Reconsidering Section 106 through Comparative Analysis
This essay compares a small number of European and North American housing programmes and policies through their economic, political, and social outcomes, outlining their benefits and drawbacks. From this parallel analysis, the author proposes a new framework for the delivery of market-rate and affordable housing through London’s planning and regulatory system.
London’s housing crisis manifests in limited access to social housing, long stays in insecure temporary accommodation, accelerating rents and evictions, and geographical displacement that harms the city’s multi-ethnic working-class population. The severity of the housing problem stems from decades of neoliberalisation: the privatisation of council flats, deregulation of the private rental sector (PRS), and the demolition of council-built estates. In the year prior to the Thatcher government (1978), the nation had a strong public housing pipeline, which was subsequently weakened by a series of policy decisions.
Currently, London uses a system of planning gain, in which developers must meet obligations for affordable housing or community infrastructure provision in order to obtain local planning permission. Section 106 is the primary tool used to meet affordable housing needs, yet these commitments are often minimised upon completion of development. An economic analysis suggests that high prices reflect market inefficiency linked to land-use regulation, requiring increased density. The city’s fragmented planning system creates an inconsistent and complex network that can disincentivise developers from constructing housing. European models illustrate that, even without strong state institutional capacity, public–private partnerships can increase housing production while maintaining affordability regulations.
The essay concludes with a speculative housing model using private capital, expertise, and concession contracts to deliver housing while ensuring that government retains control of the asset. Two proposals, in Hackney and Sutton, were tested through viability assessments to evaluate the framework’s outcomes. Graphically, the essay is presented as a working policy paper, conceived as part of a rewriting of the 2021 London Plan.
London’s housing crisis manifests in limited access to social housing, long stays in insecure temporary accommodation, accelerating rents and evictions, and geographical displacement that harms the city’s multi-ethnic working-class population. The severity of the housing problem stems from decades of neoliberalisation: the privatisation of council flats, deregulation of the private rental sector (PRS), and the demolition of council-built estates. In the year prior to the Thatcher government (1978), the nation had a strong public housing pipeline, which was subsequently weakened by a series of policy decisions.
Currently, London uses a system of planning gain, in which developers must meet obligations for affordable housing or community infrastructure provision in order to obtain local planning permission. Section 106 is the primary tool used to meet affordable housing needs, yet these commitments are often minimised upon completion of development. An economic analysis suggests that high prices reflect market inefficiency linked to land-use regulation, requiring increased density. The city’s fragmented planning system creates an inconsistent and complex network that can disincentivise developers from constructing housing. European models illustrate that, even without strong state institutional capacity, public–private partnerships can increase housing production while maintaining affordability regulations.
The essay concludes with a speculative housing model using private capital, expertise, and concession contracts to deliver housing while ensuring that government retains control of the asset. Two proposals, in Hackney and Sutton, were tested through viability assessments to evaluate the framework’s outcomes. Graphically, the essay is presented as a working policy paper, conceived as part of a rewriting of the 2021 London Plan.