These issues require an understanding of the remedies and defences of private law, as well as the legal and public context. Landmark Chambers may offer lawyers with expertise in these private law matters to deal with implementation, either alone or in conjunction with a planning specialist. Once the Section 106 agreements have been concluded and development has begun, there are a number of questions. Contractors regularly attempt to challenge or modify planning obligations through a wide range of methods, including: the local planning authority must determine the application within eight weeks of receipt of the application, unless an extended period of time is agreed upon. The local planning authority may decide on an amendment by rejecting it, dismissing it if it is no longer useful, or changing it if the obligation, with the proposed amendments, would serve an equally useful purpose (S106A (6).. The case concerned a Division 106 commitment to pay 75% of the road works costs necessary to allow for a mix of employment and residential construction. After the first building permit, two subsequent building permits were issued, each resulting in the same obligation. At the time of the shutdown, there had been no construction on site, while the city council had built the road and the landowner had paid about one-third of the money owed. What can you do if it doesn`t work as expected with respect to the s.106 agreements? Gary Soloman explained. With respect to the amount, the court decided that the developer would have to pay enough money, so that the Council could provide equivalent affordable housing that is provided by the Section 106 commitment. The court recognized that this was a departure from the literal terms of the treaty, but found that “this is the only reasonable solution.” If you would like advice or assistance in amending or unloading an agreement in accordance with Section 106, please contact us and we will be happy to help. The Government in response to its consultation on measures to speed up negotiations and the S106 agreement; with respect to affordable and student housing, planning guidelines (PPGs), particularly Section S106, but also related areas, including cost-effectiveness guidelines, have changed significantly. DCLG has published a guide to support changes to the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which provides more detailed information on what is needed to modify and evaluate requests to amend the accessibility system in section 106.
It is a guide to the form of the application, complaint and evidence; evidence of cost-effectiveness and how they should be assessed. Both Mansfield and York are useful barometers of the courts` current position on issues relating to the application of Section 106 agreements, when circumstances have changed since the date of the agreement. While in the past the courts have ruled in favour of findings to recover funds for the provision of public infrastructure to local authorities, these cases reinforce this situation. In particular, if the logic behind the decision is followed in York in future cases; that, in the event of ambiguity, an effective approach should be adopted that allows local authorities, regardless of changes in circumstances, to enforce the objective of contributions to the financing of public infrastructure (as provided for in the agreement in point 106).