Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Meeting attendance > Document > Committee attendance > Issue
Matter for
Decision
A report to this
Committee March 2015 highlighted significant changes arising from restrictions
(from April 2015) on the use of future S106 contributions. New ones had to be
for specific projects and no more than five of these could be used/pooled for any particular project.
An interim
approach to seeking new, specific S106 contributions was agreed and introduced
last June. This anticipated a gradual build-up in securing new S106 funding
alongside a need to strengthen the evidence base for justifying specific
developer contributions. A review of the interim approach in early 2016 was
requested – and this was the focus of the report for this item.
The Council may
need to continue the interim approach for another year (at least) before the
CIL system can be implemented locally.
The interim
approach for new, specific contributions also needed to be viewed alongside the
use of existing, generic S106 funds. In the last six months, over £2 million
had been allocated to new priority projects.
Overall, the
availability of generic S106 funding was tapering off and running down.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public
Places
i.
Agreed that the Council’s interim
approach should now focus on seeking specific S106 contributions:
a)
primarily from appropriate major developments
for projects relating to specific open spaces, community facilities and indoor
and outdoor sports facilities;
b)
from both major and minor developments,
as appropriate, for specific play area projects;
ii.
Approved the ‘target lists’ of
possible specific play area and open space projects as a starting point for
seeking new S106 contributions from planning approvals in 2016/17 as set out in
Appendices B and C;
iii.
Noted the other improvements to
make the interim approach to seeking specific S106 contributions simpler and
more effective (see paragraphs 4.5 – 4.14 in the Officer’s report).
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.
In response to Members’ questions the Urban Growth Project Manager said
the following:
i.
Specific S106 contributions could only be entered
into for mitigating the impact of particular developments at nearby facilities,
where a case could be made (backed up by audit findings and other evidence)
that this was necessary. For this reason, specific contributions would not be
evenly spread across the city. This explains why the target lists of play areas
and open spaces for which specific S106 contributions could be sought did not
cover facilities in all wards.
ii.
S106 developer contributions were used to mitigate
the impact of developments, not address areas of deprivation.
iii.
Whilst target lists of facilities for which S106
specific contributions could be sought were a starting point
for negotiation. Specific contributions for other facilities may also be
considered if it can be demonstrated that there is a strong need to mitigate
the impact of a particular nearby development..
The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places added that the Outdoor Play Investment Strategy would be a way to
implement play area improvements through funding separate to specific S106
contributions.
iv.
Alongside the arrangements for specific S106
contributions, the council still had some generic S106 contributions (from S106
agreements entered into before 6/4/2015), albeit that this funding availability
is tapering off and running down. The next S106 priority-setting round would be
in 2016/17. Officers would bring a report on the arrangements for this
priority-setting round
to the committee in June or September 2016.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.