| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Craig
Project Leader
United Kingdom
2312 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 11:20:13
|
There have been so many developments in Ware this past 20 years, but I see little improvement to the towns infrastructure or amenities.
Developers have to make section 106 payment contributions to services, infrastructure and amenities in order to support and facilitate a proposed development.
Does anyone know where any of this money has gone or what projects they have supported locally? |
|
|
Azzza
Average Member
United Kingdom
446 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 11:39:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Craig
There have been so many developments in Ware this past 20 years, but I see little improvement to the towns infrastructure or amenities.
Developers have to make section 106 payment contributions to services, infrastructure and amenities in order to support and facilitate a proposed development.
Does anyone know where any of this money has gone or what projects they have supported locally?
My guess is it's disappeared down a huge pothole.
|
 |
|
|
spear
Advanced Member
1380 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 11:39:57
|
| The main one recently would be for Charvills, I don't suppose any of it will ever be received - I can't find the details but recall that very little was for Ware, although we would get a water feature. |
|
|
|
jediwookie
Average Member
United Kingdom
453 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 11:48:51
|
are these based on the increase of personnel/demand on services.
i.e. if you demolished a 3 bed house and rebuild a 3 bed house then no payment required, if you built a 4 bed then potential for greater demand on services therefore payment required.
You can bet your bottom dollar there is some way that they can get round it with commercial property.
Given that most are redevelopments and not new development they probably don't receive much from these payments once the developer uses all the loop holes.
I could be totally wrong here but its just how I understand them.
|
|
|
|
kevin phillips bong
WoLFer
970 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 13:34:41
|
| 2 years ago I went to an ehdc community forum chaired by Ms Taylor at flea. Someone asked a Mr Steptoe this very question. ie all developments have 'add-ons' so why was none of this ever spent in Ware. He sheepishly said he didn't know why none was spent here. Disgracefully this question did not appear in the subsequent minutes. I'm still fuming and glad the subject has come up. |
|
|
|
Moulder
Senior Member
United Kingdom
783 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 13:52:22
|
Icesave? |
Edited by - Moulder on 18 Feb 2010 13:53:05 |
|
|
|
Martin
WoLFer
655 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 15:07:46
|
Interesting definition from the I&DeA website:
Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement.
These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.
The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government’s Circular 05/2005. Matters agreed as part of a S106 must be:
-relevant to planning
-necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms
-directly related to the proposed development
-fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development
-reasonable in all other respects. |
|
|
|
skippy
Advanced Member
1019 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 15:20:41
|
| So if ASDA does get in, a 106 could pay for a complete road resurface? |
|
|
|
spear
Advanced Member
1380 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 15:31:17
|
A proposed part of the Charvill 106 payments was to pay for a residents parking scheme in Crib St.
Can anyone find the details which were published at the time? |
|
|
|
Craig
Project Leader
United Kingdom
2312 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 16:26:27
|
The Charvills 106 is here, from a previous post.
Other sites I question include Broadmeads, The Carriages, The Star Street/Bowling Road developments and the Trinity Centre.
Annoying that the Trinity Centre S106 is still being discussed (by HCC) which means Musley School remains empty, unused, unmaintained and decaying. Any decision on the s106 has been delayed for another 6 months. |
|
|
|
waretown
Average Member
210 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 17:26:44
|
I work with this sort of stuff from a transport point of view.
Typically S106 orders only apply to people like ASDA, Tesco's where 'new' infrastructure is required to enable a development...for example, if by putting an ASDA in the town, a new spur road is required to get to the site, the ASDA will have to pay for it. What they will not be required to pay for is the increase in the capacity of existing infrastructure...so for example if by putting the ASDA in Ware you congest the whole of Baldock street - and the council decide to build a by-pass then this is nothing to do with ASDA, even though they are the catalist...
so for all of the developments which you relate, you have to go back an understand "new" infrastructure requirements, not capacity based issues - that is not what S106 orders are design to resolve. |
|
|
|
Craig
Project Leader
United Kingdom
2312 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2010 : 17:47:01
|
 But both Charvills and Trinity developments had s106 and the application for the Central Maltings in New Road is subject to 106 too as is the application in Widbury Hill industrial estate. It looks like any large development can have a s106 applied to it.
|
|
|
|
ian.ball
WoLFer & Moderator
United Kingdom
2787 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 08:17:22
|
| I don't know about the others, but the Maltings development and the Widbury Hill development will require new roads and junctions to be built so that could explain the s106. |
|
|
|
Craig
Project Leader
United Kingdom
2312 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 11:58:04
|
Yes - Some money goes towards the road improvements, but using The Malting in New Road as an example, the s106 breaks down as follows:
(a) Hertfordshire Highways £11,625 towards Sustainable Transport
Schemes
(b) Herts County Council £1,935 towards Childcare
(c) Herts County Council £756 towards Youth Services
(d) Herts County Council £2,575 towards Libraries
(e) Herts County Council Provision of a fire hydrant within the site
(f) East Herts Council £1,481 towards open space provision for
Children/Young People
(g) East Herts Council £864 towards Recycling Facilities
(h) East Herts Council £8000 towards Second Strand accessibility
measures
Source: EHDC
You'll notice that there are payments for youth services, childcare, libraries, recycling and an open space provision.
My question still stands. Where has money from earlier developments been spent in Ware? My assumption is, that the s106 payments should benefit the town in which the development is built, though this could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
spear
Advanced Member
1380 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 13:03:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Craig
Yes - Some money goes towards the road improvements, but using The Malting in New Road as an example, the s106 breaks down as follows:
(a) Hertfordshire Highways £11,625 towards Sustainable Transport
Schemes
(b) Herts County Council £1,935 towards Childcare
(c) Herts County Council £756 towards Youth Services
(d) Herts County Council £2,575 towards Libraries
(e) Herts County Council Provision of a fire hydrant within the site
(f) East Herts Council £1,481 towards open space provision for
Children/Young People
(g) East Herts Council £864 towards Recycling Facilities
(h) East Herts Council £8000 towards Second Strand accessibility
measures
Source: EHDC
You'll notice that there are payments for youth services, childcare, libraries, recycling and an open space provision.
My question still stands. Where has money from earlier developments been spent in Ware? My assumption is, that the s106 payments should benefit the town in which the development is built, though this could be wrong.
So how are any of those
-relevant to planning
-necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms
-directly related to the proposed development
come to that what about the water feature
I think you know the answer Craig - in your example I see none which would be spent here.
|
|
|
|
waretown
Average Member
210 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 13:13:54
|
Yep - I only know for a highways point of view.
Firehydrants etc. are covered by S106's as their are standards that roads have to be a) built to and b) able to be maintained to...they would fall under that.
As for the child services etc...outside my field... |
|
|
|
mb1
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
2141 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 13:32:44
|
| I presume it is supposed to be additional payments for services that have to be provided as a result of the developers actions. But these are token payments if so, and go into a central pot I assume rather than actually benefiting Ware directly. |
|
|
|
Craig
Project Leader
United Kingdom
2312 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 14:07:06
|
Yes - A central pot is the conclusion i'm coming too as well though I have found a s106 that relates to the Trinity Centre development which us worthy of discussion.
It is however essential that the community facility is provided before any residential development takes place on this site to ensure that such a use is provided for the community. Again, this matter can be dealt with by way of a Section 106 Agreement.
Source:EHDC item 7.9
The community facilty mentioned is the land swap between community land on the Trinity site and the Musley Hill School.
It just never happened did it.
The Star Street / Bowling Road development s106 gave 46,000 which went to the Lee Valley Area Plan (Hertford Travel Plan).
Source: EHDC |
|
|
|
spear
Advanced Member
1380 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 14:36:29
|
Has the community use land at Trinity been built on yet?
The clause Craig quotes seems to be suggesting that if they were allowed to build the houses first then the community facility would never happen - cynics!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
