Councils have previously highlighted complexity of getting money out of the door
Local authorities possess more than £9bn in unspent developer contributions, according to analysis by the Home Builders Federation (HBF).
As part of planning agreements for new residential development, housebuilders are required to contribute money to help fund the local infrastructure and amenities necessary to support these homes.
The HBF has long criticised the perceived failure of local government to spend this money quickly enough, however councils say the complex systems involved in getting schemes off the ground can cause delays that are out of their control.
The figure identified by the trade body comes from a Freedom of Information survey which received responses from 243 local authorities in England and Wales.
The £9bn estimate is higher than the £8bn that the same organisation reported in 2024.
Of the money, £6.6bn was raised through section 106 agreements and more than £2.2bn through the community infrastructure levy (CIL). Around £3bn of the total sum has been held for more than five years.
Neil Jefferson, chief executive of the Home Builders Federation, said the unspent funds were “further evidence of a capacity crisis in local government and should be a major cause of concern for local communities and for ministers”.
He endorsed “urgent action” to ensure that the money was spent “promptly” and described the current situation as a “damming indictment on the ability of local councils to deliver to their communities”.
The HBF has urged the government to support councils to “get on a sustainable financial footing” so they can make “better and faster” use of these funds. It also suggested that unspent S106 and CIL payments should be taken into account when councils object to planning applications over concerns relating to infrastructure pressures.
The last time the HBF conducted a survey like this, the Local Government Association responded in defence of councils, arguing that money collected had to be held until it could be spent on the project for which it had been specifically earmarked.
”This can be a complex process which often requires pooling funds from multiple developments and other funding sources, such as government grants, while also relying on multiple and varying timelines for completion of development phases,” said Adam Hug, then housing spokesperson for the organisation.
He said delays could arise from “the need for careful financial planning to ensure contributions are used efficiently, with major projects such as schools or highways requiring significant coordination” and that affordable housing contributions could take time to utilise because of “processes including securing sites or obtaining planning permissions”.
No comments yet