BLOGS

A new layer of planning control for major schemes

For nearly two decades, the Mayor of London has held the power to call in "applications of potential strategic importance" — typically schemes above 150 residential units or above a set floorspace threshold — and either determine them directly or influence their outcome. The current consultation proposes extending a similar mechanism to metro mayors across England's combined authorities, including Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

For an industry already navigating slow committee cycles, member call-ins and local political risk, this is a meaningful structural change. It would not replace local planning authorities, but it would insert a strategic, region-wide layer of oversight into the largest and most contentious residential and regeneration applications — precisely the schemes institutional capital cares most about.

Why this matters for scheme delivery and timelines

Local authority planning committees remain one of the most cited sources of delay and uncertainty in large-scale housing delivery. REalyse's planning application data — tracking submission dates, decision dates and planning stage across thousands of live and historic schemes — consistently shows wider variance in determination times for applications above 100–150 units compared with smaller residential consents, particularly where schemes sit in politically sensitive wards or involve height, density or heritage objections.

Mayoral call-in is designed to cut through exactly that variance. A mayor with region-wide delivery targets — often tied to devolution deal commitments on housing numbers — has a different incentive structure to a ward councillor facing immediate local opposition. In theory, that should mean:

• Faster resolution on stalled major applications, particularly regeneration schemes with mixed local support

• More consistent application of design and density expectations across a combined authority area, rather than borough-by-borough variation

• Greater weight given to strategic housing targets and brownfield regeneration priorities over hyperlocal objections

For developers running comparables and viability assessments across multiple local authorities, this could reduce the current spread in effective delivery timelines between neighbouring boroughs with otherwise similar site characteristics — a spread REalyse data shows can extend into an additional 6–12 months for schemes over 150 units where committees add conditions or defer decisions.

Where the risk and opportunity concentrate

Not every local authority area will feel this equally. The schemes most likely to see mayoral intervention are large, mixed-use or regeneration-led applications — Build-to-Rent blocks, town centre intensification, and estate renewal — the categories already flagged in planning pipeline data as btr or under c3_use_class at scale. Investors underwriting acquisitions in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire should treat pipeline schemes in this bracket as more likely to see a change in determination pathway over the consultation period and beyond.

This has direct implications for site selection and risk pricing:

• Development managers sourcing sites for schemes near the call-in threshold should factor a mayoral decision pathway into programme assumptions, rather than assuming a single local authority route

• Lenders and credit teams underwriting development finance may need to reassess planning risk weightings for schemes in mayoral combined authority areas, given the precedent set by London's call-in track record of both approvals and high-profile refusals

• Investment analysts comparing GDV and absorption assumptions across regions should watch for local authorities where mayoral intervention could compress or extend delivery timelines relative to REalyse-tracked historical averages for the same scheme size and property type

Local control versus regional delivery targets

The consultation sits inside a wider tension in English planning policy: national and mayoral housing targets versus local political accountability. Local authorities retain statutory decision-making for the vast majority of applications, and mayoral call-in — as it operates in London — is used sparingly, reserved for genuinely strategic schemes rather than routine planning matters.

But the symbolic effect on market sentiment may be as significant as the practical one. Where a credible mayoral call-in threat exists, local committees may become more inclined to approve major schemes rather than risk losing control of the decision entirely — a dynamic London boroughs have adjusted to over the past twenty years. If that pattern repeats in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and other combined authority areas, the net effect could be faster approvals across the board, not just for the schemes that are formally called in.

For agencies and valuers advising vendors and landowners on sites near the call-in threshold, this is a factor worth flagging early — a site that might have stalled at committee under the current regime could move faster once a mayoral backstop is in place, with knock-on effects for land values and achievable GDV.

Outlook

The direction of travel is toward more regional, delivery-focused planning control for the largest housing and regeneration schemes — mirroring a model London has operated since 2008. For institutional investors, developers and lenders, the near-term task is less about predicting individual call-in decisions and more about re-underwriting planning risk and timeline assumptions for schemes in combined authority areas that sit near the relevant thresholds.

As the consultation progresses, tracking planning pipeline data by local authority, scheme size and use class will be essential to spotting where mayoral intervention is most likely — and where it could unlock stalled regeneration sites that have been sitting in committee limbo.