Agenda item

To consider an annual report setting out new agreements signed, income received and monies spent for the previous financial year including an update on non-financial obligations and information on those S106 agreements due to expire within two years.

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

Mrs Dower presented the report. Mr Davies and Ms Munns (WSCC) were available to answer questions. Mr S Oakley (district council member) was permitted by the Chairman to ask a number of questions.

Mrs Dower reminded members that this was the full S106 annual report and that the committee also received a report in November each year on those S106 agreements coming up to their target spend date.  Reports were also produced by ward in March and September each year for members to access on the Council’s intranet.

The number of S106 agreements produced over the last year had been scaled back as the new CIL regime was introduced. New this year was the CIL monitoring report, which would be included with the authority’s monitoring report published in December each year.

The committee made the following comments and received answers to questions as follows:

·         Land rear of Premier Business Park – this is in relation to a recreation disturbance payment paid at the outset under a unilateral undertaking (which is the route most developers choose). If the application is refused then the money is returned to the developer.

·         Request to show greater transparency in what has been achieved from S106 and CIL payments. Members were reminded that the role of this committee was to review governance and ensure processes were adequate to ensure that this procedure ran smoothly. The ward reports gave more detail on the outcomes achieved.

·         Members were concerned that their parish councils appeared not to have knowledge of the S106/CIL processes. It was suggested that this should be picked up through the biannual parish council meetings arranged by the authority. Forums are held in the local areas – a request for an agenda item will be passed to relevant officers running these forums.

·         There was concern regarding communication by the South Downs National Park (SDNP) to its parishes and the district councils regarding S106/CIL arrangements. Members were advised that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had made a recommendation to the SDNP at its last meeting regarding the development of a Communications Protocol. Officers undertook to add a sentence under the background section of the covering report regarding the difference between the South Downs National Park and the Council’s administration of S106/CIL agreements.

·         It was suggested that any concerns were passed to Mr M Dunn, the authority’s representative on the SDNPA.

·         The non-financial obligations report was considered too lengthy. It would be useful if specific points could be highlighted in the body of the covering report e.g. where developers were unwilling to deliver their obligations.

·         Concern that once planning permission was granted officers were deciding how the money was spent in the S106 agreement without consulting with the local community. An example was the Shopwyke Lakes scheme where road junctions had not been included in the S106 agreement. 

·         Concern by members regarding the lack of transparency of decision making regarding how and why S106/CIL money is allocated by WSCC to education, libraries, highways and fire services and why contributions are spent on settlements away from the one which took the development. Ms Munns advised that WSCC had its own transport plan and schemes within it were funded through S106 contributions, as well as smaller schemes where they want to improve the highway and thirdly community schemes where district councillors have an opportunity to put schemes forward. Allocation of S106 contribution spend on education projects is signed off by the Cabinet Member and the factors considered are the ability of the school to expand, the locality including the main secondary school and all of its feeder primaries, good Ofsted reports etc.  The contribution due was based on the number of houses within a locality taking up development. WSCC conveys this information to the planning authority which collects the money and holds it until WSCC are ready to spend the money.

·         A problem is the requirement to spend small tranches of money on small projects rather than benefit from saving up for bigger projects due to the need to spend this money by the time limit.

·         Queried how the risk criteria was quantified; this would be included in future documents.

·         Queried the monitoring arrangements in place for A27 contributions which are a significant part of the local plan scheme of works for the bypass; was Highways England collecting it and what were the time limits? Within the S106 agreement there is usually an obligation for the developer to enter into an agreement with Highways England; we follow up on this to ensure that the agreement is entered to and we are holding some monies at the moment. Mr Davies undertook to respond to the committee on whether this was subject to the same time limit as other S106 agreements.

·         Page 13 in the appendix pack – Land West of the Old Army Camp – Mr Davies undertook to come back to the committee with an answer on this contribution.

·         CIL is working very well. It is a tax and non-negotiable. We have far reaching powers to take enforcement and have won two recent appeals. The Infrastructure Business Plan is subject to discussion by the County/District group of officers, the Infrastructure Joint Member Liaison Committee and the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel before going on to Cabinet and Council for approval. Unlike the S106 contributions CIL is flexible to take account of changing circumstances. It is down to the district council what the money is spent on and is not time limited. CIL money does not go back to the developer. CIL and S106 work together. S106 is related to mitigating the impacts of a particular planning application whereas CIL is collected for the cumulative impact of developments. Many schemes pay both contributions.

·         Parishes receive their CIL money twice a year. Parishes with a neighbourhood plan get 25% with 15% going to parishes without one. They are required to spend their money within five years of receipt, however if they share their spending schemes with us and we understand they need longer to raise other funds we would not ask them for it back.

·         Contributions reflected against Park and Ride – although the main scheme was not progressed, this money has been spent on smaller park and ride schemes, usually over the Christmas period.

RESOLVED

1)          That the income and expenditure between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017 in respect of S106 contributions and CIL be noted.

2)          The information on S106 agreements within two years of the expenditure target date as set out in appendix 4 be noted.

3)          The details of non-financial S106 obligations as set out in appendix 5 be noted.

4)          The monitoring information required by the CIL regulations as set out in appendix 6 be noted.