None of the amendments abolished s106 which is what you said. That's basic stuff and you ****ed it up! If you are a lawyer you must be a ****ing awful one!
Which is why I used the word "effectively." Schteeve, I don't know the level of knowledge on this board for the intricacies of planning law and, to be perfectly frank with you, I couldn't give a flying fart! No, you are correct, Section 106 Agreements have not been abolished, but their ambit and effect have been substantially affected for some transactions. If, as you appear to be portraying, you know anything about this subject, you will know that in order to give a complete "expert's" picture on this subject would necessitate going into some very detailed rules and regulations, backed up by not an insubstantial amount of back-fill on technical issues in order to make the subject half-intelligible to lay persons, and all of which would ultimately be of absolutely no use to anyone. Be my guest, if you like to give it a shot, and try explaining the three new statutory tests, the meaning of "double charging" and how the amendments to the rules attempt to eradicate that, and how planning authorities have been significantly curtailed in how they pool levies, which effectively gets rid of the old tariff system. Perhaps you have the stomach for it, but I don't. I simply cannot be arsed.
You may have just said "effectively" but previously you posted this: "There is no longer any section 106 agreements; that's been replaced with, what's termed, developer contributions." Which is nonsense. The very worst of lawyers would know that it's nonsense. Let's be honest, you ****ed up!
I'd love to keep chatting, Schteeve, but I have to get back to drafting a promotion agreement for a developer client of mine, and this idle banter is costing me money, mate.
Hiag "owned" again after yet another ****ed up post perhaps he was just trying to make a tit out of himself again #culprickhiag
Not really. It's all explained in the exchange of comments, for any non-wumster to see. Obviously, that discounts you and PISKIE.
Show me a thread that I have started that is a wum ! Show me posts that I have made were I am a wum! You do like to make a silly **** of yourself don't you Hiag.
So calling him a culprick was not meant to wind him up? I genuinely enjoy your posts except where you blindly back up Piskie and his obsession with HIAG. I wish I could convince you how bad it looks. Just let them bore each other to death and the rest of us can just talk about football again.
Says Sandy Mitty the sometime lawyer pro referee and rock guitar playing pussy magnet! go back to your day deaming sonny jim
It's a bit sad when somebody has such low self esteem that they are willing to make themselves look like an idiot on the daily, simply to get a response on an internet forum. Have you ever actually tried talking about football HIAG ?
I try to contain our spat to this board - it is sometimes impossible, as PISKIE has followed me on to the boards of other teams. Thankfully, he appears to be still banned from the Spurs board, so that, when I do visit there, I am able to engage in football discussions, rather than run the gamut of PISKIE'S inane obsession with me.
If you didn't make such obvious dumb wum comments, we might actually be able to talk about football. Think about it
