Bolsover District Council is in a legal battle with a developer over unmet affordable housing requirements.
- The council claims Arba Ground Trading Company breached a Section 106 agreement by not providing affordable housing.
- 126 homes are built and occupied, making it impossible to meet the affordable housing target as only nine homes remain to be constructed.
- An interim injunction prevents the developer from further construction and sales, following a High Court ruling.
- The developer has appealed a decision refusing to lessen their obligations, delaying resolution.
Bolsover District Council is embroiled in a legal conflict with Arba Ground Trading Company regarding a housing development in Barlborough, Derbyshire. The key issue at the heart of this dispute is the alleged failure by Arba to adhere to a Section 106 agreement that mandated 10% of homes in the development be designated as affordable housing. This agreement was a condition attached to the planning permission granted in March 2011, yet with 126 homes now occupied and only nine left to be built, fulfilling this requirement has become untenable.
The council’s position is supported by the presiding legal authority, His Honour Judge Tindal, who remarked on the scenario during a hearing at the High Court in Birmingham. He acknowledged the apparent breach by the developer, noting the significant public interest in ensuring compliance with planning agreements. The judge issued an interim injunction, effectively halting any further building, selling, or leasing of properties by the developer until the matter is resolved. This legal restraint aims to prevent further deviation from the agreed plan, which was meant to incorporate affordable housing.
Further complicating the proceedings is the developer’s decision to appeal a February 2024 decision that denied their request to modify the Section 106 agreement, seeking to reduce their obligations. This appeal has led to an adjournment, postponing the final resolution of the case until the appeal process concludes. Judge Tindal expressed skepticism about the developer’s defence, emphasising the clear financial obligations that remain outstanding.
Adding to the council’s resolve is a statement from Cllr Duncan McGregor, the cabinet member for governance, who highlighted the risk that the development might be fully completed and occupied without fulfilling the financial commitments and other provisions set forth in the planning agreement. He underscored the potential of the developer winding up the company, leaving public obligations unmet. McGregor stressed the council’s willingness to pursue legal recourse to enforce compliance, setting a precedent for other developers.
The outcome of this legal battle could significantly impact future enforcement of planning agreements.
