Hertfordshire County Council hands almost £800k infrastructure cash back to developers

Watford Observer: Council hands back almost £800k infrastructure cash back to developers Council hands back almost £800k infrastructure cash back to developers

More than three quarters of a million pounds earmarked to improve infrastructure in Hertfordshire such as roads and libraries has been handed back to developers as the county council failed to spend it within the ten-year window.

Figures released by Hertfordshire County Council show it has repaid just under £800,000 in section 106 contributions, which developers pay as part of the planning process, since 2008.

The lion’s share of the reimbursed money, £657,246, was meant to improve the county’s roads system.

Stephen Giles-Medhurst, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat group, condemned the wastage saying: "The money would have been part of a planning agreement to improve the highways or infrastructure.

"This could have been pedestrian crossings, bus stops, traffic calming, anything to mitigate an increase in traffic.

"That money has now been repaid to developers and it should have been used for community improvements. Its money the county had and had to give back to developer profits.

"It’s a total disgrace. It strikes me they haven’t got a grip on financial control and is certainly bad news for residents."

The figures also show the council is still sitting on £950,863 of section 106 money, which needs to be spent by 2016.

A further £1.2 million must be spent in the next three years or it will have to be refunded to developers.

This includes £152,707 worth of improvements to youth provision given by the developer of the former Ovaltine factory in Kings Langley.

Hertfordshire County Council is currently sitting a total of £52 million worth of section 106 monies - more than any other local authority in England.

A total of £4.5 million is available for improvements in Watford, £6.7million in Three Rivers, and £5.6 in Hertsmere.

Labour councillor for Vicarage Holywell, Nigel Bell, said: "It’s very disappointing. It could be a lack of projects or not being able to chase up the developer properly and the time has run out.

Watford Observer:

Councillor Nigel Bell.

"It shows that the 106 system is not good and needs to be looked at because we are losing out on money that could be used.

"It’s very frustrating when you see people who have to face cuts when there is money that could be spent."

Derrick Ashley, the Conservative cabinet member for Resources and Transformation, said: “Hertfordshire County Council uses Section 106 funding to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as schools, libraries, transport and roads.

“Getting the most from our resources is of vital importance to us and I appreciate that some people might think we should spend this money elsewhere. However, there are strict legal limitations on how Section 106 money can be spent. Money provided through S106 agreements can only be used for the purposes set out in the agreement and not for other purposes. Agreements often include geographical limitations, and limits round how long the money may be kept for.

“It is often the case that the funding cannot be spent until a development has reached a certain stage, which is why many of the agreements have lengthy expiry dates and why we hold sums of Section 106 money."

The problem of unspent section 106 cash was highlighted during a scrutiny review in 2010, when the total held was £47million.

Councillor Giles-Medhurst added: "Changes were promised but still money is being handed back. Indeed we raised this problem as far back as 2003.

"I raised this twice, there have been two scrutiny reviews. We were assured this would be stopped and clearly it is still going on.

Watford Observer:

Stephen Giles-Medhurst.

"This revelation comes hard on the heels of our discovery that the county is spending £7 million on maintaining empty buildings because they have no strategy for the property portfolio. "The Conservative ruling administration needs to get a financial grip. The people of Hertfordshire deserve better."

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:50pm Wed 8 Jan 14

AlbansWoodBear says...

£800K handed back to developers when it was meant to have been spent of local areas that had to put up with developments, £7M spent on maintaining empty buildings, and a road system that is crumbling due to the inaction of their contractor - what in the world is going on a County Hall at present, certainly need to up their game to serve us residents.
£800K handed back to developers when it was meant to have been spent of local areas that had to put up with developments, £7M spent on maintaining empty buildings, and a road system that is crumbling due to the inaction of their contractor - what in the world is going on a County Hall at present, certainly need to up their game to serve us residents. AlbansWoodBear
  • Score: 13

6:09pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles?

As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite?

There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on.

It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?
I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -7

7:15pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Roadrunner38 says...

Unbelievable! How many potholes could have been filled? Someone should be getting their P45.
Unbelievable! How many potholes could have been filled? Someone should be getting their P45. Roadrunner38
  • Score: 11

9:08pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Cuetip says...

Roadrunner38 wrote:
Unbelievable! How many potholes could have been filled? Someone should be getting their P45.
An absolute insult to taxpayers at a time when our services are being bunged up with ever increasing high density housing. Build them higher without a care about school places or congested roads and the squeeze on parking provides a ready source of income under the guise of traffic management.
[quote][p][bold]Roadrunner38[/bold] wrote: Unbelievable! How many potholes could have been filled? Someone should be getting their P45.[/p][/quote]An absolute insult to taxpayers at a time when our services are being bunged up with ever increasing high density housing. Build them higher without a care about school places or congested roads and the squeeze on parking provides a ready source of income under the guise of traffic management. Cuetip
  • Score: 10

9:16pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Cuetip says...

A very, very big thank you to the Watford Observer for publicising this such gross negligence at a time when so many are faced with rising transport, fuel, insurance, etc costs.
A very, very big thank you to the Watford Observer for publicising this such gross negligence at a time when so many are faced with rising transport, fuel, insurance, etc costs. Cuetip
  • Score: 12

9:30pm Wed 8 Jan 14

rainbowwarrior says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles?

As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite?

There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on.

It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?
Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story.

Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party).

I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging.

Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously.

I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet !

Phil Cox(UKRAP)
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?[/p][/quote]Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story. Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party). I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging. Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously. I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet ! Phil Cox(UKRAP) rainbowwarrior
  • Score: 2

9:34pm Wed 8 Jan 14

rainbowwarrior says...

Cuetip wrote:
A very, very big thank you to the Watford Observer for publicising this such gross negligence at a time when so many are faced with rising transport, fuel, insurance, etc costs.
Absolutely agree, I thought the Watford Observer were going back to the bad old days when they put up a story about councillor training. Now this is a meaningful story showing how herts cc have just spunked nearly a million pounds up the wall !
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: A very, very big thank you to the Watford Observer for publicising this such gross negligence at a time when so many are faced with rising transport, fuel, insurance, etc costs.[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, I thought the Watford Observer were going back to the bad old days when they put up a story about councillor training. Now this is a meaningful story showing how herts cc have just spunked nearly a million pounds up the wall ! rainbowwarrior
  • Score: 10

9:54pm Wed 8 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Judgeing by the state of the roads, all of this money could have been spent on them, the only saving grace is that they might of put in nightmare width restrictions like woodmere avenue.
Might I suggest as a default provision for cyclists of some sort if not used within 8 years, surly that would be of some use rather than none and could be devised to enhance or fit in with planning requirements for the use of the money..
As for UKIP you just carry on making a prat of yourself
Judgeing by the state of the roads, all of this money could have been spent on them, the only saving grace is that they might of put in nightmare width restrictions like woodmere avenue. Might I suggest as a default provision for cyclists of some sort if not used within 8 years, surly that would be of some use rather than none and could be devised to enhance or fit in with planning requirements for the use of the money.. As for UKIP you just carry on making a prat of yourself dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

9:59pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

rainbowwarrior wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?
Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story. Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party). I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging. Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously. I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet ! Phil Cox(UKRAP)
Have you read the story RainbowWarrior (does that mean you're a green?)

Giles the LibDem Councillor had his say about it not being good enough so I merely pointed out the way his colleagues on Watford BC wasted some of their allocation of Section 106 money (Dotty's little vanity project). Unless they can show us responsible use of such funds I really don't think they are in a position to lecture anybody.

Nigel Bell (Labour) had his say, means well, got in a nice soundbite but as far as I can tell he doesn't have a clue about this sort of funding judging by his quoted statement. For instance, which people are facing cuts that would be solved by the spending of section 106 money? Maybe Labour would be kind enough to elaborate on what Nigel meant? Are there some poor residents he is aware of who are facing government cuts who would be sorted out by new pedestrian crossing, bus stop or traffic calming measures as suggested by Giles?

That's what they have to do with the story. Two councillors point scoring by complaining about the Tories who in all likelihood would do a worse job if they were in power.

You don't have to agree but there are many who might agree that I may have a point. Out of the frying pan and into the fire?
[quote][p][bold]rainbowwarrior[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?[/p][/quote]Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story. Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party). I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging. Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously. I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet ! Phil Cox(UKRAP)[/p][/quote]Have you read the story RainbowWarrior (does that mean you're a green?) Giles the LibDem Councillor had his say about it not being good enough so I merely pointed out the way his colleagues on Watford BC wasted some of their allocation of Section 106 money (Dotty's little vanity project). Unless they can show us responsible use of such funds I really don't think they are in a position to lecture anybody. Nigel Bell (Labour) had his say, means well, got in a nice soundbite but as far as I can tell he doesn't have a clue about this sort of funding judging by his quoted statement. For instance, which people are facing cuts that would be solved by the spending of section 106 money? Maybe Labour would be kind enough to elaborate on what Nigel meant? Are there some poor residents he is aware of who are facing government cuts who would be sorted out by new pedestrian crossing, bus stop or traffic calming measures as suggested by Giles? That's what they have to do with the story. Two councillors point scoring by complaining about the Tories who in all likelihood would do a worse job if they were in power. You don't have to agree but there are many who might agree that I may have a point. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

10:21pm Wed 8 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

@phil cox UKIP
Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't.
So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing.
It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here.
Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did.
@phil cox UKIP Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't. So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing. It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here. Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did. dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

11:02pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
@phil cox UKIP Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't. So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing. It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here. Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did.
Yes, it is legitimate to raise the cuts being made, but only relate it to issues that are actually related.

There doesn't seem to be a link between the cuts and the section 106 money. By all means explain if there is a link and I have missed it, but I suspect in this case there isn't.

Now, if I were to criticise the Tories at County (and I would), I would first want to know the facts of the matter and that there was incompetence involved.

It may be for instance that the monies were allocated to a project that for one reason or another did not come to fruition in time for the actual money to be spent. Is that incompetence? I would have thought so, as they should have had a plan B and C to ensure the money was wisely spent if Plan A didn't materialise in time. I don't know the facts, but if they were available to me, for instance if I was a County councillor like Nigel, then I would find them out before saying something I might later come to regret.

By all means criticise the Tories, I do on some of my postings (and from the flack I get I can tell you they do not like it), but at least try to make a better argument that just connecting two things that are not actually connected. It's like adding two plus two and coming up with three and a half. People will eventually notice.

Raising the cuts is one thing, linking them to this lost money is possibly quite another.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @phil cox UKIP Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't. So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing. It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here. Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is legitimate to raise the cuts being made, but only relate it to issues that are actually related. There doesn't seem to be a link between the cuts and the section 106 money. By all means explain if there is a link and I have missed it, but I suspect in this case there isn't. Now, if I were to criticise the Tories at County (and I would), I would first want to know the facts of the matter and that there was incompetence involved. It may be for instance that the monies were allocated to a project that for one reason or another did not come to fruition in time for the actual money to be spent. Is that incompetence? I would have thought so, as they should have had a plan B and C to ensure the money was wisely spent if Plan A didn't materialise in time. I don't know the facts, but if they were available to me, for instance if I was a County councillor like Nigel, then I would find them out before saying something I might later come to regret. By all means criticise the Tories, I do on some of my postings (and from the flack I get I can tell you they do not like it), but at least try to make a better argument that just connecting two things that are not actually connected. It's like adding two plus two and coming up with three and a half. People will eventually notice. Raising the cuts is one thing, linking them to this lost money is possibly quite another. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

2:58am Thu 9 Jan 14

John Dowdle says...

I am not at all surprised by this latest news. You can be sure that as well as the county council, a number of district councils in Hertfordshire have also failed to spend Section 106 planning gain moneys.
One point not mentioned is that any money refunded has INTEREST added to it, though I am not sure what the operational rate of interest is.
Of course, in the meantime, the original development has gone ahead and the developer has made their profit from it. This repayment simply serves to increase the profitability of the original scheme for the developer and short-changes local council taxpayers in the process.
Seen against the general policy over the last 40 years of deliberately increased inequality, I often wonder if these kind of events do not constitute a kind of Robin Hood in reverse policy of enriching the rich at the expense of the poor in our society.
Is it possible that planning gain moneys are deliberately not spent so that they will be transferred back to the developers in due course?
This latest development - to use a phrase - simply reinforces in my mind what I have believed now for almost 20 years: that Watford should have a unitary authority which is separate from the county council.
A London Borough of Watford (incorporating Hertsmere and Three Rivers) would have the critical mass to be able to operate efficiently where matters like development planning are concerned, and would bring education, health and many other services under local control.
Can anyone really say they feel the county council has done a good job of providing primary school places in the wider Watford area? Are they at all optimistic that the county council will do any better job in providing secondary school places a few years from now?
It also raises the issue as to why Watford has an elected Mayor, when s/he has so many fewer responsibilities than in the past.
It might make sense if we had an elected Mayor for a London Borough of Watford but not for the highly diminished rump we nowadays see.
I am not at all surprised by this latest news. You can be sure that as well as the county council, a number of district councils in Hertfordshire have also failed to spend Section 106 planning gain moneys. One point not mentioned is that any money refunded has INTEREST added to it, though I am not sure what the operational rate of interest is. Of course, in the meantime, the original development has gone ahead and the developer has made their profit from it. This repayment simply serves to increase the profitability of the original scheme for the developer and short-changes local council taxpayers in the process. Seen against the general policy over the last 40 years of deliberately increased inequality, I often wonder if these kind of events do not constitute a kind of Robin Hood in reverse policy of enriching the rich at the expense of the poor in our society. Is it possible that planning gain moneys are deliberately not spent so that they will be transferred back to the developers in due course? This latest development - to use a phrase - simply reinforces in my mind what I have believed now for almost 20 years: that Watford should have a unitary authority which is separate from the county council. A London Borough of Watford (incorporating Hertsmere and Three Rivers) would have the critical mass to be able to operate efficiently where matters like development planning are concerned, and would bring education, health and many other services under local control. Can anyone really say they feel the county council has done a good job of providing primary school places in the wider Watford area? Are they at all optimistic that the county council will do any better job in providing secondary school places a few years from now? It also raises the issue as to why Watford has an elected Mayor, when s/he has so many fewer responsibilities than in the past. It might make sense if we had an elected Mayor for a London Borough of Watford but not for the highly diminished rump we nowadays see. John Dowdle
  • Score: 1

7:23am Thu 9 Jan 14

oldgold says...

Outrageous! Can county councils be impeached?
Outrageous! Can county councils be impeached? oldgold
  • Score: 2

8:57am Thu 9 Jan 14

Cuetip says...

oldgold wrote:
Outrageous! Can county councils be impeached?
Fat chance.

The mind boggles as to what is happening to all the S106 money that Watford has attracted with all the infilling and high density housing. Just think £92,000 is the latest sum for demolishing a pub on the St Albans Rd and packing in a load of flats with limited parking because there is 'adequate public transport' and there is no CPZ as yet.

Do they know what they are doing?

Hertfordshire County Council holds the most “unspent”, with £56m of Section 106 cash unspent.

The Local Government Association has warned that a predicted reduction in government funding for council tax support would create an "impossible dilemma" between charging council tax to the working-age poor or extending cuts to services such as road repairs, bin collection and care for the elderly.
[quote][p][bold]oldgold[/bold] wrote: Outrageous! Can county councils be impeached?[/p][/quote]Fat chance. The mind boggles as to what is happening to all the S106 money that Watford has attracted with all the infilling and high density housing. Just think £92,000 is the latest sum for demolishing a pub on the St Albans Rd and packing in a load of flats with limited parking because there is 'adequate public transport' and there is no CPZ as yet. Do they know what they are doing? Hertfordshire County Council holds the most “unspent”, with £56m of Section 106 cash unspent. The Local Government Association has warned that a predicted reduction in government funding for council tax support would create an "impossible dilemma" between charging council tax to the working-age poor or extending cuts to services such as road repairs, bin collection and care for the elderly. Cuetip
  • Score: 2

9:28am Thu 9 Jan 14

Ronnie Levene says...

The roads in Hertsmere are a disgrace - 3rd world equivalent. Now we know why. So who is going to do something about it? This underspend is never mentioned by any party at election time.

In Bushey we have a plague of speed bumps in already congested roads. The quality of life in this area continues on a steady decline. What is the point in voting?
The roads in Hertsmere are a disgrace - 3rd world equivalent. Now we know why. So who is going to do something about it? This underspend is never mentioned by any party at election time. In Bushey we have a plague of speed bumps in already congested roads. The quality of life in this area continues on a steady decline. What is the point in voting? Ronnie Levene
  • Score: 3

9:31am Thu 9 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Ronnie Levene wrote:
The roads in Hertsmere are a disgrace - 3rd world equivalent. Now we know why. So who is going to do something about it? This underspend is never mentioned by any party at election time. In Bushey we have a plague of speed bumps in already congested roads. The quality of life in this area continues on a steady decline. What is the point in voting?
What is the point of voting LibLabCon?

Good point.

That's why we have UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie Levene[/bold] wrote: The roads in Hertsmere are a disgrace - 3rd world equivalent. Now we know why. So who is going to do something about it? This underspend is never mentioned by any party at election time. In Bushey we have a plague of speed bumps in already congested roads. The quality of life in this area continues on a steady decline. What is the point in voting?[/p][/quote]What is the point of voting LibLabCon? Good point. That's why we have UKIP. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

9:51am Thu 9 Jan 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
@phil cox UKIP Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't. So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing. It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here. Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did.
Yes, it is legitimate to raise the cuts being made, but only relate it to issues that are actually related.

There doesn't seem to be a link between the cuts and the section 106 money. By all means explain if there is a link and I have missed it, but I suspect in this case there isn't.

Now, if I were to criticise the Tories at County (and I would), I would first want to know the facts of the matter and that there was incompetence involved.

It may be for instance that the monies were allocated to a project that for one reason or another did not come to fruition in time for the actual money to be spent. Is that incompetence? I would have thought so, as they should have had a plan B and C to ensure the money was wisely spent if Plan A didn't materialise in time. I don't know the facts, but if they were available to me, for instance if I was a County councillor like Nigel, then I would find them out before saying something I might later come to regret.

By all means criticise the Tories, I do on some of my postings (and from the flack I get I can tell you they do not like it), but at least try to make a better argument that just connecting two things that are not actually connected. It's like adding two plus two and coming up with three and a half. People will eventually notice.

Raising the cuts is one thing, linking them to this lost money is possibly quite another.
YOu are having a laugh!!!
The council have had ten years, surly they could have found some use, cycle paths seem a good fallback. Before you criticize me here I am not a cyclist as a pedestrian and driver I reckon it is a good idea to give cyclists their own space.
I really do think you would benefit from looking at what you are saying here, if it were any other party than your pals the Conservative would you be giving them even the slightest benefit of doubt on this???
NO THEY HAVE HAD THE MONEY FOR TEN YEARS!! (shouting intended).
The truth is your party is just the same as the torys and would happily let the money go back to the property developer.
As an aside we wouldn't have a Local MP who is a property developer and wealth manager backed by a shadowy business club that likely has other property developers, would we?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @phil cox UKIP Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't. So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing. It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here. Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is legitimate to raise the cuts being made, but only relate it to issues that are actually related. There doesn't seem to be a link between the cuts and the section 106 money. By all means explain if there is a link and I have missed it, but I suspect in this case there isn't. Now, if I were to criticise the Tories at County (and I would), I would first want to know the facts of the matter and that there was incompetence involved. It may be for instance that the monies were allocated to a project that for one reason or another did not come to fruition in time for the actual money to be spent. Is that incompetence? I would have thought so, as they should have had a plan B and C to ensure the money was wisely spent if Plan A didn't materialise in time. I don't know the facts, but if they were available to me, for instance if I was a County councillor like Nigel, then I would find them out before saying something I might later come to regret. By all means criticise the Tories, I do on some of my postings (and from the flack I get I can tell you they do not like it), but at least try to make a better argument that just connecting two things that are not actually connected. It's like adding two plus two and coming up with three and a half. People will eventually notice. Raising the cuts is one thing, linking them to this lost money is possibly quite another.[/p][/quote]YOu are having a laugh!!! The council have had ten years, surly they could have found some use, cycle paths seem a good fallback. Before you criticize me here I am not a cyclist as a pedestrian and driver I reckon it is a good idea to give cyclists their own space. I really do think you would benefit from looking at what you are saying here, if it were any other party than your pals the Conservative would you be giving them even the slightest benefit of doubt on this??? NO THEY HAVE HAD THE MONEY FOR TEN YEARS!! (shouting intended). The truth is your party is just the same as the torys and would happily let the money go back to the property developer. As an aside we wouldn't have a Local MP who is a property developer and wealth manager backed by a shadowy business club that likely has other property developers, would we? dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

11:30am Thu 9 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

rainbowwarrior wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?
Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story. Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party). I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging. Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously. I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet ! Phil Cox(UKRAP)
Rainbowwarrior, you are clearly more interested in politicking than dealing with the article in question. Whenever I see somebody abandoning debate to attack an individual I know that they have nothing useful to offer and know they have lost the argument.

The fact remains that to have agreements with developers where money would be fed back and not to have any project in mind that it would be used for and then to let the whole process stagnate until agreements lapse demonstrates incompetence of the highest order. In any private company, multiple P45's would be handed out if money was lost on this scale.
[quote][p][bold]rainbowwarrior[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?[/p][/quote]Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story. Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party). I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging. Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously. I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet ! Phil Cox(UKRAP)[/p][/quote]Rainbowwarrior, you are clearly more interested in politicking than dealing with the article in question. Whenever I see somebody abandoning debate to attack an individual I know that they have nothing useful to offer and know they have lost the argument. The fact remains that to have agreements with developers where money would be fed back and not to have any project in mind that it would be used for and then to let the whole process stagnate until agreements lapse demonstrates incompetence of the highest order. In any private company, multiple P45's would be handed out if money was lost on this scale. D_Penn
  • Score: 4

12:03pm Thu 9 Jan 14

D_Penn says...

@dontknowynot

You state...

"if it were any other party than your pals the Conservative would you be giving them even the slightest benefit of doubt on this???"

UKIP have no pals in the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or Labour. You really must believe everything you read in the papers to make such a daft comment!

... and then you say...

"The truth is your party is just the same as the torys and would happily let the money go back to the property developer."

Where do you go to dream up this rubbish? What makes you think UKIP wants to hand over money to developers? You are either in fear and desperately trying to invent any mud to sling at UKIP or are delusional.

UKIP is committed to smaller government and smaller local government. We want to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and the council tax payer. Please explain why you think we would achieve that aim by giving money to developers? It's preposterous.
@dontknowynot You state... "if it were any other party than your pals the Conservative would you be giving them even the slightest benefit of doubt on this???" UKIP have no pals in the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or Labour. You really must believe everything you read in the papers to make such a daft comment! ... and then you say... "The truth is your party is just the same as the torys and would happily let the money go back to the property developer." Where do you go to dream up this rubbish? What makes you think UKIP wants to hand over money to developers? You are either in fear and desperately trying to invent any mud to sling at UKIP or are delusional. UKIP is committed to smaller government and smaller local government. We want to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and the council tax payer. Please explain why you think we would achieve that aim by giving money to developers? It's preposterous. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

12:18pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
dontknowynot wrote: @phil cox UKIP Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't. So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing. It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here. Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did.
Yes, it is legitimate to raise the cuts being made, but only relate it to issues that are actually related. There doesn't seem to be a link between the cuts and the section 106 money. By all means explain if there is a link and I have missed it, but I suspect in this case there isn't. Now, if I were to criticise the Tories at County (and I would), I would first want to know the facts of the matter and that there was incompetence involved. It may be for instance that the monies were allocated to a project that for one reason or another did not come to fruition in time for the actual money to be spent. Is that incompetence? I would have thought so, as they should have had a plan B and C to ensure the money was wisely spent if Plan A didn't materialise in time. I don't know the facts, but if they were available to me, for instance if I was a County councillor like Nigel, then I would find them out before saying something I might later come to regret. By all means criticise the Tories, I do on some of my postings (and from the flack I get I can tell you they do not like it), but at least try to make a better argument that just connecting two things that are not actually connected. It's like adding two plus two and coming up with three and a half. People will eventually notice. Raising the cuts is one thing, linking them to this lost money is possibly quite another.
YOu are having a laugh!!! The council have had ten years, surly they could have found some use, cycle paths seem a good fallback. Before you criticize me here I am not a cyclist as a pedestrian and driver I reckon it is a good idea to give cyclists their own space. I really do think you would benefit from looking at what you are saying here, if it were any other party than your pals the Conservative would you be giving them even the slightest benefit of doubt on this??? NO THEY HAVE HAD THE MONEY FOR TEN YEARS!! (shouting intended). The truth is your party is just the same as the torys and would happily let the money go back to the property developer. As an aside we wouldn't have a Local MP who is a property developer and wealth manager backed by a shadowy business club that likely has other property developers, would we?
I agree with you, ten years to spend section 106 money on useful projects is quite long enough. The Conservatives have clearly made a mess of this and should have found something useful to spend it on in that time. On the surface at least it does have a whiff of incompetence about it.

As for your comment about us being Tories, you are quite incorrect. It is because we have taken the best of the other parties principles and added our own that UKIP is so attractive to people who would have previously supported the Tories, Labour and even the LibDems.

Like you, I would rather the section 106 money be spent instead of taxpayers money, then council tax bills could potentially be reduced or useful projects funded that might otherwise not be possible.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @phil cox UKIP Of course it is 100% legitimate to raise the cuts, in fact Nigel would be failing in his job if he didn't. So you know what on this one issue just accept that he is doing the right thing. It is very simple just as you are right to criticize the bridge and maybe one or two other issues locally, just accept the plain truth that Labour are right to criticize the county here. Of course you won't becouse they are tories just like you and when push comes to shove UKIP turns Tory just like one of our UKIP mep's did.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is legitimate to raise the cuts being made, but only relate it to issues that are actually related. There doesn't seem to be a link between the cuts and the section 106 money. By all means explain if there is a link and I have missed it, but I suspect in this case there isn't. Now, if I were to criticise the Tories at County (and I would), I would first want to know the facts of the matter and that there was incompetence involved. It may be for instance that the monies were allocated to a project that for one reason or another did not come to fruition in time for the actual money to be spent. Is that incompetence? I would have thought so, as they should have had a plan B and C to ensure the money was wisely spent if Plan A didn't materialise in time. I don't know the facts, but if they were available to me, for instance if I was a County councillor like Nigel, then I would find them out before saying something I might later come to regret. By all means criticise the Tories, I do on some of my postings (and from the flack I get I can tell you they do not like it), but at least try to make a better argument that just connecting two things that are not actually connected. It's like adding two plus two and coming up with three and a half. People will eventually notice. Raising the cuts is one thing, linking them to this lost money is possibly quite another.[/p][/quote]YOu are having a laugh!!! The council have had ten years, surly they could have found some use, cycle paths seem a good fallback. Before you criticize me here I am not a cyclist as a pedestrian and driver I reckon it is a good idea to give cyclists their own space. I really do think you would benefit from looking at what you are saying here, if it were any other party than your pals the Conservative would you be giving them even the slightest benefit of doubt on this??? NO THEY HAVE HAD THE MONEY FOR TEN YEARS!! (shouting intended). The truth is your party is just the same as the torys and would happily let the money go back to the property developer. As an aside we wouldn't have a Local MP who is a property developer and wealth manager backed by a shadowy business club that likely has other property developers, would we?[/p][/quote]I agree with you, ten years to spend section 106 money on useful projects is quite long enough. The Conservatives have clearly made a mess of this and should have found something useful to spend it on in that time. On the surface at least it does have a whiff of incompetence about it. As for your comment about us being Tories, you are quite incorrect. It is because we have taken the best of the other parties principles and added our own that UKIP is so attractive to people who would have previously supported the Tories, Labour and even the LibDems. Like you, I would rather the section 106 money be spent instead of taxpayers money, then council tax bills could potentially be reduced or useful projects funded that might otherwise not be possible. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

6:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

rainbowwarrior says...

D_Penn wrote:
rainbowwarrior wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?
Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story. Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party). I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging. Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously. I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet ! Phil Cox(UKRAP)
Rainbowwarrior, you are clearly more interested in politicking than dealing with the article in question. Whenever I see somebody abandoning debate to attack an individual I know that they have nothing useful to offer and know they have lost the argument.

The fact remains that to have agreements with developers where money would be fed back and not to have any project in mind that it would be used for and then to let the whole process stagnate until agreements lapse demonstrates incompetence of the highest order. In any private company, multiple P45's would be handed out if money was lost on this scale.
Sorry but I do believe you are failing to comprehend what I said, I said fairly clearly in the article.

"I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging"

Please learn to read and digest !

Finally there was no hint of me "politicking" again please do yourself a favour and reread what I was saying. The only person I was having a go at was Phil Cox because of his politicised churlish spiteful comments.

Phil states "As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite?"

Nigel's comments seem perfectly reasonable.

Nigel states

"It’s very disappointing. It could be a lack of projects or not being able to chase up the developer properly and the time has run out."

What's there to fail to grasp in making that comment" ?

Furthermore Nigel says "It shows that the 106 system is not good and needs to be looked at because we are losing out on money that could be used" and
"It’s very frustrating when you see people who have to face cuts when there is money that could be spent."

Where in that comment does Nigel mix up returning money to developers and cuts.? I cant see where, perhaps someone can assist ?

Then Phil goes on to b1tch about bridges and calls Stephen "Giles" Its crass and its unnecessary.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rainbowwarrior[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: I can understand why Giles is peeved by this lack of spending. Firstly, there is millions of pounds to be spent and theLibDems certainly know how to spend money. And secondly, there are so many ponds in Hertfordshire that are yet to be bridged - not doing so verges on the criminal, eh Giles? As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite? There is an attitude in government of spending budgets and money if it is available. This often works out badly for the taxpayer as it is often wasted. Fine if there are projects that need doing, but if there aren't and you are just spending money for the sake of it, you are likely to do as much harm as good. After all, what good is a bridge over the pond in Watford Parade? Only the LibDems know the answer, because most of us just don't know what they're on. It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP. When are the next elections?[/p][/quote]Seriously Phil you are a complete liability to UKIP. Do you talk in this petty arrant rambling manner in real live. Calling Stephen "Giles" "ponds to be bridged" "criminal" "eh Giles" "Poor Nigel" etc etc. Cringe worthy! What the hell has the Lib Dems or Labour got to do with this story. Why is everything you write partisan political bile. "It's about time the County Council had a taste of UKIP". You really are not very lucid (I would rather have the Monster Raving Loony Party). I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging. Your a joke Phil and for as long as you spew out this nauseous partisan vitriol no one will take you seriously. I'm surprised Nick hasn't had a word with you yet ! Phil Cox(UKRAP)[/p][/quote]Rainbowwarrior, you are clearly more interested in politicking than dealing with the article in question. Whenever I see somebody abandoning debate to attack an individual I know that they have nothing useful to offer and know they have lost the argument. The fact remains that to have agreements with developers where money would be fed back and not to have any project in mind that it would be used for and then to let the whole process stagnate until agreements lapse demonstrates incompetence of the highest order. In any private company, multiple P45's would be handed out if money was lost on this scale.[/p][/quote]Sorry but I do believe you are failing to comprehend what I said, I said fairly clearly in the article. "I echo Nigel's and Stephen's sentiments, regardless of who controls Hertfordshire CC its an absolute disgrace in a time of cuts and austerity that money has gone begging" Please learn to read and digest ! Finally there was no hint of me "politicking" again please do yourself a favour and reread what I was saying. The only person I was having a go at was Phil Cox because of his politicised churlish spiteful comments. Phil states "As for poor Nigel, he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what he's actually talking about. Yes, money is being returned, and yes some people are facing cuts. Sadly, the two are not related but when did that ever stop a good soundbite?" Nigel's comments seem perfectly reasonable. Nigel states "It’s very disappointing. It could be a lack of projects or not being able to chase up the developer properly and the time has run out." What's there to fail to grasp in making that comment" ? Furthermore Nigel says "It shows that the 106 system is not good and needs to be looked at because we are losing out on money that could be used" and "It’s very frustrating when you see people who have to face cuts when there is money that could be spent." Where in that comment does Nigel mix up returning money to developers and cuts.? I cant see where, perhaps someone can assist ? Then Phil goes on to b1tch about bridges and calls Stephen "Giles" Its crass and its unnecessary. rainbowwarrior
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Fri 10 Jan 14

John Dowdle says...

Am I alone in finding all this political knockabout unsavoury and useless?
What we ordinary people want to see is what proposals are being made to - for example - establish a Section 106 Unit in our local government bodies in order to ensure that ALL Section 106 planning gain payments are fully and properly applied towards improving the quality of life for local residents.
Am I alone in finding all this political knockabout unsavoury and useless? What we ordinary people want to see is what proposals are being made to - for example - establish a Section 106 Unit in our local government bodies in order to ensure that ALL Section 106 planning gain payments are fully and properly applied towards improving the quality of life for local residents. John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree