Talk:Planning gain

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger of s 106[edit]

I propose that s 106 be merged here and Section 106 agreement be redirected here instead of to Town and Country Planning Act 1990#Section 106. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree merge but NOT those targets. s 106 and Section 106 agreement -> Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Widefox (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK,

Done – Fayenatic London 11:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Planning gain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision / Suggest renaming[edit]

I have made significant edits to the page, including a number of cuts. In this I have aimed to address a few issues:

Bias: the existing article was principally about criticisms of the policy, which not justified given it is 30-years-old and hardly controversial
Out-of-date: the existing article was out-of-date in a number of areas (e.g. referring to MHCLG as DCLG) and included a lot of content about debates which took place between 2008-2010, which again is not justified
Unclear: in terms of overall clarity, the article was not written for a general audience. It also did not contextualise this issue as a UK-specific policy subject.

In all these areas, I have principally concentrated on removing errors, rather than writing new content - and I think there is a lot of work still to be done. In particular, a section on 'S106 history' and 'S106 details' (including exemptions) would be useful. Any help welcome.

Finally, I think this article is misnamed. "Planning obligation" is much more accurate and is more widely used. Including by the UK Gov (see refs): ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] benjamin₁₈₀ 17:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

References

[1] ttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations.

[2] ttps://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Planning_obligation

[3] ttps://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200232/planning_applications/58/the_decision-making_process/7

[1]

[2]

[3]