Agenda item

Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, and Andrew Tebbutt, Planning Obligations Team Leader, were in attendance to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification in respect of the Infrastructure Funding Statement.

Councillors began by asking whether the Council was on target to secure all monies due within the required timeframe, emphasising the importance of avoiding any lapse and ensuring funds were available when needed. The Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth confirmed that monthly meetings were held with the team to review outstanding payments and that a process was in place with legal services to pursue unpaid monies. It was explained that an annual review was conducted through the starts and completions exercise using Council Tax data to identify completed developments, which was then compared against obligations. Monitoring occurred monthly to ensure developers reported commencement and compliance with payment requirements.

Members sought reassurance that funds were being spent appropriately and within deadlines to prevent lapses. It was confirmed that a list was maintained for all items approaching the 18-month deadline and that a monthly infrastructure meeting reviewed these proactively. It was stated that no funds had lapsed recently, although there had been close cases involving health projects where collaboration with the NHS was required. In some instances, extensions were requested from developers to avoid issues.

The Select Committee asked about the proportion of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts transferred to the Greater London Authority or Transport for London, requesting either a percentage or approximate figure. Members also queried whether the Council could retain a greater share locally or whether this was determined nationally. It was explained that the Council acted as the charging and collecting authority under legislation, retaining an administrative fee of 4%, with the remainder remitted to the Mayor for transport infrastructure. The officer undertook to provide precise figures from the report and confirmed that the 4% fee was the maximum permitted under regulations.

A further question concerned progress on updating the system for recording Section 106 contributions and expenditure, which had been discussed at previous meetings. Councillors asked how far back the review had gone and what remained outstanding. It was reported that all current expenditure and receipts were now processed through the system and detailed in the appendix to the Infrastructure Funding Statement. However, historic data was still being migrated from paper files, with progress dependent on team capacity. It was explained that priority was given to securing new monies and spending funds, with backlog reconciliation undertaken as resources allowed. Most categories had been reconciled, but the system was not yet a single definitive source, as spreadsheets were still used for overall positions.

Members expressed disappointment at the lack of significant progress, noting that the Committee had discussed this issue for several years. They stressed the importance of understanding the origin of Section 106 monies, the developments generating them, and the projects funded. Officers responded that the appendix listed receipts and expenditure for the current year, although presented by address rather than scheme. The Committee reiterated that the promised database should enable clear identification of contributions by development and corresponding expenditure. In response it was clarified that data for schemes delivered in the last three to four years could likely be produced, but the statutory report followed a national standard and did not include that level of detail. Additional data could be provided outside the report if required.

Members observed that heavily developed areas did not appear to benefit visibly from CIL or Section 106 expenditure, leading to perceptions that funds were not reinvested locally. It was explained that CIL spending was determined annually by Cabinet and that the report set out the total receipts and allocations. Officers noted that most CIL expenditure had been directed to the West Drayton Leisure Centre and acknowledged the point about demonstrating tangible improvements linked to developments. They agreed to consider how presentation could better illustrate the relationship between contributions and local benefits, including whether agreed improvements had been delivered.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee:

1.    Noted the contents of the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2024-2025; and

2.    delegated the drafting of any comments for the consideration of Cabinet to Democratic Services in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Labour Lead.