Agenda item

To consider the adoption of the process, set out in Paragraph 3 of the report, for the distribution of S106 funds where the S106 agreement does not explicitly specify where the funding should be directed.

That the process for the distribution of Section 106 funds, where the Section 106 Agreement does not explicitly specify how the funding should be directed, be ADOPTED as set out in Paragraph 3 of the report.

20.1           The report of the Community and Economic Development Manager, circulated at Pages No. 83-88, proposed a clear decision-making mechanism for the distribution of Section 106 funds where the Section 106 Agreement was not explicit in where the funding should be directed. Members were asked to adopt the process as set out at Paragraph 3 of the report. 

20.2           Members were advised that there were a number of agreements made pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (Section 106) that required the payment of financial contributions towards a range of facilities, including community infrastructure. For a range of reasons, in some instances, the terms upon which those financial contributions could subsequently be spent were not sufficiently specific. Consequently, the allocation of certain Section 106 funds could be subject to prolonged discussions. The report before the Committee sought to establish a clear decision-making mechanism in such scenarios to ensure the funds were allocated appropriately. It was anticipated the process would offer a clear and transparent procedure for applications for funding from Parish and Town Councils and the voluntary and community sector.

20.3           The proposed process would involve three stages and was summarised in a flow chart attached to the report at Appendix 1: Council to notify Parish/community of trigger point; community group and/or Parish/Town Council to submit details to Council and Officers to check paperwork and make a recommendation; Head of Development Services to consider application in consultation with a panel of local/Lead Members on the basis of criteria and make a recommendation. Referring to stage 1 of the flowchart, a Member was aware of an issue in Gotherington where the village had held a Parish Poll that decided not to spend money on the Church Centre; she questioned how the Council would consult with the Parish where there was a conflict between it and the community. In response, the Community and Economic Development Manager explained that the Parish, and any local groups Officers were aware of, would be contacted and, ideally, they would work together to provide one submission; if that was not possible the panel would make the decision in consultation with the Head of Development Services. The panel would have to take into account the views of the Parish and the community but, in the event of multiple requests for the same money, the Members would have to make the decision to ensure clarity and transparency.

20.4           In response to a query regarding trigger points, the Head of Development Services indicated that these were usually set out in the agreement i.e. upon completion of the twentieth house. The Member questioned what would happen if the Parish/Town Council had aspirations for Section 106 monies which were not achievable and whether the Parish/Town Council/community group had to be ready to submit its application as soon as the trigger point was reached. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the submission would have to meet the test for community need and a case would have to be made. There was no reason the facilities needed to be delivered immediately as long as the five year period was met. The Member was concerned that the previous system had worked perfectly well and he questioned whether the new system would make it harder for Parishes. In response, the Head of Development Services indicated that the majority of Section 106 applications had no issues but there was a need for a process to address those that were not straightforward. The process outlined by the report sought to make a clear, transparent and auditable process which would be a great improvement. It was certainly not the intention to make the procedure more difficult or slower and the process laid out in the report was roughly what happened already.

20.5           At the recent seminar Members had requested information about how much Section 106 monies were currently held by the Council, and not claimed, and how much the Borough Council held on behalf of Parishes. In response, the Community and Economic Development Manager undertook to circulate that information via a Member Update following the meeting. Referring to Paragraph 3.2(3) of the report, a Member noted that, where a Member of the panel had a connection to the application, e.g. sat on the Board or Parish Council that was making an application, they would be required to declare this and not sit on the panel for that decision; he felt that this would affect a lot of Members as most of the submissions would come from Parishes and local Members were likely to also be Parish/Town Councillors. In response, the Borough Solicitor explained that the panel would be set up so that competing interests could be brought forward where Parish Councils and community groups did not agree – local Members would have to think carefully and decide if they were able to sit on the panel or not. Another Member explained that the amount of changes to Parish and Town Council membership meant there could be an occasion where one set of Parish Councillors had decided how the funds should be spent but, before the agreement was concluded, those Councillors could change and the new Councillors may want the money spent on something else. The Borough Solicitor advised that this would depend on the commitment made and would have to be addressed dependent upon the particular circumstances.

20.6           In response to a query regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy examination, the Head of Development Services was hopeful that the Council would receive the Inspector’s draft report by the end of July; if this was the case, it would then be finalised around mid-August. It needed to be remembered that the Council had undertaken to agree a Community Infrastructure Levy with the other Joint Core Strategy authorities so the report would have to be considered by all three Councils.

20.7           Accordingly, it was