Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on progress in relation to S106 Planning Agreements.

Referring to Minute 51 of the meeting held on 13^th October 2009, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a report on progress in relation to Section106 Planning Agreements.

The purpose of the report was to provide the Scrutiny Board with:-

i)  an overview of the current system for managing Section 106 Agreements in Leeds

ii)  A breakdown of funds generated from Section 106 Agreements in Leeds and protocols for spending sums

A document entitled ‘Uncommitted sums broken down by ward’ covering  Greenspace and Play areas; Affordable Housing Sums; Education Sums and Community Benefits Sums was circulated as supplementary information to assist the Board in their deliberations.

The following officers were in attendance and responded to Members’ queries and comments:-

Phil Crabtree, Chief Planning Officer, City Development

Paul Gough, Team Leader, Strategy and Policy, City Development

Clare Munnelly, Planning Agreement Manager, City Development

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues:-

• clarification of the £17 million figure of unspent Section 106 monies and why the Yorkshire Evening Post decided to publish this misleading figure

(The Chief Planning Officer and the Team Leader, Strategy and Policy responded and provided the meeting with a breakdown of expenditure with specific reference to the ring fencing process)

• the view that on the evidence presented this was an extremely unbalanced and unfair article by the Yorkshire Evening Post on this matter and that consideration should be given to making a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission
• ‘that ward members were required to be consulted on all Section 106 schemes involving expenditure on greenspace
• that Section 106 monies obtained from planning applications would normally only be spent in the Ward in which the applications were located.  However, occasionally, the proposals could be of a scale and\or location where their impact could affect one or more wards.  In such cases, the Section 106 contributions could be spent outside the immediate ward in which the application was located e.g. large City Centre schemes in City & Hunslet

  (The Chief Planning Officer responded and confirmed that a meeting 

  on this specific issue would be held with interested parties in the near

  future)’

• clarification of the £31m figure in relation to sums not yet received from signed Section 106 agreements with specific reference to funding the Eastgate Quarter development

(The Chief Planning Officer and the Team Leader, Strategy and Policy responded and outlined the current funding criteria. The Board noted that the Eastgate Quarter development had not yet started and as a result it was notional money until the development commenced)

• the concern expressed that ‘trigger points’ were not rigorous enough with specific reference to Thorpe Park as an example

(The Chief Planning Officer responded and confirmed that the process was extremely rigorous, robust and transparent from start to finish)

• clarification if the Council negotiated thoroughly on certain types of buildings

(The Chief Planning Officer responded and informed the meeting that the department were more stringent than other Core Cities in respect of affordable housing)

• clarification if it was an acceptable practice to move from greenspace to highways developments in relation to Section 106 legal agreements

(The Team Leader, Strategy and Policy responded and informed the meeting that this practice was not possible as new agreements would be required)

• the need for Board Members to be provided with a series of process maps on income, expenditure and enforcement

(The Team Leader, Strategy and Policy responded and agreed to e mail Members with details via the Board’s Principal Scrutiny Adviser)

• clarification of a specific scheme which showed expenditure of only £200

(The Planning Agreement Manager responded and thought that it could  be a residual amount left from a scheme. She agreed to check this amount and e mail Members with the specific details via the Board’s Principal Scrutiny Adviser)

• clarification of what the department had done to respond to the newspaper article

(The Chief Planning Officer responded that a detailed response had been provided to the Editor of the Yorkshire Evening Post on each of the points raised in the article. In addition, the Deputy Leader of Council and  a senior officer  had met with the Editor to explain the position and refute the allegations made)

• the need to include in any publicity  the schemes that are funded or part funded by Section 106 monies in order to raise the profile of this important funding source

(The Team Leader, Strategy and Policy acknowledged that more could be done in this regard)

• the view that the Chair should write to the Executive Member, Development and Regeneration seeking the outcome of his meeting with the Editor of the Yorkshire Evening Post and whether he considered taking this matter further with the Press Complaints Commission

RESOLVED –

a)  That the content of the report be noted.

b)  That the Chair, on behalf of the Board, be requested to write to the Executive Member, Development and Regeneration seeking the outcome of the meeting with the Editor regarding the newspaper article and whether he intended to pursue this further through the Press Complaints Commission.

(Councillor T Grayshon joined the meeting at 11.30am during discussions of the above item)

(Councillor C Beverley left the meeting at 11.40am during discussions of the above item)

(Councillor R Downes and Councillor N Taggart left the meeting at 11.50am at the conclusion of the above item)