Anger at £2.7m cut in developer homes cash
9:20am Tuesday 9th October 2012 in News
Coun Jim Grant
AN argument has erupted over a cut in the money a developer has to pay for a site in West Swindon.
Swindon’s Labour leader Jim Grant has attacked a proposal to slash the amount of Section 106 money developers have to pay for the Moredon Bridge Development by £2.7m.
Section 106 money is money that developers of larger sites pay to the council to reduce the impact of the development, which is agreed when planning permission is granted.
The Moredon Bridge Develop-ment, which is within Wiltshire Council’s boundary, consists of 200 homes on the land adjoining Sparcells, which was granted permission on appeal in 2009.
Originally it had been agreed that the developers would pay £3.8m to help with local infrastructure, but as a result of a change in circumstances, the developer and Wiltshire Council have agreed that the best way forward is to renegotiate the package to just over £1m.
Swindon Council’s planning committee has the final say over whether to sanction the proposed reduction in S106 contributions at tonight’s planning committee meeting.
Councillor Grant said he was upset to see so much money which could have gone into local infrastructure lost.
He said: “I am utterly astonished that the council is proposing to let the housing developer get away with not paying what they agreed in what I assume is a legally binding agreement. This isn’t small change but £2.7m worth of money that Swindon will be losing out on that should be mitigating the effects of this housing development.
“Because the developers haven’t paid what they should have by now this development has already led to increased traffic on Swindon’s roads, including on roads in my own ward.The developers simply shouldn’t be getting away with this.
“It will send a message to other housing developers that it is okay for them to shirk from their responsibilities and not pay for the infrastructure that needs to accompany these developments.”
But council leader Rod Bluh rubbished the complaint and said that the council no longer need as much money to counter the effects of the development.
He said: “This issue is the responsibility of Wiltshire Council, because the development is in their area, and they negotiated the original S106 agreement which has since been disputed by the developer.
“To say that Swindon Borough Council is in some way at fault in any of what has happened is just nonsense.
“Elected members of Swindon’s cross-party planning committee will decide whether to ask Wiltshire Council to negotiate just over £1m for us in Swindon, to be spent in Swindon.
“There’s a simple explanation why this is less than the original £2.7m – circumstances have changed massively since the first agreement was negotiated and we don’t need as much money to mitigate the effects of the development.”
A Wiltshire Council spokesman said: “The government has advised councils to ensure section 106 payments must be fair and reasonable. Since the original agreement in 2009, the justification for a number of the contributions may have changed considerably.
“Because of this, we have been discussing the contributions with the developer for some time. Following these discussions, the developer requested we asked Swindon Council check the contributions are still appropriate based on the current situation. We are waiting for a decision from Swindon Council before we discuss further with the developer.”
Comments(18)
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
11:12am Tue 9 Oct 12
What are the change in circumstances? What was originally budgeted for that is now considered unnecessary?
Given that Swindon's infrastructure is already at breaking point in the west and the north, this seems pretty strange; especially if the money is going to Wiltshire council.
Swindon council should look into simply blocking the roads (no through roads etc) from the development back into Swindon and push all the traffic round the edges where Wiltshire council are responsible for the infrastructure :)
1 2 Could B
says...
11:52am Tue 9 Oct 12
There are so many glaring questions that this report has not covered. Such as what are the changes in circumstances?
Surely the reporter asked that question?
Rod Bluh says
“This issue is the responsibility of Wiltshire Council, because the development is in their area, and they negotiated the original S106 agreement which has since been disputed by the developer."
So why waste our council taxes on a SBC meeting?
Oh.....
It appears we have stacks of money to spare.
"council leader Rod Bluh rubbished the complaint and said that the council no longer need as much money to counter the effects of the development."
Equally, I doubt the Labour group will effectively oppose this decision.
Such seems to be the pointless use of SBC
Still it's nice to know that despite huge sums of money, wasted on vanity projects, that Swindon Borough Clownschool still has money to spare?
The Real Librarian
says...
12:41pm Tue 9 Oct 12
council leader Rod Bluh said
"there is a simple reason why this is less than the original £2.7m – circumstances have changed massively since the first agreement was negotiated and we don’t need as much money to mitigate the effects of the development.”
UNQUOTE
How can it have changed so much exactly?
I can imagine that you could lose 5 or 10 % here or there, but 75% is ridiculous. Either they were massively wrong then or massively wrong now.
Adver - can you kidnly do your job and ask how so much can have changed in three years.
I 2 Could B
says...
1:45pm Tue 9 Oct 12
“There’s a simple explanation why this is less than the original £2.7m – circumstances have changed massively since the first agreement was negotiated and we don’t need as much money to mitigate the effects of the development.”
If it's a simple explanation, why not be specific about what has actually changed.
It never fails to amaze me how politicians continually dig their own graves. There really *could* be reasons as to why the additional £2.7m may have been required but is now not necessary, but unless we're told what those reasons are, people will automatically just assume the process has descended into farce.
RichardR1
says...
5:13pm Tue 9 Oct 12
I'm Important
says...
5:50pm Tue 9 Oct 12
What driving seats do councils build?
Ian13
says...
7:49pm Tue 9 Oct 12
batch
says...
8:05pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Ian13 wrote:Here here. Thamesdown drive is a nightmare, then if you actually need to get to J16 in the morning its even worse.
Please no more houses until the roads are sorted out. It takes 30 minutes to get from Haydon Wick to the M4 in the morning. I can get to M5 in not much more time.
But that doesn't stop more and more houses. If only we had £2.7M* more to make the roads better. Oh.
*yes, not enough I know...
Ian13
says...
8:32pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Blackmalkin
says...
9:00pm Tue 9 Oct 12
timt1964
says...
9:14pm Tue 9 Oct 12
VotingFloaterUK
says...
9:37am Wed 10 Oct 12
RichardR1
says...
9:58am Wed 10 Oct 12
Perhaps it is time he reviewed his allegiance, whether it's to the Swindon electorate or his party. Mind you that could be said of at least 100 other Tory MPs.
VotingFloaterUK
says...
10:44am Wed 10 Oct 12
RichardR1
says...
12:38pm Wed 10 Oct 12
LocalBob80
says...
10:50pm Wed 10 Oct 12
I 2 Could B
says...
4:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12
LocalBob80 wrote:I think it represents him very accurately.
Mr Grant should find a better photo for use in these editorials
swindondad says...
10:10am Tue 9 Oct 12