The Dunsfold Park Inquiry reconvened yesterday to discuss the Planning Conditions and Section 106 Agreement and concluded with a site visit for the Inspector and various interested parties, including Beverley Weddell, Clerk to three of the 11 Parishes and an enthusiastic supporter of PoW. Also along for a ride on Dunsfold’s Big Dipper was A’ Miss Dodeck’ as the Inspector called her, along with Sarah Sullivan, of the new, highly suspect, Dunsfold Heritage Group. No doubt Ms Sullivan hoped to spot and slap a heritage sticker on anything that was built pre 2016!
Surprisingly, it was all relatively painless, not least because it was Charlotte Web’s distinct impression that PoW & the Parishes were bailing out water with a hole in their bucket. The Section 106 contributions (for the uninitiated that’s the dosh the Big D has to hand over for infrastructure IF it finally gets to build anything
seemed generous to our eagle 
eye when compared to any other development in the area – so the moaners had little to quibble over, however, it didn’t stop them trying!
Rumpole was irritated beyond belief that, despite promising to get a document to everyone by Friday evening, PoW & the Parishes’ paper was a… ‘no show’ … and was still absent at a.m Monday! Eventually, the missive dropped into his inbox that night at 10pm but without the courtesy of providing the Inspector with a copy! Result: An adjournment to allow the Inspector to get up to speed!
Mr Lees of PoW seemed to think that was something to smirk about … God alone knows why. WWeb suspected it was possibly due to PoW & the Parishes’ Mr Rice, ‘moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic’ in an attempt to justify his fat fee!
Having spun a web over a copy of the s106 we will now digest the detail, but a brief glance revealed that no other developer even comes close to dishing the dosh like Dunsold! We can’t decide whether the BigD should be congratulated or certified for insanity, cos no other developer is digging anywhere near that deep! Big D makes other developer’s s106 contributions look miserly – or do we mean, genius?
After a week-end to refresh themselves, the same old, same old – emphasis on the old! – locals were out in force in the stalls; all 11 of them! One dozed off before the coffee break and only three returned after. Post lunch they were down to two! Incy Wincy, who had taken over the watch from Charlotte Web, noted that they were going down faster than 10 Green Bottles! You just don’t find the stamina these days!
Charles William Orange Esq (soon to be developer of the Parish of Hascombe)
was noticeable by his absence … strange that. He’s not been sighted in public since the Waverley Web outed him as a NIMBY Developer who’s had an epiphany and decided to build on green fields and green belt in his own back yard. Kerching![audiosrc=”https://waverleyweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/orange-the-future-is-bright-the-future-is-orange.mp3″%5D%5B/audio%5D
Local resident and keen supporter of PoW – aren’t they all! – John Jeffries waddled up to the Inspector during the coffee break and bent his ear – so we’re told – about a further submission he’d made regarding the unsuitability of the roads and a conversation he’d had with one of the bus companies about it being impossible for them to run a punctual service because the roads were too narrow! Had a member of Team DP dared to accost the Inspector, PoW and the Parishes would, no doubt, have accused them of trying to nobble him and screamed ‘Foul!’ and ‘Mistrial!’
Kevin De’Anus, having finally escaped the clutches of the Thakeham Thugs Springbok Inquiry, rocked up after lunch, but needn’t have bothered because it was all over bar the shouting! Just as well, poor old, Dick De’Anus looked as if he’d had enough Inquiries to last him a lifetime.
RUMBLED BY RUMPOLE.
Just once, Rumpole almost lost his cool, but, he reined it in and, with a world weary air, told the Inspector that, despite Pow & the Parishes’ oft repeated claim that Dunsfold Park was responsible for every adverse traffic issue and every HGV trip on the A281, that it was simply not the case. But, he said, this ‘very silly claim’ was really beginning to get under his team’s skin! Even Mr Lies looked shame-faced at being rumbled by Rumpole for such a blatantly stupid claim. That was a first for Mr Lies, looking ashamed, we mean not telling big fat pork-pies!
As an aside, the Inspector asked someone to do a word search on the s106 document because Alfold was frequently misspelled as ‘Awfold’. DON’T FRET Sir nobody gets it right!
Surrey & Sussex Police and Surrey County Council Highways rocked up in defensive mode, in case anyone wanted to mess with their very generous s106 benefits! Entirely understandable as the Big D is now referred to as the Waverley/Guildford CASH COW because it is being milked by everyone who wants to build in the East.
S106 agreements are universally ignored by developers and certainly not worth any paper they may be printed on.
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 money 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 agreement might also entail provisions about production of social housing. The developer might agree to make a contribution towards the provision of new schools or traffic calming on local roads.
Section 106 arrangements are currently being reviewed by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Section 106A has the effect that any modification or discharge of a s 106 Agreement must be agreed by deed between the parties and in accordance with s 106B. It creates the right to apply in a prescribed form to modify a s 106 agreement once five years has passed since the agreement, or such shorter period as secondary legislation may prescribe. It prevents one applicant applying for a modification which may become enforceable against others who have not applied.
It clarifies that s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land) does not apply to a planning obligation.
Section 106B contains the right of the applicant to appeal against the decision or non-determination of a local planning authority under s 106A to the Secretary of State. Section 106B states “before determining the appeal the Secretary of State shall, if either the applicant or the authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose”. It states “the determination of an appeal by the Secretary of State under this section shall be final”. Schedule 6 applies to determine how the appeal is heard and by whom.
As taken from the Government Website. I have 2 concerns:
1. That the S106 arrangments are currently being Reviewed by the Dept for Communities & Local Govt. – which could mean they amount to Nothing or can be appealed against.
2. The ability to modify the S106 agreement once 5 years has passed. I believe (and of course I could be wrong) that many of the S106 infrastructure Improvements are not scheduled within the 1st 5 years of the development – so where would that leave us?????
In answer to your questions. The WW will find out.
I hope you can – Because this is the main reason that people think this is a viable development – If the S106’s aren’t met – We are in Deep Sh1t in the East
There simply isn’t enough information about what is going on here… alas I have to work – having just been on Hols and cannot attend this week – Not that I honestly think it would make any difference if I did.
I know you think this is the answer and You know I don’t think it is – So must as ever agree to differ – But I still want to understand the arguments – and Like Mr Hyman – I think the details are EVERYTHING – Hopefully this will come out in the wash and the Inspector being inpartial will just look at the facts
You’ll be waiting forever to see an actual S106 being enforced by Waverley.
I believe there is already one outstanding S106 that Dunsfold has completely ignored for past development so I don’t think they’ll change their spots any time soon if they get the go ahead for the new development.
Let me Guess – Could that have anything to do with the pavements on Dunsfold Road that were supposed to happen and haven’t – as DP said there wasn’t enough money to pay for it – Maybe not… But I would still like to know what happend to that one – as I walk down Dunsfold road to the Pub with HGV’s thundering past (have to say not generally CFS as they slow down so not a pop at them!!)
Perhaps you do not understand Denise that the developer does not actually undertake the works. In this instance, we hear from our county council moles that the T money goes to the county highway authority’s coffers and then they carry out the works.
Another big black hole that money disappears into Denise? Perhaps you could ask SCC highways when the work is scheduled to take place, bearing in mind they have trousered the dosh?
WW I completly agree! – I just don’t think it is fair to say the DP are the bally saviours of Waverley as they are offering so much money – when in fact that money may well not be forthcoming. Regardless of whether SCC or WBC actually get it ! It is Will they????? I trust DP as much as I trust the rest of them – They will lie to get what they want and S*d the result.
This has happened in so many other developements – why do you think for a minute DP will be any different??? – It is just MORE MONEY at stake