St Albans' Own East End

Our June Newsletter is the third in a series focussing on the terminology behind new developments in our district, in fact, any district. Although housing is the first element which comes to mind, roads, businesses with office blocks, factories and warehouses, railway lines and shopping hubs, all extend the range of land uses demanding open space on which to grow. And although it may seem to us these creations simply appear from nowhere there are meticulous and extremely detailed processes behind the scenes.

It is the proposed housing estates that prompt the most fierce debate in the community, and the word infrastructure enters most conversations at some point. By infrastructure we generally mean the commonly required adjuncts to our daily lives. Leading this list are the footpaths, cycleways and roads, and their capacity to absorb increasing amounts of traffic, related parking facilities and junction control.

Not far behind are local schools, medical services and hospital adequacy, local shops, post offices, community centres and public open space. We should not forget the contributions made towards the emergency services and social care either.

We will read of two terms by which new infrastructure may be secured during the course of the planning process: Section 106 Agreements, and Community Infrastructure Levies (CIL). Which of these two processes Local Planning Authorities use mainly depends on whether or not they have approved and updated local plans in place. If they have CIL is the norm. St Albans is still struggling to replace its outdated local plan and you will therefore come across references to Section 106 funding instead. There is one essential distinction between the two as you have probably already observed – the terms agreement and levy.

Both types begin in a similar way; developer and authority discuss the implications of a development on the existing local area. It might be an estate of family homes which would be likely to add pressure on nearby school places; or an out of town shopping hub which is expected to attract levels of car traffic which exceed the capacity of existing feeder roads and their junctions. Negotiations take place, the result of which, the developer's commitment to contribute towards or pay for in entirety, becomes a condition of planning approval.

Multi-scheme developments, for example in an expansion area, demand an approach where infrastructure contributions may be shared between several developers. Of course the requirement in these cases is often greater, so sharing is not a question of reducing the commitment for each developer, but making the commitments equitable.

In-town developments may include infills or conversions on a small scale. Contributions in these cases may be used to jump start a community project, enhance recreational facilities, install a dedicated cycle route nearby, or pay for nearby pedestrian safety measures.

Of course, some of the smaller infill schemes can be criticised for the apparent meanness of the developer contribution, but everything in proportion, and these urban upgrades can be unsustainable if the levy is too expensive. On the other hand substantial developments may have complex infrastructure requirements which are not completely or even substantially covered by the 106 or CIL. On-site service roads are, of necessity the first most of us will see and are laid before any building work progresses.

On the other hand local works or services paid for by 106/CIL may not be completed until long after the scene is complete. Families moving into new homes on an expanded side of a town need to register with GPs and hospital services straight away, and it is not easy to discover the connection between contributions towards health service provision and the arrival of a local medical practice or NHS dentist, which may be added in the district but is still remote from the development which triggered the need. These are complex processes involving many disparate parties; communications between providers and local authorities which may not be well coordinated.

It may be easy to criticise councils for negotiating inadequate levies, but those bodies, organisations and services, which may or should be of benefit on behalf of existing and new residents, also need to be aware of increased costs resulting from an expanded population. It is naturally easier to quantify costs for large development schemes than for conversions of former office blocks into new apartments.

In the 1890s and early 1900s when St Peter's Farm was sold and house builders moved in to the place we call Fleetville, no finished roads or pavements were included, no green space included, no shops or schools considered, nor the land for them, and no medical services brought in; just houses. All house owners paid for paved and finished streets over the long term. A benefactor, Charles Woollam, donated the recreation ground, thus denying the opportunity for yet more homes. Gradually, more main road homes were converted into shops, and there were similar conversions for a doctor and dentist.

We probably understand why suburbs grew in this fashion a century or more ago, but we have higher expectations for our surroundings and communities today, and the systems have developed by which we all pay fairly for the services and physical infrastructure we might expect to take advantage of.

We must ensure these systems and processes actually work for all of us.