Add Your Idea

Repeal Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act

3 Comments 2nd July 2010

If you assume that a property developer wheeling a barrow load of cash down to the town hall to buy a planning consent would end up in jail, think again.  It is perfectly legal under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

To “legalised bribery” add blackmail and extortion with council planners extracting huge sums of money from developers. Again, there is nothing unlawful about that.

This dark little corner of planning law also allows cosy deals between local authorities and developers which may not always be in the public interest.

The 1990 Act states:

106 Agreements regulating development or use of land

 (1) A local planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement.

(2) Any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including financial ones) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

Examine any planning consent for a major construction project and you will invariably find that a Section 106 legal agreement has been hatched up between the council planners and the developer. In most cases, the developer pays money – sometimes huge amounts – for his planning consent. Ostensibly, the contribution is to offset the impact of the development on local amenities such as roads and schools.

The problem is that it is up to the developer and the planners to reach a deal and tie it up in a legal agreement. This is unsafe and open to abuse.

Developers can buy influence over ill advised projects by negotiating large financial contributions to the council’s coffers. Greedy councils can also hold cash strapped smaller developers to ransom for extortionate sums.

The financial element of Section 106 agreements should either be taken out of the hands of local planning authorities and regulated by an independent body or scrapped altogether and replaced with a transparent and uniform land development tax that could be used for local roads, schools, etc.

Why does this matter?

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act is regarded by some as a licence for legalised bribery and blackmail in connection with land development..

The work of local planning authorities should always be above suspicion but  this piece of legislation is open to abuse both by developers and councils. It is in the public interest to replace it with a system that is above reproach.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


3 Responses to Repeal Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act

  1. Richard Matthews says:

    Good idea. I have seen very unpopular developments given planning permission and cant help thinking that section 106 contributions have unduly influenced he decision.

  2. Jules says:

    Councils are also assigning future maintenance/ responsibility to designated areas of common public land to residents (leaseholders & the ‘new fake’ freeholds) on new estates – so in addition to all that additional council tax they receive they dispose of the responsibility for swathes of land onto unsuspecting people with mortgages via maintenance fees tied into their deeds. If these residents fail to pay the properties revert to leasehold..

    • Angela says:

      Absolutely right. This is scandalous and an inpertetuity tax on residents who are usually quite unaware what they have signed up to. Often sold off to property investors/funds to make them a huge income at residents expense, and currently unregulated, offering no protection to fake freeholders. There’s no council tax discount either so it should all be done in a transparent way. An independent panel could work if it includes residents themselves or the parish council. Clearly Councils and developers can not be trusted to do this themselves without closer independent oversight. The system is broke. – in their favour.

Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea