The High Court ruled that “if the language used in the 2012 agreement is actually put in place, the obligations it contains will not be triggered by the implementation of development under the 2015 approval”. The Court held that it was not possible to interpret the agreement under Article 106 in such a way that the obligations applied to the 2015 authorisation, nor did it consider that the indication of a particular wording would be appropriate in the current circumstances. The High Court examined whether, following an authorisation to supervise dwellings subject to an agreement s106, the authorisations provided for in Article 73 were linked to the agreement for essentially the same development. Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC analyzes the verdict. Norfolk Homes Limited (“Norfolk Homes”) initially applied for building permits for the development of up to 85 housing units in the village of Holt, Norfolk. The other scenario is to submit a new construction application for a development identical to the one already authorized, but with another S106 or UU agreement. A new building permit necessarily requires a new S106 or UU agreement replacing the existing agreement. There is no planning fee to pay if the new application is submitted within twelve months of the last planning decision. A framework application can be an inexpensive alternative to a full application. Before you do that, you need to think about any other changes that may have occurred in the Planning Directive. For example, CIL may have been put in place or a new affordable housing policy has been adopted.

A framework building permit has been issued for 85 dwellings. The authorization was subject to an agreement s106 which ensured various obligations, in particular with regard to affordable housing. . . .