Do developer obligations stimulate or stifle housing supply? The case of community infrastructure Levy in England

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

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cities
Published
2026-02-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2026.106913
Primary Topic
Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do developer obligations stimulate or stifle housing supply? The case of community infrastructure Levy in England

Sotirios Thanos, Eero Valtonen, Anupam Nanda
Cities
Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
article

Do developer obligations stimulate or stifle housing supply? The case of community infrastructure Levy in England

Sotirios Thanos, Eero Valtonen, Anupam Nanda
article en

Abstract

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

CitiesVol. 172
University of Manchester (GB)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.