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. In August, the Court of Appeal issued a decision in York City Council/Trinity One (Leeds) Ltd  EWCA 1883, in which it examined how the text of a section 106 obligation was to be interpreted when the Commission sought to impose it. On the face of it, the agreement did not make sense, because circumstances have changed so much since it was concluded. The possibilities for the common use of planning obligations are the guarantee of affordable housing and the definition of the nature and date of that dwelling; to make financial contributions to the provision of infrastructure or affordable housing. But these are not the only uses for a s106 obligation. A s106 obligation may: when an application to amend or discharge a planning application is submitted to the local planning authority, it may, in accordance with Section 106A (6), determine: Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a person bound by a Section 106 agreement to request the implementation of the commitment from the local planning authority. The local planning authority should respect the obligation when it is no longer useful. The courts have previously expressed differences of opinion on the interpretation of the “useful purpose.” 38. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, I do not see why the precise nature of the specific objective of the undertaking should in principle decide whether the Authority has the power to unload it. The crucial question is whether the commitment serves a useful function whose absence renders it unnecessary to maintain the commitment.
As a result, I think the inspector was wondering whether the obligation had a useful purpose and not a useful planning objective. With respect to developer contributions, the Community Infrastructure Tax (CIL) did not replace the Section 106 agreements, which strengthened the s 106 tests. S106 agreements on developer contributions should focus on correcting the specific weakening required for a new development. CIL was designed to address the broader effects of development. There should be no circumstances in which a developer pays CIL and S106 for the same infrastructure for the same development. In July 2016, the developer asked the city council to discharge the contract s106. Between April 2010 and July 2016, roadworks were completed and $160,000 was paid by the developer under the terms of the agreement.