Dear God kpc you are embarrassing and clueless
This is not a negotiated S106 schedule.
It is an internal email from the Chair of Kidlington Parish Council, forwarding ideas and aspirations to the Parish Clerk, with comments from OCC officers explicitly warning that most of it is not lawful S106 material
That distinction matters.
The Core Legal Problem (and it’s fatal)
Under Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations, every S106 obligation must be:
Necessary to make the development acceptable
Directly related to the development
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind
Large parts of this proposal fail all three tests.
1. Planters on Highway Verges
Problem:
OCC explicitly states they are unlikely to accept planters on public highway land because it would make OCC liable for maintenance
Kidlington PC response to S106.pdf None
Why this collapses:
If OCC won’t adopt them, they are not highway mitigation
If they’re not highway mitigation, they cannot be justified as necessary for the stadium
“Indiscriminate parking” ≠ developer-caused harm unless evidence shows stadium-specific causation
This is a visual deterrent policy preference, not mitigation.
2. ANPR at Exeter Hall, Cemetery & Curtis Way
Problem:
OCC states clearly:
The land is not OCC land
OCC cannot operate the cameras
Even legality is uncertain and should be checked with CDC legal
Why this fails:
S106 cannot fund general parking enforcement infrastructure
Especially where:
Sites are unrelated to the stadium
Operation responsibility is unclear
No costings exist
No evidence of stadium-only impact exists
This is retrofitting a control regime, not mitigating development impact.
3. “Public Realm” and “Public Art” Contributions
Problem:
No locations, no projects, no cost breakdown, no nexus.
Why this fails:
S106 cannot be a blank cheque for aesthetic upgrades
Contributions must be defined, costed, and causally linked
“Pressure on public realm” is asserted, not evidenced
This would be struck out instantly at appeal.
4. 10-Year Maintenance Paid Directly to KPC
This is the most revealing part.
Why it’s unlawful:
S106 funds cannot be diverted to parish revenue streams
Maintenance obligations must sit with:
The landowner, or
The adopting authority (usually OCC or CDC)
KPC has no statutory role justifying receipt or control of funds
This reads like a grant request, not a planning obligation.
5. CPZ Extension to 3km
Even OCC admits:
“I really do not know how a private funding agreement for CPZ permits would work… check legality”
That’s civil-service speak for:
“This probably isn’t legal.”
CPZs:
Are governed by traffic regulation law
Require statutory consultation
Cannot be pre-bought or guaranteed via S106
The Precedent Argument Is Misused
Yes, other stadiums had S106s.
No, that does not justify this list.
Those examples:
Funded specific, evidenced impacts
Were negotiated with competent authorities
Did not hand blank cheques to parish councils
Listing Chelsea, Wembley, Wimbledon etc. without equivalent causal evidence is planning theatre, not planning policy.
The Unavoidable Conclusion
This document shows:
KPC knows these items are not highway mitigation
OCC warned about legality and adoption
Costs are guessed
Evidence is absent
Nexus is weak or non-existent
In short:
This is an attempt to use the stadium as leverage to fund long-standing parish ambitions.
That is precisely what S106 law exists to prevent.
