News RSS Feed


send_pics

County Hall's £2.7m nest egg


CASH-strapped Worcestershire County Council has almost £3 million from developers sitting in its coffers, we can reveal.

The council, which plans to make £45 million in cuts over the next four years, says it has 10 years to spend the cash though no schemes are currently in place.

When a plan for a major development is agreed, the council receives financial contributions from developers to cover the impact on the surrounding footpaths and highways. With housing developments, the county council’s children’s services calculates additional pressures on local schools directly linked to the number of houses being built.

So-called section 106 money can also be given to the council to cover the cost of traffic issues arising from housing, retail or industrial developments. Figures obtained by your Worcester News under the Freedom of Information Act revealed the county council has £2,754,098 in unspent section 106 money.

With each individual case the council has up to 10 years before putting any schemes in place to spend the money.

Worcestershire County Council received about £50,000 in Section 106 money when the new KFC restaurant was built at the Elgar Retail Park in Blackpole, Worcester.

The council said the money was set aside to be spent on improving walking, cycling or public transport facilities but no schemes are currently in place.

A spokesman added: “Section 106 agreements are part of the planning process and impose planning obligations on developers.

“The agreements normally provide for the developers to make financial contributions to the county council to cover the impact on the council as the education or highway authority, as a result of the developer being granted planning permission.

“Section 106 agreements can ensure that any physical engineering works to the highway, or works to encourage sustainable travel, particularly in the case of retail and leisure facilities, can be properly provided for.

“Details of agreements are discussed as part of the planning meeting in open session and are not secret.”

The spokesman stressed that financial provision made in a Section 106 agreement has to be used for a specific purpose and the money can’t be used elsewhere.

If the council doesn’t spend the money on the specified project within the timeframe agreed then it has to pay back the amount plus interest.

Tom Wells, chair of the overview and scrutiny comittee at the council, said: “It seems strange there is nearly £3 million in unallocated money sitting in the coffers at County Hall when we are on the brink of some savage budget cuts.

“Some of that money will have come from NHS planning applications such as the new Upton surgery. I don’t think it is ethical to ask the NHS to pay for bus stops, highways and footways especially when the money isn’t even being spent.”

Your Worcester News requested a full breakdown of the £2,754,098 unspent 106 money, but the council was unable to provide details.



Your Say Your Worcester

jb, worcester says...
11:07am Tue 20 Oct 09

I'd like to know where the county council spent the £50k when KFC was built, as it's on an existing retail park with sufficient access points etc. In these times of recessions where builders and developers are going out of business it seems very strange that they can afford to pay the county council large sums of money which are sat in an account doing nothing. With no projects in the pipeline and money sat waiting I wonder what the 'time frame' is for paying money back? or does it just keep the door propped open for future developements? Interesting discovery WN.

Peter WR5, Worcester says...
11:31am Tue 20 Oct 09

Nice piece of journalism, WN. Well done! Keep it up!

If the monies are available to be spent on local infrastructure improvements, I would like to see it spent. Even though WCC still has to find savings, £3m being put back into the local economy would have a beneficial impact on hard-pressed suppliers who themselves are probably looking to down-size. This could be a good bit of 'pump-priming' for the county's economy.


CJH, Worcester says...
12:14pm Tue 20 Oct 09

"Cash-strapped Worcestershire County Council has almost £3 million from developers sitting in its coffers, we can reveal". In ITS coffers? I think they are OUR coffers! When do I get my share?

Pomygranit, St Johns says...
12:18pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Ah well we can all breathe easily, Trish Haines salary for the next few months can be paid

Frank13, Worcester says...
12:24pm Tue 20 Oct 09

The article is very clear that these are developer capital contributions to spend on one-off improvements in the area of each development. LIb Dem Tom Wells trying to suggest that they are part of the council's general reserves and therefore can be spent on services is simply disingenuous.

MrStJohns, St Johns Worcester says...
12:41pm Tue 20 Oct 09

To be fair it’s a well worked headline after the recent news of the cash strapped council, but in reality money does have to be allocated for separate projects. Otherwise we would see some areas getting massive investment while others would receive none, we could have one set of councillors wanting to spend everything on the arts with another wanting to spend it all on industry, and it would all be down to what people fancied at the time. Not really a very sustainable or accurate system. Hence why money has to be ring fenced and protected. The money is there and ready to be used for projects as and when they are deemed necessary in the next ten years, and with how the economy currently stands I would say it is wiser to save some money in the long term than splurge everything on unnecessary changes, im sure they could have spent the 50’000 from kfc on some new traffic lights or something in the area that isn’t necessary, so instead of doing that have retained the money until a necessary project arises.

kevin ward, says...
1:27pm Tue 20 Oct 09

I must say yet again that elected councillors should identify themseves, particularly when commenting on council matters or criticising other councillors, as Frank13 does above. I am happy to receive and publish these comments but I do not believe those we elect should be hiding behind pseudonyms.

Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS

Baldrick1955, Worcester says...
2:29pm Tue 20 Oct 09

I totally agree with you Mr Ward, so why dont you do something about it?????

MrStJohns, St Johns Worcester says...
2:41pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Agree with Mr Ward, but I would think the reason nothing can be done is due to the nature of how comments are submitted, anyone person could have multiple email address, thus allowing them to operate multiple user names. Also it would be very easy for someone to input false details into the registration process, so surely no one actually knows who anyone is, but I would imagine maybe frank13 is using their work email address perhaps?! Also I think 99% of people on here don’t have their true identity as a screen name, but most people posting are not elected officials and have no bearing on county and city issues, but I would imagine it is a difficult job to find out who any one actually is.

CJH, Worcester says...
3:11pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Hiding behind secret identities when writing to newspapers is nothing new. If you look through the archives for the Worcester News or Berrows Journal from the 18th and 19th centuries you will find many letters written by elected officials and leading citizens using pen-names (usually classical Greek or Roman names - can't remember ever seeing a Frank13). These letters were just like the ones on this website - some funny, some serious, some barely disguised personal attacks on fellow correspondents, and quite a few apologies retracting previous remarks!
I'm not saying it was right - then or now - but is it democracy, free speech or tradition?

Bloke, Here says...
3:15pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Not admitting to a vested interest. That's deception.

MrStJohns, St Johns Worcester says...
3:15pm Tue 20 Oct 09

very good point cjh

Frank13, Worcester says...
3:49pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Well Kevin, when you put a massive headline on a story that is simply disingenuous I think that the boot is on the other foot. This 'revelation' is not a story at all and shame on the Worcester News for printing it let alone putting it on the front page.

It is misleading to suggest that the Section 106 money can be spent on recurring services, so why print a statement by a councillor-of any party, which is manifestly untrue, and give it such prominence?

-Cllr Francis Lankester
Cathedral Ward
Worcester City Council
Frank13 is a much shorter username!)
Worcester City

kevin ward, says...
4:16pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Councillor Lankester

Other than having to reveal your identity, I fail to understand your apparent anger.
There is nothing in our story that is not factual. Strangely, in your original comment you describe it as "very clear".
Our story makes it "very clear" what section 106 money can be spent on, and the timeframe in which it can be spent.
We are simply highlighting the amount of this money currently unused and yet to be assigned to any particular project.
I fail to see how this is not a matter of public interest.
The council's response to our report is given more prominence than Councillor Wells' comment. Cllr Wells is speaking in his role as chairman of the overview and scrutiny committee.
You do not agree with his opinion as is your right. You do not think our story worthy of publication - again an opinion you are free to express and I am happy to publish.
But I maintain my argument that elected councillors should not comment on this or any other public forum without making it clear who they are - particularly when discussing matters of a political nature.
I'll leave it to our readers to decide which of us is being disingenuous.

Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS

Frank13, Worcester says...
5:50pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Why should I have to identify myself when others with a political axe to grind do not? Why not insist on all posters saying exactly who they are-why pick on a councillor?

One of the problems with this story is the massive headline which suggests something untoward. If there is nothing strange about having Section 106 money in the bank, which there isn't; then there is simply no story. Why print it with a shock horror headline?

BarryB, Worcester says...
6:50pm Tue 20 Oct 09

As a staunch Tory supporter I am all to willing to argue for them when I think they are in the right and all to prepared to go against them when they are in the wrong - as in this case.
The headline is factual and not "shock horror". Section 106 and all it's implications is certainly "a story". I neither knew it existed and certainly had no knowledge of what it was all about. So do I suspect, did many other readers.
Councillors should disclose their correct details, Michael Foster MP, much as I abhor his politics, discloses his and Councillors are closer to the man in the street and no good case exists why they should shelter at the back of a pseudonym - they should do the same as our MP.
When I see the stance taken by Councillor Lankester, being an ordinary, suspicious (when it comes to politics and Council matters) man in the street, I say to him, you are making much ado about nothing, you will have us thinking you have got something to hide. I just don't understand where you are coming from.

Paul Griffiths, Worcester-in-Spirit says...
7:37pm Tue 20 Oct 09

There are valid reasons why someone may want to comment anonymously in a public forum, especially on political matters.

You might hold a politically-restrict
ed post. You might be a member of the police or armed services – occupations that have traditionally avoided partisan politics. You might be wary of voicing controversial opinions publically because it could lead to divisions and disagreements with your friends and work colleagues. Or you might be aware that prospective employers sometimes “google” job applicants, and be worried about what might be found.

However, it seems to me that none of these reasons make any sense when applied to elected members of a political party. For goodness sake, Cllr Lankester, we all know you’re a Conservative. Why be so coy about it?

BarryB, Worcester says...
8:16pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Agree Paul, if one takes on an elected political post at whatever level and with whatever party and in whatever role, then one must accept the obligations and responsibilities that go with it. Secrecy and lack of transparency etc in politics is unacceptable.

Frank13, Worcester says...
8:23pm Tue 20 Oct 09

This is ridiculous-usernames are used all over the media and internet as they are short & memorable. The Worcester News is just trying to stir up a "wicked Tory councillor" story after having put a ludicrous non-story on the front page. I actually admire the nerve and sheer chutzpah that allows a journalist to conjure a story out of absoloutely nothing.

The article begins with referring to WCCas "cash-strapped" and juxtaposes the S106 "nest egg" money with this-"we can reveal." The suggestion is clear-a nasty Tory council is sitting on mopney which it should be spending on local services but refuses to do so. S106 agreements are required by law. I have never heard Cllr Wells suggest his Malvern Hills District Ward & County Divisions should not benefit from S106 receipts.

There are many things wrong with our political system, but to suggest something is wrong here just increases people's cynicism about our local councils for no reason.

Paul Griffiths, Worcester-in-Spirit says...
8:29pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Granted "Frank13" is short.

But I would hope your own name is at least as memorable.

cjhf, Worcester says...
9:27pm Tue 20 Oct 09

section 106 contributions have to be spent in the areas of transport,affordable housing,children & young people,open spaces,library facilities,recycling & refuse.Surely all councillors could spend this cash now on projects under these headings, rather than just sit on the money and yet continually state they have no funds to do anything positive for Worcestershire.

Peter WR5, Worcester says...
10:09pm Tue 20 Oct 09

I would like to invite those of our elected councillors contributing to this useful debate to start the ball rolling with suggestions how WCC could get on and usefully disburse these funds to the benefit of our communities.

kevin ward, says...
8:45am Wed 21 Oct 09

Councillor Lankester

You are searching for political motives for our story and my comments when they do not exist.

I am not 'picking' on you. Regular readers will know I have posted the same message several times when councillors (of different political hues) have posted comments in relation to council or political matters under assumed names.

There have been at least two instances in recent months of councillors using assumed names to praise their own work. That is ludicrous.

I have no problem with user names. I have a problem with elected politicians not making clear who they are at the end of their posts when they are making political points.

If someone has been elected to office why would they not want their constituents to know they are debating issues such as this in a public forum?

As I have said, you have a particular view about this story with which I disagree. That's fine. That is what democratic debate is all about.

The Press has a vital role - on behalf of the public - to hold to scrutiny those who spend public money. Some politicians and public organisations still do not seem to understand this, as is evidenced by the Westminster expenses scandal or the number of times we have to use FOI to obtain information the public have a right to see.

All I am asking for is a little honesty from local politicians when entering these online debates.

Responses so far do seem to indicate that readers, no matter their political allegiance, agree.

Kevin Ward
EDITOR
WORCESTER NEWS

TimmyM, Pershore says...
12:56pm Wed 21 Oct 09

Back to the point then! Should the council keep 106 monies unspent? The fact that there is a time limit suggests to me that there is some lee-way. However, from my point of view - what should it be spent on? Well, certainly nothing that is a waste of money. I would rather it was sitting earning a little bit of interest (such as it is at the moment) and spent on something worthwhile and necessary. I suspect that most pots of money are ring-fenced these days for certain things and not just there to be spent on any pet project that you or I might be keen on, and I am not sure what Tom Wells has in mind! - other than to sit and snipe from the sidelines of course!

With all the thousands more houses planned for Worcestershire by this government, I suspect there will be plenty more 106 monies coming in and many more things that it needs to be spent on than there are funds available. It has always been the case.

I don't mind the County Council keeping this money safe and spending it on the right thing at the right time, as long as you don't pour it down the drain.

Maggie Would, says...
7:10pm Wed 21 Oct 09

Slightly off topic, sorry, but those of you who 'appreciate' the work done by Councillors will love this website:
http://glumcouncillo
rs.tumblr.com/
I'm not sure what Councillors would think of it though ......

consider_this, Worcester says...
1:00pm Thu 22 Oct 09

TimmyM has it spot on. I can't really add any more other than to say that in the grand scheme £50k is not a great deal of money when it comes to infrastructure improvements. You are likely to have spent a significant chunk simply designing any planned works.
It is common sense to save up this money and use it on a larger project - something which is likely to have a much greater benefit. These larger schemes can easily run into millions of pounds and the council may have some ideas for schemes where it could spend this money, but it needs to make sure that it will actually benefit people and get value for this money.
There is no point in wasting it.

I would also like to add a comment referring to the comment made by the editor regarding scrutiny of public spending. Yes, the press do have an important role in this, I will not argue, however, the press also has a duty to report responsibly. On several occasions I have read stories in the WN that are factually innacurate (or at least are extremely misleading) - when all it would take is a little bit of research to provide an accurate story. Whether this is sloppy journalism or simply to sex-up the story it is impossible to say. The same can be said for almost all media (not just accusing the WN).

Your sayYour Worcester

comment Add your comment

Register for a FREE Worcester News account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.

Please register now or sign in below to continue.

Rigged bids could have hit taxpayers County Hall's £2.7m nest egg

LOCAL ADVERTISERS