Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) which provided an update in relation to how the PCC and the Force were implementing recommendations arising from the Police and Crime Panel Task and Finish Group review of Section 106 funding. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 12’, are filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were raised:

(i)        The Chairman asked whether there had been increased flexibility from planning authorities and legal advisers in the wording of Section 106 agreements to improve accessibility to funds. The OPCC stated that flexibility varied across agreements. Some had demonstrated good levels of flexibility, while others remained more restrictive, resulting in ongoing inconsistencies despite previous efforts to achieve a more standardised approach. It was noted that a new Estates Strategy had been developed which incorporated Section 106 funding considerations. It was anticipated that this would enable the identification of priority areas for future investment and providing a clearer basis for forward planning.

(ii)       A member of the Panel queried the £1.1m of agreements which were due to expire in 2026 and asked how confident officers were that these funds would be allocated before expiry. The OPCC outlined that discussions had taken place with the Force, which had identified a number of projects capable of utilising this funding. Applications to draw down funds had already commenced and priority was being given to agreements nearing expiry to mitigate the risk of clawback. However, whilst progress had been positive, that success remained dependent on local authority approval, with some authorities approving expenditure more readily than others. It was noted that work was ongoing to reduce barriers and maximise the use of available funds.

(iii)      With regards to clawback arrangements and whether unspent funds were returned in full or in part, the OPCC stated that to date, no funds had been returned to developers.

(iv)      A member of the Panel raised an issue with discrepancies in reported figures relating to Charnwood Borough Council. The panel member stated the borough council’s records suggested that approximately £728,000 had been identified as uncommitted and £120,000 as committed, giving a combined total of around £848,000. The panel member emphasised the importance of working collaboratively to prevent any clawback of funds to developers would be essential and that further reconciliation of figures was required to ensure consistency. Some contributions had not yet been triggered and that in some cases certain developments were unlikely to reach their trigger points, meaning associated funding may never be realised. It therefore suggested that this could distort the reported figures. The OPCC acknowledged these concerns and confirmed that these issues would be reviewed and that future reporting would distinguish more clearly between committed funds, uncommitted funds, and those still held by developers or yet to be triggered.

(v)       Concern was raised regarding why approximately £8 million in Section 106 funding remained unspent, particularly in the context of wider police funding pressures. The OPCC explained that Section 106 agreements were legally binding arrangements between developers and local authorities, prescribing specific uses for the funds. As such, funding could only be drawn down strictly in accordance with the agreed terms. Both the OPCC and the Chairman emphasised that many agreements had been drafted several years previously and often reflected outdated requirements, such as the provision of physical buildings, which might no longer align with current operational needs. This rigidity significantly limited the ability to utilise available funds.

(vi)      It was noted Section 106 funding was restricted to capital expenditure, such as buildings, vehicles, or equipment, and could not be used for revenue costs or ongoing expenditure. The OPCC highlighted that many capital projects carried associated ongoing costs, which created further challenges, as these could not be funded through Section 106. For example, funds might be allocated for police premises within a specific development area; however, if there was no longer an operational need for such a facility in that location, the funding could not easily be redirected to alternative priorities.

(vii)    The Chairman acknowledged the inherent complexity of the Section 106 system and the challenges faced by all parties. He emphasised the importance of achieving better outcomes, improved alignment in drafting legal agreements, and ensuring sufficient flexibility to respond to changing operational needs while maintaining compliance with statutory requirements. He emphasised that stakeholders needed to collectively strengthen their approach to securing and effectively utilising Section 106 funding, given its importance as a public resource.

RESOLVED:

(a).     That the update provided on the how the PCC and Force were implementing the recommendations that were provided as part of the Police and Crime Panel Tasking group S106 funding review, be noted.

(b).     That the PCC be requested to ensure that future reporting relating to Section 106 funding distinguish more clearly between committed funds, uncommitted funds, and those still held by developers or yet to be triggered.