Posted by

Posted on

3 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Scrutiny, Section 106, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Spin

Oh, those poor, poor developers with their begging bowls

“Documents show plans to create 36 sheltered apartments for the elderly should be worth nearly £1million to the Sidmouth community – but the developer has shown it is ‘unviable’ to pay more than £41,000.

Churchill Retirement Living hopes to demolish the former Green Close care home in Drakes Avenue to make way for the development.

Its five-figure offer towards off-site ‘affordable’ housing was slammed as an ‘insult to Sidmouth’ by town councillors, who suggested the developer should pay at least £360,000.

After failing to reach an agreement with East Devon District Council (EDDC), Churchill launched an appeal due to non-determination of its application.

Papers submitted to the appeal process from EDDC say there is a policy expectation that half of the site should be provided as ‘affordable’ housing and that there is a ‘substantial’ need for one- and two-bedroom units in Sidmouth.

If 18 ‘affordable’ homes cannot be provided on-site, a payment of £935,201 would be expected so the properties can be built elsewhere.

Churchill said a viability assessment showed building ‘affordable’ homes on the site was ‘impractical’ and ‘unrealistic’.

It added: “It has been demonstrated that the application development is not sufficiently viable to permit the imposition of any affordable housing or planning gain contributions above £41,208.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “Unfortunately, the development is not sufficiently viable to pay this [£935,201] sum and, following an independent assessment of the viability of the scheme, it was reluctantly accepted that the scheme could only afford to pay £41,208 towards affordable housing.

“Under government guidance, we are required to reduce our requirements where a development is unviable and so we have no real choice but to accept this position.”

EDDC also expected Churchill to pay £22,536 for habitat mitigation, plus an £18,400 public open space contribution. The total is nearly £1million.

The delay in EDDC deciding the fate of the application was due to officers trying to apply an ‘overage’ clause that would require Churchill to pay up if its profits exceed current expectations.

A Planning Inspectorate spokesman confirmed that the appeal had been validated and it is in discussion with both parties.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc-wants-1million-in-community-cash-developer-offers-40-000-1-5084604

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

16 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Section 106

Comments

2 Comments

Cranbrook-another broken promise, this time allotment provision

An FAQ produced by the town council.

Summary: We were supposed to have them, developers won’t give up any land so we have no idea if we will ever get them even though we have a statutory duty to provide them.

Developers 1, Town Council 0

Take particular note of the answer to Question 2. Cynical Owl wonders if other Section 106 community benefits are triggered at this point and developers are dragging their feet about effective counting.

EDW-watchers will recall that almost £700,000 of such benefits was not triggered due to poor record-keeping on the part of EDDC and the need to rely on developers to tell EDDC when trigger points are reached. And most of that figure related to Cranbrook.

“1) When I moved in two years ago, the salesperson said there would be allotments in Phase 1?

We are afraid that was incorrect but we can see how the confusion arose. To set the record straight, although Cranbrook was always going to have allotments, the land originally set aside for them was not in Phase 1 but was part of the Sports Pitch land on Phase 2. This location was subsequently challenged as it was thought that adjacent to sports pitches was an unsuitable place for them. It was therefore decided to try to find an alternative location. This prompted a renegotiation of the original legal agreement. The revised agreement will still make provision for allotments in Cranbrook but a new location needs to be found (see also 2 below).

2) The Town Council’s website says one of its responsibilities is providing allotments, so why haven’t we got any yet and when are they coming?

Not only do they require a suitable location (see 1 above) a numerical trigger also needs to be reached before the work can begin. There are two stages to this process. Firstly, when approaching 1500 homes are occupied (i.e. not just built), the Owners (in this case the Consortium) are required to identify and gain planning permission for a location. Secondly, the Owners must, “use reasonable endeavours to complete the Allotments by the First Occupation of the 2000th Dwelling in accordance with the Allotments Specification and Delivery Programme and make them available for use as soon as practicable thereafter.” (extract from Section 106 agreement). Surprisingly, although there are many more new houses being built on Phase 2, we have been informed by East Devon District Council that Cranbrook still hasn’t quite reached the 1500 homes occupied figure.

3) So, where will the Cranbrook allotments actually go?

We regret we don’t have any information as yet about where they will be located but we are keeping a watching brief and will inform residents as soon as we have any new information.

4) I’ve heard the Town Council has a list of people who are interested in having an allotment, so can I join that?

Yes, we are keeping a list, so that when the allotments do become available they can be allocated fairly to people who have declared an interest. We currently have 13 names on the list. Please feel free to contact us on office@cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk or 01404 514552 if you would like to be added.”

Click to access FAQ-Allotments-Green-Spaces.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Development Management Committee, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Local Infrastructure and CIL, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Section 106, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Transparency

“Knowle relocation project: full Pegasus contract published”

Some VERY VERY interesting information!

It seems that PegasusLife had no plans to pay any Section 106 contributions, or Community Infrastructure Levy.

The PegasusLife contract that would have been signed had the DMC not refused planning permission and the Savill’s report on how the company got it is detailed in full here:

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/knowle-relocation-project-full-pegasus.html

Where further revelations are promised.

Sidmouth – indeed the whole district – should thank Jeremy Woodward, who worked tirelessly to get this information.

The Information Commissioner had to threaten EDDC with the possibility of being in contempt of court when they issued their Decision Notice forcing publication, after an appeal from EDDC that they should not be made to issue it or at least not without without so much redaction it would likely be pointless. EDDC had been planning to appeal the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice but suddenly withdrew this action – presumably knowing it would not succeed.

EDDC then issued a press release saying that all the hours and hours they must have spent opposing publication “cost nothing” as it was only officer time.

Owl wonders which senior officers work for nothing!

This sorry tale should be examined by EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee forthwith.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

16 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Andrew Moulding, Audit (EDDC), Consultation, EDDC, KPMG, Section 106

Comments

1 Comment

Tell EDDC what you want Section 106 money spent on so they can ignore you and spend it on what they want!

That is, of course, if they can be bothered to collect the money ( at least £200,000 due but not invoiced when external auditors KPMG did a spot check recently:)

“New document sets out what contributions will be required for roads, affordable housing, schools and play areas

Residents are being invited to have their say on how East Devon District Council (EDDC) will require developers to pay towards infrastructure such as roads, affordable housing, schools and play areas in the future.

The new Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out what contributions will be required for, when they will be required and how much they are likely to be.

EDDC deputy leader Councillor Andrew Moulding said: “The document applies to a large range of people from major housebuilders to individual house owners who may want to develop part of their garden.”

To comment, email localplan@eastdevon.gov.uk by January 16.

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/east_devon_residents_invited_to_have_a_say_on_how_developer_cash_is_spent_1_4819414

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

28 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Developers/ Development, EDDC, Section 106

Comments

3 Comments

Can EDDC do basic arithmetic?

Read this first – the response to their external auditors that their Section 106 system is not working:

“An EDDC spokesman said: “We know exactly how much section 106 money is owed. “However, we only hold that information by development and do not hold a total of all monies outstanding across all developments. “This is currently being addressed.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/we_know_exactly_how_much_community_cash_is_owed_eddc_1_4790645

(The rest of the press release is just as bizarre)

IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!!!!!

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, EDDC has 100 developments which owe Section 106 money. What they are saying is: “We know what each of the 100 developments owes but we can’t add them all up and get a total!”

Or is Owl missing something here?

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, KPMG, Section 106

Comments

2 Comments

Section 106 scandal: New controls and a surprising revelation from CEO Mark Williams

S106 Funds and EDDC Audit & Governance Committee – report from an attendee:

On Thursday November 17th the Audit & Governance Committee of EDDC voted to make several changes to the Council’s finance systems which will now ensure that s106 payments will go to the local community amenities for which they are intended.

S106 payments are agreements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, often referred to as ‘developer contributions’ whereby developers agree to make financial contribution to the community infrastructure when they build property. These contributions are usually used to provide amenities such as playground equipment or other local projects, and usually decided with local councillors in the town or parish councils.

The recommendations to make changes in the way EDDC manages and monitors the s106 monies comes from auditors KPMG who received an objection from a local elector. KPMG mounted a financial investigation into the elector’s complaint and concluded that the council’s control systems had the following weaknesses:

1. An absence of summarised financial information to facilitate the monitoring of s106 contributions

2. Lack of challenge or enforcement of the developers’ legal obligation to provide information

3. Lack of understanding of financial and accounting implications of triggers being met and the communication between Planning and Finance over this.

EDDC Chief Executive Officer Mark Williams, at one point in the discussion, disclosed that he watches some s106 debts grow (because interest at 4%+ base rate is applied) rather than collect them when due so that the council can gain more money.

No one challenged or questioned the ethics of this as a strategy for dealing with the funds that could have gone sooner to the communities for which it is intended (or whether developers could be benefitting by delaying payments). Neither was it established whether that interest earned is applied to the s106 amenities for the community or left in the council’s general reserves.

EDDC Monitoring Officer Henry Gordon Lennox, referring to the £730,000 he had previously disclosed (through a Freedom of Information query) was owed in 2014/15 and 2015/16 for s 106 payments, interjected that the £730,000 owing had included a mistaken overstatement of £409,000. The current status of the other £321,000 was not established during the committee discussion however.

The auditors, in upholding the objection to the accounts, made Priority One recommendations to address each area of weakness because these are fundamental and material to EDDC’s systems of financial controls. The committee resolved that these should be implemented by set dates and KPMG will follow up in their next audit.

Councillors of various political parties during the discussion on this item thanked the elector for having raised the lid on this issue. Now that the previously weak system has had “a light shone on it” and addressed, the Audit & Governance Committee will be able to require regular reports on s106 monies owed and collected. They will be able to ensure that the funds are being directed to and spent on the amenities in towns and parish council communities projects for which they are intended.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

18 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exmouth, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, KPMG, Section 106, Transparency

Is a cost over-run of £1.1 million or £10 million more serious than a Section 106 loss of £250,000?

Owl asks because an elector successfully petitioned EDDC’s external auditor over Section 106 discrepancies. A sample found a wrongly-attributed bill of some £400,000 and an uncollected sum of around £250,000. As a result, the auditors have requested many changes in procedures:

Click to access item-12-management-of-s106-contributions-report.pdf

Now we hear at Cabinet this week that, in two years, development costs for Exmouth seafront have risen from £1.5 million to £3.2 million. Yet Cabinet apparently found this totally acceptable and, without detailed figures, nodded it through with no explanation of:

– what did the £1.5 million cover

and

– what does the extra £1.6 million cover.

Added to this, the projected cost of HQ relocation has risen from cost-neutral (zero due to sale of Knowle HQ for around £7 million) it is now said to be nearly £10 million – or at least that was figure a few months ago.

These are eye-watering numbers yet majority party councillors and auditors (internal and external) appear unconcerned.

Some scrutiny (internal and external) needed here, Owl thinks.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

15 Nov 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Section 106

KPMG Section 106 report: high-level risks identified by external auditor

Verbatim from the report to be discussed by the Audit and Governance Committees

17 November 2016, 2.30 pm, Knowle

“The Council currently has no summarised monitoring document which shows the value of all s106 contributions outstanding at any one point, with the trigger which would lead the contribution to be payable and, if the contribution is liable to be paid, the current status of the collection process. In addition to this the Council does not currently have the information in a format which is consistent with s106 contribution triggers so it cannot determine if triggers have been met.

From our understanding there is no challenge or enforcement of the developers’ legal obligation to provide the Council with details of the number of dwellings constructed, sold and occupied, instead only information on completions is supplied. In addition this information should be received quarterly but our testing suggests that it is received on an ad hoc and untimely basis. This means that there is a risk that the Council has inaccurate information on which to track outstanding s106 contribution monies.

It has been found that at present there is a gap in the understanding of the financial and accounting implications of a contribution trigger being met within Planning, due to an oversight in communication between Finance and Planning over the treatment. When contributions become virtually certain to be received, but are not invoiced for practical or commercial reasons, they should be recognised as accrued income.

At current however, given this gap in understanding in the planning team, the Council’s Finance team only accounts for s106 contributions when the cash has been received or an invoice has been raised. This has led to the financial accounts having an incomplete accrued income balance on the Statement of Financial Position.”

Click to access item-12-management-of-s106-contributions-report.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

31 Oct 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, EDDC, Section 106, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Make millions, pay peanuts … EDDC says that’s fine

“Town councillors have reiterated their opposition to Churchill Retirement Living’s plans to demolish Green Close, in Drakes Avenue, and build 36 sheltered housing apartments for the elderly.

They said the housing stock for older people cannot keep growing without also creating homes for nurses and carers to look after them – and argued the developer could cut into its 30 per cent operating profit margin to pay for it.

Planning committee members suggested Churchill should pay at least £360,000.

Councillor Ian Barlow, committee chairman, told the Herald: “Churchill’s profit margin is the one of the highest in the industry.

“They say they can’t pay more than £41,000 or it won’t be profitable – but those 36 homes are probably going to be worth £6-7million.

“Churchill is making a profit and taking it out of the town. They’re bringing in older people who will use the facilities, but they’re barely putting anything into the pot.”

The £41,000 referred to is a ‘section 106’ payment – cash that is meant to mitigate the impact of developments and fund improvements such as ‘affordable’ housing. The contribution depends on factors such as the size and number of dwellings being built.

Churchill is proposing to build 36 apartments in place of the 23-bed Green Close care home, which was run by Devon County Council until cutbacks brought about its closure in 2014.

The planning committee, which met last week, ruled: “Members noted that a contribution of £41,208 had been offered by the applicant towards affordable housing. Members expressed the view that this was an insult to the community of Sidmouth and urged the local planning authority not to accept the offer.”

Cllr Barlow compared the Green Close proposal with the Sanditon development, on the plot of the former Fortfield Hotel.

The developer there built 29 apartments and made a £1.5million ‘section 106’ payment – 36 times what Churchill is offering.

Cllr Barlow said the firm can avoid a larger payment because it is creating sheltered housing, adding: “We’re concerned that a lot of places are being provided for the elderly, but there’s nowhere being built for younger people.

“If there’s no provision at the same time for a nurse or a carer to live, who is going to look after them?”

Churchill’s planning director, Andrew Burgess, told the Herald: “We are disappointed by Sidmouth Town Council’s decision, since we have been consulting the community and working with the planning authorities for several months to develop plans for an attractive and sustainable new retirement community that will bring benefits to local people and the local economy.”

He said the proposed affordable housing contribution is based on a detailed viability assessment, industry best practice and factors such as the market value of the site.

Mr Burgess added: “We will continue to work with the council and the local community to ensure we can deliver the high-quality specialist retirement accommodation that is urgently needed by older people in Sidmouth.”

The application has been recommended for approval by EDDC’s planning officers, who noted the ‘comparatively modest’ financial contribution.

The authority’s development management committee will decide its fate on Tuesday (November 1).”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/home/developer_s_offer_slammed_as_insult_to_sidmouth_1_4756271

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

22 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Section 106, Transparency

3 or maybe 4 or maybe 7 organisations and 2 or maybe 5 individuals decided how to spend £82,000 S106 in Seaton – you work it out!

Except when you read the answer to this FoI request, it is SO contradictory!

It says in one part 2 individuals and 7 organisations responded, then it says 5 individuals and 4 organisations responded – and then it names only 3 organisations!

Whatever – it was a couple of individuals, the town council and 2 sports clubs that made the decision. That’s public consultation EDDC style!

Section 106 publicising for Seaton in 2014

Date submitted: 27 September 2016

Summary of request

On your website you state:

‘In 2014 we gathered in ideas from the community on how £82,000 of section 106 money from new homes in Seaton should be spent. We received nine eligible, affordable and possible ideas from the community and from sporting organisations.’

I would be grateful if you would detail:

1. How the community were asked for ideas?
2. What organisations were asked for ideas?
3. How organisations were asked for ideas?
4. How many individuals responded?
5. How many organisations responded?
6. Of the nine eligible ideas, how many were from individuals and how many from organisations/representatives of organisations?
7. The names of the organisations whose ideas were deemed eligible
Summary of response

1. How the community were asked for ideas? – Through press releases sent out to all media contacts; through social media and the councils website; local Councillors and Seaton Town Council were involved and were asked to publicise the opportunity. Also e-mails were sent to several relevant local organisations we were aware of, we asked them to publicise the opportunity
2. What organisations were asked for ideas? – We do not have a record of this
3. How organisations were asked for ideas? – See answer to question 1
4. How many individuals responded? – 2
5. How many organisations responded? – 7
6. Of the nine eligible ideas, how many were from individuals and how many from organisations/representatives of organisations? – 5 were from individuals and 4 from organisations/representatives of organisations
7. The names of the organisations whose ideas were deemed eligible – Seaton Town Council; Seaton Cricket Club; Axe Valley Runners
Date responded: 4 October 2016

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

15 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, KPMG, Section 106, Transparency

External auditor holding up EDDC final accounts

“Whilst our audit work on the financial statements and VFM conclusion is almost complete, as set out above, we have received a formal objection from a local elector.

We are in the process of considering this objection, which relates to the Council’s approach to recording and obtaining receipt of monies due to it from developers through agreements under s106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

If we are able to conclude this work before the end of the month then, subject to the outcome of this, we anticipate issuing our audit report by the 30th September for the Council to publish audited financial statements.

If, however, the work extends beyond this timescale then we will have to withhold our audit certificate within the audit report until the work on the objection has been completed.”

Click to access 220916-agenda-item-8-combined-reports.pdf

(pages 121 and repeated on page 131)

Almost certainly related to this:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/09/13/eddc-and-its-section-106-black-hole/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

13 Sep 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Section 106

Comments

2 Comments

EDDC and its Section 106 Black hole

What makes the response below so puzzling is that for at least the last decade, EDDC has had a dedicated S106 officer. Time for some scrutiny …

“Freedom of Information request
Section 106 planning agreements

Date submitted: 25 August 2016

Summary of request

Please provide the following details for all developer contributions agreed (not received) under Section 106 planning agreements including affordable housing contributions:

– Value of contribution
– Purpose of contribution
– Planning application reference number

Please provide these details for the following 10x financial years:

– 01/04/2004 – 31/03/2005
– 01/04/2005 – 31/03/2006
– 01/04/2006 – 31/03/2007
– 01/04/2007 – 31/03/2008
– 01/04/2008 – 31/03/2009
– 01/04/2009 – 31/03/2010
– 01/04/2010 – 31/03/2011
– 01/04/2011 – 31/03/2012
– 01/04/2012 – 31/03/2013
– 01/04/2013 – 31/03/2014

Summary of response

We do not hold this information in a format which enables us to easily identify the financial contributions that were due to EDDC arising from s106 agreements in each financial year, or identify the purpose of a contribution. To find this detail we would need to check through each agreement during the stated time period.

We know that it has taken an experienced officer some 6 hours to search through 200 of these documents and we estimate that to search through each of the agreements per year over a ten year span to locate the ones specifically relevant to your request, will exceed the 18 hours permitted. This information is therefore exempt from disclosure under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Date responded: 1 September 2016

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

8 Sep 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Scrutiny, Section 106

EDDC’s Section 106 records appear to be a shambles:

Does EDDC know how much S106 money it has and how much is owed?

Could this happen here?

“Reading Borough Council officer has been jailed over a £42,000 fraud involving money raised from developers through section 106 planning gain contributions.

The council said that a review of its Section 106 system in April had uncovered an anomaly that on further investigation proved to involve fraud.
Peter Owusu-Ansah pleaded guilty on 1 August at Reading Crown Court to one charge under section 4 of the Fraud Act, and has now been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

A council statement said the review found no other problems but a detailed audit had been undertaken and recommendations were made to improve processes.

Mr Owusu-Ansah’s fraud involved £42,425.84 and the council will use the Proceeds of Crime Act to try to recover money from him.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28295%3Aofficer-jailed-for-section-106-planning-gain-fraud&catid=63&Itemid=31

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

6 Sep 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Section 106

How developers avoid social housing – employ a specialist company

On a depressing note, see the following, a company based in Sevenoaks:

http://www.affordablehousing106.com/casestudies.html

“Affordable housing 106” is anything but helping the affordable housing situation in this country.

This case study page boasts about recent victories for clients, including:

– negotiating down from 50% to 25% the proportion of affordable housing for a project in South London: while the local Council wanted a 70/30 split between rent and shared ownership, the company facilitated 100% shared ownership tenure;

– facilitated commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing for a proposed care home development in the South East

– negotiated a Deed of Variation for an existing 106 Agreement in East London, whereby the owner/developer secured ownership/management of the affordable housing units.

Of course we have a similar company in Exeter:

http://www.section-106.co.uk/

To take but one local example from their case studies:

“Acting as both principals and in collaboration with Somerfield Food Stores in connection with a planning application to redevelop a 50 dwelling brown field site. Torridge District Council Planning officers sought a Section 106 agreement providing 20% affordable housing. Using a viability appraisal we were able to negotiate a reduction to 12%, saving circa £150,000.”

Presumably the families of employees of these companies have no need of sich housing themselves – lucky people.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

26 Jul 2016

Posted under

Andrew Moulding, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Section 106, Wainhomes

Comments

1 Comment

Wainhomes Axminster: EDDC considers legal action to recover

Serious problems in Axminster, according to this week’s View from Axminster:

where the newspaper reveals that EDDC is considering taking legal action to recover more than £650,000 from Wainhomes, developer at Millbrook Meadows off Chard Road. The money is due under a Section 106 agreement to cover infrastructure, new school places, sports facilities, play areas, sewerage network and public art. In addition there are safety concerns about fencing and subsidence.

In an editorial on page 3 of the newspaper it is also noted that there are serious concerns about the quality of new housing in Axminster and an anecdotal story of a house under construction having been pulled down overnight.

Wainhomes have been at the centre of a number of controversies, not least in nearby Feniton, where required flood defences were not constructed and planning conditions not met when a new housing estate was built in the village and where the company attempted to build many more houses than those originally sought.

Yet another headache for the new Axminster Regeneration Board, headed by Councillor Moulding.

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

8 Jul 2016

Posted under

Community Infrastructure Levy, Cranbrook, EDDC, Section 106, Transport (local)

Another railway station for Cranbrook?

Just how big is Cranbrook going to be?

Just how are other towns and villages going to benefit from development in the East Devon if Cranbrook gets all the funding?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/new-east-devon-railway-station-edges-closer/story-29491427-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

14 Jun 2016

Posted under

Community Infrastructure Levy, National Planning Policy Framework, Neighbourhood Plans, Section 106

Community Infrastructure Levy rules likely to change as developers don’t like them

Developers don’t like it, so, of course, it has to go.

“The government’s specially appointed task force is to call for a radical overhaul of the community infrastructure levy six years after it was introduced.

It will recommend a major policy U-turn, stripping CIL back to its original purpose by funding local infrastructure with a simple, national base tax on all new developments.

Section 106 charges would return for infrastructure requirements on large developments.

The changes are expected to be considered after parliament’s summer recess. The recommendations come from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s CIL review panel, set up as an independent working group chaired by former British Property Federation chief executive Liz Peace.

Changes are likely to need primary legislation and could be inserted into the Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill. …

… Barratt Developments’ group land and planning director Philip Barnes said: “We were hoping that when CIL was introduced it would give us more clarity and certainty, but actually we are finding we often have to negotiate s106 on top of CIL. If these changes were introduced they would give developers greater flexibility, whichcould speed up the delivery of larger sites.”

Details yet to be determined include how the base tariff would be set, whether any types of development would be exempt, and howmedium-sized developments could avoid being hit by both CIL and s106 requirements.

CBRE’s chairman of UK planning Stuart Robinson said: “The key questions will be, who will set the tariff and on what basis? And how will does affordable housing fit in?”

Simon Ricketts, partner at law firm King & Wood Mallesons, said he would not want a lower CIL rate subsidised by higher s106 payments. He added: “If there is a shortfall between what is needed and a new, low CIL, that should not come from s106, which would add extra complexity.”

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/task-force-to-accept-bpf-recommendations-on-cil/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

2 May 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton, Section 106

Seaton Heights: EDDC sees no reason for delay

“GS had been contacting Seaton Heights by email but had not made any progress on contacting the owners at present. It was understood
that there were no barriers to development starting at Seaton Heights, except for stringent S106 requirements. With the economy and property market improving it may be that development could proceed. …”

Click to access 110516-combined-cabinet-agenda.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

2 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Section 106, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Does EDDC know how much S106 money it has and how much is owed?

S106 money is that due to a town or parish where a developer has had to enter into an agreement to provide facilities or infrastructure to mitigate damage caused by a development.

This is the Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council that reveals how little EDDC knows about how much money is still uncollected from S106 agreements. It should be noted that EDDC employed a S106 Officer and a Community Engagement officer for many years. Indeed, this is the convoluted procedure a town or parish has to go through to access its share of S106 contributions which mentions them by title:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

and it states that the S106 officer knows how much money is available to each town and parish.

The request:

Dear Mr Metcalfe,

Thank you for your request for information. Please see our response to
your request below with supporting documentation attached.

This request concerns agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (known as s106 agreements) particularly during
financial years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 (to date) and compliance with
these s106 agreements.

1. How many s106 agreements were made by EDDC in each of the years stated above?

2011/12 – 170 registered agreements
2012/13 – 196
2013/14 – 297
2014/15 – 307

Please note that these are registered agreements and some are likely to
have been withdrawn, refused, or be resubmissions or supplemental agreements. Please see the attached spreadsheet for a breakdown of s106
agreements, where it’s been colour coded into financial years for ease of
reference.

2. What financial contributions were due to EDDC arising from s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

We do not hold this information in a format which enables us to easily identify the financial contributions that were due to EDDC arising from s106 agreements in each financial year.

To find this detail we would need to check through each agreement during the stated time period. The attached list of each of the applications where a s106 agreement was registered can be searched online
here:
[1]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/view-pl…

Simply enter the relevant application number into the search box and all
associated documents can then be accessed.

We estimate that to search through each of these agreements to locate the
ones specifically relevant to your request will take around 30 hours of
officer time. We know that it has taken an experienced officer some 6
hours to search through 200 of these documents and this is what we have
based our estimate on. This information is therefore exempt from
disclosure under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am sorry that we cannot provide this information but hope that you will
find the application reference numbers helpful in conducting any searches
of your own. If you have any difficulties using the online search
facility, please let us know.

3. What financial contributions were received by EDDC for s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

2014/15 – £2,464,737.56
2015/16 – £1,825,993.28.

4. In respect to monitoring of s106 agreements, how many agreements
have not been complied with in each of the years stated above? In cases
where there has been a breach of the obligation, how many direct actions
has EDDC taken to recover the payments due and expenses? –

This information is not held.

5. How much revenue for s106 agreements in total is now owing to EDDC
(regardless of what year the agreement was made) because payment has not
been made?

This information is not held.

If you are not satisfied with the way we have responded to your request,
please fill in our online complaint form[2]www.eastdevon.gov.uk/making_a_complaint or write to the Monitoring
Officer, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL.

Yours sincerely,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: