URL: https://democracy.canterbury.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1682

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: General Manager of SEC Ltd, Clark Gordon, and Lee Foreman, Assistant Director of Finance at Ashford Borough Council, and also a director of the company, gave a presentation introducing the report and business plan.   Points they covered included outlining the remit of the company, common planning issues, the impacts of new planning law, a forward look and different types of mitigation available.     The committee members discussed the report and presentation, received clarifications from the officers, asked questions and made points, including the following:   ·         Installation of new septic tanks was a ‘quick win’ in terms of actions to work towards nutrient neutrality. But what else was in the pipeline? Was the company going to hit a bottle neck early on, with difficulty in finding other mitigations to expand the credits market? ·         The company was actively looking to explore other options of innovative mitigation, but was constrained by procurement regulations. External parties could come to the market direct, but a local authority-owned company could not do that due to public procurement limitations.  ·         Ditch enhancements was an area that might be explored. ·         How could the company monitor progress, and were there any measures of enforcement that could be taken? How could it guarantee that work undertaken for credits was of sufficient quality? ·         When a tank was installed, a charge was put on the property to ensure the owner maintained it to a sufficient standard. If this did not happen, enforcement action could be taken. ·         When dealing with water, the catchment area was key and local authority borders less meaningful: local enforcement policies would have to be aligned across the area to reflect this. ·         Could SEC Ltd become a specialist enforcement agent, managing this across the local authority partners?  ·         The company could support local authorities in enforcement, but the authorities would likely want to retain direct control over this aspect of activities as they were responsible for giving planning consent to developers and had a duty to monitor this.  ·         Local authorities should treat SEC Ltd like other credit providers. They could not do this if the company was the enforcer also, even if this enforcement function was more paper-based than actual inspection of facilities. ·         In theory, it might be possible for a developer to buy fields, leave them fallow and gain temporary credits for that, and then build houses on them at a future date, but there were time limits on credits and the low potential financial returns on this kind of convoluted process would make it relatively unattractive. ·         The benefits to people in local areas needed to be highlighted through a comms campaign maybe, as although improvements in the Ashford area would clearly be positive for Stodmarsh, people might need help to ‘join the dots’ where water quality was concerned.  ·         The current scheme was a first step: nutrient neutrality aimed at stabilising water quality, so that it did not get any worse. Significant work would be needed in future to actually improve the situation.  ·         The funding for the project was processed via Kent County Council. Interest from the project should be ringfenced and ploughed back into the scheme. ·         The credits worked under a 90-year business model, there was no product to be bought. The grant funds would be returned in year 90. ·         Developers had to buy credits before getting planning consent. The credit was therefore an early additional first cost to the developer. Some development schemes that had seemed attractive five years ago were no longer viable. There was an economic impact of the ruling on the Stodmarsh area.    It was proposed, seconded and when put to a vote    RECOMMENDED    to Cabinet:    That the 2026/27 Draft Business Plan for Stour Environmental Credits Ltd be approved   Record of the vote:  For (6): Councillors Brady, Buckman, Campbell, Forrester, Jupe, Watkins Against (0): none Abstained (0): none

Date of Decision: February 26, 2026