3rd Report - Delivering 1.5 million new homes: Land Value Capture

There is scope to reform the current system of developer contributions in England to capture a greater proportion of land value uplifts from development to deliver affordable housing and public infrastructure. There is a compelling case for such reforms—especially in the context of a deepening housing crisis and with public finances currently under strain. However, a radical departure from the Section 106/Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regime, which currently constitute the existing mechanisms of land value capture in England, would risk a detrimental impact on the supply of land in the short-term. We recognise that this would be disruptive to the Government’s housebuilding agenda. (Conclusion, Paragraph 26)

Reforms to land value capture should be iterative, starting with improvements to existing mechanisms. Therefore, the Government must immediately pursue the reforms to Section 106 and CIL outlined in the chapters below. These reforms must optimise the system’s capacity to capture land value uplifts and deliver infrastructure and affordable housing—particularly homes for Social Rent—in line with the Government’s wider policy ambitions. The Government must also trial additional mechanisms of land value capture in areas where there are significant uplifts in land value which current mechanisms may not capture effectively. Specifically, the New Towns programme discussed in Chapter 5 presents a vital opportunity to test new ways of financing infrastructure delivery on large developments and learn lessons for future reforms. (Recommendation, Paragraph 27)

Any reforms to land value capture should also be considerate of the wider tax system, to balance public needs and equitable charges on development. To support this work, the Government should publish updated land value estimates, which were last published in August 2020. If the Government does not intend to do so, it must explain why it no longer publishes this data. (Recommendation, Paragraph 28) 61 Reforms to Section 106 agreements

There is a strong case for the introduction of template clauses for aspects of Section 106 agreements across England, as was recommended by the National Audit Office and others. Templates would allow local authorities to focus negotiations on site-specific factors rather than legal wordings. Template clauses would also allow for greater standardisation and clarity of requirements across all local authorities, and in turn reduce the workload of local authorities and Small and Medium-sized Enterprise developers. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)

As part of the site thresholds consultation that will take place later this year, the Ministry must seek views on how standardised Section 106 templates could most effectively streamline the negotiation process across sites of all sizes. Based on the consultation responses, the Ministry must work with the Planning Advisory Service to develop a suite of Section 106 template clauses and publish these within six months of the consultation closing. Alongside their publication, the Ministry must also update its guidance to local authorities on Planning Obligations to encourage local authorities to adopt these template clauses. (Recommendation, Paragraph 37)

Local planning authorities across England are frequently under-resourced and stretched to deliver on local priorities. The Government’s funding for 300 new planning officers demonstrates that it recognises this problem, but this announcement equates to less than one planning officer on average for each local authority in England. At the same time, the Government is restricting access to apprenticeships to train the next generation of public sector planners, despite the Government’s ambition for more young people to pursue degree-level apprenticeships. The establishment of Strategic Authorities and the reintroduction of strategic planning in England is an opportunity to address these resourcing challenges. The Government must ensure that all levels of local government are collaborating effectively on shared planning matters. The private sector stands to benefit from a better resourced and more streamlined planning system, so developers should also make an additional contribution towards the staffing of Strategic Authorities. (Conclusion, Paragraph 47)

The Government must take a more strategic approach to boost the skills and capacity of local planning authorities, starting with reinstating access to funded Level 7 planning apprenticeships for students over the age of 21. The Government must invest in dedicated planning officers for Strategic Authorities and set out its plans for doing so in response to this Report. Each Strategic Authority planning team should include specialist planning skills units to support local authorities, to allow for more effective resource sharing between authorities. This must include a Section 106 62 support service in each Strategic Authority, with a remit to share expertise and advise local planning authorities on Section 106 negotiations. (Recommendation, Paragraph 48)

Once the Planning and Infrastructure Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must make regulations to allow local planning authorities to take into account the cost of local and regional plan-making when calculating local planning fees. Local planning authorities and Strategic Authorities should be allowed to spend these contributions from planning fees on staffing and resources to deliver their core functions and improve local plan coverage. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)

Local planning authorities across England have expressed concern that protracted Section 106 negotiations are causing delays to housing delivery. Drawn out negotiations do not benefit public outcomes and cause undue delays to development, which may impede the Government’s housebuilding ambitions. Whilst we recognise the Minister for Housing and Planning’s concerns that introducing a dispute resolution scheme may add complexity to the system, we believe the potential benefits to affordable housing delivery and unlocking stalled development outweigh this risk. (Conclusion, Paragraph 54)

The Government should introduce a statutory Section 106 dispute resolution scheme, under the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. If the Government does not intend to pursue this, it should set out a detailed explanation as to why the Ministry has chosen not to implement the provision legislated for by Parliament in the 2016 Act. This should include setting out any specific technical or legal barriers to implementation which the Ministry has identified. (Recommendation, Paragraph 55) Viability assessments

Too often, site-specific viability assessments are used by developers to negotiate down affordable housing requirements in circumstances where this is completely unjustifiable. Affordable housing contributions are frequently the first provision to be cut following a viability assessment, even where a developer may be making other significant contributions through Section 106 agreements and CIL. In areas with high land values, viability assessments should only be used in this way in very exceptional circumstances. Currently, not all local authorities have their affordable housing requirements clearly set out in local policy. Greater clarity from local authorities would provide developers with the right incentives to avoid lengthy viability negotiations, and ensure more applications are meeting local affordable housing requirements from the outset. (Conclusion, Paragraph 70) 63

As part of its ongoing review of the viability planning practice guidance, the Government must consider how different types of developer contribution could be re-negotiated following a viability assessment, to protect affordable housing contributions. The Government must also update national policy to encourage all local authorities to set a minimum percentage target for affordable housing in their Local Plan for all major developments that include housing. This figure should be based on a local need assessment for affordable housing in each local authority, with particular regard for the local need for Social Rent homes. Local authorities should be encouraged to offer a ‘fast-track route’ for developments which meet the local affordable housing target, by making those developments exempt from detailed viability assessments and re-assessments later in the development process. This would encourage developments with a high percentage of affordable housing and speed up the delivery of housing of all tenures. (Recommendation, Paragraph 71)

The Government must continue to develop its proposal to publish indicative benchmark land values to inform viability assessments on Green Belt land across England. The Government must publish different benchmark land values for each region of England, to reflect variation in land values. The Government must also ensure that the viability planning practice guidance contains clear advice on the “local material considerations” that would warrant local adjustments. The Government should continually review the effectiveness of the policy and consider how it may be extended to development on land that is not in the Green Belt. (Recommendation, Paragraph 72) Reforms to the Community Infrastructure Levy

Around half of local planning authorities have adopted CIL, and its uptake has remained broadly unchanged for several years. There has been little progress towards addressing the complex patchwork of CIL coverage and charging schedules across England in the years since the 2016 CIL Review Group report. This complexity is further exacerbated by a lack of transparency of coverage, as the Government does not publish regular data on which local authorities are charging CIL and at what rates. It is likely that the Ministry already holds this data centrally. (Conclusion, Paragraph 79)

The Ministry must publish an interactive map of CIL coverage on its website, updated quarterly to include the rates charged in each local authority in England. Publishing a national map would support the housing sector to navigate different charging schedules across local authorities; would enable greater public scrutiny of the variations between local planning 64 authorities; and would allow the Government to demonstrate how any future reforms to CIL are improving coverage and infrastructure outcomes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)

Currently, stretched local planning authorities are likely to focus their limited staffing and resources on affordable housing delivery as a priority, rather than establishing and administering CIL, even where CIL may be financially viable. The reintroduction of strategic planning in England presents an opportunity for greater co-operation between local authorities, including by pooling CIL receipts to deliver larger infrastructure projects. This collaboration may also encourage more local authorities to establish CIL charging schedules across a wider area, and thus improve CIL coverage. This adds to the case that the Government must invest in dedicated planning officers for the new Strategic Authorities. (Conclusion, Paragraph 87)

It is important that existing local communities and new residents see the benefits of development, with new local and regional infrastructure being delivered alongside housing. This is especially the case when local authorities choose to pool CIL receipts to deliver large infrastructure projects. Whilst the Government should encourage local authorities to deliver strategic infrastructure using CIL receipts where appropriate, it must provide support for all local authorities to publish Infrastructure Funding Statements (IFSs) annually, to ensure residents can see how CIL receipts are spent. Local planning authorities must also ensure their IFS considers plans for public sector investment in infrastructure, including from borough and county councils, alongside new major developments. (Conclusion, Paragraph 88)

The Ministry must review its guidance to local authorities on IFSs, to ensure all local authorities have a clear, up-to-date IFS which sets out how CIL receipts will be used locally, and when they will be pooled to deliver larger infrastructure projects. The Ministry should also publish local authorities’ IFSs on the national map of CIL coverage, to collate this information and ensure all local authorities have an up-to-date IFS, as required by legislation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 89) New Towns

The Government’s New Towns programme is likely to require billions of pounds of public and private investment over several decades, including millions from HM Treasury to establish development corporations during this Parliament. The Government has not yet set out where this funding will 65 come from. It is likely that many of the locations where new settlements are planned will require significant upfront infrastructure investment to support new communities. (Conclusion, Paragraph 102)

Whilst the Government’s plan to allow all mayors of strategic authorities to charge Mayoral CIL is a welcome step towards greater fiscal devolution, the Government must go further to support local leaders with revenue raising powers to deliver infrastructure and housing. In particular, the Government should enable greater use of Tax Increment Financing—a model which has delivered successfully in London—to fund infrastructure in cities and in New Towns. (Recommendation, Paragraph 103)

There is significant potential to use land value capture as part of funding the proposed New Towns, especially on green field sites. However, we are concerned that the Government has announced substantial detail of the 12 potential sites without a planning policy to protect land value, contrary to the recommendation of the New Towns Taskforce. It appears that the Government has not yet established any delivery body to purchase land or enter agreements with landowners, which risks allowing developers considerable time to acquire sites for speculative development and immediately push up land values. The Taskforce said that, in the worst-case scenario, this could “jeopardise New Town plans”. (Conclusion, Paragraph 112)

The Government must immediately conduct an analysis of Existing Use Values (EUV) on each of the 12 sites to maximise the capture of future land value uplifts, and develop plans for using appropriate mechanisms for land value capture on each site. This must include the option of development corporations using Compulsory Purchase Orders to assemble land where ownership is fragmented or negotiations stall. The Government must ensure arrangements for the purchase of land on New Towns sites are in place before it announces its final decision on locations by spring 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 113)

We welcome that the Government has stated its preference for New Towns to be delivered through development corporations with powers of land assembly, under a similar model to the 20th century new towns. However, the Government has not yet announced any new direct funding for the New Towns programme, and has so far indicated that it will rely primarily on private financing from institutional investors. If the Government is to realise the full potential of the development corporation model, it must ensure they have access to their own capital funding to build infrastructure to unlock housing development. Whilst we welcome the Taskforce’s recommendation for a minimum target of 40% affordable housing of which at least half should be for Social Rent, this must not restrict development corporations 66 from using land value capture mechanisms to negotiate a greater contribution of Social Rent homes on sites where this is financially viable. (Conclusion, Paragraph 114)

At the Autumn Budget 2025, the Government must announce new funding to establish the development corporations, so they can commence land acquisition on the first sites without delay, and complete this work by spring 2026. The development corporations must be mandated to prioritise the delivery of homes for Social Rent within the 40% affordable homes requirement, rather than other types of affordable housing. Development corporations must be granted comprehensive planning powers and access to capital funding to fulfil this objective. (Recommendation, Paragraph 115)

The Ministry is right to prioritise New Towns which have the greatest potential to boost housing supply in the short-term, but its plan to “get spades in the ground on at least three new towns in this Parliament” does not match the scale of the Government’s housebuilding ambition. The New Towns programme can and must make a contribution towards increasing housing supply during this Parliament. (Conclusion, Paragraph 116)

The Government must immediately clarify how housing delivery in New Towns will interact with local authority housing need targets. In its final response in spring 2026, the Government must include a roadmap for the New Towns programme, to show when each development corporation will be established, when development will commence on each site, and the estimated development timeline for each New Town. (Recommendation, Paragraph 117)

For decades, there has been a perception that HM Treasury’s investment decisions have benefitted some parts of England at the expense of others. We therefore welcome HM Treasury’s Green Book reforms to introduce place-based business cases, which will change how costs and benefits are assessed for major housing and infrastructure investments. However, it is concerning that the Government has not yet launched its pilot projects under the new model, which is due to be implemented nationally in spring

In response to this Report, the Government must provide a timeline for when it will launch its pilot projects using place-based business cases, and when the new model will be rolled out nationally. It must also set out how it will ensure the Green Book reforms will see the benefits of the New Towns programme realised across England, including in regions with lower potential land value uplifts. (Recommendation, Paragraph 122) 67 Delivering 1.5 million new homes

The housing sector is eagerly awaiting the Government’s Long-Term Housing Strategy, which it first announced in July 2024. Originally, this was to be published alongside the Spending Review in spring 2025. The continuing lack of a cohesive plan to deliver 1.5 million new homes has left the sector in the dark. We are also deeply disappointed that the Government has been unwilling to engage with us on the development of the Strategy, or provide any updates on its delayed publication, other than to tell us that it will be published “later this year”. (Conclusion, Paragraph 140)

Sector representatives have expressed doubt as to whether the target will be achievable by July 2029, and Ministers have themselves described the 1.5 million target as “stretching” and “hugely ambitious”. The Government was right to set an ambitious target, but this must be supported with a clear Strategy to meet that target. Further delays to the Strategy risk jeopardising the Ministry’s headline policy objective. (Conclusion, Paragraph 141)

The Government can only begin to make significant progress towards its 1.5 million target once the sum of local housing need targets in Local Plans add up to that figure. Whilst the Government’s reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework seek to plan for approximately 370,000 new homes per year, local authorities will take several years to transition to this national annual target, as the currently Local Plans take seven years to produce and adopt on average. The Government has stated its ambition to introduce a 30-month plan-making timeline, but the relevant provisions in the Levelling- up and Regeneration Act 2023 to speed up plan-making have still not been implemented. (Conclusion, Paragraph 142)

The Government must immediately bring forward its Long-Term Housing Strategy without further delay. It must set out an ambitious, comprehensive, and achievable set of policies that will deliver 1.5 million new homes by July

We are seriously concerned by media reports that London’s affordable housing target could be cut. Whilst the 1.5 million national target cannot be met without a significant increase in housing supply in London, a significant proportion of those new homes must be affordable to local people. During our inquiry we heard that London’s model of affordable housing targets, and a ‘fast-track’ viability route, is one which should be replicated across England, to provide certainty to developers and deliver more affordable housing. The Greater London Authority itself told us that reductions in affordable housing requirements can result in inflated land values and/or developer returns and slow down delivery. (Conclusion, Paragraph 147)

We are also concerned to hear that the Secretary of State may be considering suspending local authorities’ powers to charge the Community Infrastructure Levy to address concerns about development viability. None of the evidence to our inquiry—including from representatives of developers—advocated abolishing CIL entirely as a means of addressing viability concerns. On the contrary, we heard that the Government should reform CIL to extend its coverage where it is viable. CIL is an effective tool to support infrastructure funding and unlock housing development in the local authorities where it is charged. (Conclusion, Paragraph 148)

The Ministry must continue its work with the Greater London Authority to deliver an acceleration package, so that London boroughs are delivering housing in line with their local housing need targets. In response to this Report, the Ministry must provide its assessment of how changes to London’s affordable housing target may deliver more affordable housing units, by increasing the number of new homes built overall. Any reduction to London’s affordable housing target must be accompanied by a clawback mechanism to ensure developers return a portion of their profits to the local authority, ringfenced for affordable housing delivery, if a development surpasses an agreed benchmark profit. If London’s affordable housing target is reduced and the number of affordable housing units delivered declines, the Ministry and the Greater London Authority must commit to reinstating the 35% target. (Recommendation, Paragraph 149) 69