Agenda item

The Committee will receive an update on Community Infrastructure Levy provision and Section 106.

Contributors:

Cllr Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

Eric Owens, Service Director, Planning & Environment

John Callaghan, Transport Strategy Funding Manager

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration, and John Callaghan, Transport Strategy Funding Manager to the meeting. The Cabinet Member highlighted the following from the report:

·       The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 agreements (S106) were key mechanisms supporting the funding of infrastructure.

·       Before April 2020, the legacy councils had different approaches and the Council had had to use costly contracted staff.

·       In December 2022 responsibilities to manage, monitor and report on CIL and S106 were integrated into one team. Information on databases has been checked and consolidated to make data more usable and make best use of funds. Specialist software, Exacom, has been extended across the county, supported with staff training, and resilience had been improved. The backlog had been reduced and there were no longer any contract staff employed.

·       New KPIs had been introduced to ensure best use for S106 funds before they expired and to monitor CIL performance.

·       Next steps include:

o   A continued focus on performance

o   Reviewing the scope for CIL on a county-wide basis

o   Reviewing S106 wording to ensure a streamlined and clear process across the county

During the discussion, comments and questions were raised by the Committee and brought out a number of points:

·       As of April 2023, approximately £1.5 million S106 funds had been at risk of being returned to developers. The amount was now less than £900k.

·       There were various reasons for this:

o   Differing legacy authorities, with different monitoring and different terms within S106 agreements and sometimes insufficient time allowed to deliver projects.

o   S106 funds for schemes that faced delivery challenges, e.g. cost inflation, could often not be redirected to other projects, while additional funding was generally scarce.

·       The aim was to comply with the terms of the legal agreement while avoiding returning funds to developers if possible, hence in the first instance checking if developers remained in operation and asking to extend the period within which funds could be used. If the developer had gone out of business, the Council was unable to return the funds. Some developers, when contacted, had agreed that the period to use contributions could be extended.

·       A new process was established in 2023 to allocate S106 funds to projects with improved sharing of information with delivery services and member oversight.

·       It was noted that CIL funds offered some benefits compared to S106 agreements. A developer knew how much their contribution would be for CIL in advance. There was more flexibility in spending CIL funds.

·       If challenged the Council needed to be able to demonstrate that CIL did not reduce the need for S106 funding. Progress had been made here in the 2022-23 Infrastructure Funding Statement which indicated how future CIL income would be spent.

·       Cabinet had supported the process of considering the introduction of CIL in the north of the county (former Aylesbury Vale District area). Options were being looked at for this and a recommendation would be brought to Cabinet for a decision. Officers estimated it would be at least 9 to 12 months from agreeing to implement a new charging schedule before CIL could be implemented across the entire county.

·       It was noted in paragraph 1.3 of the report that the introduction of CIL could be linked to the timing of the local plan. A member commented that that the two should not be linked, CIL implementation in the North of the county should not be dependent on development of the Local Plan.

·       Paragraph 1.7 of the report detailed S106 & CIL funds passed by Buckinghamshire Council to parish councils in 2022-23. A Member commented that the actual amount was 11% rather than the minimum 15% of CIL collected that would be expected. Officers agreed to review the figures and would go back to the Member outside of the meeting.

Action:Transport Strategy Funding Manager [Post Meeting Note: in addition to the £727k passed to parish councils, 335k was allocated for use in the unparished area. Together these sums amount to over 16% of the CIL collected, in line with expectations.]

·       The amount passed to the City of London local authority shown in table 2 of the appendix was queried. Officers confirmed that the contribution was correct. Regarding the footnote to the table, it was clarified that it should read: “The Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation contribution is predominantly collected in East and South Area”.

·       Paragraph 3.13 on page 37 of the report showed the Infrastructure Funding Statement. Demand notices for £6.7 million had been issued with receipts of £5.3 million. It was queried whether the council was collecting all CIL payments owed. The gap was due to timing – developers may have over a year to pay CIL funds for large developments. 

·       The report did not mention healthcare provision. It was highlighted residents wanted better access to healthcare. Developer funding was a practicable way to build new facilities. This topic would be discussed later in the meeting during the Planning for future Primary Healthcare item.

·       A Member reported a Parish Council had been charged £1,600 in costs for a S106 Deed of Variation. A Deed of Variation was necessary where it was required to change the use for S106 funding. It was suggested this could have been avoided if the Parish Council had been involved in drafting the S106 agreement. The Transport Strategy Funding Manager thanked the member for the specific example, Members were encouraged to contact officers with further examples which they could investigate.

·       A Member wished to highlight that S106 agreements were often imposed on Parish Councils without their input, which could lead to a Deed of Variation being needed.

·       Officers explained that a balance between defining a specific purpose for the use of funds while retaining some flexibility was necessary when negotiating S106 agreements. They were legally defined agreements and as such were costly to alter. Unnecessary costs should be avoided but it was recognised that the original agreement would sometimes need alteration. Only parties to the original agreement could formally initiate the process for a Deed of Variation.

·       The Planning service had a meeting scheduled with town and parish councils in the next few weeks. They would look into providing training and support on CIL and S106 agreements for Town and Parish Councils.

·       A Member observed that CIL may be a good alternative to a S106 agreements, as it offered more flexibility for spending funds. It was pointed out that s106 funds is a more important source of funding than CIL and the two are complementary.

·       The Cabinet Member would look into offering training for Members on S106/CIL as parish and town councils would often contact Buckinghamshire Council Members for advice.

·       It was clarified that Members could contact the Cabinet member about issues arising from previous S106 agreements. For new S106 agreements, views should be presented via the planning application consultation process.

The Chairman thanked the contributors for their input.