Agenda item

Members to receive a report providing details of section 106 funding and the Leicestershire Police approach to s106/CIL.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report providing details around Section 106 funding, how that was sought in terms of developer contribution agreements, how it was drawn down from local authorities and how it was used in terms of operational policing purposes together with a summary of the variances in the processes for draw down of s106 funds across each local authority.

The Chief Finance officer introduced the report giving an overview of the legislation and background to s106 funding and the Community Infrastructure Level (CIL) funds.

Members of the Panel noted that:

·         Leicestershire Police were one of just a few forces actively seeking funds.

·         Developer contributions could only be sought where there was significant impact in policing demands linked to development and that warrants a bid.

·         Funds can only be used for infrastructure and cannot be used to fund day to day revenue such as police officers, PCSO’s and the like.

·         The Force currently had 102 development contribution agreements in place, these could have a very long lead time, and depended upon certain trigger points being reached. Many of these agreements historically were in relation to land and buildings and could include contributions that may not be drawn down in future because of changes to local policing models, digitalisation and proposals for policing style will change.

·         In terms of current position, since writing the report there had been notification of a further £700k from 2 local authorities that was available to be drawn down and that would be actively pursued.

Responding to concerns raised previously as to why these funds were not included in the budget capital programme moving forward, this was due to the uncertainty around trigger points being reached, whether monies would be released to authorities and in turn to the Force, and also the timescales involved could be spread over many years therefore it was not prudent or safe to include the s106 funds as a guaranteed source of income to source a capital programme.

The ensuing discussion included the following comments:

·         This was an area of funding that should be looked at seriously to identify how this money could be better obtained for benefit of residents.

·         Reference was made to the Emergency Service Network being a capital investment and queried whether it would be possible to draw down funding to support that initiative.

·         In relation to some parts of s106 not being drawn down, it was confirmed that the OPCC did negotiate where there was a case to be made but could not approach the developer directly and representations had to go through local authority planning officers with a very low success rate around that. Original agreements tended to be quite inflexible so there were limited opportunities for renegotiations.

·         Noted there was a lack of consistency in approach between each local authority and it would be helpful to have a standardised approach, perhaps to include a discussion with planning teams.

·         Members recognised the challenges of developments being in different areas, some sparsely populated and looking at where to spend the capital money as well as the different challenges of each local authority and what would benefit residents in those areas in terms of infrastructure. It was suggested it would be useful to have a conversation to understand that better.

·         Noted that S106 funding was a community benefit, but from police perspective it was related to scale and so places where there is to be significant increase in population the police would say that would generate this much traffic in terms of police business e.g. radio traffic, emergency calls, incident reports.

·         The Chair asked that regular updates on s106 funding and progress in drawing those funds down be provided to panel meetings on a quarterly basis.

In terms of what the panel could do to support  the PCC/Police in getting s106 funds:

·         Members were keen to keep this on their programme, to scrutinise and look at the variances between local authorities.

·         Other suggestions included: a campaign by panel members to raise awareness within their local authorities and with Chief Executives; lobbying from members to government for changes; Members to use their influence as elected representatives with planning authorities to help affect change and consistency in approach.

The OPPC were grateful for the panels feedback and support and welcomed any influence that members could bring to bear around the S106 funding.

Members of the panel agreed there should be a Task and Finish Group to review and scrutinise s106 funding, including variances between local authorities, the steps already taken to address issues and to look for possible solutions that could support the PCC getting s106 funds.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the contents of the report be noted,

2.    That the Panel support further discussion with local authorities around S106 funding,

3.    That there should be a Task and Finish Group to review and scrutinise s106 funding, including variances between local authorities, the steps already taken to address issues and to look for possible solutions that could support the PCC getting s106 funds

4.    That the Panel should consider terms of reference/scoping for a Task and Finish group around s106 funding at their Member Briefing meeting on 20^th May 2021,

5.    That the Task and Finish Group be formalised, with membership and remit to be agreed at the June AGM 2021.