Finally, it will be interesting to see if the unspent funds are actually returned to the developer. While the Commission has the authority to do so in the exercise of its public function, this is certainly not a requirement similar to the recovery provisions commonly found in bilateral S106 agreements. Millgate pointed out that this was the first case in which it was examined whether it was possible for the Commission to repay the surpluses within its powers under the 1972 Act. We could see further disputes if the Council cannot be held accountable or can prove that it has spent all the money for the purposes proposed in its strategy papers. As regards the introduction of statutory criteria by the CIL, most councils would undoubtedly argue that their requirements for Article 106 agreements already meet the political criteria. Sponsors and boards will look forward to inspectors` interpretation and approach to the Appellate Body, especially if the boards have attempted to charge the sponsor twice under both regimes. The aim is to ensure that commitments are local and proposal-specific and do not target a « pooled » community infrastructure of the type that will be supported by CIL payments. The Millgate inspector should now have carefully considered whether the proposed payments met the legal requirements in order to decide how much weight he should give to the obligation in his decision. Presumably, the introduction of the legal rather than political test will deter councils from adopting a « shopping list » approach that has little political support. It may also discourage a proponent from agreeing to pay amounts it deems excessive and would be dismissed in the appeal, only without challenge, since all savings would be offset by the delay and cost of the appeal itself. When an application for construction is submitted to Council, we will review the application to see if the development would have a significant impact on the area and the community. The judgment talked a lot about the voluntary commitment without Millgate presenting the need, and the fact that its application was a separate issue from the contributions themselves.
Justice David Pearl, who served as a substitute judge, stated at paragraph 30 that « there is no condition. that the obligation should only take effect if an inspector indicates that the obligation in question was necessary to make the accommodation acceptable. The problem, of course, is that the developer who promises to comply with planning obligations has no way of knowing what an inspector will decide, and must effectively « question » the decision, taking the risk that failure to provide it may be an essential consideration in dismissing an appeal. According to Millgate, appellants who must minimize the costs of planning approval must reconsider the form and content of unilateral undertakings in the absence of certainty about inspectors` decisions. We can see many more unilateral obligations filed on appeal, which depend on more than the granting of the permit and the implementation of the permit, or projects that are only carried out at the request of the inspector. This would give the developer at least some assurance that the amounts were correct and fair. Boards need to make sure their policies are sound, or they have to deal with the potential financial consequences if they don`t. We can also see that other attempts at mechanisms are being inserted into companies; it is subject to receipt of a letter confirming that the amounts are in accordance with Council policy within four weeks of the granting of the authorisation or similar authorisation. It should be remembered that companies are by no means perfect and have been designed as the second best option; A Council may very well reject a proposed commitment or wish to approve and amend it in the same way as negotiating a bilateral agreement. It should also be recalled that this is a question of the legality of the decision-making process in relation to the merits of the decision. § 106 (S106) Agreements are legal agreements between local authorities and developers; These are linked to building permits and can also be qualified as urban planning obligations.
Second, following the first question, the court noted that it is not for the Court to rule or intervene on the amount of the contributions if they appear disproportionate, provided that there is a sufficient link with developments to make them a substantial consideration. A planning commitment offered by a proponent is an essential consideration that should be taken into account if it is relevant to the proposals, but more importantly, the weight given to it is one for the decision-maker. .