Developer contributions of £53,622 secured for Jackey Bakers in Ramsgate

Improvements are wanted to facilities at Jackey Bakers

Developer contributions of £53,622 have been secured for Jackey Bakers rec in Ramsgate over the last three years – but are not due to be paid until sites are completed and residents have moved in.

The question of the Section 106 obligations, made when planning approval is passed for housing developments, was raised by Cllr John Davis at a meeting last week.

A 1,500 signature strong petition was presented to councillors at the meeting with campaigners asking for the site to overhauled with improvements including extra bins, benches along the main path and outer edges of the football pitches, a changing facility complete with running hot water for showers and toilets, improved pitches for footballers and other sports, a larger play area, skate park and a car park.

Chris and June set up the petition calling for an overhaul of the neglected facilities

June Tyrrell, who launched the petition with fellow resident Chris Collins, also told councillors a sports pavilion with a café on site would be widely welcomed.

Since launching the petition there have been improvements with the grass being maintained and new goalposts being provided.

A community action group has also been formed.

During the meeting Cllr Davis said: “I’d like to raise the fact that (Section) 106 monies were allocated for the restoration of the changing rooms in these pavilions several years ago, which it appears have not been used for the purposes they were allocated for.”

Thanet council says there are two 106 allocations for Jackey Bakers which cover the playing fields, play area and pitches but not the pavilion.

A council spokesperson said: “ In the last three years, Thanet District Council has secured two Section 106 contributions from planning permissions to be spent on improvements at Jackey Bakers.

“These were agreed as part of the planning process for developments at the north side of Stirling Way and on land at New Haine Road. These allocations total £53,622 and apply to the playing fields, pitches and play area, but not the pavilion.

“The terms of the planning permission state that payment would be made prior to the first occupants moving in on each development. As this has not yet taken place, neither payment has been received by the council.”

Some £25,373 must be paid for new or replacement play equipment at Jackey Bakers Rec by Kentish Projects which is developing 23 houses,15 flats and parking on land off Stirling Way, in the perimeter of the Eurokent Business Park and bounded by Royal Harbour Academy and Laleham Gap Schools.

The original application for the project had been granted approval by Thanet council in October 2020 but was quashed by the High Court in July 2021 after a parent took the case to Judicial Review.

The development site is owned by an LLP joint venture in which Thanet council and Kent County Council are partners which gave rise to claims of an appearance of bias by the council, something the judge agreed with.

The result was an order for Thanet council to quash planning permission for the homes overlooking the school playground, with the decision branded as unlawful and having the appearance of bias.

The application came back to Thanet council last year and, following a site visit, a decision was made to defer to officers to grant approval for the development.

A further £28, 247 contribution was agreed with Barratt Homes for a three-phase 500 homes development off New Haine Road in Ramsgate.

Permission for phase one was granted by Thanet council in April 2022 along with the go-ahead for an outline application for a further for 322 homes.

The first phase for 178 one to four-bed properties with 53 ‘affordable’ homes – Spitfire Green – was launched in July last year.

In July this year Thanet council approved a deal to buy 42 of the properties at Spitfire Green to be let at ‘genuinely affordable rents’ to those on Thanet council’s housing waiting list.

Barratt Homes 106 Ramsgate contributions

Schools and Libraries £1.44m

Sports provision £28k

NHS £256k

Youth services £62k

Community management £1.6m

Community learning £4,8k

Cycling links £125k

Total £3.6m

An enquiry has been sent to Barratt Homes asking when payment of the 106 money for sports provision is expected to be made.

“Miserable” facilities at Jackey Bakers in Ramsgate could be set for revamp

Help us to continue bringing you Thanet news with a donation towards our running costs https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=YF7BH2EF4UG2N

21 Comments

  1. Reading that the 106 contribution from Barrett Homes development for 500 homes is £28,247 leaves me astounded. Surely Barrett Homes will profit by more than £28,247 from the sale if just 1 home ??. Many Junior School children could estimate it works out at less than £60 per property. When we have dramatic needs to our infrastructure it is puzzling why anyone of sound mind would agree to such a paltry amount of money as £60 would not cover a days work by an unskilled worker . Astonishing

    • This is only the Jackey Bakers contribution not the total
      Barratt Homes 106 Ramsgate contributions
      Schools and Libraries £1.44m
      Sports provision £28k
      NHS £256k
      Youth services £62k
      Community management £1.6m
      Community learning £4,8k
      Cycling links £125k
      Total £3.6m

      • Back handers to keep everyone sweet – Oh they are doing so much good for the area, let them have more land to build more housing to make more money, must have a great public relations department.
        Big powerful company, who’s gonna argue?

      • Tuesday nights BBC 2 programme – Housing Crisis – gave a stark insight of the corrupt Listed Building Companies practice of building small poor quality homes ; keeping supply tight by every means possible; and Governments ill fated schemes to prop up prices ( Help to Buy, QE , stamp duty holiday , ) builders selling houses leasehold instead of freehold , banks and building societies allowing 30 to now 50 year mortgages , shared ownership etc etc . These stupid cons have thwarted true market pricing. It would seem our Councils Nationwide have been hoodwinked by large building companies hiring smart lawyers to bamboozle our Council and most Councils to submit to there plans and demands . A tragic situation requiring radical action . The overpriced new builds should be avoided at all costs so they become priced sensibly 🤔🤔🤔

  2. TDC have not secured anything.TDCs management of s106 is dreadful and I can only conclude that the TDC planning office spends more time planning their future careers with a planning consultancy than it does actually planning a decent built environment.Therenis a merry go round of planning officers and consultants, who spend their whole time creating the demoralising and dispiriting sort of environment as evidenced by Westwood Cross.
    Barratt’s Spitfire Green is just one example of poor design,poor quality and a car dependent environment.Barratt’s have a notorious planning subsidiary,Gladman LLP,which spends it’s whole time writing fantasy reports on its applications which it knows will be accepted by the credulous planners because they always threaten a referral to the planning inspectorate, with an award of costs.
    John Davis is a hypocrite because it is,and was,his party that is most responsible for Westwood Cross.
    The Tory party is under the cosh because on one hand it receives large donations from developers and on the other it’s voters and members are increasingly fed up with low quality urban sprawl,like Westwood Cross.
    I do wonder why we bother with a planning system because it seems to work against the public interest.
    Jacky Baker’s has been neglected for years and both parties are responsible.How much will £50k be worth if and when Barratt’s cough up, not a lot.At least with CIL the Town council would get a share and could do something.I am afraid Everitt and Whitehead refuse to alter the system, rather like Starmer,and all we can expect is more of the same from them.
    100 years ago John Wheatley arranged the passage of his housing act in the first labour government,are you telling me we cannot do better in 2024?

  3. Utter disgrace “ let us ruin the area building tacky little house and if we don’t go broke in the meantime time we will bung you a few quid” I bet the Tories brought that law in.

    • You’ll likely find that the overall payment by the developer was much greater , but that the figures mentioned are the portions that were specifically meant for Jackie Bakers, which is probably the best way of going about it , rather than just have a single pot that has no defined uses.

    • I do hope we do not have a Dianne Abbott working for TDC in finance for TDC. Although rumour has it that she has a new abacus and so it could be an improvement . It would be interesting to be privileged enough to know just how much was paid ( or is due to be hopefully paid by Barrett’s as a total for building 500 homes ) as a 106 requirement . 🤔🤔🤔

      • Barratt Homes Section 106 Ramsgate contributions

        Schools and Libraries £1.44m

        Sports provision £28k

        NHS £256k

        Youth services £62k

        Community management £1.6m

        Community learning £4,8k

        Cycling links £125k

        Total £3.6m

        • Quite a sum then as = to £7,200 per home . I did not see any amounts for road improvements . ???. I wonder at what stage the £3-6 million is to be paid ? Although when the average price is £300k it is not going to be stressful for Barrett’s to manage. The problems may arise when they cannot sell the timber framed ; energy efficient ; overpriced monstrosities . There seems to be plenty of tempting offers but I feel the prices may be more affordable next summer when they are either stuck with them or desperate to get rid of them 🤔

  4. LETS HOPE the do a better job at TDC when it comes to the finalisation of a 106 agreement for Manston multiple time failed airfield.

  5. When the crime rate rises because kids have nowhere to go. People will moan. When food prices quadruple because we have no farm land to grow food on. People will starve. By then it will be too late. I’m totally disgusted with the lack of thought being put into this.

  6. It seems to be if you openly offer money to the council you can build what you like. Where and how you like and of poor quality. In the old days this was called a bribe and now it’s a section 106. Still doesn’t help with doctors, hospital, dentist and so on. It just seems to be profit before people and the area

    • But of course we do have a NATIONAL health service, which by its very nature is responsible for healthcare provision, it’s nothing to do with the local council and is theoretically paid for out of general taxation. The whole subject of section 106 payments is a bot of a farce as it’s just another way that house prices are inflated and lead to the “new home premium” if as a nation we were more productive , we’d not need to import as much labour and so build as many homes, but seeing as we apparently have so many people who can’t or won’t work and many others that whilst they do work do so very inefficiently, we’re as a result stuck with a deemingly never ending spiral of demand for homes and services and yet no money to pay for them.

  7. There was a time when bunging public authorities loads of cash in order to build houses would be classed as bribery.

    Now it’s all above board !

    Funny how things change when the public sector is cash strapped.

Comments are closed.