Delays in Section 106 Agreements: A Growing Bottleneck in the Planning System

As the UK faces mounting pressure to accelerate housing delivery, one persistent bottleneck continues to frustrate developers and local authorities alike: the increasing time taken to negotiate Section 106 (S106) agreements.

Originally intended as a flexible tool to mitigate the impacts of development—securing infrastructure contributions, affordable housing, or site-specific mitigation—S106 agreements have become, in many cases, a source of delay and uncertainty. For smaller developments and self-build schemes, these delays can be disproportionately disruptive.

Rising Complexity and Resourcing Constraints

One key factor is the growing complexity of planning obligations. As planning authorities seek to extract more value from development in line with local policy requirements—ranging from affordable housing to biodiversity net gain—negotiations have become lengthier and more technical. In many cases, legal teams are stretched thin, with delays exacerbated by staff shortages and competing workloads across departments.

Moreover, infrastructure providers—such as education, highways, and public health bodies—often provide input late in the process, or raise evolving requirements that result in multiple drafting rounds.

Impact on Decision-Making Timelines

Although statutory determination periods exist for planning applications, the reality is that applications are frequently “minded to approve” subject to a S106 agreement, with final decisions held in limbo for months. The impact is especially pronounced for schemes that would help address local housing shortfalls, including those like the recent Netherwood Lane appeal in Solihull, which concerned five self-build plots in a Grey Belt location.

In that case (APP/Q4625/W/24/3353109), the planning obligation was ultimately provided only after the hearing. The Inspector noted that the agreement followed earlier drafts, and accepted it without prejudice—but had it not been submitted in time, the appeal might have failed solely due to legal procedural delay.

Risks to Housing Delivery and Trust

Delays to S106 agreements not only jeopardise planning consents, they undermine trust between developers and authorities. In competitive land markets, timing is critical: uncertainty over S106 timelines can derail land options, financing arrangements, and even local plan housing trajectories.

For smaller developers or custom/self-builders, who may lack the legal and financial resilience of volume housebuilders, the risks are amplified. Protracted negotiations and legal fees can threaten scheme viability.

The Way Forward

Reform may be on the horizon. The government has previously proposed replacing S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a single, consolidated Infrastructure Levy. But until this is enacted, the sector must explore pragmatic solutions:

• Model S106 Templates: Wider adoption of standardised templates can cut down drafting times and legal iterations.

• Early Engagement: Encouraging earlier and more transparent input from infrastructure stakeholders can reduce surprises later.

• Dedicated Resources: Councils should consider ring-fencing planning gain resources or using Planning Performance Agreements to fast-track legal negotiations.

With housing delivery a national priority, there is an urgent need to streamline S106 processes without compromising on planning obligations. Without reform or resourcing, even modest schemes that meet pressing local needs will remain caught in the legal slow lane.