Agenda item

The Head of Planning and Building Control provided a summary of Section 106 procedures which had been implemented following recommendations by the Shared Internal Audit Service (SIAS), the detail of which was set out in the report now submitted.

The Chairman referred to the fact that the issue of Section 106 agreements was a high priority in terms of the SIAS recommendations.  He welcomed the fact that all the recommendations had now been implemented.  The Chairman sought clarification regarding how many section 106 agreements were over five years old and whether the Council had lost funds as a result of any “claw back” arrangements. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control commented that as recommended by SIAS, regular reports were being submitted to Corporate Management Team (CMT).  He stated that there were a “handful” of Section 106 legal agreements older than five years but that some agreements had a “claw back” period of as long as 10 years or none at all; so there was not a simple threshold that provided an indication of “claw back” risk.    He agreed to provide Members with a written update on how many reports were over five years old.

Councillor J Wing sought assurances that sections within the Council were communicating with each other regarding Section 106 agreements and that there were no “blockages” preventing monies from being spent.  The Head of Planning and Building Control assured the Member that CMT had dealt with any “blockages” and that there were regular discussions with service areas to establish where monies could be best spent.  He assured Members that the rigorous audit of Section 106 agreements undertaken by SIAS ensured that processes were robust.

The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to a recent meeting of Environment Scrutiny Committee which had considered the issue of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and its relationship with Section 106 agreements. 

The Chairman stated that he had attended the meeting and referred to the possibility that the Council might not take up the CIL arrangement in this District and the importance of Section 106 agreements.  The Chairman also referred to the need to widen the scope of the agreements when drafted and expressed his concerns that rural areas rarely seemed to benefit from Section 106 monies. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to the legislative restrictions of Section 106 agreements and the Council’s own policy, adding that the policy could be reviewed if Members wished.  He stated that few schemes came forward in villages.  Councillor R Sharma referred to a large development at Watton-at-Stone whereby a Section 106 agreement had resulted in the provision of a children’s centre. 

In response to a query from Councillor J Wing regarding concerns of the District Council working in collaboration with Hertfordshire County Council regarding Section 106 monies being paid over, the Head of Planning and Building Control gave assurances that the Council also worked in collaboration with Town and Parish Councils and that the County Council gave the District Council updates on a six monthly basis on funding.

In response to a query from Councillor N Wilson regarding the report by SIAS and whether there would be sufficient funding for the infrastructure proposed in the District Plan, the Head of Planning and Building Control commented that this had been recently discussed at Environment Scrutiny Committee in relation to the CIL.  He stated that there were concerns about the work involved in creating a CIL and whether this would generate sufficient funding for the necessary infrastructure.

In response to a query from Councillor M Pope regarding further monitoring reports on this issue to Audit Committee, The Director of Finance and Support Services commented that as all the recommendations from the SIAS report had been implemented it would be unusual to ask that subsequent monitoring reports be submitted to Committee but that this was possible if the Committee considered this useful. 

The Committee noted the report and supported a request that the Head of Planning and Building Control provide a written response on the number of Section 106 agreements which were more than five years old and what monies had been “clawed back”.

RESOLVED – that (A) the report which set out the update in relation to the SIAS audit of Section 106 procedures be received; and

(B)   the Head of Planning and Building Control provide Members with a written response on the number of Section 106 agreements which were more than five years old and what monies had been “clawed back”.