£55m Earmarked for Benefit of the Community ‘Still Unspent’, Says Campaigning Councillor

Published on: 3 Sep, 2025
Updated on: 3 Sep, 2025

By David Reading

Around £55 million in contributions from housing developers, waiting to be used for the benefit of local communities in the Guildford borough, is still unspent.

This is the conclusion of Cllr Sue Wyeth-Price (R4GV, Ash South), who has been investigating the matter of unspent contributions since before she was elected as a borough councillor in May 2023.

She says the oldest unspent contribution goes to back to 2004 – possibly because nobody monitored the contribution or nobody claimed it from the developer. If that is true it might signify a failure in the council systems.

Research carried out by the Home Builders Federation estimates that local authorities in England and Wales are sitting on over £8 billion of infrastructure payments by developers, including over £6 billion from Section 106 agreements and almost £2 billion raised through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Responses to its Freedom of Information (FoI) survey which received responses from 208 local authorities, show that, councils hold unspent Section 106 contributions of, on average, £19 million, a figure GBC’s £55 million is well above.

Cllr Sue Wyeth-Price

Cllr Wyeth-Price believes there may be a further £30 million with Surrey County Council that should be spent in the Guildford borough on matters such as education and highways.

Not all the unspent money is sitting in a GBC bank account. Some of it is “pending” – meaning that the developers haven’t paid it yet. And some is with SCC.

Contributions which have not been spent within a set timeframe, determined in the original agreement, can be reclaimed by the developer.

Contacted by the Guildford Dragon, the council has provided an assurance that “no unspent S106 funding has been returned to a developer in the last five years”.

The council’s statement said the current value of available S106 funds held by Guildford Borough Council is £13,954,054.60.

But commenting on this figure, Sue Wyeth-Price maintains that it does not include approximately £41m that is pending – money not yet in the council’s hands

She said that in addition to the 2004 unspent contribution, there is a further £200,000 “pending” from 2005/6. She said the earliest contribution where GBC is in possession of the money is Parsons Way, in her own ward of Ash South. This is £20,753 for improving off-site drainage. This was signed in 2013, so is now 12 years old

She says the areas of the borough where the amounts of unspent contributions are highest are Send and Lovelace (£22,222,602); Stoke (£10,665,110); Ash South (£5,163,068); Effingham (£4,514,088); and Clandon and Horsley (£4,387,285).

A large amount of the Send and Lovelace money is associated with the Wisley development (£20.8 million of the £22.2 million).

Large sums are promised in Send and Lovelace for primary, secondary and early years education, highways improvements and open spaces.

Stoke is also high on the list. There are a number of different applications included. Among them are North Street, Guildford Railway Station and the Weyside Urban Village, which are all under way.

The Solum development at Guildford railway Station, now under construction, is just one of the developments associated with a Section 106 agreement. (Solum Regeneration/ Guildford Borough Council documents)

The unspent contributions from 2004 include:

£80,000 connected with highway improvements to the gyratory system in the Bridge Street area
SCC Traffic Regulation Order and Parking Bays at 75-78 Woodbridge Road (£2,500)

These are “pending” – which suggests the possibility that GBC/SCC may not have received the money from the developers.

The R4GV councillor is pressing hard to ensure the money is spent where it is urgently needed, for example on schools, healthcare, highways, open spaces and allotments.

At a recent meeting of GBC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee she urged GBC to set up a working group of councillors to drive this forward. Asked about this possibility, the GBC statement simply said council officers are “working closely with ward members”.

Cllr Wyeth-Price said: “Whilst I’m pleased that this issue seems to be getting more attention, I am disappointed that the rate of spend is so low and that many projects remain undelivered.

“So much money remains unspent, sometimes for many years after the impact of the developments have been felt by the residents.”

She added: “I have been pushing to get the Ash and Tongham funds allocated for five years now – since before I became a councillor – so I am concerned that other wards, whose developments have taken place more recently, could face the same challenges and will be fighting the same fights for years to come.”

Providing details of some of the unspent contributions, she said: “There is a total of £281,997 in pending contributions from 2003/4. This is money that hasn’t yet been obtained from the developers and there is a risk that GBC will never get that money. I find it so depressing that this has been allowed to continue for 22 years.

“The GBC’s report on these matters doesn’t include some of the applications where it can be seen that the money hasn’t been spent, for example Manor Farm, Tongham, Lyson’s Way and Poyle Road developments, both in Ash.”

Cllr Wyeth-Price said all the paid contributions sit in the GBC general fund. Any interest accrued on contributions goes to GBC (or SCC if the money has been transferred) and not to the community. She said: “The longer we have to wait for infrastructure projects the less the initial funds will buy. The cynic in me would say that this disincentivises either council to make the necessary infrastructure a priority.”

The council’s statement to the Dragon did not directly challenge the councillor’s figures.

The statement said: “S106 contributions are only paid at the commencement of a development and are very often phased over the life of a build out. Therefore, the contributions that are referenced on a S106 are not all paid to the council immediately.

“The current value of available S106 funds held by Guildford Borough Council is £13,954,054.60. These funds are not solely at our disposal. Just over £3million are for projects led by Guildford Borough Council. The remaining funds are allocated to other public sector authorities including Surrey County Council, the Police, Parish Councils and healthcare services who have the responsibility for delivering the projects.

“Not all S106 contributions have a ‘spend by’ period, and no unspent S106 funding has been returned to a developer in the last five years. All monies are very closely monitored and we’re working hard to ensure that funds which are close to their expiry date are spent.

“We’ve also been working with Surrey County Council to ensure there is greater transparency over how education funds are used across the borough and ensure that education contributions are spent in a more timely manner.

“Our planning team is working closely with ward members to use older contributions for current projects, such as the one Cllr Wyeth-Price has identified for improving off-site drainage in Ash.

“We hold S106 funds with all other Council cash balances and manage them through our overall treasury activities.

“The interest generated does go into the General Fund, which is used to provide all the non-housing council services. It therefore provides a benefit to all Guildford residents until the S106 monies are spent.”