Crossrail S106

MQT on 2009-11-18
Session date: 
November 18, 2009
Question By: 
Mike Tuffrey
Liberal Democrats
Asked Of: 
The Mayor


Your revised draft Crossrail SPG (published on 26 October) indicated that whilst Crossrail should ''generally' be given highest priority' for s106, Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea presents a 'special case', and that s106 can go to other 'strategic-scale transport infrastructure'. Will you consider also making a special case for developments in other parts of south London which will be subject to the charge, as they are in the 'Central' zone, but could derive more benefit from transport improvements other than Crossrail?


Answer for Crossrail S106

Answer for Crossrail S106

Answered By: 
The Mayor

The draft SPG on 'Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail' identifies two charging zones within which it is proposed that S.106 contributions towards Crossrail are sought - and informed by the Central Activities Zone and an area in the northern part of the Isle of Dogs. The 26 October revision to the SPG, to which you refer, shows at paragraph 4.21 that the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) is proposed to be removed from the Central London charging zone. This was taken out on the basis that S.106 contributions here will be better put towards the extension of the Northern Line - a point consistent with section E of Policy 6.5 of the draft replacement London Plan, currently out for consultation.

In responding to consultation comments on the May 2009 draft SPG, the Mayor looked at the case for other exceptions to the charging zone, including at the Elephant and Castle. It was concluded that the VNEB exemption was the only one that could be supported.

No doubt this issue will be explored in some depth at the Examination in Public which commences in a few weeks time on 14 December.