Agenda item

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. 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 at 31 March 2022, there was a balance of £3,798,626 for GBC S106 contributions and £11,574,658 for the SPA Reserves as well as £8,278,877 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.

Following consideration of the first S106 Monitoring Report in April 2022, the Committee had requested various changes to the report which had now been implemented, which included:

·       Grouping the report by Ward

·       Add descriptions for all purpose types

·       Additional section of the report showing the ‘at risk funds’,

·       Removal of the 01/04/2019 date criterion from the Pending Funds section.

Detailed information on Section 106 contributions towards infrastructure was set out in the Monitoring Report. The information had been split into four main sections, S106 Expired Funds, S106 Funds Available, S106 Pending Funds and S106 Spent Funds.  It was noted that the information regarding the allocation of S106 monies would be published on the Council’s website in future.

During the debate, the Committee made the following points:

·       It had been suggested by the chairman that future Section 106 Monitoring reports show not only the dates on which Agreements were signed but also the dates on which monies needed to be spent or allocated.It was noted, however, that the date by which S106 monies needed to be spent or allocated was dependent on when those monies were actually received by the Council, and in many cases, this might not have happened so in those circumstances it would not be possible to provide a ‘spend by’ date.

·       In response to a request for a summary table of information showing the overall headings of Expired Funds, Available Funds, Pending Funds, and Spent Funds, officers indicated that the format of the report was an evolving document and that they would be happy to explore how information could be better displayed in future reports.

·       In response to an enquiry as to how Surrey County Council (SCC) were made aware that they had £4.5 million of uncommitted Section 106 money to spend on primary and secondary education, and who ensured that that money was spent in the borough and not elsewhere in the county, officers advised that projects were identified at the planning application stage and the relevant spend authority (SCC) had to ensure that such projects met regulatory requirements and officers needed to be satisfied that those had been met before they would seek a contribution for such a project. It was for SCC as Education Authority to identify where those projects were required and to provide the evidence in support. Regular updates were provided to SCC notifying them of availability of new funds and requesting details of spend projects.

·       Request for details within the monitoring report as to who was responsible for spending committed S106 monies and for more information about how much SANG and SAMM contributions were allocated to each site, perhaps by way of a pie chart.

·       In response to a request for information as to the risk of having to repay the £196,365 of expired S106 monies and whether any developers had reclaimed any contributions, officers confirmed that the risk of repayment was low and that no expired funds had been repaid. Considerable progress was being made in terms of establishing the projects for which expired funds could be allocated.

·       Concern that uncommitted funds had increased by £270,000 over the past six months compared to the figures in the April 2022 report and concern over adequacy of progress in committing and spending funds. It was suggested that future reports should make comparisons with the figures from the previous report with commentary, as appropriate, on the variance between the two.

·       In response to a request for a definition of “committed funds”, officers confirmed that contributions were marked as committed when the relevant spend officer or authority had confirmed that they had spend plans for particular allocated contributions.

The Committee

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the Section 106 Monitoring Report be noted.

(2)    That the Lead Councillor for Development Management and officers be requested to give priority to expediting arrangements internally to ensure, as far as practicable, that “Expired Funds” are allocated to schemes, or purposes for which the S106 Agreement was entered into.

Reason:

To ensure that the Committee is informed of the extent to which S106 funds are available, pending, and spent/committed.