A number of London boroughs are considering the establishment of a CIL in the near future. Once a CIL is implemented, a district can continue to negotiate an S106 agreement, which is however limited to site-specific measures and the provision of affordable housing. The other scenario is to submit a new construction application for a development identical to the one already authorized, but with another S106 or UU agreement. A new building permit necessarily requires a new S106 or UU agreement replacing the existing agreement. There is no planning fee to pay if the new application is submitted within twelve months of the last planning decision. A framework application can be an inexpensive alternative to a full application. Before you do that, you need to think about any other changes that may have occurred in the Planning Directive. For example, CIL may have been put in place or a new affordable housing policy has been adopted. Please note that in addition to S.106 contributions, a contribution to housing can also be paid: unilateral commitments, agreements under Article 106, housing reduction and contributions to affordable housing § 106 Funds must be spent in accordance with the conditions set by the legal agreement. As a rule, this is related to a certain development for specific purposes and to the local region. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/106 Our legal services team will issue an S106 agreement signed by the Board and the developer/landowner. If, when submitting a construction application, it is considered that an S106 agreement is probably necessary, you must confirm that you are satisfied that it is established in the same way as the S106 agreement of the S106 model (to be downloaded from this page). This is an example of how planning obligations can be formulated appropriately.
While this proposal is likely supported by developers who might be able to reduce their total liability there and have fewer common obligations in terms of localization than we would normally see in s106 agreements, it is unclear how this will work in practice. The IL seems to rely on PMs to buy affordable housing from the developer, as is currently the case. However, the elimination of the use of s106 agreements may have persistent effects on CCPs and their lenders, as well as on the ability of counterparties to purchase units. In particular, there are sectoral formulations and a process that can be followed by counterparts, their donors, LDCs and developers, to assist COUNTERPARTIES in the financing programmes covered by the s106 agreement. In the absence of the s106 agreement, it can create valuation problems for counterparties, making it more difficult to obtain funding and, ultimately, the availability of affordable housing. Moreover, once affordable housing has been made available, the proposals do not define how to guarantee it in the long term without an s106 agreement being reached to unite the country. The traditional methods used by PPs and NPLs to protect existing stocks appear to be reduced in these proposals. This legislation revising planning agreements that are not viable has expired and one of the above options must therefore be used.
S106 contributions remain the primary way for districts to ensure that developments pay for the infrastructure that supports them. However, only 7% of developments have an S106 agreement and agreements are inherently uncertain as to what they can provide. The advantage of the CIL is that the tariff is transparent and there is no need to negotiate. To ensure that developers do not pay for the same infrastructure under both programs, local authorities must publish a list of what is funded by CIL and these items cannot be covered by an S106 agreement. It should be taken into account that site-specific issues, such as easement verification mechanisms, with respect to the provision of affordable housing, need to be considered on a case-by-case basis and are therefore not included in our model agreement S106. . . .