Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning a review of the County Council’s planning policy for developer contributions towards County-wide services and infrastructure. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 9”, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were noted:

Section 106 (S106) Agreements

    (i)        In response to issues raised in relation to agreements with developers on financial contributions towards schools which had not come to fruition, it was suggested that developers could review at any stage the type of development it was putting forward and therefore the likely contribution for schools. It was noted that the Council had a similar policy to other councils not to charge for 1 bedroom dwellings (most commonly flats) as the occupancy was not felt likely to include children. Yield rates from housing developments were based on evidence from surveys conducted several years ago. It was felt that this area would merit some review to ensure that the data was up to date;

  (ii)        Not all developers were willing to pay S106 charges up front. Review mechanisms were in place to ensure that developers with plans for sustainable urban extensions with provision for over 500 dwellings could review their plans after the agreement was in place. This arrangement led to both increases and reductions in S106 funds for the Council;

 (iii)        Some district councils had trialled the issuing of bonds as a way of ensuring greater protection in instances where a developer went bankrupt. Officers offered to consider this option, though it was pointed out that where a viable development existed it was likely to lead a new developer taking on development and the associated planning obligations;

 (iv)        It was acknowledged that Page 21 of the Draft Policy would need to link to the final version of the mainstream Home to School Transport Policy;

  (v)        Some members felt that the policy to seek contributions for a larger sub-regional library, rather than a local library may cause public concern (Page 40);

 (vi)        It was confirmed that District and Borough Councils (as “planning authorities”) would be responsible for applications relating to economic growth (Page 33). It was hoped that District and Borough Councils would draw down on the County Council’s Policy to ensure consistency;

(vii)        The point was made that some planning authorities were being required to take a decision on applications without knowing what would be included in the S106 agreement. It was noted that where there was any significant variation to a development, the matter should be brought before the planning authority’s member committee again;

(viii)        The yield rate of 24 school pupils per 100 dwellings was determined by the Council’s survey whilst the multiplier rates were based on the Department for Education’s (DfE) 2009 nationally based guidelines. Officers in Children and Family Services had been requesting the DfE to review this multiplier figure for upward of two years. A suggestion was made for officers in the Department to re-emphasise this request in a letter to the Secretary of State for Education, Nicky Morgan MP;

 (ix)        A view was expressed that there should be greater account taken of the impact of developments on the arts. Officers felt that, though it was difficult to justify this as part of S106, it was ultimately a matter for planning authorities.

Section 278 (S278) Agreements

  (x)        It was felt that there would be merit in the Policy taking a greater account of the impact of developments on road traffic (S278). Whilst the Council’s draft Policy was directly about S106 obligations, officers agreed to discuss this suggestion with the Director of Environment and Transport.

RESOLVED:

That the comments made on the Leicestershire County Council Planning Obligations Policy be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 19 November 2014.