BLOGS

Introduction

The English Devolution Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, could fundamentally reshape how England plans and builds new homes. At its heart is a proposal to grant elected mayors strategic planning powers similar to those wielded by the Mayor of London since the Greater London Authority was established in 2000.

For property professionals, investors and developers, this isn't merely an administrative adjustment—it represents a potential step-change in how major schemes navigate the planning system outside the capital. The question is whether London's model can successfully translate to Manchester, Birmingham, and England's other combined authority areas.

The London benchmark: what the data shows

London's Mayor currently holds call-in powers for schemes of strategic importance, sets housing targets through the London Plan, and can overrule borough decisions when they conflict with the capital's strategic objectives. REalyse planning data illustrates what this means in practice.

Over the past three years, London has processed nearly 6,000 private residential planning applications proposing over 117,000 units. More notably, London's large-scale schemes (those with 50+ units) average around 430 units per development—significantly higher than any other English city. Manchester comes closest with an average of 354 units per large scheme, followed by Birmingham at 259 and Bristol at 226.

This scale differential isn't coincidental. Strategic oversight enables coordination of transport, infrastructure and housing at a level that fragmented local authorities struggle to achieve independently. When a single body can align planning decisions with regional growth priorities, developers have greater certainty when bringing forward ambitious schemes.

Regional variations highlight the opportunity

The data also reveals considerable inconsistency in planning outcomes across England's combined authority areas. Approval rates for residential schemes range from 60.5% in Liverpool to 77.1% in Sheffield—a gap of nearly 17 percentage points that suggests significant differences in local planning culture and capacity.

London sits at 64.7%, which might seem modest, but this figure must be read alongside the capital's more complex development environment and the sheer volume of applications processed. What's more telling is that cities with stronger mayoral leadership structures, such as Manchester under Andy Burnham, already demonstrate competitive metrics. Greater Manchester's average scheme value of £8.8 million is notably the highest among all regions analysed, suggesting that strategic mayoral engagement may already be attracting larger, more sophisticated developments.

Bristol and Sheffield both demonstrate that combined authority areas can achieve approval rates above 69%, but the question is whether this performance can be sustained and scaled without more formalised strategic planning powers. The pipeline data shows over 34,000 units proposed in Manchester and nearly 30,000 in Birmingham—delivery at this scale demands coordination that individual local planning authorities may struggle to provide.

What expanded powers could mean for development

The proposed legislation would enable metro mayors to create spatial development strategies with genuine teeth—the ability to set housing targets, designate growth areas, and call in applications that cross local authority boundaries or carry strategic significance.

For developers, this could mean several practical improvements. First, greater certainty on large sites that currently require navigation between multiple boroughs with different local plans and priorities. Second, faster determination for strategic schemes that align with mayoral growth objectives. Third, more consistent application of viability assessments and affordable housing requirements across combined authority areas.

REalyse data shows that London's 226 large-scale residential schemes over the past three years represent nearly a third of all large schemes across the eight major urban centres analysed. If Manchester, Birmingham and other cities could approach similar levels of strategic scheme activity relative to their populations, the implications for regional housing delivery would be substantial.

However, the proposals also carry risks. Local councillors and communities may resist what they perceive as a loss of democratic input into planning decisions that affect their neighbourhoods. The success of London's model depends heavily on the quality of strategic planning at City Hall and the political skill required to balance borough interests against regional needs.

Outlook: a catalyst for housing delivery?

The English Devolution Bill's planning provisions arrive at a critical moment. England needs to deliver significantly more homes to address affordability challenges, and major cities outside London have substantial brownfield land and infrastructure capacity to accommodate growth. The planning system's current fragmentation—with over 300 local planning authorities making largely independent decisions—creates friction that strategic mayoral oversight could reduce.

REalyse planning data suggests the gap between London and other major cities isn't simply about market demand or land availability. The structural difference in how planning decisions are coordinated appears to influence both the scale of schemes that come forward and the efficiency with which they're determined.

Whether expanded mayoral powers will successfully accelerate housing delivery depends on implementation details yet to be finalised—including how call-in thresholds are defined, how local plans will interact with spatial development strategies, and how quickly metro mayors can develop the planning capacity and expertise that London has built over two decades.

For property professionals monitoring the planning pipeline across England's major cities, the legislative process is worth watching closely. The difference between a fragmented and a coordinated regional planning approach could ultimately determine which cities capture the lion's share of institutional investment and development activity in the years ahead.