To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors David Hitchiner and Roger Phillips.

To receive details of any councillor nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

Councillors Elizabeth Foxton and Richard Thomas were present as named substitutes for Councillors David Hitchiner and Roger Phillips, respectively.

To receive declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were made.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2023.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairperson.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

A document containing a question received from a member of the public and the response given, plus a supplementary question and the response given, is attached at Appendix 1 to the minutes.

To receive any written questions from members of the council.

A document containing a question received from Councillor David Hitchiner and the response given is attached at Appendix 2 to the minutes.

The report sets out the policy that enables the council to secure section 106 funding, the mechanisms for identifying projects to be incorporated into the legal agreements and reports on the delivery of section 106 funded schemes since Cabinet approved the delivery model on 2 March 2023.

The opening comments made by the Cabinet Member Environment included: officers were thanked for the comprehensive and detailed report; the inquiry from the scrutiny committee was welcomed; an overview was provided of the historic backlog in the delivery of Section 106 funded schemes and the involvement of the Programme Management Office (PMO) in the new delivery model; it was acknowledged that delays in community infrastructure projects added costs and frustrated the intention to mitigate the impact of development; Section 106 contributions had to be spent efficiently and sensibly; there had been meaningful progress but there was still a way to go; the committee was invited to consider whether the future plans were robust enough or whether further action might be needed; there could be a need to raise public awareness of the connection between development sites and community infrastructure projects; and there may be a need for revisions to the formulae for contributions as set out in the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Planning Obligations dated 1 April 2008.

The Chairperson thanked contributors for the work undertaken in preparing the report. 

The principal points of the discussion are summarised below:

Policy

1.           In response to a question from the Chairperson, the Planning Obligations Manager reported that the figures in the SPD on Planning Obligations were up-to-date for education and health but others, such as highway contributions, had not been updated since 2008.  It was noted that contributions were index linked from the date of an agreement to the date of the monies being received.  The Chairperson commented on the significant increases in house prices locally and nationwide since 2008, and a potential recommendation about the uplift of the contributions was suggested.

2.           In response to questions from the Vice-Chairperson, the Planning Obligations Manager advised that: it had not been possible within the timescale to produce figures on the hypothetical position had the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) been introduced; as part of the new Local Plan, a viability assessment was being produced which would set a new CIL charging schedule for the future and this would be subject to public consultation; an overview was provided about the new role of ‘Infrastructure Delivery Officer’ which would include co-ordination of the production of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan; and the CIL arrangements allowed parish and town councils to receive a share of the relevant CIL contribution (25% for those with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan or 15% for those without) and there would still be an opportunity to submit community wish lists.

Later in the meeting, it was clarified that the potential proportional split of monies to parish and town councils was set out in the CIL legislation, so would not be determined locally.

3.           In response to a question from a committee member, the Planning Obligations Manager explained that each Section 106 agreement was in place to mitigate the impact of a particular development and specified where contributions had to be spent.

4.           With further details provided by the Head of Planning and Building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.