TenderlineUK
Procurement Intelligence
Official OCDS
Find a Tender
complete
Official procurement procedure

Agreement further to Section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) relating to construction of 2 Primary Schools development to at Valley Park, Didcot, Oxfordshire

Building construction work
South East (UKJ14)
Published value
Not published
Submission deadline Not published
Lots published1
Procurement Executive Summary
AI & Search Synopsis
Generated from official OCDS record
Tenderline Synopsis: Oxfordshire County Council: "Agreement further to Section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) relating to construction of 2 Primary Schools development to at Valley Park, Didcot, Oxfordshire". Published status: complete. Published value: Value not published. 1 published lot. Submission deadline not published. See the official notice for participation instructions.
Contracting AuthorityOxfordshire County CouncilScope & CategoriesNot publishedSubmission Window
complete
No deadline published
Submission GatewayDirect notice routeLegal Basis & RegimeStandard procurementEstimated Value (exc. VAT)Not published
Bidder Intelligence · Authority Profile: Oxfordshire County Council
Market Analytics
View Authority Profile →
Derived from OCDS awards & bid statistics
Published history for Oxfordshire County Council. These figures describe retained records, not a forecast of bids or a measure of buyer bias.
Published-to-award variance
Not availableInsufficient comparable data
Requires at least 5 comparable procedures
Competition Density
30.7Bids / Report
10.3% of reports have one bid
Supplier ConcentrationNo estimate
Insufficient attributable awardsNo concentration estimate available
Payment Terms
Check noticePublished terms
Payment obligations depend on the applicable regime and contract. Consult the official documents.
Coverage: 86 active published awards; 78 bid reports (which may be per lot). Supplier values exclude multi-supplier awards, frameworks and DPS, and use GBP only. They are published award values, not payments. Published-to-award variance compares single-lot, single-award, single-supplier GBP procedures with explicitly non-framework/non-DPS status; increases remain in the average. Unpublished data stays unknown. Awarded suppliers are winners, not all bidders.
Procedure terms
Contracting AuthorityOxfordshire County Council
Procedure methodNot published
Procurement categoryNot published
Statuscomplete
Framework / DPSNot published
CompetitionNot published
Above thresholdNot published
Legal basisNot published
Tender period startsNot published
Clarification deadlineNot published
Electronic submissionNot published
Submission languagesNot published
Published8 Feb 2022, 16:48 GMT
Last source update8 Feb 2022, 16:48 GMT
Recurring procurementNot published
ClassificationBuilding construction work
Delivery area
South East (UKJ14)
OCIDocds-h6vhtk-0314bc
What is being bought
The proposed agreement will be a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to proposed development at Valley Park, Didcot (“the Development”) The agreements will contain a series of commitments made by the developer (the “Developer”, named as the contractor/concessionaire in section V.2.3), conditional on implementation of the Development (entirely at the discretion of the Developer) and progress of the Development, for delivery of mitigating measures including the design and construction of 2 primary schools. The Developer also has the choice of providing land to Oxfordshire County Council plus funding so that the County Council may design and construct the primary schools instead.
What changed
From the official release history
  1. Status changed to complete
    8 Feb 2022, 16:48 GMT
  2. Official notice release published
    8 Feb 2022, 16:48 GMT
  3. Buyer information updated
    8 Feb 2022, 16:48 GMT
Lots and requirements (1)
Published by the contracting authority
  • Lot 1 · #1
    Individual lot title not published
    Status not published
    Published valueNot published
    The proposed agreement will be a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to proposed development at Valley Park, Didcot (“the Development”) The agreements will contain a series of commitments made by the developer (the “Developer”, named as the contractor/concessionaire in section V.2.3), conditional on implementation of the Development (entirely at the discretion of the Developer) and progress of the Development, for delivery of mitigating measures including the design and construction of 2 primary schools. The Developer also has the choice of providing land to Oxfordshire County Council plus funding so that the County Council may design and construct the primary schools instead. Further information: • It is understood that the contract award is taking place under EU directive 2014/24/EU. Although it is noted that the relevant UK legislation is the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 as the procedure was not commenced prior to 31st December 2020 (end of the transition period) so it is not governed by the EU directive 2014/24/EU but just by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (which of course transposed directive 2014/24/EU into UK Law) as amended by the Public Procurement (Amendments)(EU Exit) Regulations 2020. • The contract (Section 106 Agreement) has been awarded jointly to: Persimmon Homes Limited, Taylor Wimpey UK Limited and Hallam Land Management Limited. • Start and end date of the contract: not known as it is conditional on the grant of planning permission by Vale of the White Horse District Council and the commencement of development by the developer. Oxfordshire County Council intends to conclude the proposed agreement as soon as practicable after the operation of a standstill period of at least 10 days from the day after the date of publication of this notice
    Contract periodNot published
    EligibilityNot published
    Options / renewalNot published
Timeline
  1. Procedure published
    8 Feb 2022, 16:48 GMT
  2. Award active
    Not published · Not published
  3. Contract active
    Signed 8 Feb 2022, 00:00 GMT · £18,950,000
Commercial outcome and competition
Awards
Hallam Land Management Limited, Persimmon Homes Limited, Taylor Wimpey UK Limited
Not published · Not published · active
Contracts
Contract
£18,950,000 · signed 8 Feb 2022, 00:00 GMT · active
Bid statisticsNo aggregate bid statistics published
Buyer and organisations in this procedure

Oxfordshire County Council

Contracting authority GB-FTS-83
View buyer profile

  • Oxfordshire County Council
    buyer

    County Hall, Oxford, UKJ14, OX1 1ND
    Amy.Keylock@Oxfordshire.gov.uk

  • Hallam Land Management Limited
    supplier

    Banner Cross Hall, Ecclesall Road South, Sheffield, UKE32, S11 9PD

  • High Court of England and Wales
    reviewBody

    Royal Courts of Justice, London, WC1A 2LL

  • Persimmon Homes Limited
    supplier

    Persimmon House,, Fulford, UKE21, YO19 4FE

  • Taylor Wimpey UK Limited
    supplier

    Gate House, Turnpike Road, High Wycombe, UKJ13, HP12 3NR
Documents (0)
Official links; attachments are not copied
No data
No linked documents are published
Related procedures (0)
No data
No related procedures published
Planning and rationale
Planning budgetNot published
No-engagement rationaleNot published
Procedure rationaleThere is proposed an agreement (“the Section 106 agreement”) in which the Developer is afforded the choice of providing: a. land for a primary school and funding for its construction which does not amount to a public works contract because there is no contract with the Developer for works to be undertaken; b. the Developer undertaking the construction of 2 new primary schools (3 FE and 1 FE) and then passing the new primary schools as built to the County Council. that they will not constitute public works contracts for the following reasons: It is considered that the agreement where option b is adopted for both or either of the new primary schools to be built by the Developer, will not constitute public works contracts for the following reasons: 1. The Section 106 agreement is required to be entered into so as to render the Development acceptable in planning terms. The core rationale for this requirement is that the provision of the schools is necessary to enable the grant of planning permission and they are considered to be in compliance with Regulations 122 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. Thus, the essential objective of the Section 106 Agreements is for a planning purpose in accordance with the statutory planning regime. It was endorsed in Faraday Development Ltd v West Berkshire Council and St Modwen Developments Ltd (“the Faraday Case) following the principle established in Helmut Muller GMbH v Bundesanstalt fur Immobilienaufgaben-Helmut Muller) that an agreement was not a public works contract where the contracting authority’s primary objective was of a planning nature under the statutory regime. 2. An essential ingredient of a public works contract is that it is for pecuniary interest – see Regulation 2 of the Public Contract Regulations 2015. The Advocate General’s opinion in European Commission v Kingdom of Spain seeks to provide a definitive statement of the meaning of “pecuniary interest” concluding that it implies that the contracting authority needs to use its own funds either directly or indirectly. No direct financing will be provided by the contracting authority in respect of the Section 106 agreement. Indirect financing occurs when the contracting authority suffers economic detriment as a result of the method of funding the works. No economic detriment will be sustained by the contracting authority in consequence of entering into the section 106 agreement. The primary school works will be delivered in kind rather than through the provision of funding to the contracting authority. 3. Under the Section 278 Agreement there will be no liability for either of the primary schools to be delivered unless the Development is implemented and it is entirely at the discretion of the Developer as to whether the Development is implemented. There is no obligation on the Developer in the S106 agreement to implement the Development. Thus the Section 106 agreement corresponds to the Section 106 agreement considered in the case of R (Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd) v Birmingham City Council (1) Tesco Stores Ltd (2) as approved in the Faraday case (paragraph 52) on the basis that the agreement considered in the Midlands Co-operative Society case contained no obligation contingent or otherwise for the carrying out of development. Notes: a. The estimated aggregate value of the works further to the Section 106 agreement which the Developer is to undertake is £18.95 million. b. The County Council will not contribute any money towards the building of either of the primary schools c. In the Section 106 Agreement the Developer will agree to undertake a transparent and impartial procurement process for the primary school works.