What on earth is S106?

Parish councillors last night were strongly critical of government plans to offer developers scope to reduce what are called "section 106" agreements attached to new housing. These are aimed at helping  a community cope with the increasing demands imposed by large scale building.

For instance the Home Farm approval includes money and resources for education, health and transport in addition to a community building. Some people might say we could lose the community building (I'd say no) but the contributions for health and education are vital. 

So in the consultation going on at the moment about these proposals we are saying "Full 106". It isn't the bits and pieces of civic obligation that are holding up Persimmon but plain bad business practice and that is up to them to sort out.

On that, by the way, there is no news of "Persimmon-lite" a second planning application probably not involving the Goodman Land and Dension Land (which provides the access to Court Road.) Watch this space...patiently LOL

You can comment on material on the blog by attaching a comment, below. Alternatively you can email me directly on cranfield1985@gmail.com 
I sometimes share these comments (anonymised) on the blog. 

Home farm Stakeholder meeting

There are continuing reports of  Persimmon contractors operating outside the their "consent" timetable. There are also issues around Section 106 prevision (community facilities). The stakeholder meeting for Thursday was cancelled by Central Beds and no alternative was offered other than the next meeting in July - that is way too far away. 

As a result the chair of the Parish Council Delise Ball and I have invited stakeholders to attend at the same venue  6.30 on Thursday evening  to discuss the development of the Home Farm site and issues arising from it. It will not be an official stakeholder meeting but could still be useful.

Cycle path

Sue Clark had a question from the Parish Council (at the stakeholder meeting)  – how will the 106 money be split for highways projects, as the council wants to pursue the need for a cycle track to the university site and intends to broker discussions with the university.  Anne Samme explained the 106 had been intentionally non-committal because of the need to assess the funding options at the time, especially regarding any possible upgrading. 






See above from the recent Home farm Stakeholder meeting  - the cycle path is a long  promised and much needed development. The £100,000 set aside is also supposed to be spent on the path between Court Road and Church Walk but the break down is "intentionally non-committal".  Just how difficult does that make our job? 


Section 106 money - how hard can it get to extract it? Money for the village traffic calming, for proper school facilities (remote playing field, no use to anyone), health centre - nowhere to put it, PCT no longer interested.

Cycle track

There is £100,000 in the Home farm 106 agreement for the cycle path to the uni plus upgrading the path between Church Walk and Court Road and creating a anew footpath and cycleway on the north side of Court Road between the school and the High Street. Found this out at the home farm stakeholder meeting on Thursday. But no one knows how this is to be prioritised. Investigations continue.