Brighton and Hove News recently revealed a shift in the way that money known as “developer contributions” is spent by Brighton and Hove City Council.
Now we’ve asked residents and local figures about whether they feel the council is spending this funding wisely.
As reported five weeks ago, payments made by developers as part of the planning approval process are designed to mitigate the effects of new buildings by investing in local infrastructure.
And since 2019, this money is now less likely to be spent on projects out of the ward in which it was generated but more likely to be allocated to city-wide projects such as local employment schemes or playground regeneration.
This mirrors the council’s switch from agreeing “planning obligations” with developers under section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Instead, the council imposes a “community infrastructure levy” which pools money while reserving a percentage for the immediate area around new buildings.
So how have residents reacted to this?
Hove resident Dotty Peden said: “Stuff like Kingsway to the Sea is nice to see – it does make Hove more aesthetic and maybe makes the beach more accessible.
“But it does seem unfair to me that some of the money that developers give to the council for buildings in Portslade or Whitehawk fund it. That should probably go to projects there, not on the seafront that already gets tourism money.”
Matt Hemstock, 29, who lives near Preston Park, said: “I didn’t realise that money from new buildings could go towards the local community.
“I thought private development didn’t need to invest in infrastructure so I think that’s good if it all stays within Brighton and Hove.
“But I see these new blocks go up by the park and all I can think about is the traffic that’s going to get worse on the main road into Brighton.
“I cycle to work but I’m not exactly thrilled at the idea that the roads are going to be busier – and I bet there’ll be no more bus stops nearby or road resurfacing or anything to compensate.”
Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the former Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown and previously a member of the council’s Planning Committee, said that he preferred the “transparency” and localisation of the S106 system.
He said: “This is one of the reasons there is ongoing opposition for new buildings despite us needing new homes – because people don’t see the local benefit down their street.
“In the Moulsecoomb Hub development, the council have committed to local improvements and people are generally on board, but without a stronger use of S106 not CIL then other developments done by private developers will keep being opposed.
“The council can and should, under the CIL system, increase the percentage to be reserved for the local ward, allow ward councillors to have the deciding say on its use and let the public hold their local councillors to account.”
But some think the practice of pooling funds can be useful, even if less is ringfenced for the area a development is in.
Labour councillor Jacob Allen, who represents Woodingdean, said that while the topic was quite opaque for residents, the fluidity of the CIL system would create some benefits.
He said: “For instance, when it comes to environmental improvements, there are often more appropriate locations for biodiversity net gain than the development site.”
To read our in-depth look at where the money went, click here.
The “developer contribution” is nothing more than another taxe. To give it name “contribution” is missleading and should be canged.
What’s your point?
It would be nice if they could spend some of the money on litter picking and helping the homeless, removing graphite etc
One of the largest expenses of this council has, and will likely always be, helping the homeless, Fiona.
It might be nice but it’s not what these funds are collected and designated to be spend on.
Councils are legally barred on spending this money on day to day services.
Unfortunately S106 money has never fully been utilised by BHCC, especially in the wards where it comes from. More needs to be done to ensure it’s stricter. Despite an FoI asking about unspent S106 monies, I was informed that those figures were unavailable due to it taking too much time to source that information.
You know that they’re obligated to provide evidence of their claim they used to refuse your FOI? It’s put in there to act as a deterrent to authoritys simply picking one of the exemptions as an excuse not to comply & disclose.
a suspicious person could surmise that said time MAY be down to a lack of civil servants actually working in the office. Which would fail the standards set Imho. Obviously that’s just thinking aloud. You can challenge their decision and can appeal it. Which would be a handy way to demonstrate that their “It would take too long” argument was flawed as XYZ time has now been spent on them dealing with the challenge/! appeal.
I’d also suggest that as your request relates to council held funds they have several legal obligations ( accounting. Safe & secure auditing & reporting of funds held etc) which should make their ability to account for funds in and out to be somewhat academic. if they can’t locate monies from a single account then I’d view that as worrying. Although it would go some way to explain £51M off feduciary mismanagement
CIL is generally superseding S106.
“ …not on the seafront that already gets tourism money.”
I’m not sure what this person means by “tourism money”
There isn’t a pot of money tourists pay into earmarked to be spent on the sea front for example.
And just because something is in the seafront doesn’t mean it’s for tourists. King Alfred and the new park aren’t attracting scads of tourists but it’s mainly for locals.