Copy article

Could standard Section 106 agreements genuinely speed up SME housing developments?

ended 27. August 2026

The government is consulting on four standard Section 106 templates for housing developments of 10–49 homes in England:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standard-planning-agreements-for-medium-sized-sites

The proposals include standard bilateral and unilateral agreements, affordable-housing schedules and a discretionary cascade where no affordable-housing provider can be found. This could involve six months of initial marketing, possible changes to the tenure mix and up to three further months before a developer can make a financial contribution instead.

Bridging Loan Directory is seeking views from SME developers, development finance lenders and brokers, planning consultants, property lawyers, local authorities and affordable-housing providers.

Would standard agreements materially reduce costs and delays? Could local variations undermine the intended consistency? Is the proposed six-to-nine-month cascade a workable solution where provider demand is limited, or could schemes remain in limbo? What effect could the proposals have on development funding, viability and lender confidence?

Recent first-hand examples of Section 106 negotiations delaying, changing or preventing a scheme are particularly welcome.

Responses of around 100–200 words by tomorrow morning, please.

3 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Tony Sanchez
Founder at Bridging Loan Directory
Through Bridging Loan Directory’s reporting, we repeatedly see that having development finance available does not mean a scheme can immediately proceed. Planning obligations, council capacity and uncertainty over affordable housing can all affect timing, cost and viability.

Standard Section 106 agreements could remove repeated negotiation over familiar wording, which should particularly help SME developers without the resources of larger housebuilders. But the value will depend on councils using them consistently rather than introducing extensive local amendments.

The affordable-housing cascade addresses a genuine problem where no provider will acquire the units. However, an initial six-month marketing period, potentially followed by another three months, may still leave a developer carrying finance and other costs for a considerable period. The test is whether the process creates a dependable route out of that position, not simply another sequence of stages to complete.
Copy

Editor
Iain Thompson
Director at Evolve Finance
Standardised Section 106 templates are a welcome step, but the proposed six-to-nine-month discretionary cascade mechanism is a hidden disaster for SME development funding.

Lender confidence relies entirely on timeline certainty. Forcing a mid-sized developer to spend up to nine months marketing to non-existent affordable housing providers before they can make a cash contribution will freeze pipeline liquidity. Development finance lenders will simply refuse to deploy senior debt while a scheme sits in this prolonged regulatory limbo.

While the templates might shave weeks off upfront legal drafting, local authorities will still insist on bespoke variations that undermine consistency. If the government genuinely wants to accelerate SME housebuilding, they must drastically shorten this cascade window. The financial carrying costs of a 9-month delay will destroy project viability long before the first spade hits the ground.
Copy

Editor
Nouran Moustafa
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Standard Section 106 agreements are absolutely the right direction. SME developers should not need a fresh legal war every time they try to build 20 homes.

But a six to nine month affordable housing cascade is still far too slow. If no provider wants the units, leaving a scheme effectively parked for most of a year is not a solution; it is bureaucracy wearing a new suit.

For development finance, time is money. Interest keeps running, contractors move on, costs change and lender confidence starts disappearing. A perfectly viable scheme can become unviable while everyone waits for a process to exhaust itself.

The Government says it wants SMEs building more homes. Then it has to stop designing planning systems as though developers have unlimited time and capital.

Standardise the agreements, limit local tinkering and give the cascade a much shorter hard stop. We do not have a shortage of planning paperwork in Britain. We have a shortage of completed homes.