S.106 news

As we finally bid farewell to the Blogger’s favourite piece of public art shite, Victoria Park’s ‘Black Cloud‘, a small snippet of funding information comes our way.

The council’s November s. 106 spending update, outlining how cash from developers has been spent by the council, includes money from the development of 32 – 36 Victoria Street, Redcliffe for the provision of Public Art Schemes.

Money went to “the temporary Black Cloud sculpture in Victoria Park, the Art in the City Lecture Series at the Arnolfini, and an art installation in the North Cabin of the Bascule Bridge,” we’re told.

So that’s a new bit of public money for the project, while Arnolfini of course gets another chunk of our money – no questions asked.

There’s also some chatter that the proposed transfer of s. 106 agreement decisions to local neighborhood partnerships is being ‘fiercely resisted ‘. Council officers want to hang on to ‘their’ money apparently, despite millions of s. 106 payments lying around in council bank accounts doing nothing already.

This entry was posted in Bristol, Culture, Developments, Local government, Planning, Politics, Redcliffe and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to S.106 news

  1. Chinadoll says:

    So you cut public services and bung the money into the ‘arts’, sounds fair to me!!
    We can all stand around gazing at a painting/sculpture/turd or whatever while the city goes down the sewer!!

  2. Archie says:

    This all reminds me of Pre Soviet Russia (and Soviet Russia to some effect), whilst the citizens were scrapping around just to get a loth of bread because there was no money, sitting in buildings were fantastic art collections! Tsaritsa Janke take note!!

  3. chris hutt says:

    Public spending on ‘art’ is invariably a transfer of wealth from the general population to the non-achieving middle classes. It’s a way for the middle classes to look after their own but at public expense and it’s a way of buying off potential trouble makers. Give them a grant to do something that distracts from or obfuscates the real issues so undermining potential threats to the status quo.

  4. Bristol Dave says:

    Wasn’t the money that BCC lost in Icelandic banks mostly S.106 funds?

    Did they ever get it back, I wonder…

  5. MJ Ray says:

    I don’t see how transferring s106 decisions to neighbourhood partnerships will help. Already, where parish councils can spend s106 money, getting the unitary council to state what funds are available with what restrictions seems like half the challenge. If s106 funds were transferred to neighbourhoods, that might help, but seems like a new fraud risk. Mandatory publication of a s106 funds register would proably be enough and much cheaper.

  6. Jon Rogers says:

    The updated Bristol City Council S106 register is sent out monthly to all who request it. Happy to forward a recent email copy.

  7. MJ Ray says:

    @Jon Rogers – thanks, but as you know, my parish is elsewhere in CUBA. Glad to hear BCC does better – but why not put the register on the website so voters can make informed, appropriate suggestions? Or if it’s there (I didn’t find it), give us a link, please?

    While I’m getting good news about BCC: I hear from London colleagues about an open source event – can you send your local open source co-ops some info, please? http://www.software.coop/contact/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.