Agenda item

7.1  Simon Bevan, Interim Head of Planning and Transport, explained that because of the adverse weather conditions officers from Economic Development & Strategic Partnerships were unable to attend and they sent their apologies. However he would do his best to answer questions or get officers to respond to quires following the meeting.

7.2  The Head of Planning and Transport explained that section 106 money is generated by large scale developments. There is a levy and this money must be used to reduce any adverse impacts.

7.3  There will be some community councils areas where there are very few large scale developments going on; for example Dulwich. Developments may not reach the threshed of 10 units and even a 20 or 30 unit development  will not yield much funding.

7.4  The officer explained that the council planning documents set out our criteria and polices and the council has been very successful in generating section 106 money. The council refuses planning applications where it considers that the section 106 provision is inadequate. This gives the council a robust negotiation position.

7.5  A member commented that Cleaner, Greener, Safer money could provide an opportunity to rebalance regeneration spending. There was a request for more information on the criteria used.

7.6  It was noted by a member that there had been specific regeneration programmes in areas that that had attracted less Section 106 money , for example the Peckham  Programme and regeneration around Bellenden.

7.7  The Head of Planning and Transport indicated that there may be opportunities to increase capital investment in the Peckham and Nunhead area by utilising potential development sites. These have lower land values than some areas lying closer to the city, so the section 106 yield would be lower, however development could contribute to regeneration.

7.8  There was a query on the new homes tariffs and whether this provided an opportunity for investment in community infrastructure.

7.9  Members noted the amount of regeneration spent on Elephant and Castle and the Aylesbury and requested further details and information on outcomes.

7.10  There was a query on Tax Increment Financing from a member.  The Interim Head of Planning and Transport explained that this had been introduced to enable investment in infrastructure projects that could create value and drive up tax receipts from councils tax and business rates. Councils would be able to borrow money on the basis of projected receipts. Member requested more information on this.

7.11  Members noted that Borough and Bankside has received £264,070 through the ‘Improving Local Retail Environments’ whereas other areas had received under £20,000 .More information on the reasons for this were requested.

7.12  The Chair proposed that Cleaner, Greener, Safer money, and other funding sources were looked at to consider how inequality could be reduced and regeneration imbalances redressed.

RESOLVED

The committee resolved to look at opportunities to rebalance regeneration spending so that poorer areas are invested in and to ensure that regeneration spending is not concentrated on the richer areas.

Officers were asked to return with the following information:

1. Provide more detail of what has been included in the figures for expenditure on the Walworth area, with particular regard to spending on Elephant and Castle and Aylesbury. Details should relate to particular regeneration projects and outcomes in concrete term.

2. Provide more detail, including the criteria, on the Improving Local Retail Environments programme especially why it is mainly spent in Borough and Bankside.

3. Provide more information on Cleaner, Greener, and Safer (CGS) funds, including the criteria used to set the amount of funds allocated to each community council area including clarity on if the  funding levels relate to number of wards in the community council  area. Explain why Peckham has the lowest expenditure/ allocation. The Chair suggested that discretionary allocations such as CGS could be used to rebalance the pattern of s.106 spending.

1. Provide a briefing on Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and whether this provides opportunities to spread regeneration spending more evenly across the borough (or more targeted at areas of need) than can be achieved with s.106

2. Provide a briefing on Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and whether there is potential to use this in Southwark and again achieve more even spend or spend which is more targeted at need.