News

Cash crisis over Jennett’s Park's amenities plans

By Mike Pyle
July 26, 2010

Inflation has meant the money expected from the developer of the Jennett’s Park housing estate is not enough to provide planned amenities and cash will have to be diverted from another project.

When planning permission is granted for any large development, a council agrees ‘section 106’ payment from the developer to be spent on infrastructure in the area.

When Bracknell Forest Council gave permission for the Jennett’s Park consortium to build the new estate off Peacock Lane the section 106 agreement covered plans to build amenities including a community centre.

But the agreement was reached in 2005 and the council did not take into account a rise in prices.

It is now planning to divert money from a separate development to cover the costs of the community centre.

The council plans to take £110,650 from the section 106 funds connected to the Wykery Copse development on the opposite side of Peacock Lane to Jennett’s Park to help build the community centre.

The issue was discussed at the council’s overview and scrutiny commission meeting on Thursday, July 15.

Councillor Iain McCracken said: “We want to take £110,000 of section 106 money and put it in the pot.

“It was a long time ago that the 106 agreement was done for Jennett’s Park and prices have gone up.

“Wykery Copse is part of the Jennett’s Park area and when negotiations for 106 were done with Wykery Copse it was always envisaged that some of it would go towards Jennett’s Park.”

Cllr Rob McLean added: “Looking at future schemes, I hope we learn lessons from this so we don’t run out of money in the future.”

The panel also discussed plans to put a police point, like a miniature police station, in the community centre and said the council is in discussion with the police but the force had not yet made a satisfactory offer

There is a temporary community centre next to the Peacock Farm pub.

Eventually the permanent community centre will form part of a village centre in the middle of the development which should include a doctor’s surgery, shops and more.

The Jennett’s Park development is running two years behind schedule. It was originally planned to be finished in 2012.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (9)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 9 of 9

Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

I assume that "tionestop" is reffering to the developers Permission and Redrow. They have had at least 5 years to get the building done. Elsewhere in the standard this is explained: http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2083662_well_lean_on_builders_to_fulfil_their_promises_ http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/business/s/2078688_profits_up_for_jennetts_park_developer_persimmon_homes http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2032768_builder_denies_razing_houses

Sandyandy, Warfield
19/12/2010 at 15:55

I moved to jennetts park in the phase 1 build and im so regretting it council tax keeps going up but theres nowt to show for it no shops,certainly no post box either also id like to see dog bins put up aswell considering they have put up signs regarding your dogs pooh stop payinh yourselves big salaries and bonuses you greedy muppets...!!!

tionestop, Jennetts Park
13/12/2010 at 16:54

Because Bloor Homes at Wykery Copse haven't fulfilled their pre-occupation and pre-commencement (incl 106) my solicitors won't complete on a property I want to buy there. This information makes it look like it will be delayed/ cancelled even further, because Bloor aren't proving willing to honour their commitments that were specified at the start of the development's application. Should have moved in June, and all these things should have been sorted properly by the council and the developers at the outside. Bodgers.

SimpleStu, Yateley
14/08/2010 at 17:11

Who would have thought 5 years ago that there would be a credit crunch and building would stop? There were resports a whils back that developers took walls off new houses down to avoid going over the trigger limit where thay would have to stump up the 106 cash.

Sandyandy, Warfield
28/07/2010 at 02:02

Same as P Ollie after having been here over two years - i think that regardless of costs the Jennett's Park consortium and the council should ensure that the facilities are provided asap and not at a cost to Wykery Copse - if they didn't manage the figures properly at the time then that is their problem not the residents.

At least the school has the go ahead which is one off the list, just a proper community centre, somewhere with a fridge would be nice!!, and shops, post box cash point, oh and also the promised play areas for the children, also a proper community pub please.

Digimoan
27/07/2010 at 15:39

No School, No Shops, No community Centre Not even a post box Welcome to Jennet's Park. Come on Bracknell Forest Council/Developers get a move on some residents have been here (and Paid Council Tax) for 3/4 years now

P.Ollie, Bracknell Berkshire
26/07/2010 at 19:35

As a resident of Jennett's Park I feel that I should be pleased that this money has been found from somewhere. However, as its at the expence of my neighbours in Wykery Copse it adds to my frustration of living in an area that has NO Shops, No Community Cenre, No School and not even a Post Box. So come on Bracknell Forest Council/Jennetts Park Developers get a move on some of the residents have been here for 3/4 years.

P.Ollie, Bracknell Berkshire
26/07/2010 at 19:26

Surely since 2005 inflation has been extremely low. What is the salary of the person who decided on the amount of the section 106 payment? How can a person in such a powerful position make such an elementary mistake. Time for him/her to justify their decision.

William Richards
26/07/2010 at 11:39

It seems very short-sighted of the members of the council not to have taken inflation into consideration when the payment from the developer was agreed in 2005. However, given that we are going through a recession and that companies have been through a tough time and surely should be grateful of work, why aren't the council able to find someone to build the community centre at a less-inflated cost?