Agenda item

The Committee will receive an update on S106 and CIL funds held by the Council.



Katrina Wood, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources

Ian Thompson, Corporate Director for Planning, Growth and Sustainability

Richard Ambrose, Service Director for Corporate Finance and Section 151 Officer

Darran Eggleton, Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance



Section 106 and CIL report

Detailed summary with notes


Katrina Wood, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources presented the S106 and CIL update report and invited comments from the Committee. The Head of Planning Policy and Compliance attended to take questions on the report. The report provided an overview on the Council’s position in relation to financial contributions required by section 106 planning agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The report contained the current

financial status of developer contributions held and noted the systems in place to assure that risk of contributions being returned was minimal.


The Chairman summarised how developments warranted S106 contributions and CIL highlighting that where developments generated growth activity that caused harms to neighbours and the wider area, S106 and CIL contributions could be used to mitigate these harms which came directly from developments. The following key points were raised by Committee during discussion:


  • The negotiation element of S106 contributions was dealt with in the development management process as part of the determination of planning applications. A Member expressed concern that infrastructure plans to enhance the county were not looked at prior to a planning application being approved.
  • A member queried whether developers had exercised their clawback option and the Committee was advised that a supplementary report had been circulated which detailed S106 monies at risk of clawback within the next twelve months. It was understood that no clawback had been actioned by developers to date.
  • Concern was raised that CIL received locally was not ring-fenced to the particular area where the qualifying development was situated and could be spent on infrastructure around the county. It was confirmed that town and parish councils received 15 or 25% of CIL contribution with the rest going in to a central pot to be spent on infrastructure developments within the whole council area. Officers agreed to assess what legal options there may be to restrict spend to the areas development took place.
  • Members were also concerned that local people were not consulted on infrastructure needs and it would be beneficial for the Council to share the details of funds that were received and consult members. Members suggested that one way of engaging people would be through the newly established Community Boards and it was also recognised that members knew their local areas very well and held good relationships with key figures in the community and thus by consulting members there would be a better understanding of how harms from developments may be mitigated through use of infrastructure funds. Members felt that using Community Boards as a means to do this would benefit residents and the Council. The Committee also requested officers to look at whether it would be possible for the Council to list monies received by community board area and provide this to members.
  • In relation to the S106 funds within a year of expiry a member queried what was covered through the year on year funding noted for Thames Valley policing in Buckingham. It was clarified that £60,000 was funded year on year for specific project expenditure on policing projects in the area.
  • A Member suggested that the funds within a year of expiry should be RAG rated and include timelines to enhance transparency and allow members to monitor progress as future reports were presented. The Winslow Town Council amount was queried as no timeline was noted and members were informed that regular meetings were taking place and legal advice sought to allocate these funds to a particular project and safeguard the money from clawback. Officers would look to extend the ‘at risk’ list from within one year of expiry to within two and a half years of expiry.
  • A Member asked whether local members were informed when town and parish councils received CIL funds as it would only be at that point they could assist parishes with getting projects underway. It was explained that a CIL and S106 service review was underway as to how regularly monies received was reported and this point around local members being advised was noted and to be considered.
  • In terms of how S106 contributions were integrated in to the Council’s budget it was explained that when it was clear what a scheme would entail it would be costed and added in to the capital programme.


Supporting documents: