This article summarizes some of the key powers and practices related to the enforcement of Section 106 agreements. There are two facets of agreements under Section 106: first, the legal jurisdiction of section 106 of the 1990 Act itself and the “related laws” that govern the powers of local planning authorities to enter into such agreements and, second, the obligations that may be lawfully sought. These new application and appeal procedures do not replace existing powers to renegotiate section 106 agreements on a voluntary basis. In addition, with respect to affordable housing, this provision does not replace provisions to amend an obligation established by the 1992 regulations and updated by the 2013 regulations (see above). 10. Although s106 (4) provides for an “opt-out” provision under which the terms of an agreement do not apply to rightholders, the main purposes of a 106 are (a) the extraction of Community payments;(b) the provision of a list of conditions binding successors under Title 123 of the CIL Regs, encourages the authorities to introduce as soon as possible their Community infrastructure tax (hereinafter referred to as “CIL”), ; limiting the use of the obligations referred to in Article 106. It also aims to prevent double dumping from being provided by funds under Sections 106 and CIL for the same infrastructure. It provides that an obligation to finance or make available infrastructure (i.e. infrastructure financed either by the Authority`s CIL or infrastructure for which there is no CIL list of infrastructure) cannot constitute a ground for authorisation; and a planning obligation cannot constitute a ground for authorisation if that obligation relates to the financing or provision of a type of infrastructure and if five commitments or lus have been taken in respect of this type of infrastructure since April 6, 2010. Section 106(1)(a)-(d) sets out restrictions on the types of commitments that may be entered into. These are known parameters, but they can be ignored if both parties (developer and planning authority) are in tune with the heads of Terms. For example, there is case law on the imposition of obligations that prevent residents from applying for parking cards, as a relatively new example of commitments generally made but which the Court of Justice considers to be outside the powers. If the agreements include obligations with respect to highways, whether with respect to work on the accepted highway or the acceptance/dedication of the land as a new highway, sections 38 and 278 of the Highway Act 1980 may apply.

These sections govern how the land may be accepted by the Local Highway Authority as a public highway, which may be maintained at public expense (s38), or provide funds for work on the existing highway or allow the developer to carry out such work himself. These provisions are generally subject to separate agreements, but it is not unrelated that agreements concluded under Section 106 also serve as motorway agreements. Where amendments are made to building permits in accordance with section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, this results in a new stand-alone building permit, which must be bound by a supplementary agreement to the “original” agreement in section 106. Otherwise, if the initial agreement is not established to cover future amendments/modifications to the scheme, the applicant could implement its consent under paragraph 73, without any commitment under Section 106. (3) The remedies provided for in these new and specific sections should be increased. The viability test is when evidence has shown that the current cost of developing the entire land (at current price) is at a level that would allow the developer to sell all market units on the site (in the current market) with a developer-proven development rate and achieve a competitive return for a willing developer and landowner…