BLOGS

Introduction: A new era for strategic planning

The Government's plan to hand mayors new strategic planning powers over major housing developments marks one of the most significant shifts in English planning policy since the creation of combined authorities. Under the proposals, metro mayors would gain call-in powers for large residential schemes, enabling them to override local planning decisions where strategic housing targets are at stake.

Proponents argue this will cut through borough-level delays and align infrastructure investment with housing growth. Critics warn it could undermine local democratic accountability and create fresh uncertainty over who funds the roads, schools, and utilities that new communities require.

But what does the data actually tell us about how combined authority areas perform today—and what might change under an expanded mayoral remit?

How combined authority areas compare on planning performance

REalyse analysis of major residential planning applications (schemes of 50 or more units) reveals a notable performance gap between areas with combined authorities and those without.

Approval rates: Regions with combined authorities—including Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire—achieve average approval rates between 92% and 96% for major housing schemes. By contrast, non-mayoral counties show wider variation, with approval rates ranging from 79% to 93% depending on the area.

Decision times: Combined authority regions also tend to reach decisions faster. Greater Manchester averages around 303 days from submission to decision on large schemes, while West Midlands records approximately 293 days. Non-combined authority areas such as Kent, Devon, and Strathclyde average between 425 and 433 days—roughly four months longer.

Across all UK regions, the median time to decision for major housing applications sits at around 395 days, with approval rates averaging 88%. The data suggests that areas with existing mayoral oversight already demonstrate more consistent and efficient planning outcomes.

What the pipeline reveals

Looking at the current residential planning pipeline across England's eight main combined authority areas, REalyse data shows approximately 581,000 homes either in planning, with permission granted, or under construction:

• Greater London: 225,551 units in the pipeline, with nearly 90,000 already consented and over 66,000 under construction

• West Midlands: 78,129 units, of which 33,019 have permission

• Greater Manchester: 70,236 units, with 26,570 consented

• West Yorkshire: 56,975 units in the pipeline

• South Yorkshire, North East, Tees Valley, and Liverpool City Region: Collectively accounting for over 150,000 additional units

These figures highlight both the scale of opportunity and the challenge ahead. Consented schemes do not always translate into built homes—land banking, viability issues, and infrastructure constraints all play a role.

The case for mayoral call-in powers

Supporters of expanded mayoral planning authority point to several potential benefits.

Strategic alignment: Mayors can take a region-wide view, ensuring housing growth is coordinated with transport investment, employment hubs, and infrastructure corridors. This is particularly relevant for large urban extensions and new settlements that cross multiple borough boundaries.

Faster decisions on stalled schemes: Where local authorities lack resources or face political pressure to delay contentious applications, mayoral intervention could unblock pipeline projects that have languished in planning limbo.

Investor confidence: A clearer, more consistent planning framework may attract institutional capital to build-to-rent and large-scale housing schemes. REalyse data shows that institutional investors increasingly favour markets with predictable consent timelines—areas where average days on market and approval rates are stable.

The risks: Infrastructure funding and local control

However, the proposals also raise legitimate concerns.

Infrastructure obligations: When a mayor approves a scheme that a local authority opposed, who funds the supporting infrastructure? Section 106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments are negotiated at borough level. Mayoral call-in powers could create disputes over whether contributions are adequate—or who bears the cost when they fall short.

Democratic accountability: Planning decisions are among the most locally sensitive issues in British politics. Critics argue that removing them from elected councillors risks alienating communities and fuelling opposition to development.

Uncertainty during transition: Any structural reform takes time to bed in. Developers and investors may pause applications while waiting to see how the new powers operate in practice—potentially slowing rather than accelerating delivery in the short term.

What this means for developers and investors

For those active in UK residential development, the proposals warrant close attention.

Due diligence on governance: Understanding the planning authority structure—and any upcoming changes—will become a more important part of site appraisal. REalyse platform users can already filter planning pipeline data by combined authority and track approval trends at regional level.

Infrastructure risk assessment: Schemes in areas with strong mayoral leadership may benefit from coordinated investment strategies, but those reliant on local infrastructure funding could face greater uncertainty.

Timing considerations: If mayoral powers are introduced incrementally, early movers may gain an advantage by engaging directly with combined authority planning teams before processes become congested.

Conclusion: Reform alone won't build homes

The data suggests that combined authority areas already outperform many non-mayoral regions on planning approvals and decision times. Expanding mayoral powers may reinforce this advantage—but it will not, on its own, solve the deeper challenges of land supply, viability, and infrastructure funding.

For developers, lenders, and investors, the key is to monitor how these reforms evolve and to use granular planning and market data to identify where opportunities—and risks—are most acute. With over half a million homes in metropolitan pipelines awaiting delivery, the stakes could hardly be higher.