All posts in the topic 'Planning Gain' from local developments (Short link)
Hi,
This is going to be a long one and rather technical. The faint hearted
should give up now.
'Everybody knows' that Greater Bedminster is being 'developed' like crazy.
Each development creates pressure on local services such as roads, schools
and leisure facilities. As a compensation for this, the larger
developments are required under aticle 106 of some Planning Act to to pay
money to the council or to undertake some other activity (eg tree planting).
Or both! This is sometimes referred to as 'Planning Gain' or a '106
contribution'. Of course, the 106 contribution only partly compensates for
the extra strain on services, but, evenso, 106 funds in Greater Bedminster
amount to several hundred thousand pounds a year.
I want to provoke a discussion about how 106 funding is are distributed.
106 is, of course, public money.
This is how I think it's done at the moment, but because it seems rather
secret and conspiratorial, I may have it wrong. Officers of the Planning
Department try to negotiate the best deal against a BCC formula, but
developers generally try to pay as little as possible. Once a figure is
agreed it does not go to BCC until the development starts working, eg flats
are sold. There can therefore be a delay of several years between
agreement and receipt of funds. Nevertheless this is a conveyer belt so we
can have a fairly good idea of the receipts, say, for 2008 by looking at the
agreements of previous years.
Bear with me, I'm getting there.
There seems to be some sort of formula too for redistribution, but I'm not
sure how rigid it is. So, for example the library service may expect x%
from each years' 106 money (I expect x isn't very big!), local schools may
expect a slice, so may other services. Receipients needs to be fairly
close to the development site. There may be some dickering between
departments, but mainly it seems to be cooked up in what traditionally (but,
hurray, no longer!) were described as 'smoke-filled rooms'. The
departments, I assume, then go away and spend the money as they see best.
Note, I'm not saying that the departments spend it badly. I'm saying that,
for the most part, we don't know how they spend it, so we can't judge.
It's about accountability, stupid.
So, what's wrong with that?
I suppose when there wasn't much money involved, that system was OK. Now
there is more money and, at the same time, both local and central govenment
keep banging on about involving people in decisions about their
neighbourhoods. The system, as it stands, is not transparent. Quite the
reverse. If Faceless Bureaucrats are anywhere in Bristol, its here in the
106 system.
How could it be done differently? More transparently? Allowing local
people to influence decisions before it is too late?
Voluntary sector organisations are already very familiar with alternative
methods. When they apply for funds to either private or public bodies they
have to fill in a form (or two!!!). This is very tedious and often
unsuccessful, but it does mean that they need to make a case for the money.
They have to indicate why they want the funds, who will benefit, what needs
are being addressing and much else. They also have to promise to return
the money if they don't spend it in the agreed way by a certain time. Most
voluntary sector organisations share information about their funding bids
with other agencies, if only to secure letters of support.
Why shouldn't local BCC departments be subject to this discipline?
Let's take libraries as the example again. Over the next, say, 3 years the
two Greater Bedminster libraries may reasonably expect £XXX from 106 (again
quite small compared to other departments, I guess). Wouldn't it be nice
if they were required to publish and promote their plan for spending this
money? Better still, if we added to that some capacity for local people to
express support or opposition to these and other proposals. This Issues
Forum might be one place (among many) where the merits of the library bid
could be discussed! Even better still, perhaps we could devise a system
where local people actually made the decision. Libraries might end up with
£XXX plus a bit or £XXX less a bit.
I think people would respond very positively to a system where departments
had to make a public case rather than negotiate a departmental deal. And
why stop at 106 funding?
I was going to talk about the new 106 arrangement that we've recently
negotiated in Greater Bedminster with Bristol Parks and the GB Rivers and
Parks Network, but maybe later. This is Good News.
Cheers, Ben.
Posting
Only members who are logged in can post, and you are not logged in.