gowerthegroap wrote:
Forgive me, but the difference in text is...
AGREEMENT
vs.
PLANNING OBLIGATION BY UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING
What bearing (if any) does that have on proceedings?
They are BOTH Planning Obligations that are pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning act. The common parlance for such agreements is "Section 106 agreements".
If you read Section 106 of the Act it is clear that an obligation can be done in two ways, either by Unilateral Undertaking (where one party, in this case Yorkcourt, gives something to Local Authority, in this case WMDC) or by Multi-Party agreement, which is used in more complex situations, where more than one party is obligated, but the result is still the same, that the beneficiary is WMDC.
The reality is that there is no difference whatsoever, the wording is only slightly different because they were drawn up by two different sets of lawyers.
The final piece of this jigsaw is one that Peter Box and WMDC cannot get away from... it is their job as Local Planning Authority to enforce all planning obligations!
So, the question is why do they even deny one exists? Could it be that if they do admit one exists that then they are of course also admitting that they have failed to enforce it, to date?
