Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

This was the first of two reports on this agenda on arrangements for prioritising the use of generic S106 contributions in 2016/17. It focused mainly on S106 contribution types in this portfolio: informal open space, provision for children & teenagers, public art and public realm.

 

The Council sought S106 contributions to mitigate the impact of development (extra demands on facilities). Whilst there was still around £1.6 million of generic S106 contributions in this portfolio available, Section 3 of the Officer’s report explained how changes over the last couple of years had major implications for S106 priority-setting.

 

These constraints necessitate some changes to the arrangements for the next S106 priority-setting round (set out in Section 4).

 

Different S106 contribution types have different purposes. They can vary significantly in both the level of funding available and the nature and cost of the mitigation projects that they support. Report Section 5 highlighted particular issues relating to the public realm S106 category and explained why it was proposed not to include this contribution type in the next S106 priority-setting round.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

 

2016/17 S106 priority-setting round

The Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces approved the proposed approach to the 2016/17 S106 priority setting round (set out in Section 4 of the report) which:

       i.          Updated the S106 selection criteria for priority-setting (Appendix B);

     ii.          Revised the S106 devolved decision-making arrangements to enable area committees to decide how all unallocated S106 funding from the ‘informal open spaces’ and ‘provision for children and teenagers’ contribution types from their areas should be used;

   iii.          Focused the bidding process on seeking eligible proposals for improving open spaces and play areas and running small-scale public art projects from those parts of the city where relevant S106 funding is available;

   iv.          Envisaged that the S106 bidding process will take place from late October to early December 2016, followed by priority-setting reports to relevant committees in March - April 2017.

 

Public realm improvements

The Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces approved the proposed approach to public realm improvements (see Section 5):

    v.          Instructed officers to develop (and report back to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee) proposals for public realm improvements, in line with the Eastern Gate Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document, which would mitigate the impact of a major development on Harvest Way);

   vi.          De-allocated the public realm funding allocation of up to £42,000 for the existing Mill Road Gateway sign project;

 vii.          Offered community groups on Mill Road the opportunity (before any other suggestions are invited) to put forward alternative proposals for a Mill Road Gateway project, which could be considered by the Community Services Scrutiny Committee by June 2017;

viii.          Not to seek any new project proposals for the use of available funding for public realm improvements until after June 2017.

 

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.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Contingency arrangements were in place so that, if necessary, relevant Executive Councillors could intervene and remove from devolved funding arrangements any S106 contributions which were at risk of going past expiry dates. This was a mechanism to ensure funding was spent on time.

     ii.          Projects that could make use of time-limited S106 contributions were identified in advance in order to minimise this risk. If, even so, it appeared there may be difficulty with making use of them on time, this would be reported back to the next scrutiny committee, so the funding could be allocated to appropriate alternative projects instead. If the matter could not wait until the next scrutiny committee, Officers would liaise with relevant Executive Councillors and Spokes Persons in order to expedite the proper use of the contributions on a suitable project.

   iii.          As part of the proposed arrangements for the next priority-setting round, no ward would lose out through the recommendation to combine available S106 contributions currently in devolved and strategic funds.

   iv.          Officers had already been in touch with community groups on Mill Road, which were associated with the Mill Road gateway sign proposals, and would be back in contact with them once the Executive Councillor had made her decision about the future of this project.

 

Councillor Gillespie sought clarification that alternative funding sources were being investigated to take over when S106 ran out. The Executive Councillor undertook to ask officers to arrange a briefing on funding succession planning after today’s scrutiny committee.

 

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.

 

Post Meeting Note

The Urban Growth Project Manager made some corrections to his report which are available as an addendum to the agenda. The changes corrected some inconsistencies, omissions and typographical errors and did not materially affect the decision of the Executive Councillor. The Urban Growth Project Manager advised committee Members and the Executive Councillor of the changes to the report text post meeting.