harbour tbc Network Rail tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 up to 2020

Policy SS6 Spatial rail link: Folkestone Harbour

strategy for Folkestone Subject to closure order Company 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Seafront decision - options for land SDC / KCC

reclaimation & re-use SUSTRANS

Folkestone walking Improve opportunities for cycling in 2014 / 15 KCC £80,000 up to 2020 LSTF up to 2020 8 up to 2020

cylcing scheme Folkestone SDC

Network Rail 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £0 up to 2018 £0 up to 2018 £0 Total

2020 - 2031 £0 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £0

All years £0 £0 £0

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Local Plan Core Strategy

Necessary Infrastructure - Transport: Public Transport, Cycling, Walking & Parking Schemes

Necessary Infrastructure - Transport:Highways (National) Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimate Spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

20. KCC (2010) Growth Participate in seeking tbc KCC tbc up to 2020 tbc up to 2020 1 up to 2020

Without Gridlock (KCC solutions to issues related

project for 2 lorry parks) to Operation Stack & 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

& inappropriate overnight lorry parking

in Kent's residential & industrial areas

Eurotunnel Eurotunnel Tunnel Cheriton terminal tbc Eurotunnel tbc up to 2020 Eurotunnel up to 2020 2 up to 2020

expansion proposals - includes

exanding the terminal access road from 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

M20 / 11a, & increasing on site lorry parking

to accomodate 600 trucks.

Work to take place on Eurotunnel land.

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £0 up to 2018 £0 up to 2018 £0 Total

2020 - 2031 £0 2019 - 2028 £0 2019 - 2028 £0

All years £0 £0 £0

Notes:

1) Growth Without Gridlock, KCC

2) Reported in Kent on Sunaday, 27th Apirl 2014 & on www.bbc.co.uk

Necessary Infrastructure - Utilities & Wastewater Funding tbc

Core Strategy Local Details Broad Lead Total cost Projected Main funding Potential Ref.for Funding Potential Amount

Plan Reference timing partners estimates spend source funding fund. info. gap Contributors tbc

Policy SS5 Following capacity By 2021 Landowners tbc up to 2020 Southern Water up to 2020 1, 2 up to 2020

District assessment linked to Developers

Infrastructure planned new housing , Southern Water 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031 2020 to 2031

Planning & if required, provision of

new wastewater mains

connection from the

southeast to Sellindge

Wastewater Treatment

Works

Total cost Total funding Funding gap Potential funding tbc

up to 2020 £0 up to 2020 £0 up to 2020 £0 Total

2020 - 2031 £0 2020 - 2031 £0 2020 - 2031 £0

All years £0 £0 £0

Notes:

1) Appendix 2, table 6.2 Strategically Necessary Infrastructure; SDC Core Strategy Local Plan

Appendix 3: Infrastructure categories under consideration for Draft R123 list CIL Regulations require that a local authority publishes the types of infrastructure to be part funded by CIL income, via a Regulation 123 (R123) list. From April 2015, CIL charges will largely replace Section 106 planning obligations for non-site specific infrastructure requirements deemed necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of developments. Site specific infrastructure requirements will however, remain subject to appropriate s106 agreements, particularly for large scale and strategic developments. The ongoing requirement for s106 agreements is likely to cover site specific mitigation measures related for example to:

• Highways and transport

• Education provision where a housing development is of significant scale to create a demand for new facilities and schools.

• Other significant site specific mitigation measures that require an on-site or off-site solution.

Bearing the above considerations in mind and the IDP’s Infrastructure cost estimates and funding gap analysis, the following broad infrastructure categories will be subject to further discussions to determine their suitability for inclusion in the Council’s draft R123 list, subject to identified projects and priorities not being supported by existing s106 agreements:

• Transport

• Green infrastructure and bio-diversity

• Education and skills facilities

• Health & social care facilities

• Libraries, community & youth facilities

• Leisure, open space, play space, and sports facilities

• Public realm enhancements

• Flood defence and coastal engineering