Agenda item

Nicola Collins, Heritage and Planning Enforcement Team Leader:

(a)       Presented a report which updated the Committee on Section 106 Agreements in respect of what had been collected and what contributions had been negotiated.

(b)       Reported that a Section 106 group made up of officers from across the Council met quarterly to monitor the contributions coming in to the authority and allocate them to the projects that the money had been collected for.

(c)        Highlighted that these projects had been identified by Portfolio Holders and chief officers through the delivery of their various service areas and in line with the relevant Vision 2020 initiatives.

(d)       Reported that Section 106 Agreement monies were collected once the development reached certain milestones and must be spent within a period of 5 to 10 years depending on the type of infrastructure it had been collected for.

(e)       Outlined the contributions negotiated up to the end of quarter three, December 2017, at paragraph 4.2 of the report which totalled £560,731.

(f)        Outlined the amounts allocated or spent on projects at paragraph 4.3 of the report which totalled £753,546.

(g)       Reported that the Community Infrastructure Levy would be collected and administered alongside Section 106 contributions.

(h)       Invited members’ questions and comments.

Question: Why was there no reference to the NHS in the list of classifications for contributions negotiated or amounts allocated or spent?

Response: There had previously not been any requests from the NHS for monies as part of Section 106 Agreements, however, over the last few months the team had been approached by the NHS.

Question: How much Section 106 Agreement funding had been allocated to the Romangate development?

Response: Affordable housing and a play space were being delivered onsite so no contributions through Section 106 Agreement funding would be received for those elements. A commuted sum for offsite playing field provision of £841 per dwelling had been agreed which would be calculated when the number of dwellings to be built on the City Council’s part of the site was confirmed.

Question: The same question was asked in respect of the old allotment site on Riseholme Road.

Response: There would potentially be funding arising through a Section 106 Agreement in respect of this proposed development, however, a planning application had not yet been received. Details around any potential for Section 106 Agreement contributions would depend upon the content of the planning application.

Question: Paragraph 4.2 of the report under contributions negotiated up to the end of quarter three showed £0 allocated to open spaces, yet in paragraph 4.3 under amounts already allocated or spent funding had been allocated to Boultham Park and Hartsholme Country Park. An explanation was sought.

Response: Open space was a different category to play space, with open space normally being provided onsite as part of development. In some circumstances, such as with Bunker’s Hill, developers include play space as part of the development. Contributions through Section 106 Agreements are allocated to the Council should it adopt the play space and be responsible for its maintenance. Developers often managed play spaces themselves through their respective management companies, meaning that there was no Section 106 Agreement contribution necessary for that aspect of the development.

Question: In relation to play spaces managed by a developer’s management company, were there any checks undertaken by the Council to ensure that they were adequately maintained?

Response: The Council would have no involvement with play spaces that it had not adopted as this would be the sole responsibility of the land owner or respective management company.

Question: The Community Infrastructure Levy was another means whereby contributions would be sent to the Council for it to then allocate funds accordingly. Had the Council agreed a mechanism for the allocation of the Community Infrastructure Levy?

Response: A report had been previously considered by members which calculated an approximate value of Community Infrastructure Levy funding that could be achieved should the housing identified in the Local Plan, up to the life of the Plan in 2036, be delivered. 15% of that funding would come back to the City of Lincoln Council, which equated to approximately £65,000 a year. It was emphasised that this figure represented a very optimistic position and would depend on the rate of delivery. It had not yet been determined how that 15% would be spent and a scoping report would be written setting out range of options. It was noted that this would be submitted to the Policy Scrutiny Committee for consideration prior to a decision by the Executive. The Community Infrastructure Levy was a very complex process and it would take approximately three years for the fund to be sufficiently built up.

Question: Who made the decision to use funding from development within the city to contribute towards the cost of the bypass?

Response: All local authorities had committed to this via a Memorandum of Understanding, with the City of Lincoln Council’s commitment agreed by the Executive approximately three years ago.

Question: Could Section 106 Agreement funding be used for repair and maintenance purposes on existing open spaces or play areas?

Response: The legislation stated that there was no flexibility in respect of allocating Section 106 Agreement funding and was solely for provision of new infrastructure.

Question: How did the classification table in paragraph 4.2 of the report and the £560,731 tie in with the £753,546 set out in paragraph 4.3 of the report in respect of amounts already allocated or spent?

Response: The table in paragraph 4.2 consisted of recently negotiated contributions and had not been allocated or spent due to the development not yet having been built or not having progressed enough for any payment triggers to be hit. Specific details in relation to the individual developments was provided at the meeting with regard to both tables in the report and it was agreed that this would be circulated to all members of the Committee. Future reports to the Performance Scrutiny Committee would include this level of detail.

Comment: The report made reference to a number of officer working groups and the Chair thought that members would be interested to see what the remit of all officer working groups were across the authority and who sat on them.

Response: The preferred approach would be for any member to liaise with the relevant Director should they require any information relating to a specific officer working group.

Question: Could a development on contaminated land potentially impact upon the Section 106 Agreement allocation?

Response: Initial discussions and negotiations that would take place between officers and the developer would highlight issues such as this. Planning policy would be applied to any development, with infrastructure forming part of that. A viability assessment would be undertaken for each development and this would outline all costs associated with the development together with a projected profit margin, with 20% being the nationally accepted profit margin in terms of viability. Planning policy would be applied to determine whether an application could go ahead on its merits, taking into account the viability assessment and any necessary infrastructure.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.