Back to Insights
Planning10 January 20266 min read

Section 106 vs CIL: Understanding the Key Differences

Two systems, one goal: funding infrastructure from development. But how do Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy actually differ?

Two Mechanisms, Different Approaches

When developers build in England, they may be required to contribute to local infrastructure through two main mechanisms: Section 106 (S106) agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). While both aim to ensure development pays its way, they work very differently.

Section 106: The Bespoke Approach

Section 106 agreements are legal contracts negotiated between developers and local planning authorities for each individual development. Think of S106 as a bespoke solution, tailored to address the specific impacts of a particular project.

Key characteristics of S106:

  • Negotiated case-by-case — Each agreement is unique, reflecting the specific circumstances of the development
  • Site-specific mitigation — Contributions must directly relate to the impact of that particular development
  • Flexible scope — Can cover affordable housing, education, healthcare, transport, and more
  • Triggered payments — Money is typically paid at agreed milestones (e.g., completion of the 50th home)

CIL: The Standardised Charge

The Community Infrastructure Levy, introduced through the Planning Act 2008, takes a different approach. It's a fixed charge based on the size and type of development, set out in a published tariff.

Key characteristics of CIL:

  • Non-negotiable rates — Developers pay according to a published charging schedule (£ per square metre)
  • Wider infrastructure funding — Can be spent on any infrastructure identified in the council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan
  • Transparent calculation — Simple formula: net additional floor space × CIL rate
  • Fixed payment timing — Typically due within 60 days of development starting

Side-by-Side Comparison

AspectSection 106CIL
NatureNegotiated agreementFixed tariff
FlexibilityHigh — terms are negotiableLow — rates are fixed
Spending scopeSite-specific mitigation onlyAny identified infrastructure
Affordable housingYes — primary mechanismNo — excluded from CIL
Payment timingAt agreed trigger points60 days from commencement
PredictabilityLower — depends on negotiationHigher — known in advance

How They Work Together

Despite early expectations that CIL might replace S106, the two systems now coexist. In areas where CIL has been adopted, S106 has been scaled back but remains essential for:

  • Affordable housing — Still delivered exclusively through S106
  • Site-specific requirements — Highway access, on-site open space, ecological mitigation
  • Larger developments — Where impacts cannot be adequately addressed through CIL alone

To prevent "double dipping," councils must publish lists of infrastructure types funded through CIL, ensuring developers don't pay twice for the same improvements.

The Management Challenge

For local authorities, managing both S106 and CIL creates complexity. Each S106 agreement has unique terms, trigger points, and spending constraints, while CIL has different reporting requirements and allocation rules.

Many councils still track these obligations in spreadsheets, making it difficult to maintain visibility over deadlines, allocate funds appropriately, and report accurately.

Looking Ahead: The Infrastructure Levy

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduces a new Infrastructure Levy intended to eventually replace both S106 and CIL. The aim is to create a simpler, more predictable system while maintaining or improving infrastructure delivery.

However, the timeline for implementation remains unclear, and both S106 and CIL will continue operating for the foreseeable future.

Struggling to manage S106 and CIL together?

Council Compass provides unified tracking and reporting for all your developer contributions.

Get in Touch