Agenda item

To provide an update on S106 contributions received and spent, secured contributions, contributions currently held and those successfully requested in 2019, any contributions nearing clawback and legislation changes.

The Scrutiny Commission was updated on S106 contributions received and spent in 2019, those secured, currently held and successfully requested and any contributions nearing clawback.

A member asked whether, in the current situation of speculative applications being received for greenfield sites due to the lack of a five year land supply, it was more challenging to negotiate good section 106 agreements. In response it was reported that the costs for developing greenfield sites was lower so there were fewer viability issues.

A member asked whether actual spend of S106 contributions were reported back. In response it was noted that this individual spend was not currently reported and the information was requested for future reports. It was advised that spend had to be provided to government by way of an Infrastructure Funding Statement as outlined in the report. It was requested that the Infrastructure Funding Statement be brought to the Scrutiny Commission.

In relation to contributions for healthcare, it was explained that it was up to surgeries to request money from the CCG and the council wasn’t able to influence where the funding was directed. It was, however, noted that there was a GP representative on the Health & Wellbeing Board and if they were to highlight deficiencies in certain surgeries, this could be conveyed to the CCG. It was also noted that there was a new Chief Executive of the West Leicestershire CCG who had a place-based focus.

In relation to the use of contributions towards healthcare for a surgery further away from a development (not for the nearest facility) which was expected to take the additional patients, a member asked whether planning permission should be refused if the nearest surgery could not take them. In response, it was explained that it would depend on the government’s definition of a reasonable distance to travel to a surgery. It was also noted that the CCG was a consultee on major planning applications and if they highlighted this matter as an objection, it could be a ground for refusal.

The move to patient care networks (PCNs) was discussed, whereby surgeries would be grouped together to provide a range of services, but not every service would be available at every surgery.

In relation to the signing of the S106 agreement for Barwell SUE, it was noted that Leicestershire County Council changing its position so late in the process was not an isolated incident and a similar thing had happened in other Leicestershire authorities. Disappointment was again expressed that the county council had been involved in the discussions on the S106 agreement throughout the entire process but it wasn’t until all other parties had signed that requested a review.

Contributions to education were discussed and it was noted that significant S106 sums had been secured for education in the borough. The chairman informed members that, following a discussion at a previous meeting, he had written to the Cabinet member for education at the county council to express concern about the Cabinet report which stated that HBBC had not secured sufficient contributions to education. The Cabinet member had acknowledged in his response that there was funding for education that the county council had not allocated.

Discussion ensued on the potential for using the community infrastructure levy (CIL), but it was noted that it was not necessarily an easy solution and it was felt that S106 would result in higher contributions.

RESOLVED –

(i)            The report be noted;

(ii)           The significant amount of contributions secured be recognised;

(iii)          The improvements in the process be acknowledged and commended;

(iv)         Actual spend be included in future reports;

(v)          The Infrastructure Funding Statement be brought to the Scrutiny Commission.