What is a planning obligation? Section 106 agreements are used to offset the impact of development on the local sector. They are used when the effects are so severe that they cannot be mitigated by conditions related to a decision to approve the plan. Under the Land Registry Act, local basic taxes are classified as „best interests“ and, therefore, a separate registration in the land registry is not necessary, as they are automatically mandatory for future owners and tenants of the land concerned. Nevertheless, many councils are taking this approach and are trying to impose such requirements on landowners who wish to agree on planning obligations. These agreements allow us to enter into a legally binding planning obligation with a developer in the context of granting the building permit. This obligation can be either a bilateral agreement between us and the landowner, or unilateral obligations of the landowner or developer. The scope of these agreements must be consistent with the following three reviews, as defined in the 2010 Community Infrastructure Regulations: legal audits of when a s106 agreement will be implemented are defined in Regulations 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Tax Regulation in 2010, as amended. There are a number of restrictions on the form of obligation that can legitimately be imposed as a planning obligation (see practical note: the legal test for agreements and interactions section 106 The government has made substantial changes to the Planning Policy Guidelines (PPG) in response to its consultation on negotiation acceleration measures and the S106 agreement as well as on affordable housing contributions and accommodation contributions for students , particularly in Section S106 , but also in related areas, including sustainability guidelines. We begin with the obvious remark that the imposition of a registration requirement on the land registry is not within the scope of Rule 122 of the CIL Regulation, as it is not „necessary“ to permit the building permit for the planned construction. There is no justification for the argument that the long-standing rules on planning obligations that bind future owners are in no way deficient.
