Agenda item

The following question was submitted by Councillor Mike Beech:-

In response to the question "is the Octagon Theatre up to its pooling limit?" the following response was received from Steve Joel, Assistant Director (Health and Well-Being):

More than 5 obligations have been secured since April 2010 to enhance the 'general' capacity of the Octagon Theatre.

In order to work around the limits on pooling S106 contributions whilst we await the introduction of the CIL scheme for South Somerset, we have taken the opportunity
to update our strategy with regard to addressing the overall deficiency in professional arts and entertainment provision.

Our strategy is now to pool contributions up to the limit for the range of 'specific' long-term enhancements planned for the Octagon Theatre in Yeovil, and/or to pool
contributions up to the limit for the range of 'specific' enhancements planned for the Westlands Entertainment Complex in Yeovil (Policy TAC2). These projects are also
listed in the Council's published IDP.

The first being of these specific enhancements is a new Studio Theatre at Octagon Theatre in Yeovil (Policy TAC1.1), and/or the stage refit at the Westlands
Entertainment complex (Policy TAC2.1). No contributions have been pooled for these specific mitigations for Theatres and Arts Centres, which means that the Council can
seek off site contributions for them.

Once the limits have been reached for Policy TAC1.1 and Policy TAC2.1, then the Council will seek contributions for specific enhancements TAC1.2 and Policy
TAC2.2 and so on, until such time as our CIL Scheme comes online.  In this way we continue to optimise the amount of contributions being sought from new development,
and of course, reduce pressures upon our capital resources over the medium to longer term.

Can the Portfolio Holder assure the council that the position being taken regarding S106 pooling is entirely legal and tested in law?

Response

Councillor Angie Singleton, as Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) responded with the following statement:-

SSDC’s approach to the pooling of contributions is in common with other local planning authorities.

The DCLG has not provided any written guidance on interpreting Regulation 123 but has told the Planning Advisory Service that a local planning authority can enter into obligations for 5 generic obligations for a type of infrastructure and then 5 more obligations for a specific project such as an extension to an existing facility.

The DCLG has said that in their view this is within the rules, and that the Regulations were designed to stop double charging rather than restrict a council’s ability to deliver the infrastructure that is needed.  The consensus view appears to be that, for example, dividing a new school project up into 6 separate classrooms plus a playground plus a car park and then seeking up to five obligations for each of those as separate projects would clearly not fall within the Regulations if the entire school project was let under one contract.  If however a new building is to be built on the school grounds or an additional car parking area provided 5 more obligations could be sought if these amounted to separate infrastructure projects let under separate contracts.

Clearly, the obligations would also have to meet the usual NPPF/CIL Reg 122/ legal tests.

Our approach is based on what the Planning Advisory Service is saying and what DCLG has stated to them; it has not yet been tested in the courts so it is not a certain legal position, but neither has it been found to be unlawful.

Supplementary Question

Councillor Mike Beech asked if this stance was a change in SSDC policy which had been confirmed at District Executive and Council?

Councillor Peter Seib confirmed it was a change in law which occurred some time ago which SSDC were bound by and so there was no need to change policy.