Jump to content

ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

S106 Contribution Pooling

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 swisscheese



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 10 November 2015 - 02:58 PM

Hi All,

S106 confusion again.

The LAPD's opening gambit on the S106 is to propose that our self build contributions are pooled in with another local development of 3 new dwellings, one of which is a replacement, so only 2 appear liable for S106 contributions, consequently the LAPD want us to cover a 1/3 of the Parish Councils requirement.

Our contribution would amount to about £4.5K

I'm a little miffed at the size of the request when compared to the other development and their potential profits, and for what the requirement is for, for example refurbishment of a skate ramp, provision of broadband to a pavilion, amongst other things.

To top it all the Parish Council have opposed our self build from the start, and the reason this is going to committee is because they have kicked off.

What are my options? - I really need to negotiate this number down, given the extra costs incurred by the delays so far in the planning process, and further costs like this could jeopardise the viability of the build, which I am sure the PC would like.


Edited by joiner, 11 November 2015 - 07:03 AM.

#2 temp


    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,200 posts

Posted 10 November 2015 - 08:04 PM

S106 obligations have to meet some tests..



Limitation on use of planning obligations

122.—(1) This regulation applies where a relevant determination is made which results in planning permission being granted for development.
(2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is—
(a)necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b)directly related to the development; and
©fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

I would ask to see any planning policy documents that cover the projects they want you to fund. These should be in the local plan. If not you may have grounds to challenge them. For years councils have been able to justify S106 for sports facilities on the basis that a house uses up land or green space and that has to be mitigated somehow. So you may have to pay up for the skate park element. However it's hard to see how the provision of broadband to a pavillion is "directly related to the development". If there is nothing in the local plan I would argue that you could challenge a planning condition that requires you to pay for it.

Since April 2015 they cannot write more than five S106 for the "same type of infrastructure". That is five since 2010. So since 2010 have they already agreed five S106 for the provision of public broadband? Skate parks etc. I suspect they may well have.


Check if any of the projects are on the list for CIL funding. I don't think they can require an S106 if they are also on the list for funding by the CIL.


Google found..

https://shropshire.g...List Update.pdf


The publication of a CIL Regulation 123 List is one of the legislative requirements governing the use of developer contributions, as a means of identifying those infrastructure needs which will be delivered through the use of CIL. However, the inclusion of items on the CIL list restricts the ability for the Local Planning Authority to negotiate a S106 obligation where it is considered to be appropriate and meets with the relevant tests.

So ask to see the councils CIL Regulation 123 List and check for duplication.

Are any of the projects they want you to fund related to "affordable housing"? Self Builders are exempt from those and that has been upheld at appeal.


However that may change..


#3 swisscheese



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 10 November 2015 - 09:16 PM

Thanks Temp, some interesting stuff to follow up. The broadband connection though a small portion of the total is irritating.

#4 ferdinand


    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 11 November 2015 - 04:35 PM

One point:

- If the Council don't spend your Planning Obligation payments within a certain period (5 years?) and for the declared purpose, then I believe it is possible to claim it back.

There sounds to be room for some detailed quibbling there, but TBH the total number doesn't sounds as if you may be getting of lightly to me unless perhaps your project cost is under £100k) given that you can avoid CiL as a self-build.

Ours (admittedly a largish development) is coming in at £7k per house, and that's before the cost of the affordable housing contributions, in an area with an average price about 30% below the national average.

Suspect that the other development *will* be paying CiL if they have it in the area.


Edited by ferdinand, 11 November 2015 - 04:44 PM.

#5 swisscheese



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 12 November 2015 - 07:19 PM

The annoying thing really is that is clear to me that the parish council have just plucked these numbers out of the air (all the projects are round numbers, eg 1000 for this, 2000 for that etc), thus far that have been unable to provide any serious documentation to prove these are real, aside from what appears to be a hastily, non dated letter to the LAPD.

That's why I'm looking for wiggle room.

#6 swisscheese



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 07 December 2015 - 10:58 AM

Quick update, got a few quid off the S106 agreement, so went to Committe and they approved the Application for Delegated powers, so we have a result.

To top it all the Parish councils representaion at the Committe was painfully embarassing, cringeworthy and comical, I'm glad they turned up, it made our 3 minutes look so eloquant it could had been prepared by William Shakespeare.

The propsal still got called a 'monstrosity' by one of the District Councilers - Ha