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. An appeal may be brought if the authority does not change the planning obligation as requested or makes a finding within a specified time frame. Obligations that „are or must be made available to persons whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market“ fall within the scope of this new procedure. 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. Both Mansfield and York are useful barometers of the courts` current position on issues relating to the application of Section 106 agreements, when circumstances have changed since the date of the agreement. While in the past the courts have ruled in favour of findings to recover funds for the provision of public infrastructure to local authorities, these cases reinforce this situation.
In particular, if the logic behind the decision is followed in York in future cases; that, in the event of ambiguity, an effective approach should be adopted that allows local authorities, regardless of changes in circumstances, to enforce the objective of contributions to the financing of public infrastructure (as provided for in the agreement in point 106). In this judicial context, the development of Section 106 agreements is under increasing scrutiny by landowners/promoters and local authorities, as well as local authorities. DCLG has published a guide to support changes to the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which provides more detailed information on what is needed to modify and evaluate requests to amend the accessibility system in section 106. It is a guide to the form of the application, complaint and evidence; evidence of cost-effectiveness and how they should be assessed. In addition, as a result of the Ministerial Statement on Start-Up Homes, the guideline states that LPAs should not seek contributions to affordable housing development for affordable housing (but may still target s106, which will mitigate the impact on development). Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a person bound by an agreement under Section 106 to apply to the local planning authority for the performance of the obligation. 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.“ With respect to the amount, the court decided that the developer would have to pay enough money, so that the Council could provide equivalent affordable housing that is provided by the Section 106 commitment. The court recognized that this was a departure from the literal terms of the treaty, but found that „this is the only reasonable solution.“ The method of implementing an agreement under Section 106 is also included in the section itself, the injunctions and the authority that enters the country to carry out operations and