Media Release from ABC regarding S106b Outcome
Chilmington Green section 106 planning appeal dismissed by Planning Inspector
Ashford Borough Council has today (Tuesday 20 January) received the appeal decision notice from the Planning Inspectorate on the Chilmington Green section 106 agreement appeals. This concerned requests by Hodson Developments to discharge or modify 122 planning obligations.
The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal lodged by Hodson Developments regarding the Section 106 obligations at Chilmington Green development (up to 5,750 homes, schools, community facilities, infrastructure). The outcome is a significant win for Ashford Borough Council, Kent County Council, and the local community, as most of the developer’s requests were rejected.
An inquiry was held in spring last year. The Inspector considered whether each obligation still served a “useful purpose” under the statutory tests in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The vast majority of requests to discharge or modify obligations were dismissed, with the Inspector concluding that the existing obligations remain necessary and proportionate to the development’s impacts.
The Inspectorate’s decision reinforces the principle that planning obligations should be retained unless there is clear evidence they no longer serve a useful purpose.
Viability arguments must be balanced against the public interest in securing infrastructure, affordable housing, and community benefits. The stewardship model and timely delivery of facilities remain central to the vision for Chilmington Green.
Cllr Linda Harman, Ashford Borough Council’s portfolio holder for planning, said: “We have worked closely with KCC to demonstrate why we believe important pieces of infrastructure must be delivered at the right time, alongside houses being built – not way down the line. This is the only way to truly create places people want to live and this is the message we hear at every planning consultation.
“We have fought hard to get the very best for the community and we believe this action will lead to Chilmington Green being a higher quality, sustainable well-planned out development.”
Cllr Harman added that if developers breach a Section 106 agreement, then the Council won’t tolerate such failure. S106s are signed agreements following extensive negotiation to deliver, in this case, what a garden community needs to create a thriving place that provides the infrastructure to ensure long term sustainability for over 5,000 homes.
Planning Inspectorate decision in more detail:
Approach to Viability
The Inspector clarified that financial viability is not an overriding factor in deciding whether obligations should be discharged or modified. The statutory test is whether the obligation serves any useful purpose, not whether it makes the scheme viable.
Viability concerns alone do not justify removing obligations if they continue to serve planning or community purposes.
Affordable Housing and Community Facilities
Requests to reduce or delay affordable housing provision, change tenure mix, or remove extra-care housing were dismissed.
The Inspector found these obligations continue to serve important purposes in meeting local housing needs and ensuring a balanced community. Modifications that would delay delivery of community facilities (such as the Community Hub, play spaces, allotments, and sports facilities) were also dismissed, as timely provision is essential for sustainable development.
Management and Stewardship
Proposals to weaken the role of the Chilmington Management Organisation (CMO) or reduce financial support for its long-term stewardship were rejected.
The Inspector emphasised the importance of community-led management for public spaces and facilities.
Infrastructure and Bonds
Requests to discharge obligations for infrastructure bonds (e.g., for highway improvements and schools) were dismissed.
The Inspector found that these bonds provide essential security for public investment and ensure infrastructure is delivered alongside housing. The Inspector noted that inability to obtain a bond due to market conditions or developer financial strength does not remove the need for such security.
Environmental and Social Contributions
Obligations for ecological enhancement, public art, archaeology, library, youth services, and social care contributions were upheld. The Inspector found these continue to serve useful purposes in mitigating the impacts of development and supporting the wider community.
