Decision details

That the Adur District Council Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Strategic Planning:

Approved the revision to the section 106 monitoring fee in future s106 agreements.

Agreed to the attached ‘Adur & Worthing Councils s106 Monitoring Fee - 2025 update’ document being published on the Council’s webpages.

That the Worthing Borough Council Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Regeneration:

Approved the revision to the section 106 monitoring fee in future s106 agreements.

Agreed to the attached ‘Adur & Worthing Councils s106 Monitoring Fee - 2025 update’ document being published on the Council’s webpages.

The Cabinet Members fully supported the revision of the Section 106 monitoring fee in both Adur and Worthing. This is a necessary and proportionate measure that ensures developers contribute fairly to the cost of administering and monitoring their planning obligations.

Every s106 agreement imposes a range of financial and non-financial obligations on developers to mitigate the impact of development—whether that’s through affordable housing, infrastructure upgrades, or environmental improvements. Monitoring these agreements is time-consuming and resource-intensive. It requires skilled officers to track trigger points, conduct site visits, and ensure all contributions are delivered in full and on time.

The Cabinet Members agreed that there were a number of alternatives that had been considered including maintaining the status quo – continuing to monitor s106 agreements without charging a fee. This option would create an unfair burden on the Council’s resources and was unsustainable in the long term.

The Councils could also charge a flat fee per agreement – which while simpler, would not reflect the varying complexity and number of obligations in each agreement, and would risk being unfair or disproportionate.

Another alternative was the use of external consultants and this would likely increase costs and reduce internal oversight and accountability.

The per-trigger approach the Councils would be adopting was the fairest and most transparent method. It directly linked the fee to the actual level of monitoring required, and ensured that developers pay in proportion to the complexity of their obligations.