To receive a report from the Development Management Lead.

The Chairman welcomed Andy Booth, Development Management Lead to the Meeting to present Members with an update on Section 106 planning obligations, pages 53 to 64 of the Agenda refer.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member referenced the report considered by the Executive Board in September 2013 as noted at Section 2.29 and commented on the reasons that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was not previously adopted, page 58 of the Agenda refers.  In response, the Development Management Lead explained to Members that there were many challenges in adopting the CIL regime and that it did not always negate the need to secure Section 106 Planning Agreements.

• The Chairman commented that Parish Councils were under the impression that CILs would provide greater benefits than Section 106 Agreements.  In response, the Development Management Lead advised Members that CILs could provide a range of benefits, especially for towns that had adopted a Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Members were further advised that the differences between CIL and S106 obligations was that S106 Agreements were a precise set of rules that were tailored to the consequences of a particular development, whereas CILs provided a broader range of improvements and benefits for communities that were not tailored to the development itself.

• A Member commented whether some of the income from CILs could provide greater benefits in areas where no developments had taken place, particularly in coastal areas. 

• A Member provided an example of a housing project in Sutton on Sea that was not completed and had two developers leave the project.  In response, the Development Management Lead advised Members that in the circumstances where development had stalled, Section 106 monies would be stored until the next developer was able to continue the project and reach the prescribed triggers points.

• A Member queried whether Section 106 Agreements could pass on from one developer to the next, in the circumstances where a developer terminated their interest in a site.  In response, the Development Management Lead advised Members that the Section 106 Agreement could be modified and reapplied if the development continued in the same context as the original planning permission or alternatively developers could request agreements be removed.  Members were further advised that a robust process was in place to ensure that any proposed changes addressed mitigations that were needed as a consequence of the development.

• A Member further commented that the local community in Mablethorpe had not benefited from the Tesco development and queried the reasons that the Council had not ensured Section 106 Agreements had local advantages.

In response, the Development Management Lead assured Members that certain legal tests had to be fulfilled to what could be secured through Section 106 Agreements.

• A Member queried the report’s conclusion in relation to planning obligations being the best tool available to mitigate the impacts of a development where the use of planning conditions was inappropriate.  In response, the Development Management Lead advised Members that planning conditions were the preferred option and that in circumstances where transfers of land or funding was required planning obligations would be utilised.

• A Member stressed that very little was given back to local communities though any of the schemes imposed by the government.

• A Member queried the ways in which the Council was ensuring that funding was being put back into communities.  In response, the Development Management Lead advised Members that the Council had a range of aspirations, including provisions for affordable housing.  Members were advised that Council’s overall approach was to secure the necessary requirements to mitigate any harm or any problems that may arise from a development.

• A Member commented that Lincolnshire County Council were always inclined to approve developments and referenced an example in Louth which had been detrimental to people’s safety.

• A Member queried whether there was any way to ensure that funding was provided to local surgeries and highlighted an example in Stickney where the doctor’s surgery had not received any funding after money had been allocated to different surgeries.  In response, the Development Management Lead explained to Members that the funding allocation regime had changed in recent years, and that funding no longer had to be used for specific purposes which had enabled funding to be shared between groups of surgeries.

• A Member highlighted that funding from Section 106 Agreements could only be distributed to GP surgeries.  In response, the Development Management Lead confirmed that the money from Section 106 Agreements was controlled by the NHS. 

• In reference to Section 2.44 which linked to the Council’s Section 106 obligations and Infrastructure Funding Statement, a Member expressed concern that £5.9m held in 2022/23 had not been spent more quickly, page 60 of the Agenda refers.  In response, the Development Management Lead advised Members that delays in spending the funds was usually due to a lag between granting permission and development taking place. 

• A Member referenced the findings presented to the Audit and Governance Committee from the Council’s internal auditors in relation to Section 106 monies.

• The Chairman advised Members that the Lead Section 106 Monitoring Officer would return to the Committee to provide an update when the financial information on Section 106 Agreements had been reviewed.

No further comments or questions were received.

The Chairman thanked Andy Booth, Development Management Lead for the report.

Following which it was,

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

N.B Andy Booth, Development Management Lead left the Meeting at 11.41am.