Agenda item

The Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy Monitoring Report

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

Minutes:

The Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment  detailing the progress made in securing and implementing financial and non-financial planning obligations secured under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the London Plan, in the financial year 2016 to 2019.

 

The Deputy Chair thanked Officers for a very interesting report. He noted the considerable sums received under both S106 and CIL and sought assurances from Officers that all such sums would be spent on relevant projects as opposed to returned to developers after a certain period of time. He added that there was no obligation for developers to extend the timing to enable fee expenditure.

 

Another Member questioned, under S106, when new calculations for affordable housing contributions would be finalised. He added that there was urgency around this mater which had now been running for some time. He went on to state that the governance of these funds seemed obscure and that, whilst he was clear in terms of the percentage of CIL funds attributed to the Department of Built Environment, for example, he wasn’t as clear for other Departments/areas. Another Member interjected to state that it was surprising to see how out of touch/unrealistic S106 currently was on affordable housing contributions. This was easily illustrated by the unit costs associated with the COLPAI scheme detailed within the report.

 

Another Member questioned how funds were allocated and how this linked with the organisation’s Education work for example. He noted that the report referred to Local Employment and Training funded by S106 funds but suggested that, if funds remained unspent, there was easily much more that could be done in terms of Work Experience for example.

 

A Member echoed concerns around the amount of CIL funds collected since its introduction compared with the percentage of funds spent to date which seemed to amount to less than 5% of the total collected. He flagged that this could leave the organisation open to criticism and questioned if Officers could detail those funds that were already committed to spend. Another Member expressed the same concerns around S106 funds and questioned how much could potentially be lost due to funds being time expired.

 

A Member commented that the fact that some funds were time limited made the situation even worse. She questioned how funds were currently allocated to projects and why, with these funds not yet spent, there was still a queue of projects internally. She added that there was clearly money here that could be spent on improving neighbourhoods and the like.

 

Another Member added that more could be done in terms of speaking with residents on the challenges they face and consulting them, particularly young residents, in terms of what they would like to see funded. He added that there was a large population in City fringe boroughs living in poverty and that more work could be done with neighbouring boroughs such as Tower Hamlets to look at what collaborative work might be undertaken and funded to offer people greater access to opportunities.

 

With regard to governance, the Director of the Built Environment reported that, whilst funds were collected through Planning and Transportation, some were given to other Committees, as appropriate, to spend. The Policy and Resources Committee had agreed a policy for Neighbourhood CIL funds and communicates were encouraged to come forward to bid for these. Matters relative to this Committee were put to the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee to determine.

She went on to clarify that there were plans for spending some of the funds currently held but that other S106 funds would require further discussions with developers before they could be committed to projects. With regard to CIL funds, these would be reviewed as part of the Fundamental Review. The Director added that these funds were part of the annual bidding process for Capital Projects across the organisation.

 

The Director of the Built Environment went on to underline that this was simply a statutory, housekeeping report of what had actually been spent to date. A lot more funds had already been allocated and unallocated funds were currently under review.

 

In terms of funds available to this Committee to expend, there were plans for all of the S106 monies which were not subject to the Fundamental Review and plans for some of the CIL funds with the unallocated sum now part of the Fundamental Review/Capital Projects Annual bidding process.

 

The Chair asked that Officers come back to this Committee on the point around affordable housing with some urgency as it did not appear to be sustainable to maintain the status quo on this. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that she believed that this was tied to the progression of the Local Plan but undertook to take this matter back and report further. A Member questioned whether it could be brought forward as a separate Supplementary Planning Guidance document.

 

A Member stated that the Monitoring Report was just a small part of the bigger picture on these funds and highlighted that many other authorities had more complete information published on their websites. The Chair interjected to say that he was of the view that the organisation was currently using some rather outmoded means of consultation and that he was currently looking at how this could be addressed. He added that he was happy to take any views/suggestions that Members might have on this.

 

A Member stated that he remained confused as to the governance of these funds, what funds were already committed, how much could potentially be lost if not spent and how top level allocation was decided on.  Other Members echoed this questioning which funds were timebound, how much was therefore currently at risk and how much had had to be refunded in recent years. Another Member called for greater transparency in terms of how these funds were spent/allocated that could be readily accessible on the City Corporation’s public website.

 

The Comptroller and City Solicitor reported that S106 funds were timed, with the standard requirement being that funds are to be repaid to developers if not spent 10 years after the completion of the development. She clarified that CIL funds were not time constrained. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that no S106 funds had been returned to developers to date. Only funds under S278 had been returned as was required if not spent on specific projects.

 

The Chair summarised by stating that it was clearly felt that information on governance was lacking here and asked that Officers provide assurances on this in the form of a further report to this Committee. He also asked that a statement as to funds allocated be circulated. An Officer reported that, in terms of CIL funds, a further £8m was currently allocated alongside the £1.5m already spent.

 

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: