Do developer obligations stimulate or stifle housing supply? The case of community infrastructure Levy in England
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7472402 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Anupam Nanda (0000-0002-3036-5890, University of Manchester), Sotirios Thano (0000-0003-0007-4002, University of Manchester, corresponding author), Sotirios Thanos, Eero Valtonen (0000-0002-4368-6036, University of Manchester) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 172 |
| Pages | 106913 |
| Publication date | 2026-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cities (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0264-2751 • E-ISSN: 1873-6084 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cities.2026.106913 |
| OpenAlex | W7130364963 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 45 |
National and local governments need to engage in a delicate balancing act so that the costs of new and/or improved local infrastructure tied to housing development does not stifle it. Addressing a notable gap in the literature, we focus on the impact of land-value capture tools on housing supply by analysing the piecemeal adoption of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in England, 2009–2019. The endogenous relationship among housing supply, land-value capture and affordable housing is the key challenge in such analysis, which we address through a dynamic panel estimator. The adoption of CIL has a − 0.33% effect on supply only for local authorities that have not activated the flexible ‘exceptional circumstances relief’ mechanism. The CIL with the relief mechanism is shown to have a 0.65% effect in the supply-constrained Greater London. The privately provided affordable housing is shown to be tied to housing market fluctuations. This is not the case for the constantly decreasing public sector affordable housing, as the onus of providing affordable housing has slowly shifted towards the private sector. Our findings also suggest that this shift is exacerbated by CIL without the relief mechanism. The increasing reliance on the more volatile privately owned affordable housing exposes its provision to increasing property market risks, especially during peaks and troughs. These results highlight the value of flexibility in policy tool design and offer insights into the effectiveness versus efficiency debate over land value capture that is shown to be inexorably linked to affordable housing provision and supply constraints. • Land value capture tools finance local infrastructure needed for new housing • Analysis of the land value capture in England: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) • A dynamic panel model addresses endogeneity among supply, CIL & affordable housing • The lack of flexibility in a version of CIL has −0.33% effect on supply • The flexible CIL version has 0.65% effect on supply in London
Affordable housing · Flexibility (engineering · Public housing · Public infrastructure · Real estate · Value (mathematics · Value capture · Housing Market and Economics · Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism · Urban Planning and Governance
Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands
Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data
Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models
Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models
Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development
Negotiation or Schedule-Based
Experiences of running negotiable and non-negotiable developer contributions side-by-side
Spatial Planning and the New Localism
Negotiating Integrated Land and Transport Development
Planning Gains, Providing Homes
Planning and Affordable Housing in Australia and the UK
Performing calculative practices
The calculative turn in land value capture
Securing public objectives in large-scale urban development
Risk management in public land development projects
Upzoning and value capture
Rethinking local government perceptions of Land Value Capture in land marketization
International comparison of the changing dynamics of governance approaches to land development and their results for public value capture
Collaborative development
Value capture ideals and practice – Development stages and the evolution of value capture policies
Land revenue and government myopia
How the combined use of non-negotiable and negotiable developer obligations affects land value capture
Recognising the barriers to securing affordable housing through the land use planning system in Sub-Saharan Africa
Emerging problematics of deregulating the urban
Understanding the geography of affordable housing provided through land value capture
Governing calculative practices
From brown envelopes to community benefits
The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis
| Highly cited | No |
|---|