Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

To consider the annual update on Section 106 and Unilateral Undertakings matters in respect of the Royston and District area.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the contents of the report titled Section 106 and Unilateral Undertakings be noted;

(2)          That a report shall continue to be presented to this Committee on an annual basis;

(3)          That, other than where a contribution has been negotiated for a specific purpose or project, Ward Members of the area where Section 106 or Unilateral Undertaking funding is generated and the Area Committee be consulted prior to funding being allocated away from that area or from a village location.

REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that there is a robust system for negotiating and managing Section 106 and Unilateral Undertakings, and to ensure that this is kept under constant review in order that this activity is managed in an appropriate manner.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled Section 106 and Unilateral Undertakings.

The Development and Conservation Manager drew the Members attention to:

·                8.1.1 of the report – stating that The Community Infrastructure Levy regulations which came into force on 28 March 2012 would remain in place. 

·                8.1.2 of the report – the pooling limit which had been introduced in April 2015 would still apply and remain in place for the time being, there was no confirmation as to when pooling restrictions would be reviewed.  Because of the restrictions on the pooling limit, in that, a tariff could no longer be imposed on an unknown project, this system had been heavily critisised.

·                Over the next few years the emphasis of Section 106 Agreement would concentrate more on identifying the project from the beginning of a Planning Application, deciding where the money would be spent and getting documentation signed and sealed.  All agreements that had been entered into from 2015, the projects had already been identified within that legal agreement, the money was committed and couldn’t be changed.

NHDC Communities team, who worked within the wider community met with The Development and Conservation Manager every two to three months to discuss projects identified, that may or may not fulfil the required legislative criteria to receive Section 106 funding.  The Development and Conservation Manager confirmed that there was always on-going communication between the departments.

Sustainable Transport was confirmed as the most difficult funding to allocate, due to them usually being County Council projects, and liaising with the Highway authorities was not always satisfactory.  Whilst that was a tricky area it was continually being looked at in terms of way to spend available funds.

The Development and Conservation Manager confirmed that Section 106 funding came into play before Planning Applications had been granted and that funding could not be applied for from permissions that had not yet been granted.

County Councillor Fiona Hill informed the Committee that meetings had already taken place with all interested parties on future & existing developments stating that she would forward communications to the Development  and Conservation Manager. 

Royston Town Councillor, John Davison reported that Section 106 money was currently under negotiation and agreed in principal on the land North of Baldock Road reporting that this was £100,000 for new facilities on the Heath and £1,000 per house for the upkeep of the Heath. He further stated that it was hoped, when the Lawyers, on completion of paperwork would give scope to spend the money in other areas that is separate from the money that was already available and unallocated in the Section 106 lists, particularly for leisure and sport.

The Development and Conservation Officer drew the Committees attention to the table in section 8.4.1 of the report, showing the financial position for the section 106 monies that the District Council had been receiving from 2001 to date.  He highlighted their well audited system, supported by the figures.  He advised the Committee that of the 5.6 million pounds collected by the Council over the last 18 years, only £7,000 had ever been refunded, proving to be an impressive track record.

The Development and Conservation Manager drew the Committee’s attention to 2.3 of the Recommendations stating that it had been adjusted a few years ago to enable allocation of money from one village to another.

Members agreed that they continue to funnel ideas for allocation of Section 106 funding to the Community Officers and their team.  The Development and Conservation Manager reminded the Committee the difference between an idea and a project, stating that allocation of money would only occur when proved that the project could happen, and it could be funded.  He further reminded that the project must deliver infrastructure that was permanent  and benefitted the service. A project had to be deliverable, Section 106 could not fund an entire project and developers could only fund demands on services it generated.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the contents of the report titled Section 106 and Unilateral Undertakings be noted;

(2)          That a report shall continue to be presented to this Committee on an annual basis;

(3)          That, other than where a contribution has been negotiated for a specific purpose or project, Ward Members of the area where Section 106 or Unilateral Undertaking funding is generated and the Area Committee be consulted prior to funding being allocated away from that area or from a village location.

REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that there is a robust system for negotiating and managing Section 106 and Unilateral Undertakings, and to ensure that this is kept under constant review in order that this activity is managed in an appropriate manner.