Some interesting comments above - thanks for posting. It will be interesting to see how s106s could be used, bearing in mind Reg 122 and 123 restrictions (not to mention the restrictive nature of s106(1)itself), but also whether the relevant parties could be convinced to sign up to carry out works at specified times: a landowner is unlikely to want to do that, and a developer will want to be in control of its own programme. Could a planning authority actually covenant to carry out works? What if it did not collect in sufficient funds from other CIL development or a competing priority arose? Some of these issues will be easier to tackle than others, I'm sure. CLG has also kindly pointed out that the charging schedule does not list any items of infrastructure - the draft schedule's evidence base, which must show a funding gap, may well refer to an indicative list of infrastructure, but the published schedule goes no further in relation to delivery of that infrastructure.

Reg 123 looks more knotty every time I look at it. I have noticed that the term 'planning obligation' is defined in this Reg as including a 'proposed' planning obligation (save re Crossrail). Presumably that means draft s106s - which makes the detective work you refer to even more difficult, if not possible, and timing all the more critical.

Alexandra, my understanding of the procedure is that your way of issuing a letter detailing the amendments is fine, although I do think it odd that new conditions can be imposed in this way. It would be interesting to see if any other local authorities do things differently.

Quite - the procedures may be streamlined but working out what they are certainly isn't! My understanding is that the 'extension' procedure will not be a new power at all - the only new thing is that from 1 October the requirements to submit accompanying documents will be modified so as to be less onerous when you are applying for planning permission for a development that already benefits from an unexpired consent. You still start off at s62 TCPA 1990 and you still (hopefully) end up with a new consent. Presumably, LPAs will need to ensure that they apply any s106 obligations to the new consent too...

I see from the BBC news website that the Prince is being criticised again for making comments on architecture - this time in relation to the private letter he sent to Land Securities in 2005 relating to the One New Change development near St Paul's. Seems others are also concerned with his influence (whether it is successful or not).

should make an interesting FP? article