BOROUGH COUNCIL

STRATEGIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMME

PART OF DARTFORD’S LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

February 2011

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3 2. The Programme 3 3. Recent Changes 4 4. Proposed Way Forward 5

Appendices A. Key Milestones in the Kent Thameside Transport Programme 8 B. Evidence Base 9 C. Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme: Initial Programme for

Delivery 11 D. Reports to Dartford Council on the Transport Tariff 18 E. Transport Contributions Received/Committed 43

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This paper has been produced to support Dartford’s Core Strategy Submission document, in particular, Policy CS 16, Transport Investment. It addresses the delivery and implementation mechanisms for the transport schemes necessary to achieve the planned level of development.

1.2 The Proposed Submission evidence base contained a number of documents1

which assessed and defined the requirement for increased capacity to the transport network, as well as a mechanism for the funding and delivery of the schemes. The approach adopted is referred to as the Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme (STIP), a comprehensive package of schemes to support planned development in both Dartford and Gravesham Boroughs. Policy CS 16 refers to this programme.

1.3 Work with partners on the development of the Programme commenced in 2006. Early work focused on modelling of transport impacts arising from planned development and identifying mitigation schemes2 . The has seen a concentration on identification of funding sources, later period mechanisms for the delivery of the Programme3 and working arrangements between the partners. The core partners working together on the Programme are Dartford Council, Gravesham Council, Kent County Council, Kent Thameside Regeneration Partnership, the Highways Agency, Department for Transport and the Homes and Communities Agency. Private sector partners have been involved in developing the Programme at appropriate points in time.

1.4 Whilst the rationale for the Programme remains relevant, the mechanism for the funding and delivery of schemes is undergoing review. This paper provides an update on the situation and outlines how the Council proposes to work in partnership to deliver the programme.

2. THE PROGRAMME

2.1 The STIP was devised in response to the difficulties which were encountered when attempting to agree with developers separate mitigation packages for each site which came forward for development.4 This approach appeared likely to result in a mixture of grampian conditions, planning obligations and other planning agreements which, while relevant to the site in question, would not amount to a coherent programme for the orderly and timely provision of infrastructure addressing the cumulative impacts of development in Kent Thameside viewed as a whole. In particular the site-by-site approach did not

1 See Appendix A 2 See Appendix B for details of evidence base documents. 3 See Appendix D for reports to Dartford Council’s Cabinet regarding implementation of a tariff mechanism for seeking developer contributions. 4 See Appendix D, Report to Cabinet July 2007 for further background on the rationale of the Programme.

3

provide the Highways Agency with the confidence to agree individual developments in the area, and development in the Ebbsfleet Valley became stalled as a result.

2.2 The key features of the STIP are:

i) a transport investment programme which addresses the cumulative impact of developments taken together, based on a once-and-for all assessment;

ii) the cost of implementing the programme to be met from a pooled fund of public and private sector contributions administered by Kent County Council, as the highways authority;

iii) developer contributions to the programme to be equitably apportioned, whether by a set metric or by reference to impact assessments;

iv) schemes in the programme to be delivered in step with development; v) legally binding obligations between the partners, providing a reliable

delivery framework; vi) formal monitoring and review arrangements.

2.3 It is only with these arrangements in place that the local planning authority, the highways authority (Kent County Council) and the Highways Agency can be satisfied that the strategic transport impacts of planned development will be addressed. The additional proviso is that a sustainable transport approach is adopted within each site as set out in proposed Policy CS15.

3. RECENT CHANGES

3.1 Whilst partners are committed to the principles of the Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme, its means of implementation is undergoing review in response to legislative and economic changes.

3.2 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (March 2010) introduced CIL as a new mechanism for funding infrastructure. The legislation envisages that CIL will, to a large extent, replace the need for S106 contributions. In accordance with government’s objective to limit the scope of S106’s, the regulations (122) clarified the criteria governing S106 agreements and made these a legal requirement. They also limited the potential for seeking pooled contributions from S106’s in the future. From 2014, or from the time that a Community Infrastructure Schedule is put into effect, it will not be possible to seek contributions towards a specific item of infrastructure from more than five developments. The effect of these changes is that in the short-term, in advance of introducing CIL, it will be more difficult to operate a tariff-type system for transport contributions across as a wide area as Dartford and Gravesham, as had been previously proposed.

3.3 Secondly, the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010 (see Appendix C) has seen the withdrawal of provisional commitments to the strategic transport programme. £13m of funding to be delivered through the

4

Homes and Communities Agency, however, remains a commitment, with spending programmed to start in the 4th Quarter of 2010/11.

3.4 The downturn in the housing market has had an impact on S106 contributions from private development. Some funding has been collected towards strategic transport infrastructure and further S106’s have been signed5. However, funding committed in S106’s will not be delivered until the schemes commence on site. The anticipated slower build out rates in the short to medium term will result in contributions coming forward at a slower rate. The greatest impact arises from the Eastern Quarry S106 contribution. The phasing agreed as part of the S106 on the £40m transport contribution related to a faster development programme. With a much longer build-out, the proposed phasing is no longer considered viable by the developer. Negotiations are taking place to agree a settlement that is acceptable to the developer, whilst also ensuring that the integrity of the programme is not undermined.

4. PROPOSED WAY FORWARD

4.1 The changes outlined above indicate that in the current economic climate and economic restraint in both public and private sectors, funding for the Strategic Transport Programme will come forward more slowly. There is likely to be less certainty about the timing and amount of the future funding stream. This suggests a need to move away from a pre-planned, fully-costed and comprehensive strategic transport programme across Kent Thameside, to one which addresses transport impacts and mitigation schemes on a more local basis and is more sensitive to the timing of housing delivery and the availability of funding at a given point in time.

4.2 A locally-based or zonal approach is well-suited to current circumstances as it can enable a more focused approach to spending and accommodate funding made available in smaller tranches. Central government’s objective is to maximise the effectiveness of spending by linking funding to delivery. This can be achieved by a focus of public sector spending on those local areas or zones which look likely to bring forward the earliest development. Such an approach will facilitate the levering of private sector funding, improve viability of schemes and allow early delivery.

4.3 In advance of a Community Infrastructure Levy, the restrictions on S106’s require that a clear relationship is demonstrated between the impact of a development and a mitigation scheme. Any contribution must be proportionate to the impact. In this context, a flat rate tariff contribution towards a Kent Thameside-wide transport programme is no longer feasible. Nonetheless, the difficulties in operating contributions towards strategic transport infrastructure on a scheme-by-scheme, which led to the development of the Strategic Transport Programme, still remain. Pooling of contributions between more than one development is necessary to provide mitigation schemes which treat

5 See Appendix E for details

5

all development equitably and in a way which does not constrain development through viability issues.

4.4 Again, the local area or zonal approach allows a more appropriate response to the S106 restrictions in advance of CIL introduction. The outputs from the Kent Thameside model enable the apportionment of impacts between development schemes within the relevant local area. This can be used to derive an apportionment of costs for each mitigation scheme. The more localised basis of pooled contributions, with a clear evidence base demonstrating the link between a development and a mitigation scheme ensures compliance with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.

4.5 In the short-term, therefore, the Council is working with its partners to manage available funding by focusing available public sector funding on a local area basis. This will be combined with S106 contributions from private development, according to likely development phasing. Agreement has been reached between the partners and formal approval obtained from the HCA that an initial delivery programme utilising £13m of allocated HCA funding will focus on the town centres of Dartford and Gravesend, in the Borough of Gravesham (see Appendix C). A broad programme and costings have been prepared, with delivery of the scheme commencing in 2013/14.

4.6 Collection of private sector contributions is necessary in the short-term to ensure that opportunities to generate revenue towards the schemes are not missed. It is anticipated that a significant amount of development in Dartford will be determined through planning applications over the next 18 months, totalling over 4,000 homes, as well as employment and retail floorspace. Loss of these opportunities will put too great a burden of contributions on a limited number of later schemes. As at February 2011, work is being undertaken with developers bringing forward major schemes in Dartford Town Centre and the Northern Gateway to apportion impacts and contributions to each of the development schemes.

4.7 In the medium term, adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will overcome issues relating to Reg 122 compliance. Under CIL Regulations there is no requirement to demonstrate a direct linkage between impacts and contributions. This will enable a more flexible use of private sector contributions, allowing a wider pooling of contributions and directing funding to the most urgently required mitigation schemes. The uncertainty with regard to the timing and extent of public sector funding may remain. There will be a continuing need to strongly manage development and infrastructure phasing in relationship to each other.

4.8 A provisional timetable for the introduction of CIL is as follows:

Nov/Dec 2011 -Consultation on Draft Charging Schedule April 2012 - Submission of Charging Schedule June 2012 - Examination of Charging Schedule

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

Sept/Oct 2012 - Adoption of Charging Schedule

Progress on and adoption of the Core Strategy will provide a robust basis for taking forward a Community Infrastructure Charging Schedule, incorporating proposals for strategic transport infrastructure.

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A: KEY MILESTONES IN THE KENT THAMESIDE TRANSPORT PROGRAMME

2006/7 – Kent Thameside Vs 4 modelling carried out based on provisional South East Plan housing figure of 15,700. Impacts of proposed level of development on Kent Thameside transport network assessed. Transport schemes to mitigate impacts identified and agreed between partners.

Feb 2007 – Proposed transport schemes scoped and costed. Total programme of £166m agreed between partners.

July 2007 – Consent for Eastern Quarry development granted by Dartford Council. S106 includes £40m towards Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme, to be pooled together with other contributions.

July 2007 – Interim transport tariff introduced in Dartford based on flat rate £5,000

January 2008 – Transport tariff formally introduced in Dartford and Gravesham

November 2008 – Pubic Inquiry to consider appeal against refusal of planning permission at Knockall Road, on transport tariff grounds

March 2009 – Knockall Rd Inspectors report received – withdrawal of transport tariff

March 2010 - in principle agreement from DCLG to £23m funding towards strategic transport programme, with £13m confirmed

Sept 2010 – first outputs of Kent Thameside Vs 5 modelling, based on South East Plan housing figure of 17,340 homes

October 2011 – withdrawal of government commitment to £10m of DCLG funding, as well as confirmation that DfT funding of £50m will not be committed

March 2011 onwards – first instalment of DCLG money used towards design of Dartford Town Centre traffic scheme

8

APPENDIX B: EVIDENCE BASE

1.0 Kent Thameside Scoping Report on Transport Schemes : February 2007 1.1 The document considers a long list of committed and uncommitted transport

schemes in Kent Thameside which are identified as having potential to address identified transport issues in Kent Thameside. It provides a description and provisional costings and potential timescale for implementation of each of the schemes.

2.0 Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme : Public Consultation, August 2007

2.1 The joint Dartford and Gravesham consultation document set out the rationale for a strategic programme of transport schemes funded through a pooled fund consisting of public and private contributions. It identified a proposed package of schemes which might comprise the flexible programme and their costs. It proposed that a fixed rate tariff of £5,000 on new homes be applied.

2.2 Views were sought on the components of the package, how the scheme could be flexibly operated, the principle of a fixed rate approach, whether the amount proposed was reasonable, whether commercial development should also contribute, and a number of other matters relating to the operation of the scheme.

3.0 Kent Thameside Development of the Transport Strategy – Technical Summary Draft, October 2008

3.1 The report analyses the transport context and issues to be addressed in Dartford and Gravesham. It develops a transport strategy, consisting of a basket of components, as a way of responding to future transport pressures. The components of the strategy include demand management, public transport, walking and cycling, parking, Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC), wider traffic management and trunk road management.

3.2 Transport modelling and forecasting studies were carried out to assess future transport demand and network performance. The modelling assumed reduced trip rates resulting from a modal shift away from car journeys and towards public transport, walking and cycling. Even taking this into account, forecasting showed that by 2025 the number of trips would increase by approximately 60%.

3.3 Modelling was carried out to identify junctions at capacity in 2005, those at capacity at 2025 without any mitigation and those at capacity with an identified package of mitigation measures, including already committed schemes, as well as further schemes to specifically address the problem bottlenecks. The conclusion was that, on the basis of limited amount of modal shift modelled, the mitigation measures would not remove the transport bottlenecks but they would reduce the severity of congestion and delays. Further improvements are predicted to occur through implementation of further transport management measures.

9

 

 

4.0 Kent Thameside Modelling Results of the Strategic Transport Investment Package : January 2008

4.1 Provides a description of the Kent Thameside Transport Model, the assumptions used in carrying out the modelling and future schemes used as a basis for the modelling. The results of the modelling are reported and further work required is identified.

5.0 Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme, Economic Appraisal for Communities and Local Government: Nov 2008

5.1 The ‘Green Book’ Economic Appraisal was carried out in support of the bid to government to partly fund the Kent Thameside transport programme. The report provides an overview of the project. It focuses on an assessment of 3 options for funding intervention by government, alongside a ‘no funding’ reference case. The value-for-money and effectiveness of each of the options was assessed. Risk and sensitivity analysis was also carried out on the Preferred Option – a £23m single upfront payment. The study concluded that whilst the programme was very sensitive to changes in the cashflow profile, there was good overall performance in terms of value for money. In view of the sensitivities, there was a need for strong project and financial management. Proposed management and governance arrangements to address this were set out.

6.0 Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme, Economic Appraisal for Communities and Local Government: Sept 2009

6.1 Following the first economic appraisal, the Homes and Communities Agency requested that an update be prepared to consider the impact of significant changes that had occurred. The revised report considers the changes resulting from amongst other things, effects of the recession, challenges to the tariff and increased South East Plan targets. The analysis, taking into account new assumptions, concluded that the programme as a whole was still viable and that the preferred option of a £23m single up-front payment still provided best value for money and effectiveness. It was noted that the certainty provided to the development industry under this option was highly significant. It would provide a strong impetus for achieving each of the required funding elements, including the levering of private sector funds.

7.0 Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme (Homes and Roads): Report to Dartford Council’s Cabinet 22 April 2010

7.1 Confirmation of the first tranche of Homes and Communities Agency funding of £7.5M towards the Strategic Transport programme was reported. It was noted that the government had accepted the principle for the funding and management of the programme as a whole. It was expected that the balance of the £23m would be released over the next four years. The report also set out the intention that Dartford would use the Community Infrastructure Levy framework as a means of securing developer contributions.

10

 

                                                                          

                                                                 

           

                                                                               

                    

                                                                                                                              

                                  

                                        

                                      

                                              

                                                                              

                                               

                      

APPENDIX C: Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme: An Initial Programme for Delivery

Paper produced for the Homes and Roads Implementation Group, 17 December 2010

Introduction The Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme (KTSTP) is a £200m investment in a package of key transport infrastructure improvements aimed at enabling significant levels of growth across the Kent Thameside area that would bring about economic regeneration. The SE Plan set a target of 26,640 additional homes in the Kent Thameside area by 2026 and across the broader Kent Thames Gateway area a target of 58,000 new jobs. The 11 schemes currently included in the KTSTP are: ‐

A2 Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements A2 Bean Junction Improvements A2 Demand Management Measures B262 Hall Road Junction Improvement A226 London Rd/St Clements Way Junction Improvement A226 Thames Way (STDR4) Dualling Urban Traffic Management & Control (UTMC) Measures Dartford Town Centre Improvements Rathmore Road Link, Gravesend A206 Marsh Street Junction Improvements Fastrack – Northfleet to Garrick Street

Although the SE Plan no longer exists as a regional planning document significant growth is still planned for Kent Thameside. The extent and timescale for the delivery of this growth will be determined by the Local Planning Authorities (Dartford and Gravesham Borough Councils) through the adoption of Local Development Frameworks. The KTSTP remains a key investment supporting the Local Development Frameworks the only change being that the planned level of growth is no longer driven by the achievement of SE Plan targets.

Funding for the KTSTP is a mix of public sector grants and private sector contributions with funding from the following sources anticipated: ‐

Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) £23m cash price Department for Transport (DfT) £26m at 2007 prices (£32m cash price) Regional Transport Programme (DfT) £46m at 2008 prices Eastern Quarry S.106 Contribution £40m at 2007 prices Further Developer Contributions £63m at 2009 prices

A key principle of the KTSTP is that the infrastructure would be provided in advance of the full level of planned development being delivered. This avoids unnecessary congestion and prevents individual development sites being blocked by the lack of sustainable transport infrastructure. The programme approach also overcomes the complexities caused the key infrastructure improvements being the result of the impacts from a number of different development sites. The programme approach allows the pooling of resources.

11

                                                                                

                                                         

                                                          

                                                              

                                                    

                                                

 

   

                                                          

                                              

                                  

                                                    

                     

               

 

       

                                                                           

                                              

 

                                                    

                                                    

                       

The KTSTP is also part of wider transport strategy for Kent Thameside that has the principle aim of increasing the level of travel by more sustainable forms of transport. Significant investment would be made in public transport provision, pedestrian routes and the cycle network. Development would also be planned to reduce the need top travel through the integration of homes, jobs, retail, services and leisure facilities as far as possible.

The more recent economic slow down has seen a significant reduction in the level of development being delivered and the forecast of a slow recovery. The KTSTP is being planned over a 15‐20 year period and some point in time development will pick up. The KTSTP would be kept under review to ensure that delivery of the transport improvements is kept in line with the progress of development. However, the planning process does mean that although development may have slowed down planning applications have to be processed and developer contributions secured towards the KTSTP. The ability to achieve these contributions relies on the assurance that the KTSTP would be delivered.

HCA Funding An economic appraisal of the KTSTP, meeting the requirements of HM Treasury Green

Book, was submitted to HCA in September 2009. This was a revised version of an early economic appraisal submitted in November 2008 taking account of the changed economic circumstances. On the basis of this economic appraisal, and supplementary information supplied on request, funding was subsequently approved by the HCA, a Ministerial Review Group, CLG and HM Treasury.

A funding agreement executed between Kent County Council (KCC) and the Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) on 31st March 2010 provided a funding allocation of £23m for the KTS Strategic Transport Programme (subject to conditions) with the following profile: ‐

2009/10 £7.5m 2010/11 £5.5m 2011/12 £4m 2012/13 £3m 2013/14 £3m

Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review Following the election of the Coalition Government in May 2010 an announcement

was made that all investment decisions made by the previous Government from January 2010 onwards would be subject to review. The Government also announced that a Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) would be undertaken to review future funding commitments by Government with the aim of finding significant cuts in public sector funding.

Confirmation was subsequently received that the £13m HCA funding allocated up to the end of March 2011 was secure but the remaining £10m provisionally allocated for the period 20011/12 to 2013/14 was to be included within the CSR. The anticipated £26m funding from the Department for Transport (DfT) was also included within the Government’s CSR. Further option testing, looking at different public sector funding

12

                                    

                                                      

                                                      

                                                          

                                                              

                     

                                               

                                                                                    

                                                        

                                                

 

     

                                                                                 

                                                                                    

                                                       

                                                                                

                                                                       

                                

          

                                               

                       

scenarios for the KTSTP, were carried out to support the HCA and DfT funding commitments through the CSR process.

The headline results of the CSR were announced on 20th October 2010 and following this the Minister for Thames Gateway announced on 8th December that the £10m HCA funding would not be forthcoming during the next CSR period (2011/12 to 2013/14). A further review would be carried out regarding this funding at a later date.

The DfT announced the National Scheme Programme on 28th October but this did not feature the KTSTP, or any of the schemes contained within in, because entry into the DfT’s programme had not been achieved prior to the CSR. It is understood that the £26m DfT funding for the programme is still identified but would not be available before 2017/18 and would be subject to further prioritisation in the next CSR round.

The £46m that was provisionally allocated towards the A2 Bean Junction improvement depends on the funding mechanisms that will replace the Regional Transport Programme. This will involve the work that is being done in relation to the Government’s agenda for Local Enterprise Partnerships and the Regional Growth Fund. The options appraisal testing that was carried out for the CSR highlighted that this funding was essential if the improvements to the A2 Bean Junction were to remain a priority. Without a dedicated funding stream for Bean Junction its improvement would impose a burden on the KTSTP that would mean few of the other planned improvements could be implemented which in turn would reduce the level of development that could be sustained.

Initial Delivery Programme The current situation regarding public sector funding commitments to the KTSTP and

the relative slow down in some of the major development sites in Kent Thameside has led to an assessment of the programme to determine a pragmatic approach to progress its delivery. It is proposed that an Initial Delivery Programme is brought forward that would utilise the £13m already allocated by the HCA. This would deliver part of the KTSTP with the limited funding currently available whilst incurring an acceptable level of risk.

This Initial Delivery Programme would focus on the existing town centres of Dartford and Gravesend. This would result in the delivery of two of the schemes currently included in the KTSTP namely, the proposed Dartford Town Centre Improvements and Rathmore Road Link in Gravesend. Both of these schemes were originally planned for early delivery within the KTSTP. Each scheme would allow a number of development sites situated within or adjacent to the town centres to be brought forward providing new residential and commercial premises. The development and transport improvements would assist the regeneration of the town centres, support other public/private sector initiatives that are being delivered and could stimulate further activity in Kent Thameside by being an outward sign of progress.

i) Dartford Town Centre Improvements

Transport improvements for Dartford town centre were identified in the Dartford Town Centre Area Action Plan – Preferred Options Document produced in September 2007. Although this document was formally withdrawn in January 2009, planned improvements to

13

                              

                                              

                                          

                                    

                                      

                                

                       

                                                

                                  

          

                                                      

                                                         

                                                                       

                                                       

                                                    

                                                   

                                                

          

                                                                                 

                                                   

the transport network in the town centre would still aim to overcome the main weaknesses identified namely: ‐

Improving traffic flow through and around the town centre to ease congestion and improve air quality by providing alterations to the existing ring road.

Improved access to development sites in and adjacent to the town centre by both road traffic and more sustainable forms of transport.

Better provision for buses and improved integration with the town centre, railway station and other sustainable forms of transport.

Improvements to environment and better facilities and routes for both pedestrian and cycle movements into and around the town centre.

A reduction of the severance effect caused by both the railway embankment and the existing ring road.

Improved visual and physical links between the railway station and town centre.

The Initial Delivery Programme would enable the transport improvements for the town centre to be more clearly defined and identify those improvements that could be implemented directly by developers as opposed to those that cannot be directly associated with any single development site.

ii) Rathmore Road Link, Gravesend

A draft Masterplan has set out the broad context and proposals for the Gravesend Transport Quarter. This was used by Gravesham BC to produce the Gravesend Transport Quarter Delivery Plan in August 2008. One of the principal aims of the Gravesend Transport Quarter is to create a major gateway for Gravesend town centre with a transport interchange that integrates the railway station with bus services and taxis. Links between the Civic Centre and areas south of the railway to the retail and Heritage Quarters within the town centre would also be improved.

To achieve this, existing through‐traffic would need to be removed from its current route along Barrack Row/Clive Road. Rathmore Road is situated to the south of the railway line running between Stone Street and Darnley Road. The proposed Rathmore Road Link would see the existing road upgraded to accommodate traffic travelling through and around Gravesend town centre. Rathmore Road Link is, therefore, a key element of the Gravesend Transport Quarter proposals but the scheme also provides wider benefits for development within and adjacent to the town centre by relieving what is currently a congested section of the road network through and around the town centre.

iii) Indicative Timescale & Expenditure

Annex A shows an indicative timescale for the delivery of the two town centre schemes and an estimate of the expenditure. This is an ambitious programme for the delivery of these two schemes. The timescale anticipates work commencing on the development of both schemes in the final quarter of the current financial year (2010/11). The current estimated dates for the Start of Construction for each scheme are: ‐

14

                               

                                                        

                                                                             

                                                      

                                                                                                                                            

                                                                               

                            

   

                                                                             

                                                        

                                          

   

                                                           

                         

                                                                      

                                                    

                                                  

                                                     

                                    

Dartford Town Centre Improvements 2nd Quarter 2013/14 Rathmore Road Link, Gravesend 4th Quarter 2012/13

Some initial design work has already been carried out for Rathmore Road Link as part of the designs for the Gravesend Transport Quarter which should help the relatively short preparation period prior to construction. The planning process for this scheme is also expected to be uncomplicated as the land required is believed to be within local authority ownership and improvements would be contiguous with the existing highway boundary.

A slightly longer period has been allowed for the development of the Dartford Town Centre Improvements as these are at an earlier stage and will require co‐ordination with proposals being put forward by key development sites. At this stage it has been assumed that implementation would be a rolling programme of works over a 30 month period as it will be important to minimise disruption as far as possible. Some of the implementation of this scheme is likely to be carried out as part of development proposals and co‐ordination of the works will need to take this into account.

Early in the development of both of the schemes more definitive information will be obtained on the cost estimates, expenditure profile, risks involved and timescale for delivery. As with the KTSTP, this Initial Delivery Programme will be closely monitored with regular updates on the progress and any potential problems that could delay the schemes.

iv) Funding

The Initial Delivery Programme is based on utilising the £13m allocated by the HCA for the current spending review period (2009/10 and 2010/11) with the remaining funding being secured from developers. It is currently estimated that the development sites identified as being within or in close proximity to the two town centres could potentially provide contributions of around £13m. This would cover the shortfall in funding including an allowance for the developer contributions being received beyond the planned delivery timescale and covering any costs of borrowing that are needed.

v) Outputs

Development sites identified in or around the town centres that could be brought forward as a result of implementing the two schemes are shown in Table 1. These sites are in addition to those that already had planning permission granted by September 2009.

It is estimated that the Dartford Town Centre Improvements would result in around 2,000 additional residential dwellings and around 35,000m2 of commercial development from sites that do not currently have planning permission. The transport improvements for the town centre would enable development in the Lowfield Street, Station Approach, Overy Street, Millpond, former Co‐Op site areas along with part of the Northern Gateway sites.

It is estimated that the Rathmore Road Link would result in around 1150 additional residential dwellings and around 19,000m2 of commercial development from sites that do not currently have planning permission. The link road would assist development in the Heritage Quarter, Stuart Road and Gravesend Community Hospital areas of the town centre. The scheme is critical to the delivery of Gravesend Transport Quarter that is already being progressed by Gravesham BC.

15

                                            

 

     

                                                                                   

                                            

                       

                                                      

                                                        

               

                                              

                 

          

In total this Initial Delivery Programme could be expected to result in around 3,150 additional residential dwellings and around 54,000m2 of commercial development.

Summary & Conclusions This Initial Delivery Programme has focused on schemes that can be brought forward

with the limited funding that is currently available but would form part of the overall KTSTP. Both of the schemes selected were scheduled for early delivery within the KTSTP. Progressing with this Initial Delivery Programme would show a commitment to supporting development in Kent Thameside, enabling developer contributions to be secured, and resolve some of the key transport issues within the existing town centres.

In the unlikely event that no further public sector funding was forthcoming for the KTSTP the schemes could be delivered in isolation and would assist the regeneration of Dartford and Gravesend town centres. The full benefits of the regeneration of the Kent Thameside area would not be realised but the benefits of some 3,150 residential dwellings and 54,000m2 of commercial development could be achieved.

With the confirmation of additional public sector funding, the Initial Delivery Programme could be adapted and built upon to bring forward the development and implementation of other schemes contained in the KTSTP.

Stephen Dukes KCC, Regeneration & Economy

16

APPENDIX D : REPORTS TO DARTFORD COUNCIL ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPORT TARIFF

CABINET 26 JULY 2007

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL 30 JULY 2007

KENT THAMESIDE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT PROGRAMME All wards affected 1. Summary 1.1 This is a Key Decision as it is significant in terms of its effects on

communities living or working in an area of the Borough comprising two or more wards.

1.2 This report sets out a proposal for securing a long-term programme of transport investment for Kent Thameside. This programme is needed both to mitigate the effects of development proposed in the South East Plan, and to manage growth in background traffic. It goes hand in hand with planning measures already in place to minimise inessential car use and encourage sustainable travel.

1.3 The report seeks approval to consult on the introduction of a planning policy to raise developer contributions for the programme by way of a tariff levied on new homes, and asks the General Assembly of the Council to adopt such a policy on an interim basis with immediate effect, with possible adjustments following consultation.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 To the Cabinet:

2.1.1 That the proposed arrangements for funding a Strategic Transport Programme by means of pooled developer contributions raised through a tariff, as set out in the body of this report, be approved for the purposes of consultation as part of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

2.1.2 That external legal and financial advice be sought on the options for establishing a legal entity to implement a Strategic Transport Programme for Kent Thameside.

2.1.3 That the Managing Director be granted delegated authority to fund the cost of legal and financial advice as set out in section 5 of this report from whatever budget or reserve he deems most appropriate and approve any virements if required.

2.2 To the General Assembly of the Council:

17

2.2.1 That the policy set out in Appendix A, requiring developers to contribute a tariff of £5,000 per home as a condition of the grant of planning permission, be adopted as a material planning consideration for development control purposes with immediate effect.

2.2.2 That the policy be kept under review in the light of consultation findings and experience in operation, and that further reports be received in the event that adjustments are required.

2.2.3 That a further report be brought forward, giving effect to the operating framework within which a Strategic Transport Programme for Kent Thameside will be implemented, as soon as practicable.

3. Background and Discussion

General considerations

3.1. The general scale and format of development in Dartford have been determined by Government, first by the designation of Ebbsfleet as one of the key economic drivers of the Thames Gateway, with a commercial hub around the proposed International Passenger Station, and secondly by the South East Plan, which is expected to set a development quantum for Dartford of 15,500 homes and 30,000 jobs to be achieved by 2026.

3.2. For the Kent Thameside area, which encompasses the non-rural parts of Dartford and Gravesham, the targets are 25,000 homes and 50-60,000 jobs.

3.3. The Council’s Local Development Framework, which is currently in preparation, will set out the detailed policy framework within which individual development schemes will be brought forward to fulfil these targets, while also achieving locally important objectives such as sustainable development, community integration and quality of life.

3.4. These developments will be brought forward against a background of strategic change throughout the Thames Gateway which make future patterns of movement difficult to predict.

3.5. The overall Kent Thameside growth targets represent a planned attempt to create a more sustainable North Kent economy which is less reliant on external commuting: it proposes two jobs for every new home, with development at Ebbsfleet International Station the main economic driver. The more successful Ebbsfleet becomes as a commercial centre, the greater the opportunity to localise work journeys and reduce long distance commuting, although by the same token reverse commuting patterns are likely to be induced. Overall, these shifts could well generate net travel benefits for Dartford.

18

3.6. The recently-approved port development at Shellhaven in Essex has the potential to redistribute patterns of freight movement significantly, but the true effect will depend on how radically the logistics industry responds to this new facility. The Government has now commissioned the Lower Thames Crossing study, the case for which it could be argued is enhanced by Shellhaven. The Lower Thames Crossing is a long-term proposition which cannot easily be factored into current plans and programmes for development at Kent Thameside, but it offers the prospect of a lasting solution to Dartford’s transport problems.

3.7. In the meantime, however, one of the Council’s most significant challenges is to provide a way forward for the foreseeable future which delivers the transport schemes (infrastructure and management schemes) which we currently think are needed to manage the demands generated by this scale of development, as well as increases in background traffic.

3.8. Until now, the Council, working with Kent County Council (the Highways Authority) and the Highways Agency, has sought to agree with developers a package of measures specific to each separate development, which would enable that development to proceed. Each package has been secured through legal agreements and/or conditions attached to planning permissions.

3.9. This approach has raised a number of difficulties. The principal ones are:

i) the transport impact of development is cumulative; it cannot easily be directly associated with any one site, and it is difficult therefore to agree a self-contained package of measures for each development;

ii) the pattern of transport investment which arises from a site-specific approach is piecemeal, and is dependent on each development coming forward at a particular time and in a particular sequence;

iii) the site-specific approach forces the Council to agree all the details of each transport package at the time when planning permission is granted, whereas external circumstances may change throughout the development programme, leading to transport requirements or opportunities which are new and/or different to those agreed.

3.10. These and other difficulties have led to significant planning delays, notably (but not only) in relation to the Eastern Quarry, where the Highways Agency has been reluctant to clear the way for a planning permission which the Council agreed in principle to grant in 2005.

Work in progress

3.11. In order to find a more reliable and coherent approach to transport planning, the Council has been engaged for the last eighteen months with its regeneration partners on a programme of work which has been managed by the Chief Executive of the Kent Thameside Delivery Board, with the involvement of Gravesham Borough Council, Kent County Council and the Highways Agency. There has also been liaison with the Departments of

19

3.12. The programme of work included the following:

i) updating and running the Kent Thameside Transport Model, which provides strategic (but not detailed) projections of the likely traffic conditions making different assumptions about the level and phasing of development, the effect of different transport policies and so on;

ii) devising and costing a package of possible transport measures which, taken together with the measures outlined in paragraph 3.20, would mitigate the transport impacts identified from the modelling;

iii) a consultancy project, advising the partners on the scope for, and issues arising from, the introduction of a scheme for funding transport measures from pooled developer contributions, in particular by means of a flat-rate tariff.

3.13. The outcomes of this work are being compiled into an evidence base which will be made available as soon as practicable. The key conclusions of the work taken as a whole are reflected in this report.

3.14. This work builds upon the principles enshrined in existing plans for Kent Thameside which seek to minimise inessential car journeys by balancing residential and employment development at both the strategic and local level, planning sustainable communities in which facilities are located conveniently to encourage walking, cycling and linked trips, and Public Transport Orientated Development which is an essential basis for future development on KTS. Public transport, in particular Fastrack, is critical to the performance of the transport network in the future but is not sufficient on its own.

Transport Impact

3.15. The modelling has not considered all the possible permutations of development and associated transport schemes. However, interpolating from the results available it would be generally true to say that the full quantum of development envisaged in the South East Plan, i.e. 25,000 homes and 50,000 jobs in Kent Thameside, requires a successful demand management policy to support it, which will minimise the number of journeys taking place by private car, as well as a very significant level of investment in the road and public transport network.

3.16. Such a programme would be over and above those transport schemes which would be likely to come forward through site-specific agreements of the type currently being negotiated through the development control system.

3.17. Even if such a programme were to be implemented, traffic conditions will be worse than at present. The modelling work suggests that average peak journey times across Kent Thameside would be 25 to 30% slower than today, with the worst delays in the evening peak. On the other hand, public transport

20

Strategic Transport Programme

3.18. From the work undertaken it has been possible to identify an illustrative programme of eleven schemes, at a cost of £166 million (at today’s prices), which at the present time appears capable of reasonably containing the transport impacts across Kent Thameside, but which is not currently fully funded. The schemes comprising this illustrative programme, and their expected likely timing, are presented in Appendix B.

3.19. Some of the schemes in the illustrative programme are reasonably well defined and can be costed with a fair degree of precision. Others are less developed, and further work will be required before their nature and cost can be firmly established. To reflect this, and to also take some account of the uncertain effects of cost inflation, cashflow management and financing, a contingency sum of £21.6 million (15%) has been included in the programme.

3.20. It should be noted that these schemes are over and above the site-specific transport schemes which would be secured in any event as each development comes forward. For example, it is envisaged that the Eastern Quarry development package will include, as well as internal road network and connections to the surrounding roads, a Fastrack connection through the site with other feeder bus routes, and arrangements for revenue subsidy to guarantee the necessary services on these routes. They are also overlain upon a land use and transport strategy which seeks to minimise car use at source, through a combination of planning and demand management measures.

3.21. It should also be noted that the content and phasing of the programme needs to be kept under constant review, so that it remains consistent with changing circumstances and with our developing understanding of the transport environment.

Implementation of the Strategic Transport Programme: Funding Considerations

3.22. It would be neither appropriate nor practicable to fund the entire strategic transport programme from developer contributions. In the first place, not all of the transport problems arise as a direct or sole consequence of development, although development aggravates them. In the second place, the development value vested in the sites, most of which are expensive to develop and are required to fund many other facilities besides transport, is insufficient to provide all the funding required.

3.23. Discussions have therefore proceeded on the assumption that the programme will be funded from a mixture of public and private sector contributions. As a result of these discussions the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) has recently confirmed funding commitments amounting to £74 million towards the programme, including £51 million from the

21

3.24. This commitment leaves £92 million to be funded from developer contributions when planning permission is granted. It should be noted that such contributions cannot be levied retrospectively, and therefore this financial burden will need to be shared between those development schemes for which planning permission has not yet been granted. In Dartford and Gravesham (excluding the rural areas south of the A2) these schemes are likely to account for some 10,458 homes to reach the targets in the South East Plan (6,094 in Dartford and 4,364 in Gravesham).

3.25. These figures exclude Eastern Quarry, where the Council has resolved to grant outline planning permission for 6,250 homes and commercial development on condition that a financial contribution of £40 million is made towards the funding of the strategic transport programme.

3.26. The gap remaining to be funded via developer contributions is therefore some £52 million (£166 million less Government contributions of £74 million and Eastern Quarry contribution of £40 million). Spread equally between 10,458 homes this equates to just under £5,000 per home.

3.27. It is recommended that these contributions are levied by means of a flat-rate tariff on each home permitted. This option has the merit of being clear and predictable, and fair to all residential developers. It could be argued that different types of residential development in different locations can generate different traffic impacts and hence should be charged at differing rates, but these are difficult arguments to prove beyond question and would lead back to the site-by-site approach described in paragraphs 3.8 to 3.10 of this report, which has only resulted in delay and uncertainty.

3.28. It is not proposed at this stage to levy a comparable tariff for non-residential development. Although commercial development also generates transport demands which the developer should contribute to meeting, it is more problematic to reduce the requirement for financial contributions to a simple formula. Commercial development can take a wider variety of forms than residential development, including anything from prime office development and high value hotels to local shops and industrial units, each with very different traffic generating characteristics and different viability margins.

3.29. Therefore, while commercial developments will be expected to contribute where appropriate and reasonable to strategic infrastructure, it is proposed that these contributions are kept outside the tariff arrangements. The calculations set out below do not take account of these non-residential contributions because their scale is difficult to predict. It should be noted, however, that the majority of future commercial growth is the subject of pre-existing planning consents, including those for Crossways, Ebbsfleet and The Bridge.

22

3.30. On the basis of a tariff of £5,000 per home, the funding package would be as follows:

£ million

PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTION

LAND SECURITIES EQ2 40.00

DBC TARIFF 6094 @ £5K = 30.47

GBC TARIFF 4364 @ £5K = 21.82

SUB-TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTION 92.29

PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRIBUTION

CLG 23.00

DfT (INCLUDING REGIONAL ALLOCATION) 51.00

SUB-TOTAL PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRIBUTION 74.00

TOTAL FUND 166.29

3.31. It should be noted that even if the programme is fully funded, it will still be necessary to manage short-term funding deficits if the revenue stream cannot be matched to the expenditure profile. The cashflow profile is subject to a number of variables, the principal ones being the timing of receipts from the various sources of contributions, and the staging of payments for works carried out.

3.32. Both of these elements can be managed to some degree. Discussions are ongoing with Government Departments to establish the basis upon which the public sector contributions will be made, and with Land Securities to agree the payments profile for their £40 million contribution. So far as the tariff payments are concerned, these need to be set in such a way as to acknowledge the developers’ own cashflow constraints, but also to ensure the programme is serviced. It is envisaged that a formula will be established which enables a proportion of the payments to be made on grant of planning permission and/or start of works, with the balance linked to annual completions.

3.33. Appendix B shows an illustration of the cashflow profile based on best current assumptions. It should be noted that this profile shows a cashflow deficit arising in years 9 to 19 of the programme. A means will need to be identified, probably including borrowing, to manage this deficit.

23

Operating Framework

3.34. In earlier paragraphs of this report the need for a flexible programme is explained, so that the commissioning of schemes from the programme (and if necessary the introduction of new or modified schemes) can be kept under review and timed to coincide with the changing transport environment and related external circumstances.

3.35. This flexibility, together with the commissioning arrangements, financial management and governance, needs to be built into an operating framework which defines how the programme will be put into practice.

3.36. The broad shape of the operating framework would be that when planning permissions are granted for new residential development, financial contributions are secured through S106 obligations to a common fund which will provide the private sector element of the strategic transport programme fund. The contributions will be by way of a tariff levied at a flat rate for each home. Tariff payments will be index-linked to a base date, using an appropriate index which will proof the tariff against cost price inflation. The Construction Prices Index is likely to provide the best basis for indexation.

3.37. Such contributions will be over and above the continuing requirement to provide other community infrastructure either by direct provision within each development or through contributions. They will also be over and above those transport elements which are directly associated with the development in question such as internal road and public transport systems and connections to the surrounding network, and sustainable travel arrangements.

3.38. The fund will then be managed in such a way as to ensure that the strategic transport schemes from the programme are brought forward as required, and in relation to the unfolding sequence of development.

3.39. To give effect to this general arrangement a number of specific requirements need to be met. The key ones are:

i) a decision-making process, because the exact content and timing of the programme will not be decided at the point a planning permission is granted, but will be kept under continual review;

ii) technical advice, so that decisions about the programme are made in an informed way and can be justified by evidence;

iii) financial management;

iv) a commissioning arrangement, to ensure that schemes are commissioned according to the decisions made about the programme;

v) accountability, to ensure that those parties contributing to the programme fund are given confidence that their contributions are deployed fairly and in a manner which is generally related to the needs of their developments.

24

3.40. It is considered that the decision-making must remain vested in the local authorities. These are the statutory bodies in whom development control and highways powers are vested, and it is important that they retain the powers needed to ensure that the transport schemes which they require as part of an approved development are delivered.

3.41 It is therefore envisaged that the three local authorities will retain overall control over the programming of schemes, with technical advice by Kent County Council and the Highways Agency. The programme will be reviewed at least annually and delivery targets adjusted as appropriate.

3.42 The implementation of the programme needs to be managed by a fit-for purpose agency which is established as a legal entity and an accountable body. This could either be an existing body (a local authority or other agency) or a purpose-designed body. The role of the implementing agency would be to secure the commissioning of schemes according to the agreed programme.

3.43 Arrangements are also required for the collection and management of the financial contributions, both from developers (tariff and other) and from direct Government match funding, the servicing of cashflow and the financing of the projects. These arrangements could be vested in the implementing agency or subject to separate contractually binding arrangements.

3.44 There are various models under which these arrangements can be secured, each of which raises detailed issues for consideration by the parties. It is suggested that external advice is taken on the most appropriate form of arrangements to meet the needs of the programme and satisfy the requirements of the principal parties.

3.45 The implementing agency would directly commission those schemes which are to be fully funded by the common fund. It would also where necessary make contributions from the common fund towards schemes which are brought forward through established programmes such as the trunk roads programme, relying upon the existing commissioning arrangements for such schemes.

3.46 It is proposed that accountability be achieved by means of an arms-length consultative board comprising the local authorities and the contributors to the fund. The purpose of the consultative board would be to enable two-way passage of information. The local authorities would report on the use of the fund to date and the proposals for future years’ funding, while the contributors would provide information about their expected development programmes and the transport needs arising from these. It is expected that the local authorities would publish an annual report setting out a formal review of the programme. The Kent Thameside Delivery Board could also be represented on the consultative board.

3.47 The Highways Agency has been involved in discussions about these proposed arrangements. The Agency will need to be satisfied that the detailed arrangements provide a reliable basis for bringing forward a programme of transport improvements. However they have indicated their acceptance of the

25

Statutory Planning Framework

3.48 In order to give effect to these proposed arrangements the Council will need to establish a statutory planning policy which ties the strategic transport programme into its development proposals, and which requires developers to make tariff payments when planning permission is granted. This will be a policy within the Core Strategy of the Council’s Local Development Framework. The tariff amount will be kept under review and set by means of a Supplementary Planning Document. All Local Development Documents require an evidence base and a consultation trail.

3.49 The current Local Development Scheme envisages that the core Strategy will not be formally adopted until 2009. However, unless a tariff policy is introduced with immediate effect it will not be possible to capture contributions from those developments which are already in the planning pipeline, and a significant proportion of the required funding will then be foregone. This could put the achievement of the overall programme at risk, or alternatively would transfer an unfair proportion of the funding burden on those developments which are approved after 2009.

3.50 Given that developments are already experiencing unacceptable planning delays as a result of funding uncertainties, and that it is strongly in the public interest to resolve this situation urgently to prevent a further backlog of development, it is considered justifiable to introduce the proposed arrangements now, on the understanding that further consultation within the statutory requirements will follow, and that the policy will remain under review until such time as it can be statutorily adopted. However it will be regarded as a material consideration for development control purposes from the outset.

3.51 The interim policy is set out at Appendix A. It should be noted that there is an existing statutory planning framework for such a policy, provided by the Borough of Dartford Local Plan Policies T1 and T2, and the Kent and Medway Structure Plan policies QL12 and IM1. Policy CC5 of the draft South East Plan is also relevant. The interim policy therefore establishes the detailed arrangements by means of which these existing policies will be implemented.

3.52 It is anticipated that Gravesham Borough Council will also adopt an interim policy this month, enabling the arrangements to be introduced throughout the Kent Thameside area.

Relationship to the Corporate Plan

Regeneration: to set a clear vision for the pattern of growth in Dartford, matching residential development with job creation, ensuring that new

26

4

5

developments provide the right conditions and infrastructure for community life to flourish, and enhancing Dartford’s physical environment.

Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications The financial implications of operating the Strategic Transport Programme are set out in general terms in the body of this report. No financial liabilities in respect of the programme accrue to the Council as a result of the recommendations. The cost of obtaining legal and financial advice as suggested in 2.1.2 is estimated at no more than £20,000, and can be capped at this amount initially. There is no specific budget for this expenditure and delegated authority is sought for the Managing Director to determine the most appropriate funding mechanism.

Legal Implications A Local Planning Authority can secure financial contributions towards the provision of infrastructure and facilities, through Section 106 Agreements. Such contributions should comply with the requirements of ODPM Circular 05/2006 in that they should be:

Relevant to planning

Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms

Directly related to the proposed development

Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development

Reasonable in all other respects This report sets out a reasoned case for a tariff approach which it is considered meets these tests. Legal advice will need to be sought on aspects of administering the programme, particularly if it is considered that a legal entity needs to be established to undertake some of the functions.

Staffing Implications None at this stage

Administrative Implications As set out in the report

27

Risk Assessment There is a risk that a tariff system will not deliver all of the funding required to finance the programme, for example if development does not proceed as quickly as planned. However, in the event of a slow rate of development it is likely that the infrastructure delivery programme can also be slowed down, as development-related traffic impacts will not materialise so quickly. There is a risk that traffic conditions will not materialise as predicted, and that schemes different from those currently envisaged will become necessary. The proposed programming arrangements allow for this, as the finance is not ring-fenced to particular schemes and the programme will be kept under review. This is a more flexible arrangement than would be possible under the more traditional method of securing developer obligations specific to each site, and agreed at the point of planning permission. There is a risk that developers will challenge the validity of a flat-rate tariff. To mitigate this risk a planning justification has been advanced which demonstrates that the tariff approach offers the most reliable, fair and flexible solution to the problem facing all the parties involved in bringing forward development. The proposed policy has an existing foundation in statutory planning policies for development infrastructure, and will be incorporated into the Council’s Local Development Framework as soon as practicable. Although the policy initially has interim status, the Council has offered a sound justification as to why it should be introduced with immediate effect, so that all developments not yet consented will contribute equally.

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

A: Interim Policy on Strategic Transport tariff B: Illustrative Strategic Transport Programme and cashflow profile

28

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt File Ref Directorate Information

Category

29

Appendix A: Interim Policy on Strategic Transport Tariff

This policy establishes the detailed arrangements by which policies saved policies T1 and T2 of the Borough of Dartford adopted Local Plan, policies QL12 and IM1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan and Policy CC5 of the Draft South East Plan Core Document will be implemented.

Residential development north of the A2 (as shown on the map) will be required to contribute to a common pool to fund the strategic transport improvements needed to support the sustainable growth of the area.

The required improvements are set out in the form of a Strategic Transport Programme which will be reviewed annually by Dartford Borough Council, Gravesham Borough Council and Kent County Council. The current proposed Strategic Transport Programme is attached at Appendix A.

The contribution will be by way of a standard tariff of £5,000 per dwelling, at 2007/8 prices. The tariff will be linked to the Construction Price index and will be revised annually every April, commencing at April 2008.

The tariff will apply to all new residential development comprising 10 or more units. Conversion of buildings to 10 or more housing units will also be subject to the tariff, with the exception of the conversion of single family homes.

Commercial development is excluded from payment of the fixed rate tariff. Financial contributions will, nonetheless, be sought from applicants for commercial development towards the strategic transport programme and will be assessed on the merits of each scheme.

The tariff will be payable at the commencement of work on the site. For larger schemes, where development is phased, payments will be made at the commencement of each phase of the scheme in relation to the number of units to be provided in that phase.

The tariff will cover contributions to the Strategic Transport Programme only and will not replace other S106 or S278 contributions, in particular, site-specific transport measures, or requirements relating to other community infrastructure and facilities.

This interim policy will apply until such time as the Council adopts the Core Strategy as part of the LDF, or this policy is reviewed and an amended policy is introduced by the Council.

30

CABINET 25 SEPTEMBER 2008

KENT THAMESIDE STRATEGIC TRANSPORT PROGRAMME UPDATE

All wards affected 1. Summary 1.1 This is a Key Decision as it is significant in terms of its effects on

communities living or working in an area of the Borough comprising two or more wards.

1.2 This report brings Members up to date with proposals for securing a long-term programme of transport investment for Kent Thameside, funded through public and private sector contributions. This follows decisions made by Cabinet and the General Assembly of the Council on 26 and 30 July 2007 respectively.

1.3 The report summarises the results of consultation and further analysis carried out since July 2007, seeks approval for proposed refinements of the interim tariff policy, and seeks delegated authority to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with other Parties, so as to secure the necessary operating framework for the funding and implementation of the Transport Programme.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 To the Cabinet:

2.2 That the results of consultation on the proposed Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme and the recommended changes to the interim planning policy, as set out in the body of this report, be noted.

2.3 To the General Assembly of the Council:

2.4 That the revised policy set out in Appendix A, requiring developers to contribute a tariff of £5,000 per home on two or more net units as a condition of the grant of planning permission, be adopted as a material planning consideration for development control purposes with immediate effect.

2.5 That further consultation be undertaken with a view to extending the tariff requirement to non-residential development on the basis of the formula set out in Appendix A to this report.

2.6 That, pending the introduction of a non-residential development tariff, financial contributions toward the Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme from non-residential development are secured on the grant of planning permission on a negotiated basis using the formula set out in Appendix A as a guide.

31

2.7 That the Managing Director be authorised, in consultation with the Head of Legal Services and the Leader of the Council, to enter into an agreement to secure the necessary operating arrangements for funding and implementing the programme, based substantially on the draft attached at Appendix B.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1 Reports were considered by Cabinet and the General Assembly of the Council on 26 and 30 July respectively, setting out a proposal to fund a programme of transport schemes with a mixture of public and private sector financial contributions. At the heart of the proposal is a development tariff, levied on the grant of planning permission. Match funding has been pledged by Government subject to certain conditions being satisfied.

3.2 Various resolutions were made by Cabinet (min. no. 31) and the General Assembly of the Council (min. no. 49) the combined effects of which were to introduce with immediate effect a planning policy requiring tariff payments to be made in respect of residential developments, to consult with a view to refining the policy if needed, and to move towards a position where the detailed operational framework for funding and implementing the transport programme could be agreed.

3.3 The interim tariff policy has been operating successfully, with all planning permissions granted since its introduction incorporating the full tariff payment. At the time of writing, tariff payments totalling £2.1 million have been secured, and negotiations are in hand which are likely to result in further tariff contributions in the near future, also at the full rate.

3.4 This report summarises progress since July 2007, and recommends appropriate refinements to the tariff policy (including its extension to non-residential development) as well as an operating framework within which the parties will co-operate to implement the proposals.

Further analysis

3.5 Since July 2007 work has continued on a number of matters which provide the foundation for the proposed programme and the policy which supports it.

3.6 There has been further transport modelling, which provides a more direct assessment of the benefits of the proposed transport programme than was available in July 2007. This work is ongoing, and as it continues the specific and measurable benefits arising from the proposed programme of measures will be able to be defined more clearly, and the programme adjusted and refined to deliver the transport benefits sought.

3.7 The modelling which is now being undertaken attempts to measure the benefits of the proposed programme against objective benckmarks: firstly

32

3.8 The additional modelling which has been undertaken shows that without a package of transport measures, the existing committed transport initiatives (which include sustainable transport solutions built into developments as well as freestanding schemes such as Fastrack and M25/A2 improvements) will not be sufficient to deal with growth in background traffic and meet the needs of planned developments. Therefore the case for a further programme of transport investments is clearly proven.

3.9 The modelling undertaken so far cannot quantify conclusively the scale of benefits derived from the proposed package of transport measures, because some of the measures (particularly the proposals for demand management on the A2 and the Urban Traffic Management Control system) present technical difficulties for modelling. However, interpolating from the results obtained so far, it would be possible to draw the conclusion that the package provides improvements at the identified hotspots, and will go a considerable way towards achieving the target road speed levels, particularly on the local roads. However it also shows that there is a residual level of “underperformance” particularly on the trunk road network, and to a lesser extent on other roads, which the package will not address.

3.10 Further schemes have been identified which may prove beneficial in addressing these residual problems, subject to the programme fund being adequate to finance them. These include an area-wide package of walking, cycling and public transport measures, which will increase the likelihood of obtaining the necessary shift away from car use, and a park and ride facility on the A2. It may also be possible to identify further capacity at Junction 1A on the M25. These are now shown as “reserve schemes” in the programme.

3.11 Beyond these possible additions, Kent County Council’s traffic consultants advise that restraining unnecessary or avoidable car use is more likely to benefit the transport network than providing further capacity without control over its use. The effect of a typical package of restraint policies has been modelled, which suggests possible benefits. It is not proposed that a specific restraint package be identified at this stage, firstly because the need for car restraint will not arise for some years, and secondly because national transport policy and market factors over the next ten years could have a profound effect on the amount of local restraint needed.

3.12 More analysis of the predicted transport conditions in the area will be required. However the broad conclusion which can be drawn from the analysis which has now been completed is that the package is both necessary and likely to be effective, but not capable of eradicating all the problems likely to arise on the transport network in the next ten to twenty years. This is a sufficient justification for continuing with the proposed

33

3.13 It is anticipated that monitoring and analysis will now continue on a more or less continuous basis, so that the transport conditions in Kent Thameside, the impact of development and the need for infrastructure works can be kept under constant review.

3.14 There has also been further work to refine the schemes which comprise the proposed programme, to confirm their feasibility, consider their phasing and review their expected costs. As a result some of the outline costs have changed. This work will continue for each scheme up until the point when the scheme can be commissioned, and therefore the costs in the programme should be seen as indicative only.

3.15 Finally, more work has been carried out to project the income and expenditure streams for the programme. The income includes contributions from Government departments as previously reported, from the Land Securities planning agreement for Eastern Quarry, and from tariff revenue.

3.16 The tariff revenue projections have been updated since last reported in July 2007, taking account of the most up-to-date assumptions about the phasing of development, and building in the revenue which would accrue as a result of the changes to the tariff policy proposed in paragraphs 3.29 and 3.35 of this report, namely the lowering of the residential threshold and the formal extension of the tariff to non-residential development. Sensitivity tests have been undertaken to guage the impact of differing rates of development, payment profiles, project delivery timetables and so on.

3.17 The overall conclusion of this work is that the income and expenditure streams can be kept in overall balance as previously indicated. There may be short-term borrowing requirements to cover periods when the cashflow enters deficit, depending how the overall programme unfolds. An illustration of the possible cashflow profile is attached at Appendix D.

3.18 Overall, the financial modelling indicates that the programme is deliverable and therefore provides a sound basis upon which to make the necessary planning policy decisions and enter into the arrangements needed to deliver the programme.

3.19 Kent County Council has indicated its intention to take on the role of Accountable Body for the programme (see paragraph 3.44 below) and to accept the overall financial liabilities associated with this role.

Consultation and policy considerations arising

3.20 In August 2007 a consultation document was published, based on the reports considered in July, and seeking views on both general and specific matters relating to the proposed strategic transport programme and the tariff policy. Gravesham Borough Council also consulted within its area on the

34

3.21 In general terms, the consultation revealed that the majority of respondents endorse the Council’s analysis of the transport issues, and broadly agree with the proposed package of measures and the tariff-based funding proposals. There were a number of contrary views expressed, but none which indicated that the Council should not proceed with the proposals.

3.22 Some respondents felt that the proposals were inadequately justified; in particular that the benefits of the proposed transport programme were not clear enough, or were not sufficiently closely related to the impacts of development. The additional analysis which has taken place since the consultation paper was prepared is summarised in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.12. This analysis provides more evidence in support of the proposed programme, and further monitoring and analysis is proposed which will enable the programme as a whole and the need for individual schemes within the programme to be kept under review.

3.23 Most respondents endorse the principle of a flat-rate tariff rather than a more complex formula. A majority prefer a flexible transport programme, where adjustments can be made throughout the programme period, to one which is fixed. However these views were qualified by a need to limit the amount of flexibility and how it is exercised. The proposed operating framework (see paragraphs 3.42 to 3.45 and Appendix B) defines the limits within which the proposed programme could be modified, and the processes for review.

3.24 There was strong support for extending the tariff to include non-residential development, on the basis of fairness. There were a range of ideas as to how a non-residential tariff could be formulated. The reports in July 2007 acknowledged that non-residential development should contribute financially to the transport programme, but expressed reservations as to the practicality of setting a formula for contributions. Instead, it was suggested that non-residential contributions be negotiated site by site.

3.25 However, work has continued since July 2007 to devise a possible formula for calculating non-residential contributions, and it is now suggested that this be introduced. This proposal is discussed further in paragraphs 3.33 – 3.39.

3.26 A majority of respondents consider that the tariff should apply to all developments regardless of size, on the basis of fairness. One respondent pointed out that smaller developments may be less able to incorporate sustainable travel measures than large ones, and therefore may have a disproportionate traffic generating effect.

3.27 The interim policy has a threshold of 10 homes below which the tariff does not apply. This was considered appropriate at the time, bearing in mind the fact that the interim policy was to have immediate effect, and while developers of sites of 10 dwellings or more are familiar with the practice of seeking pooled contributions (for example for KCC Education), developers of smaller sites are less so. It was therefore considered that the extension of

35

3.28 The consultation was extended to smaller housebuilders (all residential developers who had applied for planning permission in the last year were canvassed), and so there has now been reasonable notice given to such developers that the tariff could be extended to encompass smaller developments. Given the consultation responses, it is now suggested that the threshold be reduced.

3.29 The proposal as set out in Appendix A is that the threshold be reduced to two dwellings net. This ensures that the majority of residential development will be included, but residents wishing to construct a single dwelling for their own occupation, or to convert a dwelling to include a granny flat or carry out other similar types of development which are directly related to their family needs and circumstances, would not be required to pay.

3.30 An issue which has been raised outside the consultation process, during the operational stage of the interim tariff, is whether the tariff should apply to gross residential numbers, or to the net gain only, where a residential site is redeveloped at a greater intensity. Gravesham Borough Council has made it explicit from the outset that the tariff should apply to the net gain only, whereas Dartford’s tariff policy does not specify.

3.31 It is more logical to charge only the net addition to the housing stock, as these additional units are the ones which will add to the volume of movement on the roads and public transport systems. It is proposed that it be made explicit in the revised policy that only net additional dwellings will be liable for the tariff, providing that the new development replaces units which were in occupation in July 2007 (the base date for the transport modelling, against which the impact of additional development has been assessed).

3.32 It is suggested that detailed responses to the consultees are sent, as part of the wider process of responding to consultees on the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. In the meantime, the key issues arising from consultation have been addressed in the foregoing paragraphs and in the suggested revisions to the interim policy.

Non-residential tariff

3.33 As mentioned in paragraph 3.24 there is a sound basis in principle for securing financial contributions to the strategic transport programme from non-residential development. However the calculation of a formula which enables such contributions to be by way of a flat-rate tariff on floorspace is more problematic for non-residential development, because such development can have a very wide range of traffic generation characteristics depending on its specific nature.

3.34 Based on the advice of the Highways Authority, it is considered that a formula for tariff payments can be substantiated for business uses and

36

3.35 The proposed tariff formula for business uses, which is set out in Appendix A, is based on their known traffic-generating characteristics, using data derived from a nationally accredited land use and transport database used for traffic modelling. These can be equated to the traffic generation of residential uses, to calculate a payment which is comparable to that for residential use. However, a 60% discounting factor has first been applied, to account for the fact that some of the trips generated will be local and will not add significantly to strategic transport impacts, and also to avoid the “double counting” of trips which have a residential origin within Kent Thameside and are hence already accounted for in the calculation of residential traffic generation.

3.36 This discounting factor will also help to ensure that inward investment and job creation are not unduly deterred by the tariff charge, recognising that the land use strategy for the area as set out in the Draft South East Plan and the emerging Local Development Frameworks of the two local planning authorities encourages employment growth at a relatively higher rate than residential growth.

3.37 It is proposed that all other non-residential uses will be asked to contribute at a rate which is related to the specific traffic generation characteristics of the proposed development, as established in the Transport Impact Assessment accompanying a planning application.

3.38 The proposed non-residential tariff policy is set out in Appendix A along with the proposed revised residential tariff policy. Recognising that the non-residential tariff proposal is more complex than the residential flat-rate tariff, and is likely to provoke a wider range of counter-proposals, it is suggested that the formula be applied initially with some scope for negotiation, and that consultation on the non-residential tariff be carried out for a further 6 week period. Members are reminded that contributions from non-residential development are already provided for in Policy T2 of the Adopted Dartford Local Plan, and the use of the proposed formula can be seen in the early stages as simply a guide as to how these contributions should be negotiated. Once the consultation is complete, and after allowing a period of operation to assess the practicality of the tariff proposals set out in Appendix A , it will be possible to determine whether the Interim Policy (January 2008) should be confirmed.

3.39 The likely product of a non-residential tariff has been calculated, together with the impacts of the various other adjustments to the tariff policy and the revised development trajectories. These revised parameters have been built into the updated financial projections for the transport programme. The overall funding package assuming the recommended policy changes are agreed is as follows:

37

£ MILLION

PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTION

LAND SECURITIES EQ2 40.00

DBC TARIFF 29.91

GBC TARIFF 31.13

SUB-TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTION 101.04

PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRIBUTION

CLG 23.00

DfT (INCLUDING REGIONAL ALLOCATION) 51.00

SUB-TOTAL PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRIBUTION 74.00

TOTAL FUND 175.04

3.40 Cashflow projections have been made and sensitivity testing carried out, to determine the financing requirements of the programme and assess the financial impact of any delivery risks. An illustrative cashflow projection is attached at Appendix D which shows the income and expenditure streams broadly in balance, and the borrowing requirements manageable. Kent County Council has agreed to assume responsibility as Accountable Body for the programme as a whole, and any financial risks will therefore accrue to the County Council.

3.41 A Business Plan is being prepared by Kent County Council, which will include a formal risk assessment and management plan, and which will also provide the basis for a Business Case to be presented to Communities and Local Government in January 2008 to release the Department’s funding. No financial risks accrue to Dartford Borough Council as a result of the arrangements which are proposed for operating the transport programme.

Operating Framework

3.42 In July 2007 it was reported that to give effect to the programme an operating framework would need to be established. This would secure the necessary co-operation between the various parties to ensure that the funds are raised, managed, and applied to the programme as and when needed, and that any variations to the programme are agreed in a transparent and consistent way.

3.43 Discussion has taken place between the parties to find a way of operating which can be secured within existing powers and structures. Broad agreement has been reached on the following core principles:

38

a) Kent County Council to act as Accountable Body, assuming responsibility for managing the fund and the cashflow and commissioning the schemes (except for Department for Transport schemes);

b) Department for Transport to co-ordinate the commissioning of its schemes with those in a) above;

c) The strategic transport programme to be kept under continual review, and formally reviewed annually, with any amendments to be agreed between all the parties;

d) Amendments to the programme to be limited to those which will secure the objectives and target performance set out in the Kent Thameside Transport Strategy, or in the interim as agreed between the parties;

e) Consultation to be undertaken with stakeholders before any amendments to the programme, and the programme to be reported and accounted transparently;

f) Local planning authorities to operate planning policies which will raise tariff revenue;

g) Government departments to contribute financially as per current commitments (CLG £23 million, DfT £51 million).

3.44 These principles have been embodied in a draft Agreement, a copy of which is attached at Appendix B, which sets out in detail and in an enforceable form the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties to secure the operating framework. Members’ attention is drawn in particular to the roles and responsibilities of Dartford Borough Council under the Agreement, the most significant of which are to ensure that planning policies are operated which raise tariff income, and to agree each year with the other signatories any amendments to the strategic transport programme.

3.45 The Agreement is still under discussion, but a large measure of agreement to the principles embodied within it has already been obtained, and it is anticipated that the parties will be able to commit to an Agreement in a substantially similar form to that set out in Appendix B. It is suggested that authority be granted to the Managing Director to negotiate and complete the Agreement on behalf of the Council, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Head of Legal Services.

4 Relationship to the Corporate Plan

Regeneration: to set a clear vision for the pattern of growth in Dartford, matching residential development with job creation, ensuring that new

39

developments provide the right conditions and infrastructure for community life to flourish, and enhancing Dartford’s physical environment.

5 Financial, legal, staffing and other administrative implications and risk assessments

Financial Implications The financial implications of operating the Strategic Transport Programme are set out in general terms in the body of this report. No financial liabilities in respect of the programme accrue to the Council as a result of the recommendations.

Legal Implications A Local Planning Authority can secure financial contributions towards the provision of infrastructure and facilities, through Section 106 Agreements. Such contributions should comply with the requirements of ODPM Circular 05/2006 in that they should be:

Relevant to planning

Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms

Directly related to the proposed development

Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development

Reasonable in all other respects This report sets out a reasoned case for a tariff approach which it is considered meets these tests. The Agreement attached in draft form at Appendix B is a legally binding document setting out the roles and responsibilities of the parties in securing the programme.

Staffing Implications None at this stage

Administrative Implications As set out in the report

Risk Assessment There is a risk that a tariff system will not deliver all of the funding required to finance the programme, for example if development does not proceed as quickly as planned. However, in the event of a slow rate of development it is likely that the infrastructure delivery programme can also be slowed down, as development-related

40

traffic impacts will not materialise so quickly. There is a risk that traffic conditions will not materialise as predicted, and that schemes different from those currently envisaged will become necessary. The proposed programming arrangements allow for this, as the finance is not ring-fenced to particular schemes and the programme will be kept under review. This is a more flexible arrangement than would be possible under the more traditional method of securing developer obligations specific to each site, and agreed at the point of planning permission. There is a risk that developers will challenge the validity of the tariff. To mitigate this risk a planning justification has been advanced which demonstrates that the tariff approach offers the most reliable, fair and flexible solution to the problem facing all the parties involved in bringing forward development. The proposed policy has an existing foundation in statutory planning policies for development infrastructure, and will be incorporated into the Council’s Local Development Framework as soon as practicable. Although the policy initially has interim status, the Council has offered a sound justification as to why it should be introduced with immediate effect, so that all developments not yet consented will contribute equally.

6. Details of Exempt Information Category

Not applicable

7. Appendices

A: Revised policy B: Draft Agreement C: Summary of Consultation Responses D. Illustrative Cashflow Projection

BACKGROUND PAPERS Documents consulted Date / Report Author Section and Exempt

File Ref Directorate Information Category

R. Scott Regenerati n/a on

41

APPENDIX E: TRANSPORT CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED/COMMITTED

Location Requirement Status Contribution Waterstone Park

St Clements Way/London Road junction improvement

Part paid £ 638,377.00

Bluewater Events Venue

Bean junction Paid £ 466,500.00

Bluewater Events Venue

St Clements Way/London Road junction improvement

Paid £ 57,409.00

Land rear of 92-108 Havelock road

STIP Paid £ 20,000.00

Asda Greenhithe St Clements Way/London Road underpass

Paid £ 60,000.00

Ingress Park Phase 4A

Strategic Transport Programme Contribution

Paid £ 215,000.00

Mount Nod Strategic Transport Programme Contribution

Paid £ 175,000.00

Car Park rear of Two Brewers, Lowfield Street

Strategic Transport Programme Contribution

Committed £ 60,000.00

Land at Spring Vale Strategic Transport Programme Contribution

Committed £ 30,000.00

Land west of Darenth Road

Strategic Transport Programme Contribution

Committed £ 270,000.00

Land rear of 101 to 113 Hawley Road

Strategic Transport Programme Contribution

Committed £ 60,000.00

Dartford Technology College Heath Lane

Strategic Transport Programme Contribution

Committed £ 222,500.00

42