Joe Billingham, chairman of Prosperity Group, discusses Section 106 and why the government’s consultation on standard agreements is aimed at the wrong bottleneck
The government’s new consultation on standard Section 106 agreements goes after a familiar cause of delay. For medium-sized sites of 10 to 49 homes, the government proposes four national templates, including affordable housing schedules and a discretionary cascade when no provider can be found.
Using the same legal templates should shorten some negotiations. What they cannot settle is whether the homes have been designed in a form a registered provider is willing to take.
Section 106 makes housing associations more selective
There has long been an assumption that the Section 106 homes on a development will find a buyer. That assumption is now less safe. Housing associations face financial pressure and are more selective, while newer registered providers also test opportunities against their operational requirements.
The National Housing Federation made this case in its January 2026 report, ‘Maximising the impact of Section 106’. It found that early engagement more than doubles the proportion of Section 106 homes in a housing association’s pipeline than an approach taken only at completion. Almost all respondents said they avoid at least one developer with whom they’ve had a poor experience.
Price is only part of the decision. Providers assess whether the layout and tenure mix suit residents, what service charges will be, and how defects will be handled after handover. By the first serious conversation, most choices may already have been priced and consented. The provider can accept homes that don’t meet its requirements or request changes that add cost and time. If neither works, the affordable units may be left without a buyer.
Rising costs of building materials are putting off sales
Across the Midlands, the same issue is tied to viability. Build costs do not keep pace with sales values, and a sharp increase can quickly unsettle a phase. At one of our housing developments, window prices rose 25% between the first and second phases over roughly six months.
Higher-risk flatted buildings also face the time and cost of the Building Safety Regulator’s gateway process. The affordable element faces the same materials market and regulatory demands as the private homes.
When budgets tighten, a lower specification can seem like an easy answer. Much of that saving reappears later through higher maintenance costs or service charges, while the resident is left with a poorer home. Registered providers have learned this by managing homes long after the developer has moved on.
No specification fits every development
No single specification will fit every development. Quality is hardest to protect once a viability problem has surfaced and most design choices are settled.
An early conversation can identify something the provider will not accept or a design choice that creates an avoidable management cost, while there is still time to change it.
The government is right to look at standard agreements. They should cut repetitive legal work and clarify expectations. Affordable housing schedules will work best where the council, developer, and likely provider have had a serious conversation before submission. A cascade should be a backstop, not the planned route to market.
Connecting requirements with the right providers
That does not require every development to have a signed contract with a provider before planning permission is granted. Councils could instead ask developers who they have spoken to and how that feedback has influenced the homes. They can also connect smaller affordable housing packages with suitable providers.
A standard contract can shorten the route to signature, but it cannot rescue homes designed without a provider in mind.
The post The low-spec Section 106 home is running out of road appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
