Issue - meetings

REPORT LDCS10182

Members considered an update on Section 106 Agreements together with a document outlining the financial position of unspent balances of Section 106 funds relating to housing, in particular the latest balance of £2.3m as at 30 June 2010.

Councillor Fawthrop alluded to the expired application relating to Beckenham Hospital (page 39).  He enquired whether the monies received had been spent or lost.  The Chief Planner responded that he was not aware of any money being lost.

Councillor Bennett JP queried how the Authority ensures that money due from legal agreements is received and whether time limits are applied.  Members were informed that if a permitted scheme were to expire, then any legal agreement attached to that scheme would also expire.  As soon as development begins, the agreement is brought into the schedule.  Some payments are made in stages and are continually monitored.  A permitted scheme is active for three years before expiry.

It was agreed that a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee to advise Members of developments which were still active but had not yet started.

Members were informed that money received as a result of a S106 agreement was generally used to accommodate shortfalls within the vicinity of the development concerned.

With reference to paragraph 4.8 on page 29 of the report, Councillor Fookes enquired about the current position of the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  The Chief Planner informed Members that an introduction date of 2014 had been set; S106 agreement procedures would remain effective until that time.

Members were informed that if, due to economic climate changes, a scheme became unviable, the developer would be required to pay for the Authority to obtain its own independent viability assessment, the outcome of which could lead to the removal of a legal agreement contribution.

RESOLVED that:

1)  a report incorporating a list of Section 106 agreements where developments are 'live' but not yet started be submitted to a future meeting of the Development Control Committee; and

2)  the report and its appendices be noted.

Report DRR10/00087

Members considered an update on Section 106 Agreements.

Development of a joint database had been completed through creation of an Access Database populated by information from both the Uniform system and

Oracle accounting system. The detail of every S106 agreement was stored in at least one of three Appendices. Appendix 1 recorded the ‘negative/restrictive obligations’ including developments restricted by the S106 either by use, limitations on development within the curtilage, or by not

implementing a previous permission. Appendix 2 recorded the ‘positive non financial’ contributions and Appendix 3 recorded ‘positive financial’ contributions.

Members were provided with details of 17 new agreements since the previous update in November 2009. Appendix 1 of the report showed nine ‘negative’ S106 legal agreements; Appendix 2 showed five new ‘positive non-financial’ S106 legal agreements; Appendix 3 showed three new agreements of specific ‘positive financial’ gain to the Council (one of which was also included at Appendix 1) and Appendix 4 provided details of current balances held by the Council for S106 agreements - split by service area, revenue/capital classification and the time limit for spending monies. Where no time limits existed a five year limitation from the date of the legal agreement was assumed.

In discussion Councillor Robert Evans referred to paragraph 5.3 of the report and the financial position of unspent balances across the service areas. In particular he highlighted the latest balance at 30^th June 2010 related to Housing. This comprised some £2.3m and he enquired what the sum was spent on and whether it could be used more flexibly. The Chief Planner agreed to report back after making further enquiries, (Action: BM)

At paragraph 4.7 of the report Councillor Julian Grainger enquired about one of the three statutory basis in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)  under which section 106 contributions could now be sought, namely the test related to being “directly related to the development”. The Chief Planner explained that there were previously five policy tests as outlined in Circular 05/05 which were not legal requirements. However new regulations regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy made it more defined where a section 106 contribution could be sought.

RESOLVED that the report and its appendices be noted.