A community centre extension funded by section 106

The money was already sitting with the council. A housing scheme 600 metres away had paid a community facilities contribution four years earlier, and nobody had claimed it. The hall committee found it by reading the council's Infrastructure Funding Statement, asked for it in writing, and used it to build a 42 m² extension with an accessible WC and a storage room. This walkthrough is illustrative: the building, the figures and the sequence are composites that show how the process works rather than a record of one project.

The building and the need

A single-storey community centre built in the early 1970s, owned by the parish council and run by a management committee of volunteers. One main hall, a small kitchen, two WCs and a cupboard that had become the store for six different user groups.

The pressure came from three directions. A toddler group needed somewhere to leave equipment. A wheelchair user could get into the hall but not into either WC. And the hall could not be split, so two bookings could never run at once.

The committee's initial plan was a fundraising campaign over five years. The extension got built in eighteen months instead, because most of the cost came from obligations that had already been collected.

Finding out what was available

Every charging and collecting authority in England has to publish an Infrastructure Funding Statement annually, by 31 December, covering the previous financial year. It sets out what was received through the Community Infrastructure Levy and through section 106 planning obligations, what has been allocated, what has been spent, and what remains unspent.

That document is the starting point, and it is public. Read it looking for four things:

1. Section 106 contributions received but not yet spent, with the purpose each was collected for.
2. The planning application reference attached to each contribution.
3. The neighbourhood portion of the levy, where the council collects it.
4. Any statement about how the authority decides to allocate unspent sums.

The committee found two entries relevant to them: a community facilities contribution from a 48-dwelling scheme, and a smaller sum labelled for outdoor recreation which they could not use.

The next step was to read the actual deed. A section 106 agreement is a land charge, usually available on the council's planning portal alongside the application it relates to. The wording of the covenant is what governs, and it does three things: it names the purpose, it defines the area within which the money can be spent, and it sets a date by which the council must spend it or repay it to the developer.

This deed said the contribution was for the improvement of community facilities within one kilometre of the development, with repayment to the developer if unspent within ten years. Four years had gone. Six remained, and a repayment clause is a strong argument for a council to act.

The levy works differently. Where a council charges the Community Infrastructure Levy, a proportion of receipts passes to the parish or town council as the neighbourhood portion, at a higher rate where a neighbourhood plan has been made. The percentages and the cap per existing dwelling are set in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, so check the current figures, and our note on reading a charging schedule explains how the receipts are calculated in the first place.

Approaching the council

The request went in as a two-page letter to the council's planning obligations monitoring officer, copied to the ward member and the parish clerk. It contained:

• The planning reference of the scheme that paid the contribution, and the clause number of the covenant.
• A short description of the project, with a sketch plan and a cost estimate from a local builder.
• How the project met the purpose wording in the deed, quoted.
• Evidence of need: booking records showing refused bookings, and a short statement from each user group.
• The governance position: who owns the building, who would hold the funds, and who would procure the work.

The council's process took three months and involved a report to a portfolio holder rather than a committee. The outcome was a funding agreement rather than a cheque: payment in arrears against invoices, a requirement to complete within two years, a clawback if the building ceased to be used for community purposes within a stated period, and a requirement to acknowledge the funding source.

Two things made the difference. The booking records, because a need asserted without evidence is easy to defer. And a named owner with the legal capacity to enter an agreement, which is where informal committees without a constitution get stuck.

The planning application

A community hall falls within Class F2 of the Use Classes Order as a hall or meeting place for the principal use of the local community. There is no permitted development right that covers extending it, so the extension needed full planning permission.

The application pack was modest:

• Application form and the correct ownership certificate, with the parish council as owner.
• Location plan at 1:1250 with the red line around the whole site including the car park.
• Existing and proposed plans, elevations and a section at 1:100.
• A short Planning Statement covering the development plan policies on community facilities, the need evidence and the design response.
• A Design and Access Statement, which was not strictly required at this scale but which carried the accessibility case.
• A biodiversity statement. The extension sat on existing hardstanding, and the committee's ecologist confirmed the works fell within the de minimis exemption from the biodiversity gain condition, which applies where the development affects less than the threshold area of on-site habitat set in the legislation. That exemption has to be claimed and evidenced, not assumed.
• A drainage note, since the roof area increased.

Determination took just under eight weeks with no objections. The parish council's own support was recorded as a consultee response, which helps with a community building but is not decisive.

Accessibility as the centre of the design

The accessible WC was the reason the project existed, and the design followed Approved Document M volume 2 of the Building Regulations rather than a general aspiration to be inclusive.

The elements that mattered:

• A level threshold at the new entrance, with a 1:20 or shallower approach and no lip.
• A wheelchair-accessible WC with the required clear transfer space, grab rails and an outward-opening door, positioned so that the door does not open into the circulation route.
• A hearing enhancement system in the divided hall, since the existing loop covered only the main space.
• Door opening forces and lever handles specified rather than left to the contractor.
• Signage and colour contrast between floor, wall and door surfaces.

Two lessons from projects of this kind. Get building control involved early, because Part M compliance for a building used by the public is more demanding than for a house and the layout consequences are real. And record the accessibility reasoning in the design statement, because the funding agreement and the planning application are both easier to argue when the case is written down once.

Conditions and the build

The permission carried five conditions: standard time limit, approved plans, materials to match, a construction hours restriction, and a landscaping scheme for the two shrub beds that had to move.

The programme ran in this order: permission granted, materials sample approved by email, building regulations full plans application, tender to three local contractors, funding agreement signed, start on site, stage invoices submitted to the council, completion, final claim, and a short report to the council confirming the money was spent as agreed.

The awkward part was cashflow. Payment in arrears against invoices meant the parish council had to carry each stage for around six weeks. A small overdraft facility solved it. Any group without one should negotiate an initial payment in the funding agreement rather than discovering the problem after the contract is signed.

How other groups can do the same

The sequence that works, in order:

Step seven is the one groups get wrong. Councils are reluctant to release funds for a project without permission, and a funding agreement with a two-year completion deadline starts running whether or not the application has been determined.

Browse all 66 PlanScope report types to see which supporting documents a community building application is likely to need. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.