IN Brief:
- National Federation of Builders has questioned more than £9bn in unspent developer contributions.
- The funds relate to Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy contributions held by local authorities in England and Wales.
- The NFB wants clearer reporting, standardised Infrastructure Funding Statements, and stronger delivery timelines.
National Federation of Builders has challenged the scale of unspent developer contributions held by local authorities, calling for stronger transparency over how Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy funds are reported and delivered.
The NFB’s latest report focuses on more than £9bn in unspent developer contributions held across local authorities in England and Wales. The money has accumulated over several years and includes funds intended to support infrastructure, affordable housing, and local services linked to development.
The trade body argues that Infrastructure Funding Statements are inconsistent and difficult to compare across local planning authorities. It wants statements to be publicly searchable through a national database, presented in a standard format, and supported by project delivery timelines.
The NFB has also called for local authorities to publish project “storyboards” identifying funding sources and delivery milestones. It wants unspent contributions returned to developers after five years where funds are not allocated or projects have not been delivered within expected timescales.
Developer contributions are designed to mitigate the pressure created by new development, funding the infrastructure and services needed to support growth. When funds remain unused, roads, schools, healthcare facilities, open space, affordable housing, and local improvements can fall behind the development they were meant to support.
Research from the Home Builders Federation earlier this year also identified £9bn in unspent contributions, including Section 106, CIL, and healthcare-related funds. Some councils hold sums far above the national average, while other authorities face internal capacity constraints that make it difficult to plan, procure, and deliver projects quickly.
The issue is not only the cash sitting in local authority accounts. Councils must manage legal agreements, infrastructure planning, procurement, design, consultation, land, statutory processes, and inflation before money can become a completed project. A contribution secured several years ago may no longer cover the same scope if construction costs have moved sharply.
Development economics are already under pressure. Land caution, remediation exposure, and weaker transaction confidence have been visible in the market, including recent warnings around Gleeson’s land activity and profit outlook. Against that backdrop, developer contributions become more contentious when money has been collected from schemes but not converted into visible infrastructure.
Housebuilders and contractors are likely to support clearer reporting because dormant contributions can delay the local works that make future development more acceptable. Community infrastructure is often central to planning consent, and slow delivery can erode public confidence in both councils and developers.
Local authority capacity remains a major constraint. Planning departments, highways teams, education authorities, procurement units, and infrastructure delivery teams have all faced long-term pressure. Even where funds are available, the ability to turn them into completed roads, classrooms, healthcare facilities, public realm, or community assets depends on experienced officers and project managers.
Standardised reporting would help separate several different problems that are often grouped together. Some funds are legitimately held for later phases of development. Some are delayed by procurement, land, design, or third-party agreements. Others may lack a clear route to delivery. Without comparable data, it is difficult to distinguish between careful programme management and poor accountability.
For the construction sector, the backlog represents more than a planning dispute. Developer contributions can support a steady pipeline of smaller infrastructure, public realm, highways, education, health, and community projects. When those funds remain idle, local construction work is delayed and the infrastructure case for new homes weakens.
The NFB’s report increases pressure for a more transparent system. If government wants faster housing growth, the money already collected from development will need to move more reliably into the infrastructure that allows communities to absorb that growth.
