read what I have written and then read what you have written. I am talking about planning in general. perhaps you can explain how a development in Grimsby is anyway related to the Cardiff Bay Barrage?
Practically the whole of Grimsby is at serious risk of tidal flooding and is dependent upon its manmade coastal defences (see the enviroment agency website flood maps) and Owen Patterson has spent another £14M on a flood project in Grimsby docks. This spending proved it worth this winter and not just in Grimsby, Hull is largely below sea level, the whole of Central London could well have flooded but for the Thames Barrier, The Jubilee River spillway, cost £110M, prevented flooding in much of the urbanised Thames valley (although directed the water right at Wraysbury). Practically every major settlement in Britain is dependent to some degree on flood defences provided by the state (not all I know).
In June 2007 in the Yorkshire and Humber region alone, a staggering 23,479 homes were flooded, along with 3,718 businesses. In 2013/14 some 800-900 properties have been flooded. Thats the value of State provision.
Anyway this post is about Bayscape and that land again only has value and development value because of public spending, and the presence of such defences such as the barrage increases the value of the land so protected. So the level of any S106 payment is related directly to the additional value accrued because of public monies.
The granting of planning permission in itself gives a windfall to the landowner who can often sell with a gain, having done little to accrue the gain.
Yes the S106 payment is paid before any gain or income is made, but it is not the only example of such taxation before a penny is made or received - stamp duties, fees for use of radio frequencies or oil/gas drilling, council tax, Capital gains tax on gifts, or the TV licence fee payable even if you do not watch the BBC. It is not unique and a Land Value Tax would be fairer and more progressive, but you would not like that either.
it is madness to think that the state can lay claim to how, where and when land can be developed. if you think man is special and needs these privileges, google 'pale blue dot'
While the state is not perfect in deciding to how, where or when land can be developed I would be no fan of letting corporations or rich individuals free reign either. Farmers have had centuries to get it right in the UK but are in large part responsible for the UK being a wildlife desert. Humans are not very good at protecting the natural world or urban living.