Skip to main content

Issue - meetings

Section 106 Task and Finish Group Report 2026

 

 

Meeting: 14/04/2026 - Cabinet (Item 43)

43 SECTION 106 TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT 2026 pdf icon PDF 21 KB

REPORT OF THE SECTION 106 TASK AND FINISH GROUP

 

The report details the Task and Finish Group’s review of North Herts' application of the Section 106 (s106) mechanism for securing developer contributions from new development and provides an overview of the assessment undertaken and recommendations identified.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

 

(1)   Noted the report.

 

(2)   Tasked the Executive Member for Place and the Executive Member for Governance, together with relevant Officers, to further consider the recommendations and develop proposals for report to a future meeting of Cabinet.

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the opportunity to scrutinise the s106 Task and Finish Group report and recommendations.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 57 minutes 2 seconds

 

The Chair invited Councillor Claire Winchester, as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to present the referral on this item. Councillor Winchester advised that there had been discussions around:

 

·       How the Council were unlikely to get another chance to undertake a Section 106 Task and Finish Group before the Local Government Reorganisation.

·       How Section 106 contributions were spent was of great importance to the local community and the Council needed to ensure the right benefits were delivered to residents.

·       That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that all eight recommendations in the report should be referred to Cabinet.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer, as Chair of the Section 106 Task and Finish Group, presented the report entitled ‘Section 106 Task and Finish Group Report 2026’ and advised that:

 

·       As a result of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan and the subsequent increased housing supply, there would be a significant amount of development over the following decade which would result in many changes to the district.

·       Without adequate infrastructure put in place, development of this increased housing supply was unsustainable.

·       This inquiry had concluded was that if there was disconnect between the infrastructure priorities of the community and the infrastructure delivered through the Section 106 developer contributions, this could lead to detrimental impacts on communities.

·       The 8 key recommendations in this report sought to close the gap between the communities and the councils that served them.

·       As developers were looking to expedite housing developments with Section 106 contributions, it was crucial for the Council to obtain engagement as early as possible to ensure the funds were used where they were most needed.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Ian Albert

 

In response to questions raised, Councillor Muncer advised that:

 

·       Education and Highways were the two key departments allocated Section 106 contributions and recommendation 5 of the report was trying to improve local community infrastructure to ensure that local needs were prioritised.

·       To ensure more engagement with the Hertfordshire County Council Infrastructure Prospectus, recommendation 6 would enable district councillors to identify priorities that affected local communities.

·       Although there were not any recordings available from the discussions that had taken place with officers, their comments had been very useful, and changes had been made to the report following these consultations.

·       Although the conversations that took place with Community Partnership Officers were informal, there had been agreement to try to obtain the best possible outcomes for local communities.

·       Concerns raised with the Community Partnerships team were considered when the recommendations were drawn up.

·       There had not been any engagement with the Leader of the Council or the Executive Member at the time of the report, as it had been felt it was of more importance to work with officers, as this report would eventually come to Cabinet.

·       The deadline for this report had not allowed sufficient time for consultation with the Chairs of the Community Forums.

·       A three to six-month  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43