Section 106 Agreement – An invitation to extortion? Well what would you call it?

Section 106 agreements, Cllr Mahroof Hussain claims in the most recent edition of the ‘Tiser, “are attached to all sorts of planning applications these days.” You bet they are!

What are Section 106 Agreements? Some research:

“Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement.

These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.

The scope of such agreements is laid out in the government’s Circular 05/2005. Matters agreed as part of a S106 must be:

  • relevant to planning
  • necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms
  • directly related to the proposed development
  • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development
  • reasonable in all other respects.” Source Here.

Wikipedia has this to say on Section 106:

“Section 106 of the Act, in conjunction with DoE Circular 5/05, allows for Local Planning Authorities and persons interested in land to agree contributions, arrangements and restrictions as Planning Agreements or Planning Obligations. Applicants can offer such agreements unilaterally or negotiate and agree them as support for their application to make it accord with local planning requirements, but without some of the rigorous controls of Planning Conditions under s 70(1).

It relates to monies paid by developers to Local Planning Authorities in order to offset the costs of the external effects of development. For example, if a developer were to build 100 new houses, there would be effects on local schools, roads etc., which the Local Authority would have to deal with. In that situation there might be a Section 106 agreement as part of the granting of planning permission. The developer might agree to make a contribution towards the provision of new schools.

Section 106 arrangements are currently being reviewed by the Department for Communities and Local Government. See also: Planning gain#Criticisms of Section 106 Agreements.”

There you have it, Section 106 is a licence to extort money, mostly from developers it should be noted, with little sympathy.

When Rotherham MBC tried to extort nearly £250,000 from our local NHS, to pay for a crack pot scheme, clearly the Council had gone too far, this time!

No one should be in doubt about the sheer effrontery of the Council involved in this latest attempt to get their grubby little hands on some of our money. It is outrageous that Mahroof Hussain had no understanding of the way this looks to his constituents in Boston Castle or Rotherham’s citizens generally! Especially, as it is the worst kept secret in Rotherham that Mahroof would like to succeed Denis MacShane when he is toppled from his perch!

Asking for money with menaces by withholding planning permission, as was the case in RDGH’s planning application, in my book, amounts to extortion! Who came up with this proposal on behalf of the Council? We must be told!

Mahroof could always start by apologising to the readers of Rotherham Politics?

2 thoughts on “Section 106 Agreement – An invitation to extortion? Well what would you call it?

  1. Pingback: Fresh Interest – Old Story | Rotherham Politics

  2. There are two further occasions recently when RMBC refused planning permission until the applicants were forced to stump up money, supposedly for other things. Both these applications were by fast food outlets, one at Parkgate and one at Canclow. At least one of these applications was refused on health grounds until money changed hands, then planning consent was given. Funny that, isn’t it and where did this money go? Did it actually go into the RMBC coffers or did it just disappear like so much other public money.


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.