Two years after the Home Builders Federation (HBF) first highlighted the scale of unspent developer contributions, more than £8 billion in S106 and CIL remains unused across England and Wales, with a significant portion dormant for over five years. For developers, it raises a critical question: if infrastructure isn’t being delivered, are these obligations still proportionate or commercially justified? This article explores why the issue persists and how reviewing triggers, outdated requirements and opportunities for modification or claw-back can turn S106 from a fixed liability into an actively managed commercial tool that protects viability and unlocks value.
Two years after the Home Builders Federation (HBF) first highlighted the scale of unspent developer contributions, the picture has not materially changed. In its refreshed analysis looking at the position in 2025, the data still points to a significant backlog of funds sitting with local authorities rather than being deployed into infrastructure.
Latest figures indicate that more than £8 billion of developer contributions remain unspent across England and Wales. This includes over £6 billion secured through Section 106 agreements and close to £2 billion collected through the Community Infrastructure Levy.
A sizeable proportion of this money has now been sitting unspent for more than five years. While these funds are often technically allocated to projects, the reality is that delivery delays, changing priorities and programme slippage mean large sums remain dormant.
For developers, this raises an important strategic question. If infrastructure is not being delivered in line with original assumptions, are the obligations themselves still appropriate, proportionate and commercially justified?
Many live S106 agreements were negotiated under very different market conditions. Since then, the sector has seen major shifts in build cost, funding cost, sales rates and policy direction. Yet agreements are often still treated as fixed cost commitments rather than commercial positions that can be actively managed.
In practice, we regularly see:
Across multi site portfolios, these inefficiencies can translate into millions of pounds of avoidable cost.
The fact that the HBF has revisited this issue two years on is significant. It reinforces that this is not a short term reporting anomaly. It is a structural issue within the system.
If billions of pounds are still sitting unspent years after collection, it strengthens the case for developers to revisit existing obligations and test whether they still meet the legal tests of necessity, proportionality and direct relationship to development.
It also strengthens the commercial argument in negotiations with authorities who are under increasing pressure to demonstrate delivery.
One of the most underused areas of S106 value recovery is claw-back.
Many agreements contain mechanisms that allow funds to be returned if they are not spent within defined timeframes or if specified infrastructure is not delivered. However, these clauses are often poorly understood, inconsistently monitored or simply not activated.
This is a core area we specialise in.
Our work includes:
For clients, this can unlock immediate capital recovery alongside longer term obligation optimisation.
With policy shifting, authorities under pressure to deliver and evidence now showing long term under deployment of contributions, there is a clear window for proactive review.
Developers who audit and challenge legacy obligations now are typically achieving:
The key point is simple. S106 should not be treated as static. It is a live commercial instrument that, when properly reviewed, can unlock real value.
Get in touch with Tori Hall our Development Management Group Director or Ben Wakeling our Head of Cost & Commercial, if you’d like to talk through any of your projects and how we can assist with gaining claw-back.
We’re always happy to share further insight and lessons learned across a wide range of project types. For more specific information on S106 Agreements have a look back on our webinar.
Explore how structural and building services design overlap across RIBA stages, why coordination matters, and how our integrated approach improves building engineering outcomes.
The UK’s housing delivery challenge is well-documented. Yet amid the national conversation about planning reform, infrastructure, and build-out rates, one group consistently punches above its weight: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) housebuilders. SMEs are a vital part of the solution, but they face very real and persistent hurdles development strategies.
At Brookbanks, we know EV charging becomes far more manageable when it’s approached as part of a wider development picture rather than an isolated task. Rising regulatory demands, limited capacity, cost pressures and the realities of underground or enclosed parking all interact in ways that can affect programme, viability and long‑term performance. This article looks at the recurring challenges we see across residential, commercial and mixed‑use projects and the practical steps that help developments meet Part S requirements, manage grid limitations, integrate load‑balancing and smart‑charging systems, and plan for solar PV and battery storage. The aim is to provide clear, grounded insight that helps teams design EV strategies that genuinely stand up to modern development demands.