Talk:Planning gain
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Merger of s 106
editI 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)
- 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)
- OK,
Done – Fayenatic London 11:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK,
External links modified
editHello 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121100020/http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/contributingsustainable to http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/contributingsustainable
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120223071549/http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/603/23/5/3 to http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/603/23/5/3
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Major revision / Suggest renaming
editI 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- Out-of-date: the existing article was out-of-date in a number of areas (e.g. referring to MHCLG as DCLG) and included a lot of content about debates which took place between 2008-2010, which again is not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)