Well done for highlighting two very important issues via articles in the North Somerset Times dated Wednesday, October 23rd, 2024.
These were "Council hasn’t spent £24m builders cash" (page 2) and "Parking charges for towns are approved" (page 3).
What is perhaps not realised is that these two issues are linked and show how the council is in fact clouding the issues related to financing of their "projects" whether deliberately or not.
As you rightly point out in the first article, Section 106 money is paid by developers into local councils for use in local infrastructure, affordable housing, education, recreation, and health facilities.
The article clearly identifies that most of this money has not been accessed and used by the council.
However, in the second article, it is announced that parking charges have been approved, against the wishes of the majority of people, with the council executive voting 7-1 for this.
Mike Bell claimed: "We cannot afford to provide free parking as we did in the past.’"
Well done, councillor Whitfield, for opposing.
Whilst I realise the council is in a dire financial state at the moment, it seems to me that this could be due to misinformation given to the council by officers who themselves are unaware of the full financial funds that are available to them.
Thus, inaccurate advice is being given to the councillors and the executive, and thus incorrect decisions are being made.
I suspect at the start of each financial year the council and council officers are presented with a budget based on information that does not include such pots as Section 106.
And thus, it is not considered available to spend.
If this is the case and there is Section 106 money available in a separate "pot," and it is not being used, then it apparently can be reclaimed by the developer.
So they win, and we, the public of North Somerset, lose, and stand to lose far more than just that money because we are expected to pay extra, in one way or another, or lose services which we all require.
For example, the money NSC will spend on paying to have parking meters put in, a company to monitor the parking, collect the money, and distribute parking fines etc, will, as I understand it, cost, in the first year, almost all of the budget allowed for parking etc.
So it will take several years for this money to be recovered, especially as managing the parking etc. will also cost, with the money mainly going to the operators rather than the council.
So with these Section 106 funds being available for items including recreational facilities and health, if used and not left out of budgets, surely free parking can continue, such as Portishead Lake Grounds, which is a recreational facility almost second to none, and used by mainly local residents for such activities including cricket and tennis.
This must be considered reasonable and possible.
Also, we must question why our council does not appear to have the capability of identifying all pots of cash available and using it for our benefit as residents.
Yours truly,
David Wherrett.
Walton Bay, Clevedon
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here