Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies had been received from Councillors Adams, Thomas and Vickery. Apologies had also been received from Marcus Hart, Cabinet Member for Highways.

The Chairman also welcomed Cllr Liz Tucker, and David Harrison, a member of the public who was very interested in Section 106, who were both invited to join the discussion.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by email indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 30 June ).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/email address below.

None.

Previously circulated.

Cllr Vickery, who had chaired the discussion on Transport and Access to Hospital (Minute 242), had forwarded a proposed amendment to the Minutes to rebalance the second complete paragraph on page five - deletion of 'It was believed that initial popularity had tailed off, which could have resulted from many reasons such as changes in preference and staff moved', and addition of 'However, where a Kidderminster to Redditch link did not exist 15 years ago, now the route is commercially established. Additionally, many of the Worcester to Redditch services are now commercially operated.'

The amendment was agreed by panel members who had been present at this meeting, and the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

In attendance for this item were:

Nigel Hudson, Head of Strategy and Infrastructure

Andy Baker, Transport Planning and Commissioning Manager

Emily Barker, Strategic Planning and Environmental Policy Manager

Adrian Tuck, Development Control Manager

Dr Ken Pollock, Cabinet Member for Economy, Skills and Infrastructure

The Panel had requested an overview on the Council's highways development management processes, relating to Section 106 and Section 278, which is part of the Panel's work programme. In particular, members were keen to understand processes and obstacles around more efficient use of funding received from developers for infrastructure development.

The officers had prepared a presentation to provide further detail in addition to the information provided in the agenda papers.

Section 106 Agreement

The Strategic Planning Manager provided further background, issues and challenges.

Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, were a mechanism which made a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable.

They were focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development – and could not be used on wider issues. S106 agreements were often referred to as 'developer contributions' along with highway contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy.

The legal tests for when you can use a s106 agreement

Set out in regulation 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended. The tests were:

·         necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms

·         directly related to the development; and

·         fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

Direct relation to the development was critical; s106 agreements could not be used for example to address issues across the borough, or for employment land development, or to pay for school places.

S106 and pooling issues – use was now very specific

·         site specific mitigation measures

·         pooling issues – a planning obligation may not constitute a reason for granting planning permission

·         maximum of 5 planning obligations could be secured for one piece of infrastructure within the area of the charging authority (each district) – this was to address the issue that the focus must be on site specific, rather than generic issues, and to have more transparency about what payments were collected for and spent on

·         backdated to 2010

S106 and policy making

Policies for seeking planning obligations should be set out in a:

·         Local Plan

Ø  Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – this refers to infrastructure needs and supports the Local Plan

Ø  Local Transport Plan

·         Neighbourhood plan – only two had been adopted in Worcestershire

This was to enable a fair and open testing of the policy examination. It was clarified that Local Plans were set, with a formal review process, whereas IPDs were active documents. The IDP could be viewed on South Worcestershire Development Plan website.

What do local authorities ask for?

·         For the County Council, the majority of s106 agreements included capital sums for transport and education; contributions for other matters were rarely requested.

·         Districts, as local planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 249.