You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Fixing Section 106: it’s time for a standardised, streamlined model
We need to remove avoidable complexity, reduce negotiation friction and restore focus to the outcomes that truly matter, write Stuart Tym at law firm Knights and Elle Cass at SLR Consulting
Stuart Tym is a partner in the planning team at Knights, and Elle Cass is head of strategic built environment growth at SLR Consulting
...more
In Section 106 agreements, we need to remove avoidable complexity, reduce negotiation friction and restore focus to the outcomes that truly matter, write Stuart Tym at law firm Knights and Elle Cass at SLR Consulting #UKhousingSection 106 agreements – once a tool to enable sustainable development and local infrastructure contributions – have now become synonymous with delay, inefficiency and red tape.
The average time to finalise a Section 106 has ballooned to 515 days, up from 425 just two years ago.
With more than three-quarters of local authorities exceeding a one-year turnaround, both developers and planners are feeling the strain. Housing delivery stalls, legal and planning resources are stretched thin and agreed contributions often remain unspent.
It’s time for a national rethink.
Read more
From both the legal and planning perspectives, the answer lies in a streamlined, standardised approach to Section 106 agreements. This isn’t about cutting corners. It’s about removing avoidable complexity, reducing negotiation friction and restoring focus to the outcomes that truly matter.
The current model’s overcomplexity has real consequences. Drafting inconsistencies, viability debates and layers of internal bureaucracy can paralyse even straightforward schemes. Planning officers, who were once proactive agents of development, now often lack the tools, capacity or confidence to negotiate effectively or swiftly.
Too often, councils are cautious to the point of paralysis. Some local authorities fear that adopting a standardised draft means surrendering commercial flexibility. In reality, a well-balanced national template could deliver both certainty and local nuance. If tailored properly, such a model wouldn’t diminish councils’ negotiating power – it would enhance it by enabling focus on truly site-specific issues.
“Some local authorities fear that adopting a standardised draft means surrendering commercial flexibility. In reality, a well-balanced national template could deliver both certainty and local nuance”
There’s a reason the Law Society developed a model 106 agreement 15 to 20 years ago, or why First Homes drafting (a government initiative to help first-time buyers) was broadly adopted with minimal problems. When done well, standardisation works.
Most Section 106 agreements share 90% of the same content – mitigation for affordable housing, education, health and so on. Yet this common ground is repeatedly redrafted, renegotiated and reviewed.
Why not take advantage of the abundance of technological tools to fix this? A publicly available draft, with drop-down options for typical obligations, would be programmed for consistency and speed. Initial drafts could be generated in minutes after a consultation. Councils could charge a reasonable fee to customise it where needed.
It doesn’t replace planners or lawyers; it frees them up for the more creative, bespoke and consultative aspects of their work.
A practical, centralised model could include:
-
Default clauses for common obligations, such as affordable housing, education and highways;
-
Indexed formulas to reduce financial disputes;
-
Clear viability review windows with standard thresholds and formats;
-
Enforceable timeframes for negotiation and signing;
-
Publicly accessible templates, perhaps hosted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or regional planning portals.
For councils struggling with resources, it’s a gift. Many local legal teams are overwhelmed with low-hanging fruit – minor or formulaic agreements that drain time, but offer little complexity. A standard model allows these to be processed quickly, ensuring attention is reserved for the genuinely challenging applications.
For developers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises navigating multiple local authorities, the benefits are immense. Predictability and reduced risk mean better project planning and finance structuring. Currently, even modest schemes may take years to navigate the legal tail-end of planning permission, sometimes for entirely avoidable reasons – old indexation dates, unscalable cash flow asks, or duplicated negotiation cycles.
We’ve seen local authorities resistant to commit to Section 106 negotiations until planning permission is secured, despite mitigation requirements often being clear from the outset. Others defer to committees or legal teams so late in the process that it causes months of delay. Worse still, councils going into special measures are now being advised to refuse applications if legal agreements aren’t signed within target timescales, further punishing developers for a broken system.
“We need to bring the legal and planning conversations forward, ideally after consultation, but well before committee”
We need to bring the legal and planning conversations forward, ideally after consultation, but well before committee. Heads of terms should be treated as a material consideration from the start. Developers are willing to engage early; the system must allow and encourage it.
There’s also a wider question of delivery. An estimated £6bn in agreed Section 106 contributions remain unspent. Some of this is due to bad policy design, where obligations are too generic or too specific to be usefully deployed. Some is simply due to poor monitoring. A well-drafted, standardised agreement can fix both problems. Funds must be ringfenced, but also realistically spendable within legal timeframes.
Remember, Section 106 agreements are supposed to enable growth, not obstruct it. The golden principle is that development should consume its own smoke – mitigating its impacts on schools, roads and services. That requires clarity, consistency and, above all, speed.
We believe a standardised, streamlined Section 106 model isn’t just helpful – it’s overdue. The tools already exist. The appetite, at least among many professionals, is growing.
With political will and a commitment to smarter planning, we can reduce negotiation timelines from years to weeks. Developers get certainty. Councils get capacity. And communities get the homes and infrastructure they’ve been waiting for.
Stuart Tym, partner in the planning team, Knights, and Elle Cass, head of strategic built environment growth, SLR Consulting
Sign up for our development and finance newsletter
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters
Related stories
