Monday, 31 October 2016

Vale of Glamorgan dodgy spending of S.106 funds. Wheres the public art?

Objection seeking changes to the VoG’s SPG on Planning Obligations

The spending of S.106 funds does not comply with Welsh Guidance on being as transparent as possible, and some of the spending appears not to comply with requirements to relate it to the development to which it is tied.  We deduce this from analysing the list of projects in the 2015-16 Annual report.

In practice the S.106 funds are not spent in accord with the SPG’s fine words/aspirations, primarily because the funds are outside the democratic budgeting and project assessment processes. S106 is treated as a slush fund and sometimes spent wastefully, on overblown projects with little cost-effectiveness.  Some is wrongly spent on making up for Council spending cuts, eg. on libraries and renewing childrens’ play equipment. Some was spent on expensive renewal of bus-stops on Penarth Rd (Llandough Hill) scarcely related to the purpose of helping bus-use to Llandough hospital.

The SPG should therefore be reworded to bring the spending under democratic decision-making though open council processes (for sums above some threshold), with reports/assessments available as public documents as well as the annual report with its summaries. Scheme appraisals should show how criteria are met, like linkage to the actual development, “more sustainable” assessed quantitatively, cost-effectiveness, compliance with equalities legislation (DDA compliance), public consultation.

The VoG S106 levies need rebalancing as experience shows.  
The1% levy for Public Art has proved of little utility and is mis-used (reduce to eg. 0.2%); greening our streets via tree-planting would be better valued by the public.  Footway and cycleway improvements near to the housing developments would be justified, as would street improvements with renewed pavements and build-outs etc. to control vehicle parking (not distant ‘strategic’ cycleways). If these count as ‘sustainable transport’ then the levy proposed of £2200 per dwelling should be increased.  Also make the levy less regressive and better related to the number of people, eg. set the levy per bedroom (as is the parking requirement) in new dwellings.  The levy on commercial premises should be higher (per sq metre) for supermarkets than for other workplaces. The ‘affordable housing’ offset needs recalculating so as to penalise developers who try to avoid building the required ‘affordable’ percentage, rather than advantage them as with the present low commuted sum.

In Justification
The Welsh Government’s Planning Policy Wales says:
Contributions may be used to offset negative consequences, to help meet local needs, or to secure benefits which will make development more sustainable. It is essential that arrangements are fair to both the developer and community, that the process is transparent as possible, and that development plans provide guidance on the types of obligations which authorities may seek from developers’
(paragraph 3.7.1).

The SPG would continue present practice which is non-transparent and undemocratic, being largely in control of the officers and Cabinet, with input from ward Councillors but none from local residents.  It also fails to assess the supposed contribution to making the development “more sustainable”.

Large sums of money at the disposal of officers and Cabinet Members for the area, £8 million in 2015-16.  The SPG says:
Where contributions are required to deliver off-site facilities, the Council will identify where these contributions can be most effectively used to meet the additional demand
In practice, it’s suggestions of officers and Cllrs, mostly to meet current demand/needs, with no tests of effectiveness.  Some is making up for Council cuts in libraries, play schemes etc.
Consultation is carried out with local ward members, service areas and other appropriate consultees prior to determining where or how the contribution can be most effectively utilised to ensure best value for money having regard for other match funding opportunities.
There is no test of best value.  They put S106 money (few £100k) to the Wenvoe Cycleway, because they wanted this ‘strategic’ cycleway, that’s hardly used. No consultation with cycling representative groups.  No assessment of its utility was made at any stage.
Records of spend are kept on a central planning obligations database and reported on an annual basis to the Council’s Cabinet and Planning Committee.
The 2015-16 report shows old allocations with notes that Officers are looking for things to spend them on
In implementing Section 106 planning obligations, the Council will ensure that all other relevant policy and legislative requirements are considered, e.g. ensure that schemes are DDA compliant.
There is no project assessment or reporting process to show officers do consider all relevant policy areas.  The new Bus-stop at Barry/Morrisons (much used, huge £80k cost) has a pull-in that’s too short. It’s not DDA compliant, as buses are unable to pull in to the kerb (low floor buses for disabled don’t function).  £5.7k is unspent, so officers are “investigating opportunities to enhance bus shelter”.

Examples below show further how the practice departs from the SPG’s fine words, primarily because S106 funds are outside the democratic budgeting and project assessment processes. S106 is treated as a slush fund and spent wastefully, as well as on making up for Council spending cuts.

------------------ Detailed Examples in the 2015-16 Report  ----------------------------------------------------

Sustainable Transport (£1.5M in 2015-16): from levy of £2200 per dwelling (levies too on conversions and commercial development).  Officers propose schemes for spending it - in 2015-16
· Improvements to Gileston Road and St. Athan Crossroads · Pedestrian crossing at Buttrills Road/Holton Road · New bus shelters in Barry and Llandough · Pedestrian/cycleway along Port Road, Wenvoe · Purchasing a new vehicle for Dinas Powys Voluntary Concern / Greenlinks · Barry Island Causeway Project · Merrier Harrier Cycle Strategy– feasibility work · Greenlinks and supported services across the Vale of Glamorgan
Bus stops/shelters with dropped kerbs and boarding kerb cost ~£13k, but they spent an immense £180k on the (dreadful) Penlan Rd stop and on renewing the two shelters/stops on Penarth Rd (Llandough Hill), which were quite adequate for the limited use they get.

Public Open space (£500k) from developers who don’t provide space on site (as Penarth Heights).
In 2015-16   · Refurbishment of play area in George Street, Barry · Replacement play equipment at Llys Steffan, Llantwit Major · Enhancements to the Public Open Space at Trem Echni, Rhoose · Play schemes in Barry, delivered by the Council’s Play Development Team.
The Council recently consulted in Penarth on spending £100k in enhancing four Parks in Penarth, and more recently on other favoured parks, proposing to renovate the Cliff Top play area (in good updated condition already).  This is using Penarth Heights S106 money. Nothing or little to provision for teenagers – the skateboard park on Paget Road was dropped, the money just taken into the Parks allocation. Spend on Cycle-route signs (£3k on three NCN signposts), but nothing on improving the Coastal Path (used by many more and still discontinuous).  POS allocations are to replace the failure of developments to meet the standard acreage per 100 homes, yet nowhere does it go to securing extra land for POS.  There’s no written policy and no consultation on spending the gross POS allocations.

Public Art (set as a 1% levy on build-costs) is largely a joke and mis-spent
2015-16 · Buddy bench scheme at Llangan Primary School · Metalwork gates and railings, St. Athan Primary School (£16k; also £4k to paint skatepark ramps)


No comments:

Post a Comment