Issue - meetings

To consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Economic Development on the proposed decision to approve the principle of delegating the authority to act as the enforcement body for District and Borough S106 obligations subject to a range of conditions, to the appropriate officer; the Director of Economic Development. Examples of relevant S106 obligations may include those relating to community development, sports provision and open space.

David Smith (Director for Economic Development) and Nigel Smith (Head of infrastructure) were in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr N Smith introduced the report that set out the legal process for Kent County Council, as the upper tier authority, to act as the enforcement body for district and borough councils. Mr N Smith explained that where a district or borough act as a developer for their own land, this may result in them being the applicant, landowner and the Local Planning Authority. In order to avoid a conflict of interest, the districts sought legal advice and identified the preferred option whereby Kent County Council would become the enforcement body.

2.    The officers responded to comments and questions as follows:

(a)  Mr N Smith acknowledged the typographic error in the report where it identified the Leader as the decision taker, however, he confirmed that the proposed decision was due to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development.

(b)  With regards to whether all district and borough councils had agreed to the proposal, Mr N Smith explained that each request made by a district or borough council for Kent County Council to act as the enforcement body would be determined on a case by case basis. Mr N Smith informed the Committee that the only site that would have currently been applicable to such measures was the Otterpool Park development in Folkestone.

(c)  Mr N Smith said that the proposed decision was based on the legal advice received from Invicta Law, and upon review of the specific case in question, the most transparent and less complicated option was for Kent County Council to act as the enforcement body for the Local Planning Authority. There was a range of other legal options available to the district council, one of which was that the district could enter into a planning obligation by leasing the land to a developer/ third party which would have then allowed the district to enforce the S106 obligations as the Local Planning Authority. However, based on the legal advice and various applicable options, Kent County Council deemed the proposed decision (as set out within the report) to be the most legally viable. It would however be the responsibility of each Local Planning Authority to seek legal advice and to determine which option was legally compliant.

3.    RESOLVED that the proposed decision (19/00042) to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development to approve the principle of delegating the authority to act as the enforcement body for District and Borough S106 obligations subject to a range of conditions, to the appropriate officer; the Director of Economic Development (examples of relevant S106 obligations may include those relating to community development, sports provision and open space), be endorsed.