S 106 meeting

Monday 22nd April: 11am Meeting Room 7

Attendance

Chris Traill -Chair

Colin Bailey-Open Spaces

Julie Robinson-Neighbourhoods

Neil Greenhalgh-Cleansing & Open Spaces

Steve Lewis Roberts-Planning

Sylvia Wright-Leisure & Culture

Apologies

Richard Bennett-Planning

1. Support to Parish Council

Concerns were raised about the recent email traffic from parishes, from Shepshed in particular.

The specific issue raised by Shepshed was that of delegation and ownership of S106 monies, and why they could not be directly “passported” to parishes to spend as they see fit.

There was also concern about continued lack of understanding amongst parishes in terms of how S106 is operated, and their responsibility in providing timely information to meet audit requirements (3 quotes)

Chris advised that she had explained to Shepshed the following points:-

  • S106 is complex, and is dependent upon transparency of information that parishes need to provide to officers, before we can release monies.
  • There is no automatic entitlement to this money, there isoften a misunderstanding that monies"belong" to parishes, when the reality is there are delicate negotiations to get partner funding allocated in any particular locality,
  • It also impacts upon a number of strategies across the authority, all of which mustcompliment each other:
  • As well as the Corporate plan and business plan priorities there are planning expectations, the Open Spaces Sports and Rec Study 2010 standards, need based on indices and so on.
  • Standards are therefore not set on the basis of officers subjective view but upon objective analysis of the needs of an area, which often need to take account of wider provision as a whole. In terms of its functions and access to resources and data, this is a role that sits more easily with the Borough Council than expecting parishes to objectively assess need and wider provision.
  • Therefore, the rigour that officers have to apply,is an entirely necessary and appropriatepart of the Council's processes.
  • Officers are always trying to find a better way to negotiate sites.
  • We are striving to understand the full implications of new developments like CIL

Aside from this, Charnwood needs to feel assured that it is balancing this responsibility alongside the expectation under the Localism Act that resources and decision making is being delegated to the lowest possible level. So where possible we continue to ensure that parishes and community organisations need to be included or consulted in decisions.

Action:

Steve to check family group on what other planning authorities do

Steve to check with planning lead member

Chris to check with Geoff on whether this needs political consideration

Chris to set up a further meeting with Shesphed post election: Chris, Steve, Colin to attend.

Follow-up:

Steve has received written confirmation from Melton, Oadby and Wigston, Blaby and Rutlandstating that their approach reflects the practice in Charnwood. LeicesterCity has confirmed it would adopt our approach if it had any ParishCouncils. North-West has verbally stated that their approach is the same as ours.

Therefore our approach is consistent with the other councils inLeicestershire and Rutland.

This information can be shared when we discuss the issue with Shepshed.

2. Table of spend

Overall there had been considerable progress and the spend looked much better.

The table needed to be clearer on responsible officer, as this has often been inaccurate or out of date. Monies are often assigned to ther partners like Health or Fire, and not the responsibility of the Council.

Actions:

The following actions were recorded:-

Out of Date Amounts

Neil: Line 6, File 43, Segrave Road Sileby – this is Neil’s remit, not Julie’s

Julie: Line 8, File 40, actioned on behalf of Shepshed with a DD

Sylvia: Line 9 and 10, File 42 - To check public art spend item as this was previously in the remit of the Arts officer post which has been vacant.

Julie: Line 11, File 48, Anstey residual amount recommitted – needs clearer tighter policy in future

Line 12, File 74 Syston residual amounts recommitted

Neil: Line 13, File 74 Syston needs to be re assigned and recommitted - needs clearer tighter policy

Colin: Line 14, File 107, Loughborough Blackbird hotel, Colin to check and chase

Steve: Lines 15-19 & 21 Planning to chase

- Temple Grange – contributions from fire & health –Fire unlikely to respond

Health – pot of £0.75 m of residual spend, question of geographical location of this to spend for transparency and equity. Raises the question of whether it is possible to negotiate longer than 5 years for payback?

Julie: Line 20, File 95 Barkby lane Syston monies – Julie been chasing for months with parish council, in final process of agreeing spend.

Colin: Line 22, File 140, Empress road, Loughborough – identified in Open spaces strategy,

Amounts out of Date within 6 months

Julie: Line 28 & 29, file 101,Shepshed, Brook St – completed, committed through DD

Line 30 & 31, File 141Thurmaston, Hadrian St – completed, committed through DD

Lines 32-35 , File 117, Anstey, Roseberry Road and Lines 35-37, File 110, Standon Rd Anstey

All completed, committed through DD, legal wording needs re consideration.

Legal needs to be involved and proactive at an earlier stage.

Lots of benefits to be accrued from this. This would help speed the process, and would enable a much more proactive stance. It also helps to avert a claw back clause

Line 38, File 87, Linkfield Road, Mountsorrel – Julie to action

Line 39, 46 & 47 , File 146 Derby Road & Thorpe Acre, Loughborough

– Julie meeting Thursday 25th April with Parish

Steve:

Line 48, File 34Burton on the Wolds – need to check with finance as this should be assigned to highways

Line 49, 48 Mountfields – this should be the school Steve to check

Line 50, This should be Health, Steve to check

3. Good practice and Audit issues

Timeliness

There is a need for earlier negotiations and for more departments who will ultimately be responsible for spend involved earlier in negotiations. This meeting could provide this springboard/ forum that could facilitate this by meeting on a quarterly basis or as and when needed.

Whilst the state of economy has witnessed a dip in s 106 monies. The last 6 -9 months have subsequently seen a spike in monies coming in.This spike will continue under the SUEs development under the Core Strategy.

There is a need for more info on when development commences and then the resultant flag on when the clock is ticking on these monies and when the monies are received.

Some early warning triggers would help as a good practice.

Action All :Approach to agreeing s106 – need earlier conversations across depts.

Finance: John Casey, Legal: Richard Thurling & Audit: Adrian Ward:-

Next meeting need finance legal and audit at next meeting.

Flag on when the clock is ticking on these monies and when the monies are received.

Some early warning triggers would help as a good practice.

4. Managing Negotiation & Communication

Developers need to work better with local communities as part of PR and good practice, to avoid presenting as a fait accompli and to be “joined up” in managing the message”

– Windmill road, Shelthorpe, Rawlins community college swimming pool.

This merely highlights the good reasons for monies to come to borough council to create a good overview of viability

Action: Planning: Steve/Richard

Profile & Documentation

Need a definitive overview document of s106 not just the spend sheetspend, it should show a narrative on geography, number of developments, map etc. referenced to the correct agreement with timeframe.

Action: Chris to liaise with Simon J on a suite of documents using this narrative as a starting

Future Good Practice

Chris To canvas SMT steer on timed out projectsa strategy on how we deal with residual amounts and identify risks in terms of Reputational/ policy

Date of Next Meeting

23rd May 3pm: Meeting Room 7

3rd July 1pm : TBC