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