Breach Of S.106 Agreement

Planning obligations bind the rights holders, i.e. future purchasers of a part of the country subject to the obligations, since they are considered to be exploited with the land. This means that a planning obligation may be imposed both against the confederation of origin (usually the owner of the construction zone) and against anyone who later acquires an interest in the land. Even if a subsequent purchaser of a single home did not participate in the Section 106 agreement, which is subject to the agreement of Section 106, for example if the developer is not financially sound or cannot be found, the APA could take coercive action against the purchaser as a legal successor. If, for whatever reason, a proponent does not meet its obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) (called planning obligation/section 106), the local planning authority (APA) may take steps to enforce the obligations of Section 106 (TCPA 1990), as outlined in the convention. In the event of a breach of duty, the Authority can take direct action and recover the costs. The planning obligation is a formal document, a document that states that it is a planning obligation, that the lands concerned, the person who is in the obligation and their interests, and the competent local authority that would enforce the obligation, be identified. Commitment can be a single commitment or a multi-party agreement. A Section 106 agreement is part of a real estate developer`s planning process and subsidiary approval. This is a bilateral agreement between a real estate developer and an LPA pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). An agreement under Section 106 allows an LPA to obtain restrictions on land use or construction operations, or to contribute financially to local facilities and infrastructure. This was a Section 106 agreement on residential construction.

The agreement provided for the obligation to provide affordable housing on site or, if this was not possible, a sum of money paid. The problems of interpretation arose because the agreement stipulated that the amount of commuters had to be calculated by referring to the social housing subsidy, as was the case in 2003 when the agreement was concluded. The authors had considered that the social housing subsidy could change to some extent, but did not expect a complete change to the subsidy system. In general, the courts are prepared to apply the provisions of Section 106. However, it was found that the agreement in question did not specify the interest of the person who entered into the agreement, in accordance with section 106, paragraph 9, point c). Therefore, the agreement did not constitute a planning obligation within the meaning of the section, so section 106, paragraph 3, did not work, so the agreement could be applied to “any person who derives the title” from the original contract.

Comments are closed.