These new appeal 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 is not a substitute for provisions to amend a requirement established by the 1992 regulations and updated by the 2013 regulations (see above). Under Planning Act s106 (A), a person with the obligation can request that the obligation be amended or reduced after five years. If the s106 is not respected, it is enforceable against the person who entered the undertaking and against the subsequent owner. The s106 may be imposed by omission. The use of planning obligations (section 106/S106 agreements – legally binding agreements under Section 106 of the Planning and City Act 1990) has been reduced since the implementation of the CIL. However, new developments often have a direct impact on the environment, creating a need for additional infrastructure or improved municipal services/equipment. As a result, affordable housing and site-specific infrastructure, such as highway works, necessary to mitigate or enable the impact of construction, will continue to be secured by S106 agreements or specific planning conditions. They can also be used in cases where a development proposal results in the loss of an existing facility or location feature, and we require that the facility/function be replaced either directly by the developer or by a financial contribution defined in an S106 agreement. CIL is now the preferred method of collecting bundled contributions for infrastructure financing.
The S106 agreements have been reduced to implementation regulations and site-specific issues (whether or not the municipality has implemented a CIL) and have been subject to legal testing since 2014. THE ICLs cover general payments that require an evolution. The balance between the use of S106 and CIL will vary depending on the type of territory and the type of development. There are other guidelines for the balance between s106 and CIL, which are described in the April 2014 ILC guidelines: while this proposal is likely supported by developers who may be able to reduce the total liability of the IL and have fewer current obligations regarding the website that we would normally see in the s106 agreements, how this will work in practice is unclear. Contributions to the S106 programme remain the main means of ensuring that development is cost-effective for the infrastructure it supports. However, S106 agreements are naturally uncertain as to what they can provide.