Agenda item

That the content of the report be noted and welcomed.

The Internal Audit Manager explained that the item had arisen following previous concerns raised by the Committee on outstanding recommendations from an audit on the use of Section 106 Agreements.  The Head of Planning was invited to present the report and provided background on the process of Section 106 Agreements which had led to him commissioning the audit.

The Head of Planning gave an overview of actions detailed in the report which had been taken to address the audit recommendations and advised that in compiling a list of all Section 106 Agreements signed since 2000, officers had reviewed over half of these to date.  As an example of the work undertaken so far, copies of a spreadsheet were circulated showing information on agreements for Buckley which had been shared with the Town Council.  Such information had been generally well received by Town and Community Councils and was helpful in clarifying the process and demonstrating transparency.  Further work carried out to date was detailed in the report.

Following a query raised by Councillor T. Newhouse, the Head of Planning explained the need for the introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to go through a parallel process to the Local Development Plan (LDP) which was evidence-based and therefore links would need to be made to satisfy any Inspector.

Councillor G.S. Banks sought a response on the comment that the audit had identified a lack of confidence in processes for Section 106 Agreements.  The Head of Planning replied that this referred to the inability to trace what payments had been sought and that this was now included in the monitoring sheets.  Work had since been done to improve and clarify the process.  In response to a question on differences in triggers, he said that this was dependent on the size of the site.

When asked by Mr. P. Williams about the extent of the backlog, the Head of Planning indicated that there were currently 40-50 unsigned legal agreements in the system but was unable to give an estimated value of payments included within them.  He said that CIL should simplify the process and provide opportunity to focus on attracting funding to mitigate the impacts of particular developments..  Any developer who breached the triggers would instigate formal enforcement procedures, however the enforcement officer had been successful in informally resolving outstanding financial issues.  In response to questions on potentially halting a development, the Head of Planning spoke of the difficulties in providing evidence of actual harm, but said that CIL would simplify the process.

In response to further queries, the Head of Planning explained that each planning application was determined on its own merits and could not take into account the past history of the developer and their track record of payments of Section 106 funding, or otherwise.  On the enforcement of triggers, he advised that officers physically went out on site to carry out monitoring.  The Democracy & Governance Manager pointed out that in addition to the Council’s enforcement procedures, local searches carried out by solicitors of potential property buyers would highlight any non-compliance with planning permissions.

In summary, the Head of Planning said that an improved system was now in place allowing easier review of Section 106 Agreements.  Once the work was completed for the whole of Flintshire in approximately 12 months’ time, a report would be submitted to the Planning Strategy Group to seek a recommendation elsewhere, possibly to Overview & Scrutiny.  The Internal Audit Manager confirmed that this was acceptable to him.

RESOLVED:

That the content of the report be noted and welcomed.