Agenda item - SECTION 106 AND UNILATERAL UNDERTAKINGS

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

To provide the Committee an annual update on S106 agreements and unilateral undertakings in the Southern Rural area.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the content of the report entitled Annual Update on S106 Obligations for the Southern Rural Committee be noted;

(2) That the Development and Conservation Manager be requested to present a report regarding Section 106 contributions to the Southern Rural Committee on an annual basis setting out full records of all Section 106 activity for the preceding financial year and which reflects changes in legislation and practice.

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

(4) That the Southern Rural Committee supports the introduction of a Small Development Sites Community Infrastructure Levy to capture the cumulative impact of small developments on local infrastructure.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

(1) To ensure that there is a robust system for negotiating and managing Section 106 Obligations and Unilateral Undertakings, that records activity for each financial year and is placed in the public domain.

(2) To ensure that the process is kept under constant review and Member scrutiny and that the risk associated with this activity is managed in an appropriate manner.

Audio Recording – 17 minutes 59 seconds.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report entitled Section 106 and Unilateral Undertakings with the following appendices:

· Appendix 1 – Funds Received in Southern Rural Area during Financial Year 2019/20

· Appendix 2 – Current Held Funds Based on Parish Areas – Southern Rural

The Chair accepted the Development and Conservation Manager’s apologies for the misuse of the word ‘Royston,’ in the report.

The Development and Conservation Manager drew attention to the following:

· Cabinet had adopted a new Supplementary Planning Document in July to replace the document from 2006. This new document will not come in to full effect until the full Local Plan is in place;

· The Supplementary Planning Document envisioned a Section 106 process rather than a Community Infrastructure Levy;

· Cabinet in December would consider a report on whether it is worth pursuing a small-site Community Infrastructure Levy;

· An Infrastructure Funding Statement would be published in December as an annual record of all Section 106 activity in the District;

· Annual area committee updates would continue alongside the Infrastructure Funding Statement;

· A white paper on planning reforms coming forward had discussed introducing a National Infrastructure Levy in place of Section 106 agreements. The role of District Councils in this arrangement was not yet clear;

· Until the law changes the current Section 106 procedure had to be pursued;

· Paragraph 8.4.5 listed funds available in the villages: Ickleford had a lot of funds as a result of the LS1 development, and Pirton as a result of the Cala Homes and Gladman’s developments;

· These villages had the most funds available as they are not in the Green Belt;

· Villages still in the Green Belt did not see large developments and therefore had limited funds from Section 106 arrangements.

The following Members raised questions and took part in the debate;

· Councillor Sam North

· Councillor Claire Strong

· Councillor Terry Tyler

· Councillor John Bishop

· Councillor Ian Moody

· Councillor George Davies

In response to questions raised the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

· Money allocated to the County Council was not included in the report;

· Sums of money were awarded to Herts County Council arising from the LS1 development to be spent by Bedfordshire County Council towards education provision;

· Funds distributed outside of the District were allocated on the basis of geographical location; in LS1 for example the nearest school was in Bedfordshire;

· Infrastructure funding was not always best spent in accordance with administrative boundaries;

· Future developments east of Luton would naturally result in some funding being allocated to the Luton authority for highways infrastructure;

· There was Section 106 funding from the NES2 development still available;

· Projects with established programmes of work could approach the Planning Obligations and Compliance Officer to discuss drawing on Section 106 funds;

· Proximity was naturally a key consideration in allocating Section 106 funding;

· Plans for developments in Roundwood would progress slowly until the Local Plan advances;

· More information would be updated on the website concerning Roundwood and Section 106 funding as it arrives;

· Recommendation 2.3 in the Report referred to funds to be allocated from developments out of the wards in which the developments occur; these allocations required approval from Members.

· The current Section 106 regulations prohibited fundraising from developments of under 10 dwellings; small-site Community Infrastructure Levy would prevent developers avoiding contributions by building under the 10 dwelling limit.

· Following discussion Members were keen that the Committees support of a Small Development Sites Community Infrastructure Levy be placed on record,

It was moved by Councillor Claire Strong, seconded by Councillor Sam North and: