Concerns that healthcare facilities initially earmarked for two large housing schemes in Haverhill may never come to pass have prompted the town council to ask its MP to help.
At a full Haverhill Town Council meeting shortly before Christmas, councillors agreed to raise with Nick Timothy, MP for West Suffolk, the importance of ensuring that S106 payments earmarked for healthcare services in the north east Haverhill (2,500 homes) and north west Haverhill (1,100 homes) developments are spent on the facilities.
Section 106s are legally binding agreements made between the planning authority (in this case West Suffolk Council) and developers, but the town council was concerned the money agreed for healthcare services on the two new estates may never come to pass.
Part of the newly-built Persimmon Homes estate, Boyton Place, on the edge of Haverhill.Picture by Mike Brett/dji.droneguy
Cllr John Burns said the issue was raised in light of a reserved matters planning application received last October for Phase 3A of the north-west Haverhill development.
The applicant, Persimmon Homes, is seeking approval to build 83 dwellings and a local centre comprising a retail unit and two units within the following uses, previously given outline planning permission: retail, café/restaurant, financial and professional service, medical or health services, nursery/day centre, hot food takeaway and community uses.
Cllr Burns said: “During the (Haverhill) Masterplan process, which I was heavily involved in, originally the planners only wanted two years from the spade in the ground to the NHS confirming they wanted the land.
The layout of the NW Haverhill development. Image: Persimmon Homes
“I asked for 10, they settled on five years. I think we are coming up to not far off that now and the NHS have told the applicants they have no intention of taking up that land for any health facilities, although the applicant has said to me they are very keen to provide such facilities even if it is informal.
“A bit like a community room or something, but as I said last time the problem with a lot of these S106 payments is that a lot of them are never guaranteed.”
Cllr Burns added that the funding for health facilities could go to the NHS trust covering Haverhill, but there was no guarantee it would be invested in Haverhill.
“I think raising it with Nick Timothy, so he can ask questions at a higher level, it would be very good,” said Cllr Burns.
The Great Wilsey Park Masterplan
He also pointed out that when planning permission was agreed for Haverhill’s Hanchett Village development, it also had NHS facilities proposed but they never were delivered.
“We’ve got evidence of it happening before so I think it’s worthwhile remembering that,” said Cllr Burns.
Cllr Joe Mason said: “It feels immoral that S106 money just disappears back into some sort of NHS pot and it feels quite unjust.”
“I still think there’s opportunities for health centres, or whatever it is, to happen, but we need the NHS to commit to Haverhill.”
Cllr David Smith, mayor of Haverhill, added: “It seems, for want of a better word, to be a bit dishonest. You are sold a dream, you are sold a vision and people buy a home on the back of that and it doesn’t materialise.”
Cllr Burns said the S106 agreement made for the NE Haverhill (Great Wilsey Park) scheme in 2017 states that funding of £822,840, indexed by the British Construction Industry, is for either ‘infrastructure building or money, you can’t have both’.
“The first tranche of that has to be paid after 600 houses are occupied, well we are nowhere near that at the moment, on Great Wilsey, and the final tranche is at 1,200 houses, well the Redrow development is only 900 anyway, so we have to wait for the next part, so nothing is going to happen there,” explained Cllr Burns.
He added that there was an option to transfer the 0.3 hectares of land earmarked for the health facilities to the district council for just £1.
The council has to request it, he explained, but it cannot be used for anything other than healthcare provision and it has to be done within five years of the development beginning otherwise it reverts back to the developer.
Cllr Burns added: “What you would want to do is make sure that the £800,000, indexed, which is probably £1 million now, I would have thought, is actually spent somewhere in Haverhill, for the benefit of Haverhill.”
Councillors agreed to raise the S106 issue with Mr Timothy.