Wednesday, 1 February 2012

A Section 106 agreement is NOT an ongoing planning permission

The Section 106 agreement under planning legislation is used to define developer/owner/operator contribution to the local surroundings affected by a proposed development, if or when a planning permission is granted. It is not in itself an ongoing planning permission and is restricted to implementation in association with the granted permission

This raises the question as to whether it is appropriate to sign a Section 106 agreement in conjunction with a Certificate for Lawful Development (LDC) and that also poses a further question whether a previous Section 52 agreement attached to a real planning approval can be varied by a Section 106 agreement attached to an  LDC.

I do not profess to be an expert in planning law but from my continued association with planning legislation over 45 years, I have never experienced a Section 106 agreement used in this manner and quoted as the panacea for any and every change at Manston Airport.

If Thanet District Council don’t have the courage to challenge this inappropriate use of a Section 106 agreement, then I feel the residents affected by airport expansion should challenge the situation in court.

The Night Flight consultation commencing tomorrow is a good opportunity for local residents to make the local authority aware that they are not pleased with the way these planning matters have been handled and insist that the whole situation be regularised through the norms of the planning system.


  1. Your are absolutely right readit although I don't hold out much hope. I live under the flight path and voted for this shower because they told me they would stop night flying. Never again will I fall for the propaganda from Labour.

  2. My understanding was that the Section 106 was intended to replace and update the Section 52. There were some issues with the Section 52. For example, it stipulated that the RAF would make decisions to decide how to apply it. I was quite comfortable with this because the RAF operated a 'good neighbour policy.' However, it needed to be changed when they handed over control of the airport to Wiggins. Sadly, the Section 106 was not confined to updating the Section 52. It opened to door to a whole range of night-flights. Again, as far as I can tell, the only rationale for doing this was that the airport operator told TDC that they needed night-flghts and TDC swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They didn't seem to consider the impact on local people at all.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the view that the Section 106 is no substitute for planning permission. When TDC was taken to court, it was quite clearly established that the planning status of the airport was unresolved. Although TDC was under no obligation to sort it out at that time, it was clear that it was their responsibility use the planning system to prevent the whole thing from getting out of control.

    Ever since then, they have been ducking and diving, authorising piecemeal expansion and making increasingly ludicrous excuses for inaction. The latest ploy is breathtaking in its idiocy. The notion that you don't have to do anything until intensification has taken place is so obviously wrong that you have to question the competency of the Council officers who came up with it. Can you imagine the Council telling a builder that he wouldn't need to apply for planning permission until after he had built the houses? It makes a mockery of the word 'planning,' which implies some forethought.

    In a funny (not ha ha) way it doesn't really matter if you are for or against night-flights. What should be of concern to everybody is the way TDC has subverted the planning system and attempted to construct and develop a full-blown international airport without ever considering how it might affect the residents. So lacodaisical have they become that, when presented with an application for a number of night-flights on a par with Heathrow, they somehow convince themselves that it doesn't need planning permission and there's nothing they can do about it. In my opinion, we would get more sense from the stuffed animals at Quex House, and they would cost us a lot less in Council tax.

    1. What do you know about the 106 agreement on the Pleasurama site?

    2. Anon 06:53. A 106 agreement on the Pleasurama site would only quantify the developer contribution to off site infrastructure required to properly integrate the site with its surroundings. My guess is that, as there is a large question mark over the developer of this site, there will be a larger question mark over whether any off site contribution was required at all.

  3. According to T Painter esq recently SFP contributed £600,000 of which £100,000 was to the cliff face refurb and the rest was roadworks and storm drain