Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
'Section 106 planning obligations – speeding up negotiations'
followed a commitment made in the Autumn Statement in 2014 to speed up the negotiation and conclusion of these agreements. Viewed by many as a frustratingly protracted and complex part of the planning applications process, the consultation looks at
ways to prevent delays to development attributable to concluding s.106 Agreements.
Despite being issued as a consultation document, paragraph 13 suggests that changes to Government guidance will be forthcoming. As a short–term measure and precursor to legislative change, we are told that it will:
1. Confirm that negotiations should be concluded within statutory timescales;
2. Set expectations of earlier engagement at the pre-application stage to front-load discussions;
3. Encourage greater use of standardised clauses to minimize drafting from scratch; and
4. Set expectations for greater transparency over contributions both in respect of what has been raised and where the money has been spent.
The most intriguing proposal here is the suggestion of a dispute resolution mechanism to kick in when statutory or agreed timeframes have expired. It is here where the Government envisages that legislative change would likely be required.
Two particular scenarios are identified as being suitable for such a mechanism:
1. Where the scale and scope of mitigation measures required to make the development acceptable in planning terms cannot be agreed between the parties; and
2. Where the parties agree on the Section 106 “ask” but the process of completing the necessary agreement drags on beyond statutory or agreed timeframes.
So far, so good. But who should oversee such a mechanism? Well, for obvious reasons, it must be an external body or 'suitably qualified' individual who would help determine what was necessary to make a proposed development acceptable with their judgment
being binding on the parties.
Beyond this, there is also a sugg
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234