S106 Social Clauses - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Notwithstanding such would fall foul of the EU law and the freedom of labour movement, it would be difficult to prove the case under the tests of 05/05. i know that something was mooted during mayor ken's reign, but when the consultation document was issued, this had been dropped. i am aware that costs have been awarded against certain london boroughs for pursuing such contributions

Kieran I think you may be wrong here. Both Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly have issued guidance which suggests that though in procurement geographical discrimination is not possible under EU Regulations, there is no harm in specifying numbers and percentages of "new entrants" and being required to notify vacancies to local organisations. If this is acceptable in EU procurement procedures, starting with the PQQ, it should surely be possible for this to be acceptable in Section 106 or Section 75 in Scotland? Les Huckfield

Is anyone aware of further developments on this since the last (contradictory) postings? I can see a difference between s106 agreement for (i) local labour supply e.g. construction training (ii) encouraging developers to consider the use of local companies and suppliers during the construction of major schemes and provding a target (typically 20%) of the value of qualifying supplies and services to be provided from companies and organisations based in the Borough. For (ii) has anyone got examples of s106 clauses/policies and practical examples of how to monitor/enforce?

The High Court in R (Welcome Break Group Limited) v Stroud District Council had to consider whether certain planning obligations including "local employment" complied with regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. The court decided they did. The main element of the local employment obligation was to implement an approved "employment and training policy". The policy had to specify how job and skills training opportunities would be promoted and advertised to local residents, how training and education for those residents interested in applying for a job would be facilitated and what measures would be taken to prioritise local contractors and local workers.

David, At Birmingham, we're working towards a formal policy for training and employment clauses in S106 agreements and since the introduction of a focussed, dedicated team, have been signing and monitoring employment clauses within S106 agreements. Although the policy hasn't been approved yet, more info on the training team can be found here - http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/eat However, it's a little more difficult to enforce as a S106. i.e. if a developer fails to deliver their obligations in relation to training and employment, legally there is very little we are able to do as legal action (I understand) will only seek to revert back to the status quo. Similarly, it's difficult to request employment clauses for S106 agreements if the end user is not the developer. However, the more these clauses are used by the LPA, the more they become accepted and will continue to be successfully used even after the introduction of CIL.

The Royal Borough of Greenwich has been using such clauses without challenge for over 15 years. The JRF produced a study on this approach in 2000 http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/using-planning-agreements-reduce-social-exclusion. It also produced a good practice guide in 2002 http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/achieving-community-benefits-through-contracts-law-policy-and-practice. PAS has also produced guidance on this in 2010 http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=470448. A key to the Greenwich approach is to encourage developers to use local employment and suppliers, by making them available of potential opportunities and the establishment of a brokerage organisation GLLaB http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/gllab, which we also secure financial contributions from developers towards. GLLaB seeks early enagagement with developers to match their requirements with local employment supplies and also provides releavnt training to local people and suppliers to make them more atatractive to developers. I hope this helps.

These policies and requirements have been around for thirty years now and I do not recall ever hearing of a challenge based on EU law or for that matter a planning authority who believed in retrospect that the local supplier and training schemes met expectations. If ever there was a zero sum game.... Typical practical issues have included a lack of demand for training places and in my own direct experience the creation of local supplier monopolies with nasty consequences in terms of building cost and quality. Leaving aside the legalities, which in practice have not been as problematic as you might expect, if you want to go down this route please check the experience from the City Challenge and NDC programmes where these schemes were widely tested. The evaluation reports, while they contain the usual project puff posing as best practice, have a better empirical basis than some of the early research.