A housing developer looks likely to be paying a quarter of Section 106 money and providing no social housing on revised plans for a Spalding site.
Seagate Homes had already negotiated down how much it would have to fork out to build on the former Ivanda Nursery site with agreement in February.
The bill would have been more than £1m and included £561,960 for the Spalding Western Relief Road. The development would also have seen 25 per cent social housing allocated.
But a revised application is recommending approval for a scheme with a total of £225,000 split between education, health and the relief road. But there will be no social housing element by way of a Section 106 agreement.
A planning application going before South Holland District Council next week outlines the new agreement.
The developer gives a choice of no housing and £250,000 or ‘two or three’ affordable homes and no money.
But Seagate Homes has offered 17 affordable units via Homes England – which only become available if affordable housing is not a S106 agreement.
The new deal would see “a transport contribution of £91,400 towards the relief road, £46,200 to the NHS and an education contribution of £91,400,” says the report.
The possibility of ‘clawing back’ the remaining money at a later date was ruled-out as other developers have not been subject to the same ruling in recent years.
South Holland and the Deepings MP Sir John Hayes had already expressed concerns over the development when the application was initially submitted, which was 76 at the time.
The updated, redesigned plans are for a 70-home development, demolition of glass houses and auxiliary buildings.
“The design is considered to have been improved with the latest amended plans, and, on balance is not considered to be of sufficiently poor design to be significantly out of keeping.”
Initially Ivanda House was part of the application site, but the property, garage and garden are no longer part of the proposals going before the planning committee next Wednesday.
The original application generated strong comments and objections ‘from both the public and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, the report adds.
