Agenda item

The Committee is requested to note the contents of this report concerning section 106 agreements nearing their expenditure date (as set out in Appendix 1) and to raise any concerns.

The committee considered the report circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mrs Dower and Mrs Peace presented the report. Mrs Peyman attended to answer queries. Three projects had reached their expiry date prior to 17 October 2016, all of which were five year notional expiry dates as opposed to the expiry date being explicit within the S106 agreement.

The committee made comments including the following:

·         It was likely we would need to return some money to a developer in March 2017 in respect of a bus shelter in Westhampnett. We had received S106 money from WSCC to install and maintain a bus shelter. The shelter was installed by the council and it is being maintained by Westhampnett Parish Council. We were speaking to the parish council to establish whether there were any outstanding requirements before this money was returned to the developer. 

·         Boxgrove Sports Pavilion - The money had been allocated to a new sports pavilion and had received approval from the portfolio holder and from local district councillors. Quotes had been received for works and a planning application had been submitted for those works. The project was approved and money allocated before the notional date. We were now waiting for the project to commence.

·         St Georges Hall – This has been approved and Chichester Contract Services (CCS) was awaiting delivery of the bench. This would be installed by the end of the month.

Mr Oakley, who had requested to speak on this matter, was invited to put forward his questions, as follows:

·         Is the danger of handing back the monies removed when the money is allocated, handed to a third party, or spent? – The date for the Boxgrove item was a notional date so we had identified the expiry date. The developer had the right to request return of the money, however the advice from the legal team is that if we can confirm that the money was allocated then we had a strong enough case to fend off any legal claim.

·         Concerns regarding Shippams items and the length of time to work up a project to allocation stage - were the ongoing studies with regard to Priory Park in sufficiently advanced stage to allocate or even spend by the due date? The projects which had been allocated to the Priory Park master plan were no longer going ahead as the master plan had been stopped. We had therefore written out to all clubs and organisations in the city to ask them to come back to us with projects that could be eligible for leisure funding. These applications would be reviewed in December to establish which projects were eligible and how quickly they could be taken forward. Mrs Peyman was aware that time was ticking on the public open space money. Work would be undertaken by consultants on a smaller master planning exercise and if projects came up then approval would be sought for projects from the head of service, portfolio holder and relevant district councillors. As these were actual expiry dates, they would be monitored closely.

·         Tangmere sites, e.g. the windmill open space were examples of how long it took parish councils to work up and progress projects especially when working with third parties. Fortunately there are residual monies remaining from the original pot so the parish council was trying to spend the last few bits. It would be useful for parish councils to have clarity as to what they can spend this money on and the criteria when putting requests in to the council on particular projects – Parish councils were liaised with regarding which projects would be eligible or not. Repairs and maintenance was not suitable expenditure for S106 monies as the receipt of funds comes through for enhancements or for increasing access opportunities. However we were willing to receive information from them at an early stage to let them know what was suitable expenditure.

·         Would parish councils be discouraged from buying new items if the maintenance was considered to be too high for future?  They were advised about the ongoing maintenance required when they made a proposal to buy something. Parish Council CIL receipts could be used to cover repairs and maintenance.

·         Does CIL money cover maintenance of public art instalments? CIL was designed to assist growth in the area so public art was probably not covered.

RESOLVED

That the contents of this report concerning section 106 agreements nearing their expenditure date be noted.