Social and affordable housing question

[billy no mates]

In a planning application for a development where there would be an obligation to provide social and affordable housing under the terms of the planning act, my interpretation of this act is that the developer when making the application shall state how he intends to comply with this requirement. In an application that I'm studying there is simply a letter from the council stating that this will be discussed with them 'after' the planning permission is granted. What authority do they have to deviate from the regulations in this way?
Surely in doing it this way the developer has the advantage knowing that permission is already granted and that he now has to use all his negotiating skills (and other means) escape as lightly as he can.
If it were discussed before permission is granted the advantage would be with the planning authorities in negotiating the best possible outcome by making it a condition for granting of permission?
Is this sort of behaviour unusual?

[publicrealm]

Billy,

It is standard practice for the developer or agent to discuss in advance with the local authority and to agree that a condition to be inserted requiring that delivery of S&A housing be agreed prior to commencement of development. This does not disadvantage the local authority in any way.

The Regulations allow for a wide variety of ways of satisfying the requirements - and the developer is perfectly within his rights to negotiate within the permitted options.

[madisona]

It shouldn't really make a difference. The local authority still has full power after the planning permission is granted on whether they want the developer to provide the 20% or whether they instead decide that there is no demand for affordable housing in the area and "negotiate" in order to give the developer an exemption. Either way there is no advantage to the developer as the decision is made by the local authority

[PVC King]

The local authority still has full power after the planning permission is granted on whether they want the developer to provide the 20% or whether they instead decide that there is no demand for affordable housing in the area and "negotiate" in order to give the developer an exemption. Either

Is that a joke?