Agenda item

To receive an update on the S106 financial controls audit.

Nic Thomas, Director of Planning and Sally Canter, Head of Building Control and Technical Support presented the service update on the S106 financial controls audit.

The internal audit had looked at how S106 should be applied, how they were recorded, triggers and how they were reported.  The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had not been included in the audit.

This audit built on a 2019 audit looking at the collection of funds, overall results had been positive, but some issues had been identified.

The findings of the internal audit and the actions being taken to address them were detailed in the agenda report.

Additional resources had been allocated and additional training had been given.  The team were committed to reviewing policies and guidance on how monies would be requested, this work was going on in parallel with the Local Plan. The internal audit had picked up on anticipated issues and the team were confident that they could implement the actions to improve.

Members stated that occasionally Wiltshire Council paid S106 monies that were due to town and parish council’s late and did not pass on any interest that would have been accrued whilst holding the funds. This could sometimes amount to large sums and when paying parishes 2 or 3 months late it could have a really big impact on them, sometimes rendering the schemes they had planned unviable. Therefore, it was requested that monies be passed on more quickly.

The officers explained that when transferring funds this was done in line with signed agreements, which could take some time. Legal agreements also had to be in place, and these could also take time. Officers stated that it would be good to have standard agreements to make the process quicker, and they would pick that up with the legal team.

Members expressed concerns about the pressure of S106 agreements on the legal team and wanted to ensure that there were adequate resources in place. Officers agreed that the pressure on the legal team could be an issue and that it was difficult to get suitably qualified solicitors. The agreements also took a long time to negotiate. It was stated that it might be possible to ask for funding to recoup legal costs which could be sued to help bolster the team.

Members also raised concerns regarding ecological offsets and art gain. It was hoped that people could be engaged earlier in the process to ensure that funds were used correctly and to the maximum benefit of the community. Officers stated that the directorate was reviewing the public art strategy and considering how it could be taken forward, although this work was at an early stage in the process. Working out the schemes with the community was essential and they would try to include that in the revised policy. Officers explained that they also wanted to roll out training and engagement for parishes regarding S106 agreements.

Members highlighted that solar farm companies often gave sums of money to parish councils where they were building solar farms. This did not seem to be governed by any kind of policy. Members queried whether a model could be agreed and applied. Officers stated that there very strict rules regarding S106 payments, and this was not covered, so sometimes developers of solar farms made their own arrangements with parish councils.

Regarding the reporting actions detailed at finding 10, Members asked if reports could be generated by division, so that Members could get all the information on S106 agreements in their division. Officers confirmed that this was possible. Reports could be generated by parish, division and geographical areas. Members could ask for these reports by contacting the planning team and advising of the date parameters and area.

Members queried whether Oracle would help with monitoring S106 monies and chasing delays. Officers explained that all monitoring would take place using the new planning database (Arcus) and that the internal auditors had felt that was appropriate. Officers had not yet looked at the interface between Oracle and Arcus, but they would work closely with finance officers to reconcile and track funds.

Members highlighted the affordable housing requirements in the new draft Local Plan and the impact that would have on CIL and S106 monies, as S106 did not apply to affordable housing. Officers explained that the affordable housing requirements would increase. In the main it would be 40% across the board and on brownfield sites 10%. However, developers could request a reduction. Viability of sites could be an issue, and comments to that effect had already been received from developers.

Members asked how S106 monies were included in an audit and accounts perspective. Officers explained that as part of the audit process they shared information on money in the bank and money for each service area. Different services spent the S106 monies at different rates. However, it was part the audit process.

All Members welcomed the report and the work that had been done to improve.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

To note the update.