Appeal decisions continue to provide interesting reference points for the application of the legal tests in CIL Regulation 122 – and LPAs continue to apply their standard obligations policies without being clear on the evidence which would support compliance.
There are many examples of appeals involving the judging of s 106 obligations as either compliant or non compliant. By and large, inspectors take a more systematic approach to these points than do many LPAs and look at each obligation in turn, weighing up the evidence produced by parties as to whether or not CIL Regulation 122 is met. The recent appeal case involving the conversion of a former restaurant, “Saigon City” to residential use considered the commonly seen obligation relating to a s 106 monitoring and administration charge. In this case, the inspector took the view that even though the obligation was referred to as a standard requirement in the LPA’s 2010 supplementary planning document on planning obligations, it did not meet the statutory tests. Other obligations, including in relation to public art, were also found wanting in CIL Regulation 122 terms. Many LPAs continue to apply “across the board” policies seeking standard 106 obligations without properly relating them to the proposal in question.