The Government has opened a consultation on a standard Section 106 agreement package for medium-sized housing sites in England. Four draft templates have been published, covering bilateral agreements, unilateral undertakings and affordable housing schedules for full and outline permissions.
This is not a mandatory national agreement yet. The consultation opened on 25 August 2026 and closes at 11:59pm on 20 October 2026. Government intends the finished templates to become the normal starting point for relevant schemes, but the legal obligations for each site will still need to satisfy the statutory tests and reflect the actual development.
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What is the Government consulting on?
The consultation seeks views on four draft documents prepared under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They are intended to reduce the amount of familiar wording which is redrafted and renegotiated each time a medium housing scheme comes forward.
The Government’s standard planning agreements consultation is therefore more than an announcement that a template may appear later. The draft bilateral agreement, unilateral undertaking and two affordable housing schedules are available now for comment.
For the moment, councils, developers and landowners continue to use the ordinary Section 106 agreement process. The consultation documents have no automatic legal effect on an agreement already being negotiated.
Which schemes count as medium development?
The August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework formally introduced the medium-development category. For housing, the consultation describes a medium site as one providing 10 to 49 homes inclusive, with an area of up to 2.5 hectares.
That category matters because schemes of this size are often promoted by smaller and medium-sized builders. They can still require affordable housing, financial contributions, highways measures and other planning obligations, yet the legal costs and delay can be disproportionately heavy when compared with a much larger allocation.
The proposal is not a general statutory form for every planning obligation. It is a package aimed first at the new medium-site category, although Government says further model obligations and planning conditions will follow.
The four draft templates
The consultation package contains:
- A bilateral Section 106 agreement with standard clauses, financial contribution schedules and council covenants
- A unilateral undertaking with standard clauses and a financial contribution schedule
- An affordable housing schedule for full planning permission, including a discretionary cascade mechanism
- An affordable housing schedule for outline planning permission
A bilateral agreement is completed by the landowner or developer and the local planning authority. A unilateral undertaking is given by the landowner without the authority becoming a party to the deed, although it must still be legally effective and adequate for the decision being made.
The templates deal with recurring machinery such as parties, title, commencement, liability, successors, notices, indexation, monitoring, dispute provisions and mortgagee protection. Those are exactly the areas where two competent legal teams can spend time negotiating wording without disagreeing about the planning merits.
Could a standard Section 106 agreement genuinely reduce delay?
There is a sensible prize here. A planning committee may resolve to grant permission, but the decision notice cannot normally be issued until the required obligation is complete. Weeks or months can then disappear into title checks, repeated drafting and negotiations about clauses seen on many other sites.
A reliable national starting point could reduce:
- Duplicated legal drafting
- Arguments over familiar definitions and administrative clauses
- Post-resolution delay before a decision notice is issued
- Uncertainty for registered providers and lenders
- Disproportionate legal costs on 10 to 49-home schemes
- Pressure on stretched local authority legal and planning teams
It should also make early heads of terms more useful. Where the standard machinery is already understood, the real negotiation can concentrate on what the development must provide, when it must be delivered and whether the package is viable.
What cannot be standardised?
A Section 106 obligation is still site-specific. The statutory tests in regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 do not disappear because a clause comes from a national template. An obligation must remain:
- Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
- Directly related to the development
- Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
Local policy and the application will still determine the amount, location and tenure of affordable housing, the necessary infrastructure, phasing, occupation triggers, land transfers, ecological measures and any viability review.
The consultation expressly recognises that agreements must be considered site by site. The new NPPF says relevant national model obligations should be used unless there are strong reasons for a different obligation, but that is not the same as saying every council must accept identical substantive requirements.
In other words, the proposed standard Section 106 agreement could sensibly standardise the legal chassis. It cannot decide what the vehicle must carry.
Affordable housing schedules and the proposed cascade
The full-permission affordable housing schedule includes a proposed cascade. A cascade can set out what happens if the originally required affordable housing cannot be acquired or delivered in the expected way, for example by moving through alternative providers, tenures or other agreed outcomes.
The consultation describes this as discretionary. It is not proposed as an automatic escape route from affordable housing obligations, and the local planning authority would retain responsibility for deciding whether a cascade is appropriate.
That distinction is important. A developer cannot simply declare that there is no registered provider interest and treat the obligation as spent. The evidence, marketing process, local need, viability position, wording of the agreement and any democratic or delegated approval needed for a variation all remain relevant.
New engagement guidance for Section 106 affordable housing
Alongside the consultation, Government has published National Section 106 Affordable Housing Engagement Guidance. It is a voluntary collaboration standard developed by home builders, local authorities and registered providers rather than a new statutory duty.
The central message is refreshingly practical: speak to one another early. Registered providers should not first see a scheme when completed homes are about to be transferred. Early engagement can shape:
- Tenure and dwelling mix
- Design, specification and accessibility
- Mortgagee protection clauses
- Payment profiles and delivery structures
- Service charges and long-term management costs
- Nomination arrangements
- Handover, defects and aftercare
Greater transparency helps a registered provider decide whether the homes fit its business plan and local demand. It also gives the developer and council an earlier warning where specification, price, service charges or delivery timing may prevent acquisition.
Grant funding does not quietly replace the obligation
Grant funding and Section 106 affordable housing can work alongside one another, but they are not interchangeable labels. A grant may help a registered provider acquire homes or increase delivery, yet it does not by itself extinguish the planning obligation or prove that a different tenure is acceptable.
Where Section 106 homes are uncontracted, the sensible route is evidence-led discussion involving the developer, council, registered providers and, where relevant, Homes England or the Greater London Authority. The Government’s wider roadmap for Section 106 delivery also points to the Clearing Service and existing planning flexibilities.
Any proposed variation still needs to be considered against the agreement, development plan, viability evidence and public benefit. On some conversion schemes, Vacant Building Credit may affect the affordable housing calculation, but only where its own policy requirements are satisfied.
What this means for developers, councils and lawyers
For developers, the immediate lesson is not to pause a live application. The consultation has not replaced local precedents. Clear heads of terms, early title information and early registered-provider engagement remain the best route to avoiding a legal agreement becoming an afterthought.
For local planning authorities, the consultation is a chance to identify which parts of their precedent genuinely need to be local and which simply repeat standard machinery. A national template will only save time if unnecessary local amendments do not immediately rebuild the old complexity.
For registered providers, more consistent affordable housing clauses could improve certainty over mortgagee protection, nominations, transfer and delivery. For planning lawyers, the work should shift away from repetitive drafting and towards the clauses where legal and planning judgement are genuinely needed.
The proposal may therefore reduce friction, but it will not remove negotiation. Nor will it end the wider debate about planning gain, viability and the fair relationship between development value and the infrastructure a scheme requires.
How and when to respond
The consultation closes at 11:59pm on 20 October 2026. Responses can be made through the Government’s online consultation portal or by email or post using the details on the consultation page.
Government will use the responses to revise the templates. Until final documents are published and brought into the policy process, they remain consultation drafts rather than a mandatory standard Section 106 agreement.
