Developers’ cash cut gains approval
7:50am Friday 12th October 2012 in News
Coun Dale Heenan
SWINDON Council’s planning committee has endorsed a cut in the money a developer has to pay to build homes on a site in West Swindon.
Labour group leader Coun Jim Grant raised concerns in the Adver on Wednesday over a proposal to slash the amount of Section 106 money the developer has to pay for the Moredon Bridge development by £2.7m.
Section 106 money is money developers pay to the council to reduce the impact of the development. The total is agreed when planning permission is granted.
The Moredon Bridge development, 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.
This was endorsed by the planning committee, which had a Labour majority on Tuesday as some Conservative members were absent.
Coun Dale Heenan, the cabinet member for strategic planning and sustainability, said: “This is a development no one wanted and, by a boundary quirk, it is in Wiltshire not Swindon “This is not a decision anyone would want to make, and I am not pleased with it but I grudgingly accept the tough position we are in.
“Swindon will receive over £1m towards local infrastructure, like roads, so there is a silver lining, and we will make the best of the situation.
“The leader of the Labour group needs to give some hard thought about his ever increasing number of reactionary negative stances, and how to put residents first instead of playing politics with Swindon.
“Despite running to the media against the proposed change, the Labour councillors on the planning committee pushed through this multi-million reduction.
“This is a major embarrassment for Labour and borders on a farce.
“You cannot say one thing to the press, and the next day do the complete opposite in the council.”
Labour says Coun Grant and Coun Des Moffatt (both Lab, Rodbourne Cheney) attended Tuesday’s meeting to express their dissatisfaction and concern with regard to the proposals to allow the developer to renege on the original S106 agreement, which they claimed sent the wrong message.
Coun Grant said: “I am glad that the planning committee unanimously expressed their dissatisfaction that the housing developer is reneging on the original S106 agreement.
“Indeed, one Labour councillor proposed that the issue be highlighted nationally so that other local councils are not caught out in the same way as Wiltshire and Swindon Borough Council have been by the Moredon Bridge developer.
“Planning officers will now be taking in to account the planning members’ views when entering discussions with the developer over a new S106 agreement.”
Comments(16)
RichardR1
says...
9:45am Fri 12 Oct 12
Councillor Grant rightly condemns the reduction in S106 money, and then hos Councillors have a majority in Committee and vote for it.
That said under new National Planning guidelines this development of 200 houses falls well below the threshold of 850 houses where S106 is expected.
Under the Community Infrastructure Levy housing developments would be charged at a rate of about £60/house built as from next year. Clearly considerably less than the £1m Swindon will get.
I know this will be instantly disputed by our resident expert, but this comes directly from Government sources and local authority policy documents, and in effect applies to any application put in from this month with a requirement for a CIL proposal form to be completed.
1 2 Could B
says...
10:00am Fri 12 Oct 12
You claim to be a victim to trolls yet make statements like
"I know this will be instantly disputed by our resident expert, but this comes directly from ........"
And there was us thinking YOU were the "resident expert"
RichardR1
says...
10:30am Fri 12 Oct 12
For my part being constantly accused of being Robfm has become somewhat tiresome, as I am sure you will know, being mistaken for I Too.
dc the 2nd
says...
11:40am Fri 12 Oct 12
The106 money just highlights what we all know, local government (not just in Swindon) is not fit for purpose.
RichardR1
says...
12:07pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Given that the committee has previously given it to Obama and Arafat nothing should surprise any of us.
I think probably 499 million EU citizens may well think it was laughable.
To suggest the EU has kept the peace in Europe is of itself laughable, that was down to NATO. However there has hardly been total peace.
I would imagine that the 75% of Norwegians who are against joining the EU would be chronically embarrassed.
As for 106 money many LA's seem to utilise it far better than Swindon has.
1 2 Could B
says...
12:37pm Fri 12 Oct 12
Please keep to the topic and stop trying to be the "resident expert"
RichardR1
says...
6:00pm Fri 12 Oct 12
I commented on the article both times where exactly was yours.
Phantom Poster
says...
11:44pm Fri 12 Oct 12
RichardR1 wrote:Oh for gods sake - "odd question"! We all know that you are BobFM - the slightest chance to go on a diatribe about the EU was too much to resist, wasn't it?
dc the 2nd, what an odd question. However I will answer.
Given that the committee has previously given it to Obama and Arafat nothing should surprise any of us.
I think probably 499 million EU citizens may well think it was laughable.
To suggest the EU has kept the peace in Europe is of itself laughable, that was down to NATO. However there has hardly been total peace.
I would imagine that the 75% of Norwegians who are against joining the EU would be chronically embarrassed.
As for 106 money many LA's seem to utilise it far better than Swindon has.
I must compliment "dc the 2nd says..." on the trap which he laid for you - just like the typical hapless barman you are, you fell for it hook, line and sinker!
Might I suggest that you scrap the "RichardR1" pseudonym and start afresh with a new login? Eventually you might develop one without those tell-tale BobFM characteristics!
Alternatively, you can continue to labour (or should I say UKIP) on with your present login and feign surprise when someone suggests that you are BobFM. It really does make you a laughing stock - but hey, what's changed?
RichardR1
says...
12:07pm Sat 13 Oct 12
I somehow doubt EU opinion is exclusive to UKIP or any other party or individual.
Sorry to disappoint you Phantom Poster.
I have to say you must have got bored of late with no one to slate, even your friend Itsamess has not raised your hackles of late. Mind you he does tend to respond rather than lead. The marker of a worker Bee bot the Queen.
How very disappointed you must be.
Localboy86
says...
6:37pm Sat 13 Oct 12
RichardR1 wrote:This is hilarious, please keep it up
My what a trap asking a question addressed to another following my post.
I somehow doubt EU opinion is exclusive to UKIP or any other party or individual.
Sorry to disappoint you Phantom Poster.
I have to say you must have got bored of late with no one to slate, even your friend Itsamess has not raised your hackles of late. Mind you he does tend to respond rather than lead. The marker of a worker Bee bot the Queen.
How very disappointed you must be.
LocalBob80
says...
1:09am Sun 14 Oct 12
My sides are splitting.
I can't believe Robfm thinks he's clever and everyone else is dim
Back on topic though,it is scandalous that the counci have sold out on this deal
1 2 Could B
says...
8:31am Sun 14 Oct 12
If only because that's what you preach to everyone else
1 2 Could B
says...
8:52am Sun 14 Oct 12
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
9972814.Anger_at___2
_7m_cut_in_developer
_homes_cash/
1 2 Could B says...
11:52am Tue 9 Oct 12
Makes no sense.
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?
Pompey-Bound
says...
2:31pm Sun 14 Oct 12
RichardR1 wrote:Oh my goodness this thread is up there with the classics, pier to pier networking my friend daniel10!!!
My what a trap asking a question addressed to another following my post.
I somehow doubt EU opinion is exclusive to UKIP or any other party or individual.
Sorry to disappoint you Phantom Poster.
I have to say you must have got bored of late with no one to slate, even your friend Itsamess has not raised your hackles of late. Mind you he does tend to respond rather than lead. The marker of a worker Bee bot the Queen.
How very disappointed you must be.
When are you going to b_ugger off to Portsmouth and leave us all alone?
RichardR1
says...
9:30am Mon 15 Oct 12
Ian13 says...
8:29am Fri 12 Oct 12