Rutland self builders challenge council on Section 106 charges
Self builders in Rutland are rallying together to lobby councillors over excessive Section 106 charges that are being levied to help fund new affordable or social housing in their area.
Rutland Self Builder, Nick Grindley, who hopes his local authority will reconsider their Section 106 policy
Like
a growing number of councils throughout the UK, Rutland County Council
has recently adopted a policy applying S106 Developer Contributions
towards affordable housing to all single self-build homes and large
extensions. In most council area these charges have until now,
traditionally only been applied where a property developer is building
five or more homes.
Nick Grindley, a small
business owner in Uppingham,Leicestershire, applied for planning
permission to build a 187 sq. m townhouse in May this year and was asked
to pay £50,000 in affordable housing contributions.
Concerned by the
level of the charges, Mr Grindley refused to sign the S106 agreement and
his planning permission was refused. Since then, he has been lobbying
the council to review the policy. He also contacted Alan Duncan, MP for
Rutland and Melton, who has written to Roger Begy, the council’s chief
executive, to express his concerns about the policy.
Roger Begy is the Tory Leader not the Chief Executive but then the both sing from the same song sheet so I guess it does not matter what title you give them.
Mr
Grindley said: “In most other local authorities the S106 policy only
applies to developments of five or more dwellings. This makes sense as
it applies to ‘developers’ making a short-term profit rather than
individuals wanting to live in their own homes. But other local
authorities, including mine, are interpreting the guidelines in their
own way.”
“I’m currently reviewing my position
regarding my application, but whether I chose to build my home or not,
this is a matter of principle about unfair taxation - and not simply a
case of sour grapes”.
Two dozen self build projects cancelled
He
says that he is aware of three separate cases where the upfront
payments required for planning permission were £35,000, £50,000 and
£70,000. And, since beginning his campaign, he has been contacted by
other self builders in a similar position and currently knows of at
least 20 self build projects that have been cancelled since the policy
came into force – but he says this is just the “tip of the iceberg”.
“This
is in effect a punitive ‘roof tax’ which will kill self-build stone
dead and also harm the local building trades. The figures are crazy. I
know the council uses a viability formula to allocate this tax to
affordable housing and general spending, but there is a difference
between viability and achievability – a self-builder like myself doesn’t
want to make a profit, they simply want to live in their home. The
adopted policy in Rutland should be changed without delay.”
Chris
Jones, spokesman for Rutland County Council said; “The new policy was
introduced because the building of a new property leads to a greater
demand on council services and the additional costs that brings. As
population grows (as more houses are built) then greater demands are
placed on things like schools and social services, town centre
infrastructure, emergency services, and refuse and recycling collection.
In isolation, one house does not seem to have much of an impact, but
when you multiply that across all of the new properties built across the
county it soon makes a significant difference.
The above is rubbish the 106 payments are a local Tory tax only the other day I was asked what are the council is doing with the 106 payments received from the wine bar developers for Church Street.
No one in Church Street has been consulted, the town council and town partnership tried to get it hands on the cash. of course the only good thing about 106 payments they are protected if they are no spent in a period of time they have to be returned to the developer. This nearly happened earlier this year with one contribution but Mr King who is in charge of the mess that is finances at RCC rushed the installation of new play equipment just so they did not have to refund the developer. so I can see why Mr Grindley was reluctant to give the council £50,000 the money they have is so badly managed and no real thought as to how that money will actually be spent.
“The
soon-to-be-introduced Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) requires all
developments to contribute towards local infrastructure, and is worked
out using the size and type of the development.
“As
well as the above infrastructure contributions, the council agreed last
year that all residential developments would normally be subject to the
same criteria, requiring 35% affordable housing to be provided where
viable on sites of any size. Previously, the requirement was for 20%
affordable housing on sites of 15 or more homes. Rural exception sites
are still required to be wholly for affordable housing.
“With
smaller developments (five dwellings or less), it’s not always
practical to request a percentage of affordable housing, so an
affordable housing financial contribution can apply instead. This is
based on the Council’s Affordable Housing Viability Study. This is
approximately £804 per square metre, capped at a maximum of 85 sq.
metres (£23,922).”
Mr Jones said that some self
builders may believe they have exceptional circumstances which make the
infrastructure or affordable housing contributions unfair. If so, they
can submit their project to an independent economic test in order to get
a neutral perspective over whether the proposed contributions are fair
and viable. This can, in some cases, lead to a reduction or deferral of
any payment due.
Mr Nick Grindley also wrote to the Rutland Times
Section 106 is simply a massive tax
RUTLAND County Council leader Terry King is telling half the story when he writes in last week’s letters that “section 106 has been around for some years”.
Mr King is the Deputy Tory Leader.
What he omits to say is that
this year Rutland Council Council altered its section 106 policy to
apply this levy to small builders and individuals building single houses
who are completely different to big developers.
He is simply using section 106 as a massive local tax. Fortunately David Cameron stated on Thursday last week that section 106 “obligations” should be removed where they are holding back building.
As Coun King is a Conservative he should follow his leader’s advice.
Nick Grindley
High Street East
Uppingham
David Cameron say that getting the country building will some how kick start the economy, so I wonder why our is our Tory Council stopping this apparent progress by imposing these high charges?
He is simply using section 106 as a massive local tax. Fortunately David Cameron stated on Thursday last week that section 106 “obligations” should be removed where they are holding back building.
As Coun King is a Conservative he should follow his leader’s advice.
Nick Grindley
High Street East
Uppingham
David Cameron say that getting the country building will some how kick start the economy, so I wonder why our is our Tory Council stopping this apparent progress by imposing these high charges?
