The Conservatives have proposed replacing section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a single developer levy, saying a simpler system could speed up housebuilding approvals.
It is a party proposal, not a change to the planning system. Section 106 obligations and existing CIL charging schedules remain in force, and developers must continue to meet the affordable-housing and infrastructure requirements that currently apply to their schemes.
The announcement was made by Shadow Chancellor Andrew Griffith at the Conservative Party conference on 5th October 2026. The party says its wider deregulation package could reduce the cost of a new home by up to £50,000, but that is a Conservative estimate, not a verified saving for a particular development or a promised fall in sale prices.
Need advice on planning contributions?
The proposed developer levy: what has been announced?
The Conservatives say they would replace section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) with one developer levy. Shadow Chancellor Andrew Griffith presented the idea as part of a wider package intended to make housebuilding faster and cheaper. ITV’s report of the announcement says the replacement charge would take the place of both existing mechanisms.
The party has described its wider package as “the most ambitious deregulation project in a generation”, ITV reported. Griffith also said the proposals would not create a planning “free for all”. Those are political claims about the intended effect. They do not establish how the charge would be calculated, who would set it, or what homes and infrastructure it would fund.
This remains a proposal, not a change to planning law. In England, section 106 obligations and CIL charging schedules continue to apply. The Conservatives have not published a technical design or draft legislation for the developer levy, so its practical effect cannot yet be modelled reliably.
What a developer levy would need to explain
A workable developer levy would need clear rules on its calculation. The party has not said whether the charge would be based on floorspace, development value, land value or another measure. It has not explained whether rates would be nationally fixed or set locally, when payment would fall due, or how phased schemes would be treated.
Other essential details include exemptions, indexation, viability reviews, small sites, brownfield development and strategic infrastructure. Councils need to know what income they can plan around; developers need to know what liability to include in land bids and appraisals. A simpler headline could still produce uncertainty if the charge changes during a long build-out or if local rates are not predictable.
Transition rules matter just as much. The Conservatives have not said how a replacement would treat permissions already granted, existing section 106 agreements, adopted CIL schedules, outline consents, phased developments or later amendments. Without those rules, there is no sound basis for assuming that the developer levy would reduce costs or speed up decisions in every case.
Affordable housing under the developer levy
Section 106 agreements are commonly used to secure affordable homes on development sites, as well as site-specific mitigation. CIL is a separate charge used to support infrastructure. The Government’s planning obligations guidance explains the role of section 106, while its CIL guidance describes the levy system.
Replacing the two mechanisms does not, by itself, answer whether affordable housing would continue to be delivered. A single developer levy could in principle fund affordable housing, require homes to be provided in kind, or sit alongside another policy mechanism. The Conservatives have not explained which approach they would take, how the number and tenure of homes would be set, or how money would be distributed between places with different land values and housing needs.
That is a central design question, not a technical footnote. If a new charge is collected at a different time or on a different basis, the balance between affordable housing, infrastructure and scheme viability could change. The party has also not explained how the developer levy would affect existing obligations. It is therefore too early to say either that affordable homes would disappear or that current delivery would be protected.
The earlier Infrastructure Levy work shows how much detail is needed before a developer levy can be judged on local rates, viability and affordable housing. That history is useful context, but it was a different proposal and did not replace the rules now in force. Planning Geek’s guides to section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy explain the present systems.
Agency changes would not automatically remove environmental duties
The Conservatives also propose abolishing Natural England and the Environment Agency, with their retained functions transferred into Defra. That would change the structure of public administration. It would not, on its own, repeal the legislation that gives those bodies their functions or remove environmental duties from planning decisions.
Natural England provides advice on protected sites and the natural environment. The Environment Agency has roles involving flood risk, pollution and environmental permitting. The Government’s environmental advice guidance for planning authorities sets out circumstances in which authorities consult these bodies. The proposal has not yet been accompanied by a function-by-function transfer plan explaining which duties would move, how they would be carried out, or what legislation would need to change.
Griffith’s assurance that the proposals would not mean a planning “free for all” does not resolve those questions. Until the replacement structure and any legislative amendments are published, existing consultation arrangements and legal duties remain relevant. The proposal is also separate from recent operational changes to Natural England’s routine planning advice.
The Future Homes Standard is a Building Regulations issue
The package also proposes scrapping the Future Homes Standard and related new-home requirements. A developer levy would not, by itself, change those Building Regulations. The standards are implemented through Building Regulations. Planning policy is a separate system, so changing building standards would not itself amend a local plan or grant planning permission.
The Government’s Building Circular 01/2026 says the regulations are due to come into force on 24th March 2027, with later commencement for specified higher-risk building work and transitional provisions. The Conservatives have not published the legislative wording or transition arrangements for repealing or replacing those requirements.
The party’s wider package is said to cut the cost of a new home by up to £50,000. No published methodology identified how much of that estimate is attributable to the developer levy, building standards, environmental rules or other measures. It should not be treated as a guaranteed saving on an individual development or a forecast reduction in the price paid by a buyer.
What developers and councils should do now
For now, developers and councils should continue to work under the current system. Section 106 negotiations, CIL liabilities, affordable-housing policies and environmental consultations remain in place. The announcement is not an instruction to change an appraisal, application or agreement.
The next useful evidence would be a detailed policy paper explaining the developer levy’s calculation, collection and distribution; how affordable homes would be secured; how existing permissions and obligations would be treated; and how local infrastructure priorities would be protected. The agency proposals and proposed changes to building standards also need clear implementation and transition details.
The announcement concerns England’s section 106 and CIL framework. It does not establish automatic application in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have distinct planning arrangements and devolved responsibilities. Until the developer levy mechanics are published, the practical position is straightforward: apply the rules in force today and wait for a formal proposal that can be assessed.
0 Comments