Builders’ default shows shaky legal foundations

The defaulting on promises by big builders is a disgraceful situation that was quite rare when traditional local builders did much of our urban building (Yorkshire Post, October 22).

It stems from the expansion of building firms into national companies for whom building is purely the moneymaking process and who have shareholders who need to be kept sweet and who have no interest in the locality of the build.

These 106 agreements are effectively legalised bribes promised by the builders to enable them to build in an inappropriate location, or at a much greater density than the council and local residents would prefer.

If council legal departments were worth their salt, a bond would be required up front for 106 projects, so that if a builder gets into difficulty the scheme could still progress. After all, house purchasers are required to put up a pretty hefty deposit.

From: Arthur Quarmby, Underhill, Holme, Holmfirth.

The Section 106 Agreement was one of those lightly-veiled ways in which a local council could sell/profit from a planning approval (the other being the planning application, once free but now commanding a fee which can easily run into thousands).

I am astonished at the reported naivety of our councils and their officials – to impose a Section 106 for say a new park or sports centre – and not to get the money in advance.

And now that many of the developers concerned cannot or will not pay, some councils are planning to compel the occupants (householders in many cases) to pay for the developers’ default.