Consultation outcome

Contractual controls on land consultation: government response

Updated 9 March 2026

Introduction

The government is committed to increasing the supply of new homes and promoting growth across the country. Improving the transparency of land ownership and control is central to achieving these aims. A more transparent land market helps communities, developers, and local authorities understand how land is being used, identify development opportunities, and make better-informed planning and investment decisions.

Contractual control agreements are widely used in the land market as a means of securing rights over land short of outright ownership. They allow developers and land promoters to control land and prevent others from purchasing it while they, for example, pursue planning permission, negotiate access, assemble neighbouring sites, or secure funding.

The absence of transparency around contractual controls can hinder the operation of the land market. Smaller developers may find it harder to identify available sites. Local authorities may be unaware of which land is being actively promoted for development or by whom. This can frustrate plan-making, regeneration, and efforts to bring forward housing in line with local needs.

Historically, there has been no legal requirement for these agreements to be disclosed or recorded. To address this, Parliament passed new powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to require the disclosure and publication of information about contractual control agreements.

On 24 January 2024, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities launched a consultation on how those new powers should be exercised. The consultation set out the proposed scope, design, and implementation approach for the new requirements, including a draft statutory instrument and impact assessment. It remained open for eight weeks, closing on 20 March 2024.

The consultation sought views from individuals, businesses, and organisations on the rationale for intervention, the proportionality of the proposed approach, and its potential impacts on the market.

This document summarises the responses received and the changes the government has made to the proposals as a result. The government has laid regulations to give effect to this policy.

Overview of respondents

A total of 41 responses were received to the consultation. Of these, 30 were submitted via the online form, while a further 11 responses were submitted in writing. We are grateful to all individuals and organisations who took the time to share their views on the proposed policy.

In addition to the written responses, the department hosted sector-specific question and answer sessions during the consultation period. These sessions provided valuable insight and helped shape the government’s final response.

This document summarises the key themes raised in the consultation. While it does not attempt to reflect every individual point made, all responses have been given full and careful consideration as part of the policy development process.

The table below provides a breakdown of responses to the consultation by type of respondents. We have grouped or adjusted some categories for consistency.

Table 1 - respondent types

Respondent type	Number of responses received online	Number of written responses
Developer or representative body	9	3
Lawyer or representative body	7	5
Member of the public	4
Local authority or representative	3	1
Land agent or advisor	3
Energy infrastructure firm	2
Property data organisation	1	1
Landowner or representative		1
Land promoter	1

Summary of consultation responses and government’s reponses

This section provides a summary of the responses received to each consultation question, including relevant points drawn from more detailed individual submissions where appropriate. It also sets out the government’s response to the issues raised.

Not all respondents answered every question. In particular, some of the written submissions were not structured in a way that allowed for direct inclusion in the quantitative analysis of the responses collected via the online survey. These written and free-text responses were instead reviewed and analysed separately and have been used to inform the quantitative commentary and government response provided alongside each table of results.

About the respondents

Questions 1 to 5 of the consultation asked respondents to provide information about themselves, including their profession and the type of organisation they represented. Responses were received from a broad range of individuals and organisations. A summary of the profile of respondents is set out in the previous section.

Question 6

Are you more likely to be someone who provides or accesses the information, or both?

Table 2 - Users and providers of data

Option	Number of responses
Provides (most likely developer, land promoter, conveyancer)	7
Accesses (most likely local authority, member of the public, interest group)	11
Both	15
Neither	2

The scope of the regulations

Question 7

We are intending to collect contractual control information on registered land only. Do you think excluding unregistered land from scope would still allow us to achieve our policy objectives?

Table 3 - Unregistered land

Option	Number of responses
Yes	7
No	19
No opinion	5

Question 8

Do you agree that we should collect contractual control information on agreements whether or not they are protected by a notice or restriction in order to achieve our policy objectives? 

Table 4 - Notices and restrictions

Option	Number of responses
Yes	13
No	14
No opinion	4

Question 9

Do you think that restrictive covenants should be included in scope to achieve our policy objectives?

Table 5 - Restrictive covenants

Option	Number of responses
Yes	12
No	17
No opinion	4

Question 10

Do you think that overage and clawback agreements should be included in scope to achieve our policy objectives? 

Table 6 - Overage and clawback agreements

Option	Total
Yes	7
No	24
No opinion	3

Question 11

Agreements made for the purposes of national security or defence and agreements made to facilitate and finance agreements will be exempt from the regulations. Should there be any other exemptions to the types of agreements we are aiming to capture?

Table 7 - National security and exemptions

Option	Number of responses
Yes	13
No	11
No opinion	10

Commentary and themes

The consultation generated a range of detailed responses, reflecting the diversity of interests across the land, legal and development sectors. Several common themes emerged, which are summarised below alongside the government’s response.

Unregistered land

Responses to the consultation were generally supportive of including unregistered land within scope. Several local authorities highlighted that excluding unregistered land would create an incomplete picture of land control and create regional disparities in transparency due to the uneven distribution of land registration. Other respondents noted that unregistered land is often undeveloped and may be of particular interest for future development. However, when asked about the prevalence of contractual control agreements on unregistered land, respondents indicated that only a small proportion of existing agreements relate to such land (see question 12.4).

Protected vs unprotected agreements

Views were divided on whether information should be collected for contractual control agreements regardless of whether they are protected by a notice or restriction. Some respondents raised concerns about commercial sensitivity and the potential disclosure of agreements that are not already visible on the title register. However, most respondents (see question 12.7) indicated that they typically protect their agreements with a unilateral notice, agreed notice, or restriction. This suggests that the majority of data collected under the regulations would reflect information already available, albeit not in a standardised or accessible form. Respondents who supported collection in all cases argued that transparency should not depend on whether a party has chosen to register their interest, and that disclosure in both cases is necessary to create a comprehensive and useable dataset.

Restrictive covenants

Responses were more mixed regarding the inclusion of restrictive covenants within scope. Those who opposed their inclusion generally argued that information on such covenants is typically already available through the Register of Title and therefore would not materially enhance transparency.

Overage and clawback agreements

A clear majority of respondents supported excluding overage and clawback agreements from scope. These responses suggested that including such agreements would not significantly contribute to the policy objective of improving transparency over contractual control of land.

Additional exemptions

A number of respondents proposed further exemptions, including for small-scale developments, lease agreements, and agreements related to utilities or critical national infrastructure. Views were varied, and while no single proposal received consistent support, several raised valid points about proportionality and regulatory burden. These suggestions have been considered on their individual merits as part of refining the final scope and exemptions.

Government response

Given that only a relatively small amount of land in England and Wales remains unregistered, and that the government is working towards complete registration, we have decided not to include unregistered land within scope at this time. Consultation responses also suggested that such land accounts for only a small proportion of sites under contractual control. Nonetheless, we recognise the relevance of unregistered land to the wider transparency agenda.

The regulations will require information on contractual control agreements to be provided regardless of whether the agreement is protected by a notice of restriction. This is necessary to ensure that the dataset is complete and transparent, and that visibility is not contingent on individual parties’ registration decisions.

In line with the policy position set out at consultation stage, we will not require information on restrictive covenants or overage and clawback agreements. These measures are not necessary to meet the core policy aim and received limited support in consultation responses.

We have reviewed all proposed exemptions carefully and engaged with the legal sector to ensure the regime remains targeted and proportionate. Exempt contractual rights include those: contained in a contract made for national security or defence purposes; incidental to loan finance; unrelated to future development; with a total control period of under 18 months; or contained in section 106 agreements related exclusively to infrastructure, amenities or services.

We consider the current scope and exemptions to be proportionate and fit for purpose.

Respondents’ experience of Contractual Control Agreements

Question 12

Do you believe that you, or the organisation on whose behalf you are responding, hold, or have you ever held, a Contractual Control Agreement that is within the scope described above? 

Table 8 - Number of respondents who have held contractual control agreements

Options	Number of responses
Yes	17
No	18

The respondents who answered ‘yes’ were directed to questions 12.1 - 12.10 to provide more information on the contractual controls that they held to aid our understanding of how contractual controls are developed, used, applied, and the overall process.

Question 12.1

Approximately how many live contractual control agreements within scope do you or the organisation you are responding on behalf of currently hold?

Table 9 - Approximate number of live contractual controls within scope

Number of controls	Number of responses
None	0
0-10	4
11-30	2
31-50	1
51-100	2
101+	2
I am unsure or do not wish to respond	9

Question 12.2

On average how many contractual control agreements within scope do you, or the organisation you are responding on behalf of, take out per year?

Table 10 - Average number of contractual controls in scope per annum

Number of controls	Number of responses
1-10	3
11-50	5
51-100	0
101-200	0
501-1000	0
I am unsure or do not wish to respond	12

Question 12.3

What proportion of the total number of notices and restrictions you register per year do you think are contractual controls that fall within scope?

Table 11 - Number of registered notices and restrictions per annum

Number of notices / restrictions	Number of responses
<10%	3
10-24%	0
25-50%	0
51-74%	1
75-90%	1
>90%	3
I am unsure or do not wish to respond	12

Question 12.4

What percentage of these contractual control agreements do you estimate apply to unregistered land?

Table 12 - Number of contractual controls that apply to unregistered land

Number of agreements	Number of responses
<10%	8
10-24%	1
25-50%	0
51-74%	0
75-90%	0
>90%	0
I am unsure or do not wish to respond	11

Question 12.5

What types of contractual control agreements do you hold?

Table 13 - Types of contractual control

Contractual control type	Number of responses
Option	10
Pre-emption agreement	6
Conditional contract	10
Other contractual rights (rights under a contract that prevent the proprietor of a registered estate in land from making a relevant disposition or which regulate the circumstances in which the proprietor can do). This includes land promotion, collaboration, and joint venture agreements.	8
I am unsure or do not wish to respond	7

Question 12.6

What is the typical range of length of contractual control agreements you are holding?

Table 14 - Typical range of length of agreements held by the respondent

Typical range of length	Number of responses
0-1 year	0
2-3 years	4
4-5 years	0
5-10 years	4
11-20 years	0
20+ years	0
It varies	6
I am unsure or do not wish to respond	6

Question 12.7

How do you usually protect these agreements?

Table 15 - How agreements are protected

Agreement protection type	Number of responses
Agreed notice with HM Land Registry	7
Unilateral notice with HM Land Registry	9
Restriction with HM Land Registry	10
Land charge (for unregistered land)	5
Caution against first registration (for unregistered land)	6
None of these – we rely on the legally binding contract	1
I am unsure or do not wish to respond	6

Question 12.8

Do you engage a lawyer to assist with the terms of the agreement and provision of any information required to HM Land Registry?

Table 16 - Engagement with lawyers

Frequency of engagement with lawyers	Number of responses
Always	14
Usually	3
Sometimes	0
Never	3

Question 12.9

Do your agreements have confidentiality provisions?

Table 17 - Confidentiality provision

Frequency of confidentiality provision	Number of responses
Always	3
Usually	11
Sometimes	3
Never	3

Question 12.10

If your agreements have confidentiality provisions, do they include exemptions for information which you are legally obliged to provide, for instance to public authorities?

Table 18 - Confidentiality provisions on legally obligated information

Frequency of confidentially provisions on legally obligated information	Number of responses
Always	7
Usually	6
Sometimes	4
Never	3

Commentary and themes

Respondents suggested that contractual control agreements over unregistered land are relatively uncommon.

Most respondents reported holding more than one type of agreement – such as options, conditional contracts, and rights of pre-emption – with variation in both the typical duration of agreements and the methods used to protect them. Some agreements are protected by notices or restrictions on the Register of Title, while others are not.

Larger developers were most likely to report holding a higher volume and wider variety of contractual control agreements including options, conditional contracts, and promotion agreements. They also consistently reported using legal professionals to support the submission of information to HM Land Registry. In contrast, smaller developers reported holding fewer agreements overall and were more varied in their use of legal support.

Government response

The responses have helped build a picture of the nature of contractual control agreements that would fall within scope of the new measures. The responses provided useful insight into the types of contractual control agreements in use and how they are typically managed in practice. In particular, the evidence of variation between larger and smaller developers has helped inform our approach to proportionality.

The proposed dataset for collection and publication

Question 13

Do you wish to answer questions about the details of the information we propose to collect, as set out in the table?

Table 19 - Number of respondents who wish to answer questions on the information to be collected and published

The respondents who answered ‘yes’ were directed to questions 13.1 – 13.12 to provide more specific information on the data that is intended to be collected and published.

Response	Number of responses
Yes	25
No	10

Questions 13.1 – 13.12

These questions asked respondents whether they thought that each of the data fields listed in the table should be collected and published.

Table 20 - Responses to data the legislation is intending to capture.

Data Field	Number of responses Yes	Number of responses No
Do you think the type of agreement should be collected and published?	14	7
Do you think the name of the grantee (e.g. developer for the agreement should be collected and published?	17	6
Do you think that, where applicable, the organisation registration number for the grantee should be collected and published?	15	5
Do you think that the name of the grantor (e.g. the land owner) for the agreement should be collected and published?	14	8
Do you think that, where applicable, the organisation registration number for the grantor should be collected and published?	13	7
Do you think that the date the agreement is entered into should be collected and published?	13	9
Do you think the length of the agreement should be collected and published?	8	12
Do you think that the territorial extent for the land involved in the agreement should be collected and published, if available?	16	5
Do you think that the HM Land Registry title number associated with the land involved in the agreement should be collected?	20	2
Do you think the SRA or similar numbers of the solicitors, or the conveyancers involved should be collected and published?	3	12
Do you think that whether the agreement is extendable should be collected or published?	10	11
Do you think any other information should be collected or published?	8	17

Commentary and themes

Respondents broadly agreed with the proposed dataset for contractual control agreements. The most common concern raised was the potential commercial sensitivity of publishing the duration of an agreement and whether the agreement is extendable. Some developers and legal professionals also highlighted that these provisions are often complex or conditional, making them difficult to summarise accurately for reporting purposes. A few suggested that identifying whether an agreement can be extended would suffice, without requiring detail on the specific conditions under which it may be extended.

Other respondents – including planning professionals, lawyers, and members of the public – emphasised the value of knowing whether agreements are still live or nearing expiry. Local authorities highlighted that data on the extendibility of agreements would aid in development forecasting and planning functions.

The majority of respondents were not in favour of collecting and publishing Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) or equivalent regulatory numbers of the conveyancer submitting the information. Several legal professionals questioned whether collecting this information would add value in terms of meeting the policy objective.

Most respondents did not support expanding the dataset beyond the proposed fields. However, a small number of suggestions were made for additional data points, including:

• the price paid or payable under the agreement
• details of creditors, shareholders or leaseholders
• an indication of whether the agreement applies only to surface rights or includes subterranean land

Government response

We have considered the concerns raised about commercial sensitivity and data complexity.

Our objective is to strike the right balance between collecting sufficient information and to meet transparency objectives and avoiding excessive or burdensome reporting. On balance, we believe that requiring the duration of the agreement and whether it is extendable remains proportionate and useful.

As consultation responses and engagement with local authorities and communities have demonstrated, information on the length of an agreement and whether it is extendable is key to understanding how long land may be under contractual control. It supports core functions such as plan-making, site allocation and land pipeline analysis. Therefore, the regulations will require the collection and publication of the initial period of control, any provisions to extend it, and entitlements to extend or terminate the agreement.

In relation to conveyancer identifiers, we agree with respondents that publishing SRA or equivalent numbers would not materially improve the utility of data and could raise privacy concerns. However, the registrar will require conveyancers to establish their regulatory credentials to ensure that the person submitting the information is appropriately authorised.

We also note that some legal respondents raised concerns about the scope of the regulations as originally proposed, warning that too broad a definition of contractual control agreements could increase burdens and reduce the quality of the dataset.

We have responded to this by refining the scope in both the regulations and accompanying guidance.

In particular, we have restricted the regulations to agreements that:

• relate to registered land only. While most respondents supported inclusion of unregistered land, of those with direct experience of CCAs who gave a response to 12.4, most reported that only a small minority involve unregistered land
• are in writing and of a type listed in the regulations, broadly: an option agreement, conditional contract, a pre-emption agreement, or promotion agreement and direction rights
• involve a right to acquire the freehold or a lease of more than 15 years.
• have a total period of 18 months or more
• relate to land that includes surface or subterranean rights
• are not contained in contracts made for the purpose of national security or defence, or in relation to loan or finance agreements
• that relate exclusively for purposes relating to future development

We have also decided to include, following feedback from respondents and PropTech stakeholders, the address and postcode of land (alongside the title number) as required fields in the dataset to improve searchability and mapping functionality. We will also ask whether the right includes land (including airspace) held apart from the surface.

Question 14

Do you think it is proportionate/feasible to require use of a conveyancer’s services to provide the information?

Table 21 – Use of conveyancers to provide information

Response	Number of responses
Yes	16
No	9
No opinion	3

Question 15

Would you be likely to apply to HM Land Registry for a case-by-case exemption to provide the information without using a conveyancer?

Table 22 - Case-by-case exemption

Response	Number of responses
Yes	4
No	9
Not applicable	15

Question 16

Assisted digital is support for people who can’t use online government services on their own. The support can be someone guiding a user through the digital service or entering a user’s information into the digital service on their behalf. It can then be provided by the private, voluntary or public sectors.

Would you be likely to apply to HM Land Registry for a case-by-case exemption to provide the information through an assisted digital process?

Table 23 - Assisted digital

Response	Number of responses
Yes	2
No	13
Not applicable	18

Question 17

If you are a conveyancer likely to be involved with providing the information to HM Land Registry for future contractual controls how much time, on average, do you estimate it would take per contractual control agreement to provide the information to HM Land Registry?

Table 24 - Time to supply information per contractual control agreement

Time	Number of responses
Under 10 minutes	0
11-20 minutes	1
21-30 minutes	4
31-60 minutes	6
More than 60 minutes	1

Question 18

We intend to require information be provided digitally through Digital Registration Service/Business Gateway to HM Land Registry, except where the registrar directs otherwise. Do you foresee any issues with this approach?

Table 25 - Digital registration service / business gateway

Response	Number of responses
Yes	10
No	12

Commentary and themes

Responses to this section were largely supportive of the proposed approach to collecting and publishing information on contractual control agreements. Most respondents agreed that it is proportionate and feasible to require that a conveyancer provide this information to HM Land Registry. They noted that legal professionals are typically already involved in drafting such agreements, and their involvement helps ensure accuracy and consistency in submissions.

However, a number of respondents raised concerns about the potential for additional administrative burden and cost. Despite these concerns, the vast majority of respondents in question 12.8 reported that a lawyer would typically be engaged to assist with drawing up contractual control agreements and provide information to HM Land Registry. This suggests that legal professionals are already commonly involved in the process, and the new requirement is consistent with current practice.

Respondents generally indicated that the case-by-case exemption process for non-conveyancer submission would be rarely used. Of the 33 responses to this question, around 6% said they would be likely to apply for an exemption, while approximately 40% said they would not, with the remainder indicating it was not applicable. This feedback suggests a broad level of confidence in the standard approval via a conveyancer and limited anticipated demand for alternative submission methods.

When asked about how long it would take to collect and submit the required information to HM Land Registry, the majority of respondents estimated between 21-30 minutes or 31-60 minutes. This aligns with estimates in the consultation stage impact assessment for new agreements and reflects the perceived familiarity and manageability of the proposed data requirements.

There was a mixed response to the proposed requirement to use existing HM Land Registry digital channels – the Digital Registration Service and Business Gateway – for submission. Some respondents preferred the Government Gateway service or expressed concern about the reliability and accessibility of digital submission systems. A few raised concerns about HM Land Registry’s capacity to manage the volume of incoming data under the new regulations.

Government response

We will proceed with the proposal to require that contractual control information be submitted to HM Land Registry by a conveyancer. This reflects standard market practice and helps ensure information accuracy.

Responses to question 17 – regarding the time required for a conveyancer to collect and submit contractual control information – have informed updated assumptions. Based on this feedback, we now estimate:

• 30 minutes to provide information on new or varied agreements
• 1 hour to provide information on extant agreements (those made on or after the regulations are made, but before they are in force, as explained in the next section)

We expect that in most cases, this information will be provided as part of an existing application to HM Land Registry – for example, when a notice or restriction is being lodged – and the incremental burden will therefore be limited.

We note the concerns raised about HM Land Registry’s capacity and digital infrastructure. We will continue to work with HM Land Registry to ensure systems are ready to handle the incoming data efficiently, reliably and accessibly.

Proposed process for collecting information about extant agreements which pre-date commencement of these regulations

Question 19

Are you a potential holder of agreements in scope?

If respondents answered ‘yes’, they were directed to questions 19.1 - 19.6 To provide more information on extant agreements in scope

Table 26 - Holder of agreements in scope

Response	Number of responses
Yes	18
No	17

Question 19.1

How long do you estimate it would take you to extract and provide the relevant information to HM Land Registry for all existing contractual control agreements you currently hold in scope of this measure?

Table 27 - Time to extract and provide information on all extant agreements in scope

Time (months)	Number of responses
Less than 6 months	3
The timeline stated in the overview is sufficient (1 year)	7
12-18 months	4
19-24 months	6

Question 19.2

How long do you estimate it would take you to extract and provide the relevant information for each existing contractual control agreement?

Table 28 - Time to provide information on each extant contractual control agreement

Time (minutes)	Number of responses
Less than 30 minutes	1
31-60 minutes	0
61-90 minutes	5
91-120 minutes	2
Over 2 hours	11

Question 19.3

Do you think that communications through these routes (targeted communications with the conveyancing industry via regulated bodies to inform of new requirements) would be likely to make you aware of your obligations?

Table 29 - Effectiveness of communication

Response	Number of responses
Yes	7
No	4
Maybe	5
#Not applicable	4

Question 19.4

Should any other routes of communication be undertaken?

Table 30 - Other methods of communicating

Communication type	Number of responses
Wider targeted communication	3
HM Land Registry new practice guidance	2
Industry/professional/specialist publications	1

Question 19.5

Do you see any unanticipated issues with this approach?

Table 31 - Unanticipated with approach towards making relevant parties aware of their obligations

Response	Number of responses
Yes	8
No	2
Unsure	9

Question 19.6

Do you think we should collect information on extant agreements entered into at any time, if they are varied in such a way which alters any of the required information or assigned from the commencement date of the regulations (expected April 2026)?

Table 32 - Collecting information on agreements entered into at any time if they are varied

Response	Number of responses
Yes	3
No	9
No opinion	3

Commentary and themes

Most respondents agreed that requiring information on existing (extant) contractual control agreements would help transparency. However, they raised concerns about the feasibility and proportionality of the original proposal to capture agreements entered into up to five years before.

Responses indicated that the proposed estimate of 1 hour per extant agreement (as used in the consultation stage impact assessment) was significantly underestimated. In particular, developers and legal professionals suggested that retrieving and interpreting older agreements – especially those entered into before the possibility of disclosure under these regulations was anticipated – could be far more time-consuming. For agreements entered into since April 2021, most respondents estimated 2+ hours per agreement would be required.

Several respondents also raised concerns about the administrative burden this would create, especially for organisations with large portfolios of existing agreements. Others highlighted that older agreements may contain commercially sensitive information not drafted with disclosure in mind, and therefore potentially inappropriate to publish. Some legal professionals warned this could create unintended legal and commercial risks.

Views were mixed on the proposed communication strategy. While some supported the development of clear guidance and targeted communications, others suggested that more proactive outreach would be needed to ensure that affected parties are aware of their new obligations.

Government response

In light of the concerns raised, we have amended the policy design to reduce the retrospective scope of the regulations. Information will now be required only in respect of:

• rights granted on or after the date the regulations are made (expected early-2026)
• pre-existing rights that are assigned or varied (in a way that changes the required information), after the regulations are in-force (6 April 2027)

This revised approach significantly reduces the potential compliance burden and reflects the feedback that capturing agreements entered into before stakeholders were aware of these regulations would be particularly resource intensive. We believe this updated policy continues to support our objectives by enabling a meaningful dataset to be built quickly – while giving businesses sufficient time to prepare and avoiding disproportionate burdens.

To support implementation, we will produce clear guidance and deliver targeted communications in advance of the measures coming into force in April 2027. This will help ensure that those affected understand their legal obligations and are able to comply in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Keeping the information up to date

Question 20

Do you think that 60 days to provide updated information to HM Land Registry is reasonable and the correct length of time to ensure balance between time to comply and having updated information on the public dataset?

Table 33 - Time for providing information on updated agreements

Response	Number of responses
Not enough time	6
The correct amount of time	12
Timeframe too long	6

Question 20.1

If you responded with ‘not enough’ or ‘timeframe too long’ what do you think is a reasonable time frame for providing information on updated contractual control agreements?

Table 34 - Suggested timeframes for providing information on updated agreements

Time (weeks)	Number of responses
1 week	2
2 weeks	1
1 month	3
3 months	3
6 months	2
More than 6 months	2

Commentary and themes

Consultation responses indicated broad support for the proposed requirement that updated information be provided within 60 days of a relevant change, such as a variation or assignment of a contractual control agreement. Most respondents considered the timeframe to be proportionate and achievable, particularly given that applications for notices or restrictions are typically made promptly to protect commercial interests.

Government response

We will proceed with our proposal to require that grantees provide updated contractual control information to HM Land Registry within 60 days of a variation to the required information or an assignment of the agreement. This approach supports timely and accurate public records, while aligning with existing legal and commercial practice.

How we plan to publish the information

Question 21

How do you currently try to access information on contractual control agreements? (Tick all that apply)

Table 35 - How information is currently accessed

Method of accessing information	Number of responses
PropTech software	8
HM Land Registry register of titles	25
Personal contacts	12
Local knowledge	11
Not applicable	6
I am unsure	0
Other	4

Question 22 and 23

Ease of accessing information with the current and new proposed process.

Table 36 - Ease of accessing information with the current and new proposed process

Difficulty	Ease of accessing information with the current process	Ease of accessing information with the new proposed process
Extremely difficult	6	0
Difficult	7	3
Moderate	14	11
Easy	4	8
Very easy	3	6
No opinion	1	7

Question 24

Is publishing structured data in bulk spreadsheets (rather than, for instance, a redacted version of the original agreement) the correct approach?

Table 37 - Publishing structured data in bulk spreadsheets

Response	Number of responses
Yes	14
No	7

Question 25

Are you responding on behalf of an organisation that may use this dataset to develop new tools and services?

If respondents answered ‘yes’, they were then directed to questions 25.1 -25.3 to provide more information on tools and services.

Table 38 - Responding on behalf of an organisation that may use the dataset to develop new tools and services

Response	Number of responses
Yes	6
No	29

Question 25.1

How likely is it that you will integrate this data with your current system (if applicable)?

Table 39 - Likelihood of integrating data with current systems

Option	Number of responses
Very	2
Somewhat	1
Somewhat unlikely	0
Very unlikely	0
I am unsure	5

Question 25.2

How long would it take you to do so?

Table 40 - Time to integrate into current systems

Time (months/years)	Number of responses
0-3 months	1
4-6 months	0
7-12 months	1
1-2 years	2
2+ years	0

Question 25.3

How much would you charge for a tool or service to access the information in a user accessible form per annum?

Table 41 - Annual cost of service including integrated data

Cost	Number of responses
£0	6
£0-£100	2
£101-£500	0
£501-£1000	0
£1001 - £2000	0
£2001 - £5000	0
£5001+	0

Question 26

Would you be a potential user of this data?

If respondents answered ‘yes’, they were then directed to questions 26.1-26.4.

Table 42 - Potential users of data

Response	Number of responses
Yes	22
No	11
I am unsure	2

Question 26.1

How useful would the data be in raw form (e.g. a large CSV file)?

Table 43 - Usefulness of data in raw form

Usefulness	Number of responses
Extremely useful	1
Somewhat useful	9
Useful	4
Somewhat not useful	2
Extremely not useful	2
I am unsure	5

Question 26.2

Would you feel able to navigate a large spreadsheet file with potentially thousands of rows to find relevant information?

Table 44 - Ability to navigate a large spreadsheet

Response	Number of responses
Yes	11
No	3
I am unsure	9

Question 26.3

Do you already use property technology software?

Table 45 - Current use of property technology software

Response	Number of responses
Yes	12
No	5
I am unsure	6

Question 26.4

If yes, how much would you be willing to pay a property technology firm for a subscription to view the data in an accessible format per annum?

Table 46 - How much users of the data will be willing to pay for property technology services

Cost	Number of responses
£0	14
£0-£100	5
£101-£500	0
£501-£1000	3
£1001 - £2000	1
£2001 - £5000	0
£5001+	0

Commentary and themes

Respondents – including developers, lawyers, and local authorities – indicated that current systems make it difficult to access information on contractual controls, often relying on personal contacts and local knowledge to fill gaps in official title records. Difficulties cited included non-standardised data, limited visibility on titles, lack of real-time access, and technical complexity. Respondents welcomed the proposed publication of contractual control data, suggesting it would significantly improve transparency and useability.

PropTech firms responding to the consultation confirmed that they would be likely to integrate this new dataset into tools and services, enhancing access for professionals and the public. Some firms noted that they would offer tools at no or low cost, maximising the benefit of the publicly available data.

There was mixed feedback on the use of bulk spreadsheet downloads. Around half of respondents said they could navigate a large spreadsheet, for example using search and filter functionality. Respondents agreed that original redacted contracts should not be published, as they would be difficult to navigate and raise unnecessary confidentiality concerns.

Some respondents suggested that APIs or map-based interfaces would improve accessibility further, particularly if integrated into existing PropTech platforms. There was also consensus that data should remain free to access in its basic form, and that charged for enhanced formats should be proportionate.

Government response

As set out in the consultation, HM Land Registry will publish the contractual control dataset.

The design of the new information service will be grounded in user research and shaped by evidence of user needs. It will be responsive and user centred, ensuring that customers gain maximum value from their interactions. Entry points will align with HM Land Registry’s standard channels to maintain familiarity, while the application process for this service will be bespoke and tailored to its specific requirements. This approach balances accessibility with precision, supporting a smooth user journey to facilitate compliance with the regulations.

The data collection and publication elements are being designed to minimise burden and maximise utility. Data will be gathered through a digital-first approach, using both a web-based interface and APIs for customers with integrated case management systems. The process will be as efficient as far as possible and aligned with how customers already draft and manage their contracts, reducing friction and fitting into existing workflows.

The service will offer low-barrier access to information, presented in ways that support transparency and informed decision-making. Outputs will be accessible, user validated, and geospatially consumable for both public and specialist users.

We are committed to working with stakeholders to ensure the dataset is not only transparent but practical and accessible for all users.

Compliance

Question 27

Do you think criminal offences and non-registration will be sufficient to ensure that information provided is complete and accurate?

Table 47 - Are criminal offences sufficient?

Response	Number of responses
Yes	14
No	8
I am unsure	13

The following 2 questions were in an open text format therefore we have not provided a table of the responses.

Question 28

What else should we do to ensure the information is provided in a timely and accurate way (if anything)?

Question 29

What other information would be useful to include in the guidance to successfully implement the new process into current practice?

Commentary and themes

The majority of respondents agreed that criminal offences for non-compliance would be sufficient to ensure that accurate and complete information is provided. However, a significant number of respondents raised concerns that criminal penalties might be disproportionate in this context, especially for inadvertent or administrative errors.

Several respondents suggested that more proportionate alternatives, such as restricting the ability to register a notice or restriction unless the required information had been provided, would be sufficient to ensure compliance and would better reflect the administrative nature of the reporting obligation. Some respondents also emphasised the importance of clear guidance and communication to ensure those affected are fully aware of their obligations under the new measures.

Government response

We recognise the importance of supporting compliance through proportionate and transparent enforcement mechanisms. Alongside HM Land Registry, we will ensure that the accompany guidance clearly sets out what is expected of conveyancers and other relevant parties, including the process for providing information and the consequences of non-compliance. We will also use all relevant communications channels to raise awareness of the new requirements ahead of their commencement.

The government’s approach to compliance draws on the powers set out in Part 11 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This includes:

• criminal offences under section 225, which apply where a person, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement under the regulations, or knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information
• enforcement mechanisms under section 226, which allow regulations to restrict registration actions – such as entering a notice or restriction – where the relevant information has not been submitted

These enforcement provisions are designed to support the integrity and completeness of the dataset while maintaining proportionality.
Sanctions will apply only where there is a clear failure to meet legal obligations. In most cases, we anticipate that compliance will be achieved through clear guidance, digital integration into existing conveyancing processes, and routine professional oversight.

Benefits and Impacts

Question 30

Is our understanding of the potential benefits of the proposal correct?

Table 48 - Understanding of the benefits

Response	Number of responses
Yes	9
No	17
I am unsure	9

Question 31

Are there any further benefits that you anticipate would be seen from the proposed new measures?

Table 49 - Further benefits

Response	Number of responses
Yes	8
No	21
I am unsure	6

Question 32

Are you able to estimate the value of the benefits for you personally? (Tick all that apply)

Table 50 - Estimated value of benefits

Option	Number of responses
Saved cost of title fees	8
Saved time due to dataset	8
Increased information	12
Increased knowledge of land in your area	11
No/I am unsure	16
Other – please state	7

Question 33

Do you have any views on whether small and/or micro businesses will be disproportionately affected by this legislation?

Table 51 - Small, medium businesses

Response	Number of responses
Yes	15
No	9
I am unsure	11

Commentary and themes

Respondents identified a range of anticipated benefits from the policy. Local authorities and community groups most frequently reported that the proposals would support greater visibility over land subject to contractual controls, which in turn could help streamline the site identification process and inform the preparation of place-making plans. Others noted the value to communities in understanding the likely path of future development and being able to engage with such development at an earlier stage.

Around half of respondents felt that the consultation did not fully reflect the scale or nature of the likely benefits. For example, some emphasised that improved information is only valuable insofar as it is accessible, consistent and useable – enabling quicker, easier, and cheaper access to insights that are otherwise difficult or costly to obtain, particularly for smaller firms or members of the public.

Increased information and knowledge of land were the most frequently selected benefits across respondents. Local authorities, landowners and individual members of the public linked this to an improved ability to participate in the planning system, anticipate future development, or identify and prioritise land for investment or protection.

Some developers, land agents and representative bodies raised concerns about possible unintended consequences – including increased pressure on the planning system due to additional representations, heightened competition for development sites (particularly for smaller developers), and more vocal community resistance to proposals where land under control becomes more visible.

Government response

We have carefully considered the consultation responses and the different types of benefits and risks identified. We recognise that greater transparency is not an end itself, and that the value of the dataset will depend on its accessibility, quality and integration into the systems and processes used by developers, local authorities and communities. The design of the dataset will be shaped with this in mind.

We acknowledge the concerns raised about possible additional pressure on the planning system and community opposition to development. However, we believe that greater openness about land control is consistent with wider government objectives on planning and housing, and that earlier transparency may in fact support better community engagement and more efficient local decision-making.

We also recognise the concerns raised around the potential impact on small and medium-sized businesses. However, we believe that a significant benefit of the new dataset is to level the playing field – allowing smaller developers, landowners and community groups to access information that would otherwise require significant resources to obtain. While there is some risk of increased competition for sites, this is outweighed by the potential benefits of improved access to land and reducing barriers to entry.

Alongside HM Land Registry, we will continue to assess the impact of these measures – including benefits, burdens and market effects – once the regulations are in force.

Costs

Question 34

Are the estimated costs, assumptions and workings set out above and in the consultation stage impact assessment realistic?

Table 52 - Estimated costs

Response	Number of responses
Yes	2
No	12
I am unsure	21

Question 35

Are there any other organisations who would need to familiarise themselves with the new legislation that we should include in this analysis?

Table 53 - Organisations that need to familiarise

Response	Number of responses
Yes	12
No	3
Unsure	20

Question 36

Would there be any additional costs that would occur as a result of the regulations?

Table 54 - Additional costs

Response	Number of responses
Yes	16
No	3
I am unsure	16

Commentary and themes

Most respondents expressed uncertainty about whether the estimated costs set out in the consultation reflected the true burden of compliance. While some agreed that the time required to provide information on new agreements was broadly appropriate, others highlighted additional types of cost that may not have been fully accounted for. These included the time and resource needed to verify contractual information, costs of training and onboarding relevant staff, and time diverted from core business activity.

The most frequently cited concern was the anticipated cost of complying with the requirement to provide information about extant agreements. Many respondents considered that the complexity of identifying and extracting information from older agreements – particularly those negotiated without foresight of these regulations – would create a disproportionate administrative and financial burden.

Some respondents also questioned the assumptions made about training costs. While several felt that the estimated per-person training cost was too low, others suggested that the number of staff requiring training had been overstated.

Government response

We are grateful for the feedback on the likely costs associated with implementing the regulations. The responses have helped improve our understanding of the specific types of cost likely to be incurred by businesses and legal professionals and have reinforced the need for a proportionate and targeted approach.

In light of concerns raised – particularly around the cost of collecting and supplying information about extant agreements – we have amended the policy to limit retrospective application. Under the revised approach, information will only be required on:

• rights granted on or after the date the regulations are made (expected early-2026)
• pre-existing rights that are assigned or varied (in a way that changes the required information), after the regulations are in-force (6 April 2027)

We believe this will significantly reduce anticipated compliance costs, while still enabling us to build a meaningful dataset within a reasonable timeframe.

We also recognise the need to support stakeholders in preparing for implementation. Ahead of commencement, alongside HM Land Registry, we will publish detailed guidance to support understanding of the new obligations. Respondents made helpful suggestions about which groups and organisations may need targeted communications and training support, and we will take these into account as we develop the guidance and engagement plan.

Unintended consequences

Question 37

Is our understanding on the potential unintended consequences of the proposal correct?

Table 55 - Understanding of unintended consequences

Response	Number of responses
Yes	16
No	12
I am unsure	7

Question 38

Would you (or someone holding contractual controls) expect to do anything differently in response to this legislation? (Tick all that apply)

Table 56 - Would you do anything differently

Option	Number of responses
Buy land outright	2
Enter longer contractual control agreements	6
Look for other types of development opportunities	3
Not allow contractual controls to be taken out on your land	4
Offer more money for contractual controls	0
Offer less money for contractual controls	3
Offer more money for land covered by contractual controls	1
Offer less money for land covered by contractual controls	2
No	3
I am unsure	19
Other	5

Question 39

Can you think of any other likely unintended consequences?

Table 57 - Other likely consequences

Response	Number of responses
Yes	19
No	7
I am unsure	9

Commentary and themes

Responses were mixed on whether the consultation accurately identified the most likely unintended consequences of the proposals. Some respondents agreed with the suggestion that greater transparency could create pressure from communities on landowners, and that developers might adapt their behaviour by entering into different types of agreements or opting to purchase land outright instead of using contractual controls.

Additional unintended consequences highlighted by developers, land promotors, and representative bodies included:

• a potential reluctance from landowners to bring land forward for development due to perceived reputational risk or complexity
• developers shifting away from using contractual control agreements, in favour of outright purchase or alternative legal structures
• potential delays to promotion and delivery of development sites, especially where agreements are renegotiated or withheld pending clarity on compliance
• a disproportionate administrative and financial burden on small and medium-sized businesses, who may lack the resources of larger firms to adapt to the new regime

These concerns indicate the need for careful implementation and ongoing engagement with the sector.

Government response

We included a section in the consultation specifically to test assumptions about the potential unintended consequences of the proposed measures. We are grateful to respondents for their constructive challenge and detailed insights.

The responses have improved our understanding of how market participants – including developers, landowners and promoters – may change their behaviour in response to greater transparency and new regulatory requirements. We are mindful of concerns raised around landowner caution, a shift towards outright purchase, and the potential for small and medium-sized businesses to face a disproportionate burden.

While we do not believe these concerns warrant fundamental changes to the scope of the regulations, alongside HM Land Registry, we will continue to monitor behavioural responses after implementation. We will also ensure that detailed guidance and early communications help mitigate unintended disruption and keep under review whether any further support or policy refinement is needed.

Regulations

Question 40

Would you like to review the draft regulations?

If respondents answered ‘yes’ they were directed to questions 40.1 to 40.7 to answer specific questions relating to the draft regulations as presented at the time of the consultation.

Table 58 – Review of draft regulations

Response	Number of responses
Yes	16
No	12
I am unsure	7

Question 40.1

Do you have any concerns on using this definition of ‘grantee’?

Table 59 - Definition of grantee

Response	Number of responses
Yes	4
No	13
I am unsure	8

Question 40.2

Do you have any concerns with the definition of this contract?

Table 60 - Definition of contract

Response	Number of responses
Yes	11
No	6
I am unsure	6

Question 40.3

Would collecting and publishing information about contractual control agreements according to these criteria (as set out in the consultation document) capture the kind of agreements we are seeking?

Table 61 - Collecting information according to criteria

Response	Number of responses
Yes	12
No	4
I am unsure	7

Question 40.4

Would you have any concerns about the national security / defence exemption remaining as provisionally drafted in the final regulations?

Table 62 - National security and defence

Response	Number of responses
Yes	5
No	11
I am unsure	7

Question 40.5

Would you have any concerns about the exemption of agreements made to facilitate finance and loan as provisionally drafted in the regulations?

Table 63 - Agreements made to facilitate finance and loans

Response	Number of responses
Yes	3
No	8
I am unsure	12

Question 40.6

We are seeking to understand when agreements will expire (or be capable of termination) and details of whether an agreement is extendable. We have provisionally drafted this information requirement as ‘details of when the agreement will determine and details of any entitlement for the grantee to extend the agreement’.

Do you have any concerns about how this information requirement is provisionally drafted in the regulations?

Table 64 - Expiry and extendibility

Response	Number of responses
Yes	14
No	2
I am unsure	7

Question 40.7

Do you have any other comments regarding the draft regulations?

Commentary and themes

The majority of responses to the draft regulations came from legal professionals in the sector. Feedback was primarily focused on the clarity and operability of the statutory definitions and exemptions.

A key concern raised was that the definition of contractual control agreements was too broad and risked unintentionally capturing agreements outside the policy intent – including routine commercial agreements like assignments of occupational leases. Multiple respondents emphasised the importance of tightening this definition to ensure it applies only to agreements made to facilitate development or land value speculation.

Specific feedback was also received on the exemption for loan and finance agreements, with some respondents seeking greater clarity on its drafting. Similarly, there was concern about whether the drafting of the information requirement on expiry and extension was sufficiently precise.

In relation to the definition of ‘grantee’, most respondents were content although there were minor suggestions for clarification in multi-party scenarios. For example, whether a single grantee providing information on behalf of all parties would suffice.

Most did not object to the exemption for national security and defence agreements but requested that guidance be provided to support consistent interpretation.

Overall, respondents welcomed the opportunity to review the regulations in draft form. There was a clear desire for accompanying guidance to explain the scope and application of the provisions in practice.

Government response

We welcome the engagement from legal professionals and stakeholders on the draft regulations. The feedback has helped us improve the clarity, focus, and operability of the instrument.

We have refined the scope to reduce the risk of inadvertently capturing out-of-intended-scope agreements. The revised drafting focuses on agreements typically used to control land for substantial development or land value speculation, and excludes short leases, minor agreements, and operational or occupational arrangements.

We have retained the exemption for finance and loan agreements but have revised the drafting to clarify the types of agreements intended to fall within this exemption. Further, we have considered the comments on the drafting of the information requirement about expiry and extension and made minor amendments to improve clarity. Further explanation will also be provided in statutory guidance to ensure that conveyancers understand what is required when completing these fields.

In response to comments about the ‘grantee’ definition, we can confirm that each contractual control right is treated individually, with a one-to-one relationship between the right and its grantee. If an agreement contains multiple distinct rights, each right will have its own grantee with a separate duty to report. However, the regulations do not require a person to provide information where it has already been provided by another person in accordance with the regulations.

We have retained the national security and defence exemption and will provide further explanatory guidance in due course to support users in identifying whether an agreement qualifies.

These changes aim to improve legal certainty, minimise compliance risk, and ensure that the regulations operate as intended.

Public sector equality duty

Question 41

Do you think this characterisation of the impacts on those with protected characteristics (as set out in the consultation document) is accurate?

Table 65 - Public sector equality duty

Response	Number of responses
Yes	17
No	2
I am unsure	16

Commentary and themes

Most respondents either agreed or were unsure about the characterisation of the impacts on individuals with protected characteristics as set out in the consultation. Few respondents disagreed. Where comments were provided, they did not raise substantial new evidence of differential impacts beyond those already considered in the consultation document.

Government response

As the responses were generally supportive of our characterisation of the impacts on those with protected characteristics, and no significant new evidence was presented, we have not made any changes to our approach.