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 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 way that the report had been formatted, which had been taken from the Council’s internal systems was not actually providing the information required by the Committee and indicated that a further report could be brought back to the Committee in November in order to respond to some of the specific questions raised at the meeting which would enable the Committee to have a better understanding of how these monies were held and being spent.  In addition, consideration would be given as to how unspent monies should be re-profiled.

·      In response to a request that the further report referred to above should revise the table in paragraph 7.13 of the report (Comparison to previous report) and include further information as to new S106 monies received during the period between reports, and S106 monies spent during that period.

·      Concern that the effect of high inflation reduced the value of unspent S106 monies.

·      This Council could not specify to third parties to whom S106 monies had been allocated for spending, such as the County Council or GP practices, deadlines by which those monies had to be spent.

 The Committee

RESOLVED: That the Section 106 Monitoring Report be noted and a further report addressing the matters referred to above, be submitted to the Committee at its meeting on 17 November 2023.

Reason:

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