Issue - meetings

At its meeting on 27 July 2023, the Committee had considered a Section 106 Monitoring report, which provided a schedule showing the details of Section 106 contributions that had been secured, received and spent as of the date of the report.  The Committee had raised concerns about the following matters:

·      lack of member and parish council involvement in decisions to re-prioritise spend

·      substantial sums of unspent monies with a specific focus on education and health care contributions,

·      the robustness of negotiations on Section 106 for larger scale development with specific reference to the Wisley Airfield site.

The Committee requested that a further report be submitted to respond to some of the specific questions raised to enable the Committee to have a better understanding of how Section 106 monies were held and being spent. 

The Committee considered the further report, presented by the Executive Head of Planning Development, which addressed these concerns.   

During the debate, the following points were raised by the Committee:

·      Further information was requested on the Council’s approach with Surrey County Council (SCC) and the Integrated Care Board (ICB), on ensuring that the appropriate infrastructure was put in place and the S106 funding allocated for those purposes was spent.  The Executive Head of Planning Development confirmed that SCC had recently appointed an officer responsible for monitoring S106 spend at a more senior level and that she would be seeking to establish a more robust governance arrangement, with more frequent discussions and reporting to each other on S106 spend onSCC related matters. In relation to the ICB, the Executive Head of Planning Development referred to recent discussions that had taken place in the context of the Wisley public inquiry, in particular the extent to which their requirements met the CIL tests, which would be explored by the Inspector through the round-table discussions on the S106, and by the outcome of the appeal.

·      In relation to the Wisley public inquiry, it was noted that although the allocation site was supposed to have included a secondary school, such provision had not been included in the S106.

·      In response to an enquiry as to whether any of the S106 monies allocated to the upgrading of a nature reserve in Send could be used for other projects in the village, the Executive Head of Planning Development confirmed that the allocation of those S106 monies would be determined ultimately by the wording of the Agreement and whether there was any flexibility to allocate some of the monies to other projects 

·      It was noted that contributions to SANGs were substantial due to the fact that their upkeep was required in perpetuity. 

·      It was also noted that parish councils, community groups and residents can request as part of the consideration of planning applications contributions, via S106 Agreements, for particular projects in the area, which could be included provided the compliance tests were met.

Having considered the report, the Committee   

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report be noted.

Reason:

To ensure that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48

The Committee considered a monitoring report showing the details of Section 106 contributions that had been secured, received, and spent as at the date of the report. In cases where the contribution had not yet been spent, the report had shown whether the contribution had been committed to a project.

The Committee noted that Section 106 Agreements could be used to secure financial contributions towards infrastructure that was required to mitigate the impact of development. The Council would only seek contributions where a proposed development created additional need or exacerbated an existing deficiency and where it complied with the three tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Section 106 Agreements were recorded and monitored using a module of the Acolaid planning database, from the signing of the agreement to spending the contributions. The Council’s Finance team also kept a monitor of income and spend of developer contributions.

Detailed information on Section 106 contributions towards infrastructure were included in the report, which was split into four main sections, S106 Expired Funds S106 Funds Available, S106 Pending Funds and S106 Spent Funds.

As at 31 March 2023, there was a balance of £1,961,341.81 for GBC S106 contributions and £13,588,745 for the SPA Reserves as well as £10,775,177 for Surrey County Council (SCC) and other relevant bodies; these sums being developer contributions that had been received but not spent or passed to relevant bodies.

During the debate, the Committee made the following points:

·      General concern about the levels of expired funds and the risk of having to return them to developers.

·      Specific concerns that substantial sums of unspent S106 money had been earmarked for spending on education and health and that in respect of the former, there were no indications from Surrey County Council that this money was actually being spent to mitigate the pressure on local schools.  In response to a question as to what pressure could be put on the County Council to use the money as quickly as possible towards the purposes for which it had been allocated the Joint Executive Head of Planning Development confirmed that she had already met with Surrey County Council to discuss closer working going forward, both in the way planning applications were negotiated and how S.106 Agreements were structured, particularly on large developments to ensure that there was early spend of contributions.

·      In response to concerns regarding certain arithmetical calculations in the report, the lack of information regarding non-financial contributions (e.g. proposed new healthcare provision), and lack of information as to progress with certain projects where funds have apparently been spent or to whom they were given

·      In response to a suggestion that local ward councillors and (where appropriate) parish councils should be consulted as to where partially unspent contributions should be spent, the Joint Executive Head of Planning Development agreed that the Council should ensure that S106 monies were spent appropriately, transparently, and with local engagement.

·      The Joint Executive Head of Planning Development suggested that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19

The Committee considered a report setting out details of Section 106 contributions that had been secured, received, and spent as at the date of the report. In cases where the contribution had not yet been spent, the report also indicated whether the contribution had been committed to a project.

The Committee noted that Section 106 Agreements could be used to secure financial contributions towards infrastructure. The Council would only seek contributions where a proposed development created additional need or exacerbated an existing deficiency and where it complied with the three tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Section 106 Agreements were recorded and monitored using a module of the Acolaid planning database, from the signing of the agreement to spending the contributions. The Council’s Finance team also kept a monitor of income and spend of developer contributions.

Detailed information on Section 106 contributions towards infrastructure were included in the report, which was split into three main sections, S106 Funds Available, S106 Pending Funds and S106 Spent Funds.

As this was the first of the S106 monitoring reports, the Committee noted that this was an opportunity to comment in general terms on the layout and content of the report and to identify and recommend any changes to improve future reports.

During the debate, the Committee made the following points:

·       Concern over the length of time some S106 monies had remained unspent and a suggestion that local ward councillors are kept informed as to the status of S106 monies whenever there was a risk that the monies may have to be returned to developers.  This would enable them to discuss with local Surrey County Divisional Members whether pooling of monies allocated to highway/ transportation improvements between the two councils could be achieved so that schemes to deliver those improvements could be implemented.  Officers agreed to this suggestion.

·       Request that future reports showing the list of S106 monies at risk of return to developers were grouped into wards.

·       Concern over the level of unallocated and uncommitted S106 monies. The report should be used as a management tool to inform decision making to ensure actions were put into place to spend S106 monies for purposes for which they were required to be paid by developers.

·       Concern that S106 monies allocated to provide educational facilities were not being spent in the Borough.  Officers indicated that they meet with officer counterparts at Surrey County Council, the health service and Surrey Police to make them aware of the S106 contributions that were available and the specific purposes for which they were provided, and the deadlines by which the monies had to be committed. It was also noted that whilst S106 contributions might be available towards specific educational, healthcare, or public safety schemes, implementation of those schemes would be dependent on the full funding becoming available, which might account for the delay in committing some of the funding.

·       In response to an enquiry as to whether in future the Council should re  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71