Holbeach and Fleet councillors call for change to planning laws so that new services can be funded to cater for our growing towns

The planning system needs reform to prevent ‘erosion of public trust’ following a string of applications from developers to get out of paying towards local infrastructure, say fed up councillors.

Holbeach councillor Sophie Hutchinson and Fleet representative Coun Paul Barnes have been raising concerns about the state of the area’s infrastructure in recent months - and feel the time has come for a big change to the system.

Their calls come after developers submitted planning applications to reduce their Section 106 (S106) planning contributions for affordable housing, education and the NHS putting forward claims of unviability.

Tonight (Wednesday), South Holland District Council’s planning committee will be making a decision on whether to reduce Seagate Homes’ contributions from £1,056,493 to £225,000 as part of the approval to build 70 homes on the former Ivanda nursery in Monks House Lane in Spalding, which was granted in February.

The case is merely the latest of its kind and follows suit from other developments — and an independent assessor commissioned by the council agrees with the developer.

Planning officers warn, in a report in another separate application which will go before the committee, that system cannot be used to address ‘actual or perceived deficiencies’ in the area’s infrastructure — prompting concerns that it is therefore not fit for purpose.

These concerns have been echoed across the county — with residents fearing a lack of infrastructure to cater for the 1,350-home Stamford North development and the next-door 650-home Quarry Farm plans and for proposals such as the 250-home development next to the Prince William of Gloucester barracks in Grantham.

Coun Hutchinson wants the government to introduce a new infrastructure levy system.

She said: “Developers should 100% pay their way for the infrastructure they impact, but the public and private sectors are still responsible for maintaining and improving their services for the public. Even without development, services would need to expand and develop, so S106 can’t and shouldn’t be the only funding for this.

“S106 typically only funds health, education and open space or community uses, so it doesn’t cover all infrastructure. All over the country the S106 system is failing to deliver the required contributions particularity for affordable housing.

“The problem is it is a system based on negotiations, and time and time again viability is able to be used to reduce or remove contributions, which is eroding the public’s trust in the planning process.

“We urgently need reform in this area. It’s all well and good providing more housing but along side that needs to be a plan to deliver infrastructure to go with it.

“I am very disappointed that the government have decided not to go ahead with the plans for a new infrastructure levy system. If we deliver more housing with the current system, infrastructure will not keep pace and the housing still won’t be affordable.”

The Government has been running a consultation on changes to the planning system which could see new housing targets imposed on councils - but with no mention of counteracting the viability assessments.

Coun Barnes, who recently raised concerns about when a third primary school will be built in Holbeach due to the impact of building, says he does not agree with the current S106 system.

He said: “Any large development will affect the local infrastructure either directly or indirectly

“I get the impression that developers ‘promise the earth’ and then a bit later on - claim ‘hardship’ and their contribution gets reduced, either the amount of social housing or the financial contribution.

“I think that once S106 details are agreed and planning permission granted this should not be reduced later on at the behest of the developer.”

We have approached Seagate Homes for comment.

What do you think? Let us know your views in the comments below…