Section 106 Agreements

With the designation of Lambeth North as a major development area for high rise development, the changes facing the local community are considerable. The area already divides neatly into 2 sectors - the historic sector across Kennington Road and the Public Housing sector between Kennington Road and the railway.

The redevelopment of the area between the river and the railway, with largely high rise residential towers blocks, will lead to a strong growth in the availability of Section 106 monies. It will also create a new third area in Kennington.

The arguments for the impact these developments will have on the area have been advanced in our response to the supplementary planning document. The argument here is how do we gain the maximum community benefit from what is essentially a one off payment.

Firstly we have to make recommendation about who should benefit and how. The Council have proposed a tariff system based on departmental agendas, tailored to fit the rules of S106. This includes, for instance, a percentage going to education, which is a capitation change. This of course does not make sense. Such a one off capitation charge has no durable effect on the problem addressed. Similarly it is hard to see how many of the proposed road and street furniture improvements are perceived as real recognizable improvement to community life. They represent in particular departmental problems which should be mainstream programme funded. Similarly current training funding seems to fund generic council programme with little or no local impact. Putting community use of S106 on a tariff system without significant changes in how community partners are chosen can simply mean that departmental agendas are externalised; giving monies to friends of Parks schemes simply covers what should be the main programme spending. The second key question is who should benefit from S106?

The first and main beneficiary must be the local community and they must be seen to benefit from a system that is transparent and fair. We recognise that this would mean that most of the benefit would in Lambeth, stay in the North of the Borough and could lead if prolonged, to an imbalance in social provision and divisiveness.

We therefore propose that S106 monies should be allocated on a percentage basis with the major figure going to the affected area and another percentage into a general pot for the rest of the borough.

This would mean that each area would benefit from S106, but with most funding on the basis of hardship and social and economic impact going to the affected area, we do not believe there should be main programme items submitted except in special circumstances.

The second major problem is openness and equity. How are beneficiaries chosen? The Council have suggested a project bank and this approach has merit. Projects are fed into a pool and measured against an appraisal process; but who makes the decision and how?

We propose a locally elected committee chaired by a councillor, be used as the decision making body.

This would need servicing to enable evaluation to be carried out and the spend monitored. Developers could be invited to participate in decision being made on their particular S106 agreement.

In this way a body of knowledge and codes of practice could be build quite quickly and if the proceedings were open to scrutiny, fairness would be built in. This structure would also create a forum in which developers could test their proposals before going to committee. It would take much of the tension and aggression out of the planning process and probably speed it up. It would set a framework within, which they could plan more easily.

Finally the other major problem with Section 106 is the nature of the spend. We recognise that a significant percentage of the spend will be taken up supporting social housing objectives. We support this. However a major failure of the current system is that most expenditure is capital based. This can leave voluntary sector beneficiaries with a new asset they cannot sustain as they have weak revenue streams. As sustainability is now a key requirement in all developments and social projects, it is essential that S106 be used to provide supporting revenue streams. This is particularly the case where voluntary sector organisations are finding significant reductions in both local and national government grant, and where major charitable giving is becoming more prescriptive and shorter term. A local example in Kennington is the Capital Community Foundation in Kennington Lane.

Summary

1. We propose a base allocation system be established for the whole borough with a weighing system for each development to additionally benefit the host community.

2. That monies are allocated against a project bank in each area to which projects and groups can apply.

3. The decision process is transparent – led by a local committee chaired by a councillor and involving the development partner.

4. A percentage based on a local appraisal process should be set aside to fund supportive revenue needs.

5. Council mainstream programme applications be discouraged.

6. The process is serviced by officers and spend is monitored - each S106 paying a fee to LBC for this service.

7. The process is driven with the aim of creating a more structured relationship between council, community and developers.

Yours faithfully

Angus Aagaard Anna Tapsell

Chairperson Deputy Chairperson

For and on behalf of the Kennington Association

Written by kenningtonassn Blog about this entry

This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)

Kennington Association Public Blog
Back to Blog	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds