Agenda item

The Head of Planning and Building Control introduced the report which provided an update on progress including delivery of the project (the internal audit in 2022 had reviewed S106 funding and the use of secured funds, resulting in a 'Limited Assurance' rating), the changes implemented, and the outstanding actions required.  She highlighted that the Council had put an incredible effort and resource into this project.  The Deputy Head of Planning Development Management presented the report with a powerpoint presentation which would be circulated to Members of the Committee.

Councillor Matt McCabe was present for this item.

In response to Members questions it was confirmed:

·  With any planning application if Section 106 money is requested then it must meet policy requirements and be spent only on what it was taken for.

·  An example of a case where a refund was made was given in respect of a new footpath where the landowner withdrew permission for a path which could not be delivered and the money was returned.

·  In respect of corporate governance – overseeing fund requests, project delivery and spend updates (via service department steering groups) and monitoring, assurance, reporting (via planning and finance) was already happening; it was the intention that strategic and tactical oversight (via Place Shaping Group and Capital Strategy Group) would be in place in the next quarter and was currently being arranged.

·  The project would be tested for 6 months for officers before a further decision was taken by politicians and Senior managers around it being made public

·  The temporary resource currently in place would need to be made permanent and options would be reviewed in March 2026.

·  In some of the tables in the powerpoint presentation the font was too small to be readable and a broad overview would be better.

·  The definition of ‘funds at risk’ was, if the deadline for funds to be returned to the developer was approaching.  Within 6 months of the deadline, it was RED and there were AMBER flags, within 2 years of the deadline.

·  The CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) was a separate issue.

·  After reconciliation of the projects, the Council was £993K in the red box deadline as funds move in the timeline the figures change making them a snapshot in time.

·  Corporate PDS was better suited to monitor the project where they looked at KPIs and monitored trends, with an annual review to Audit Committee.

·  Historic funds were the biggest risks.

·  Section 106 was a finite amount not flexible as it was funding for a specific purpose.

·  It was hoped that that new process would eliminate unnecessarily returning funds but was unlikely to eliminate all returns for a range of reasons

·  The planning service would be looking at how Section 106 agreements can be made more flexible where possible.

·  Each service head would be accountable, expertise would be shared and cabinet would be kept informed as governance was paramount.

·  Training for parish councils would be given for them to monitor developments.

·  What figure had been lost in the last year?  (This would be reported directly to Councillor Sam Ross).

On a motion from Councillor Sam Ross, seconded by Councillor Toby Simon, it was

RESOLVED to note the report and review in 12 months as part of the internal audit review, specifically:

1)  the work undertaken to address the issues identified in the 2022 audit report;

2)  the implementation of the project and proposed governance arrangements;

3)  the outstanding matters requiring action and the timescale for delivery.