Receipts, Rows and Ring-Fenced Pots: Auditing Langton’s Developer Money in 2026

Langton’s new housing has left more than roofs and wheelie bins behind. It has also generated money — Section 106 payments and Community Infrastructure Levy receipts — intended to soften the pressure that growth places on the village. As of 10 November 2026, the council’s contributions register lists £1.23m attached to four consented sites. Of that, £715,000 has been allocated or spent. £515,000 remains unspent. The figures are rounded, but the pattern is precise enough to matter.

Two pots, two sets of rules

Section 106 money is negotiated site by site. It is attached to a planning permission and usually tied to specific works or contributions: education, affordable housing, play space, a footway. The Community Infrastructure Levy is different. It is a non-negotiable charge on new development, set through a council charging schedule, and it can be pooled for infrastructure across the area. CIL also carries a neighbourhood portion — 15 per cent in most places, or 25 per cent where a neighbourhood plan is in place — which should be passed to the parish tier.

The distinction matters because the two pots are not interchangeable. A S106 sum promised for a play area cannot simply be redirected to a bus shelter. A CIL receipt can be spent more flexibly, but it must still appear on the council’s infrastructure list and in its annual funding statement. When the council says ‘developer funding’ will solve a local problem, the first question is which pot it means.

What the register shows

The live register, updated to October 2026, gives the following site-by-site picture. The table is a summary, not a substitute for the full entries.

The largest unspent pot is Broadfield Farm. That is not automatically a scandal. CIL receipts can be pooled and spent over time, and the council must publish an annual infrastructure funding statement setting out what it has received and what it intends to fund. But an unallocated balance is still a useful fact. It tells residents that the money exists, that it is ring-fenced for infrastructure, and that someone must decide what it buys.

Paid, promised and parked

The register uses three words that are often confused: collected, allocated and spent. Collected means the developer has paid. Allocated means the council has put the money against a named project in its capital programme. Spent means the invoice has been settled. A project can be allocated money for two years without a spade in the ground, especially where design, land ownership or procurement must be resolved first.

Residents should therefore ask which column a figure sits in. At Orchard Rise, most of the S106 money has been allocated, but £130,000 is held for a later phase. At Kiln Field, £25,000 has been spent or committed and £50,000 remains at design stage. At Meadowgate, the crossing scheme accounts for £180,000 of CIL, leaving £130,000 unspent. These are timing questions as much as priority questions.

Why the gap matters

The difference between money attached and money delivered matters for two reasons. First, it affects what the village can expect from the next planning application. If the council cites developer funding as the answer to a local need, the register should show whether that funding is already committed elsewhere. Second, it affects trust. A £515,000 unspent balance is not a small sum in a village context. It is the difference between a promised crossing and a crossing that has not yet been designed.

There are legitimate explanations. S106 payments may be triggered by occupation of later phases. CIL may be held while the council builds up enough for a larger scheme. Inflation and indexation can change the value of a S106 contribution between permission and payment. But those explanations should be visible. The register is the place to test them.

How to inspect the ledger

Start with the council’s website. Search for ‘developer contributions register’ and ‘infrastructure funding statement’. The statement is usually published annually by the end of December; the register should be updated more often. Ask the council for a site-by-site schedule showing the planning reference, the mechanism, the trigger for payment, the amount received, any indexation, the project allocated and the amount spent.

Then compare it with the planning file. The S106 agreement is a public document, although it can be lengthy. Look for the schedule of contributions and any longstop dates. Ask the parish council what it has received through the neighbourhood portion of CIL and what it plans to do with it. Finally, check the date of the last update. A register that has not been refreshed since the spring is not a live audit.

Questions to ask when ‘developer funding’ is the answer

• Is this S106 or CIL, and which site generated it?
• Has the money been collected, allocated or spent?
• Is it ring-fenced to a specific project, or can it be pooled?
• What is the trigger for payment, and has it been met?
• Is the contribution index-linked, and has the indexation been applied?
• Has the neighbourhood portion been passed to the parish council?
• What happens if the development is built out more slowly than expected?
• Which project will lose out if this money is redirected?

The next planning decision

Langton’s next planning decisions will be judged not only on how many homes are permitted, but on whether the money follows. The contributions register is not a verdict on the council’s performance. It is a receipt book. Read alongside the infrastructure funding statement and the planning files, it shows what has been promised, what has been paid and what is still waiting. That is the money in the ground — and residents are entitled to see where it went.