I'd imagine most on here are aware of developer contributions paid in return for planning permission. Apparently, WBC are very good at collecting this money, but not so good at doing the improvements required (£18m left unspent a couple of years ago).
This tax on new homes is a lucrative business, and WBC is now consulting on hiking up contributions from £12k per property to £15k.
Although this may seem a strange thing to do when WBC has missed it's own housing targets and housebuilding is at a 90 year low. Some may think it a bit weird that a Tory council would want to take an extra £3k from first time buyers, but maybe the rest of us are quite pleased that WBC is keeping average house prices £15k higher than they need to be. Businesses have to fork out considerably too (SLI excepted)...which may also seem a strange thing for a Tory council to do when unemployment is rising again.
My questions: Should first time buyers pay an extra £3000 to be in West Berkshire? Is this extra tax on businesses likely to be a deterrent to firms relocating here? What's the best way to answer the consultation? (I am not sure what I'm being asked to do)
S106 payments are supposed to be used to develop the additional local infrastructure that is needed to support the additional population brought into the area by new developments. Should WBC increase their charges by 25%? I guess your answer would depend on your opinion of what is needed to allow the additional development to fit into the community with minimal adverse effect on the area. It costs millions to build a new road, school, health centre etc - do you believe WBC has done enough in this area? If not is it because they haven't collected enough cash?
S106 payments are supposed to be used to develop the additional local infrastructure that is needed to support the additional population brought into the area by new developments. Should WBC increase their charges by 25%? I guess your answer would depend on your opinion of what is needed to allow the additional development to fit into the community with minimal adverse effect on the area. It costs millions to build a new road, school, health centre etc - do you believe WBC has done enough in this area? If not is it because they haven't collected enough cash?
It's not so much they have not collected enought cash it is more they have never had a clue just what impact each development would have on local infrastructer? Newbury has the added problem other towns do not have of the rivers canals and major east west railway tracks which has tended to cause major bottlenecks of traffic. Take the racecourse development fiasco, they are going to put additional housing in where the roads simply are unable to cope and instead of insisting developers build a bridge and roads which would alleviate part of the problem, Boundary Road, they have let the devlopers dictate to them again and say they are not going to build, if they intendt to any way, until after the houses have sold. It still means all the traffic has to cross the existing bridges around the town. That is even without the wild predictions of how many thousands of cars are going to visit Park way with only one way in or out. Then of course there is the schools problems with all the new houseing plus doctors surgeries etc etc. There is also the school of thought that says the S106 money has just been wasted? It just appears that the councils just try to solve the problems they and developers created after the event instead of planning for the problems that they know a development will create.
Then of course there is the schools problems with all the new houseing plus doctors surgeries etc etc. There is also the school of thought that says the S106 money has just been wasted? It just appears that the councils just try to solve the problems they and developers created after the event instead of planning for the problems that they know a development will create.
You're right to question the use of the money (St Johns roundabout springs to mind!), but I was more questioning the costs.
Why do developers have to pay £9000 per new 3 bed house for schools (in W Berks) when building the same property in Basingstoke would only cost a £6000 levy?
Cynics on here have suggested WBC is too soft with developers....could this be because developers are bankrolling public services? I see adult social care contributions are due to increase as developer contributions, which coincides with overspent budgets.
It wasn't long ago that WBC had £18m untouched contributions, of which around £14m was for Newbury. Since the developers started asking for their money back in 2009, WBC has been quick to get it out of the door to avoid political embarrassment rather than think about what's needed. So no one wins.
That means £240,000 of traffic lights at Boundary Road/Kings Road, but no traffic filter from London Road to Park Way (20,000 visitors a day expected in 3 weeks' time!). Or it means we get new bus laybys on the A4 while nothing is done about pollution on the Burger King.
Why do developers have to pay £9000 per new 3 bed house for schools (in W Berks) when building the same property in Basingstoke would only cost a £6000 levy?
Because the developer would be able to sell the same property in Basingstoke for less money?
Another way of looking at it - WBC encouraging developers to build in Basingstoke rather than Newbury. Doing what many would like - reducing the overdevelopment of Newbury.
It all depends what the council do with the money. If they decide to hold on to the cash, what's the point? I'm all for large s106 payments if it's used to improve infrastructure, and by that I certainly do not mean canal basins
So WBC should charge more and make it less affordable?
It could be argued that the developer would still charge the same amount for the property, regardless of the levy. If you believe that argument to be true then at least WBC are maximising the money that they get back for expenditure on infrastructure.
What I always find a bit strange is that every S106 payment, the library ask for a chunk. Is this just a cover as there isn't a way of determining where the spend goes, if anywhere.
What I always find a bit strange is that every S106 payment, the library ask for a chunk. Is this just a cover as there isn't a way of determining where the spend goes, if anywhere.
Exactly...it's a murky money trail and deliberately so.
Hungerford got a new £2m library paid for from developments built in Newbury. Is that fair?
As Obama said....for government to be responsible, it must be held accountable, and to do that we need transparency. However that was before wikileaks cable release!
That means £240,000 of traffic lights at Boundary Road/Kings Road.........
Well, it seems that somone now knows about the Boundary Road/Kings Road and Hambridge road traffic traffic lights that WBC have paid for. It's on a drawing at the end of the Stuart Michael Associates report. As the drawing is copyright, here is a link if you care to look at it. Right at the end of the document. It actually shows two way traffic coming out of Kings Road by the way.
Well, it seems that somone now knows about the Boundary Road/Kings Road and Hambridge road traffic traffic lights that WBC have paid for. It's on a drawing at the end of the Stuart Michael Associates report. As the drawing is copyright, here is a link if you care to look at it. Right at the end of the document. It actually shows two way traffic coming out of Kings Road by the way.
When you are on the hummingbird web site then click on the left panel heading Transport Plan, then when you have the pdf doc open go down to the last page, there you will see the drawing. Sorry about the wrong title.
Male
isplayMode=Details
Logged
