The Mansfield and York cases are both useful barometers of the current attitude of the courts on issues arising from the application of section 106 agreements, where circumstances have changed since the date of the agreement. While in the past courts have (rightly) favoured conclusions allowing funds intended for the provision of public infrastructure to be recovered from local authorities, this provision is reinforced by these cases. In particular, whether the logic behind the decision in York is followed in future cases; in the event of ambiguity, local authorities will be in a strong position to enforce the objective of contributions to the financing of the provision of public infrastructure (as provided for in the agreement provided for in Section 106), regardless of changes in circumstances. However, despite their many imperfections, the Section 106 agreements will continue to play an important role in the planning system to regulate the development and security of infrastructure, including affordable housing, given that some consider the CIL alternative too complex and rigid and unknown to many local planning authorities and the planning conditions are not adequate, ensure payment of funds and include detailed requirements such as mortgage exclusion. Ions. An S73 app is usually supported by a few slightly different plans and an S106 Viability Report. The app is paid for, but it offers a cost-effective way to replace existing S106 agreements or existing UU agreements. An S73 building application produces a new building permit alongside your existing permission and will require a new S106 agreement or an act amending your existing S106 agreement. This process involves replacing one obligation with another and not with an appeal. Your existing S106 agreement may contain words that extend the agreement to future S73 applications. Under these conditions, we recommend a new planning request as the only realistic path to the future, as A.A. is often very reluctant to resolve existing commitments. In summary, it is clear that there are many problems related to the use of Section 106 agreements that need to be addressed to ensure that these agreements are used for the purpose for which they were originally intended and that there is no delay in the granting of building permits caused by the lengthy negotiations of these agreements.

Pursuant to section 106A, the landowner requested that the Board amend the obligation so that it would be exempt from the outstanding balance. As the Council did not fix the application, the developer applied to the Secretary of State. The planning inspector found that the costs of the highways would not be directly related to the authorized construction after the last building permit and that the construction of the road was not necessary to make the development acceptable.. . .