BLOGS

A new era for strategic planning in England

The government's proposed planning reforms mark a significant departure from the post-war consensus on local planning control. Under current proposals, elected mayors heading combined authorities in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, and other devolved regions would gain powers comparable to the Mayor of London's strategic oversight role—including the ability to call in major applications, set strategic housing targets, and coordinate infrastructure delivery across borough boundaries.

For property professionals, these changes arrive at a critical moment. REalyse data shows that across England's major combined authority areas, there are currently hundreds of large-scale residential schemes (50+ units) in the planning system, representing a pipeline of over 600,000 proposed homes. Yet average decision times for major housing applications can exceed 400 days in many areas, with significant variation between local authorities within the same city-region.

The question facing the sector is whether mayoral planning powers can unlock faster, more consistent decision-making without undermining the democratic accountability that underpins public trust in the planning system.

Current performance across combined authority areas

Analysis of planning application data across England's combined authority regions reveals both the scale of the opportunity and the challenge ahead.

Central London currently leads in major residential planning activity, with nearly 1,000 large-scale housing applications representing over 240,000 proposed units. The approval rate for decided applications sits at approximately 96%, demonstrating that strategic coordination under the Mayor of London's existing powers has not resulted in lower approval outcomes.

Greater Manchester, which would be among the first combined authorities to benefit from expanded mayoral powers, shows similarly strong performance. With over 460 major residential applications in the system representing nearly 80,000 units, the region achieves an approval rate approaching 97% for decided schemes. Manchester city centre in particular has demonstrated efficient processing, with average decision times for 100+ unit schemes coming in under 260 days—significantly faster than the national average.

The West Midlands combined authority area presents a more complex picture. While Birmingham itself shows strong metrics—a 97% approval rate and average decision times under 300 days for major schemes—neighbouring authorities exhibit more variation. Across the wider region, over 430 major applications representing more than 83,000 units are working through the system, but coordination between local planning authorities can create inconsistencies in approach and timeline.

REalyse data indicates that average decision times for large residential schemes (100+ units) across England typically range from 300 to 500 days, with some authorities taking considerably longer. This variation within combined authority boundaries makes the case for strategic coordination, but also raises questions about how mayoral oversight would interact with existing local plan policies.

The case for strategic oversight

Proponents of enhanced mayoral planning powers point to several potential benefits for housing delivery.

Faster resolution of strategic sites: Many large housing schemes span multiple local authority boundaries or depend on cross-boundary infrastructure. Under current arrangements, coordinating between planning authorities can add months or years to delivery timelines. A strategic overview could resolve competing priorities and unlock stalled sites more quickly.

Consistent approach to major applications: REalyse analysis shows approval rates for major schemes ranging from below 80% to 100% across different local authorities within the same city-region. Strategic oversight could establish clearer criteria and more predictable outcomes for developers bringing forward significant housing investment.

Infrastructure coordination: Combined authority mayors already hold transport and economic development powers. Adding planning oversight creates a more coherent approach to growth, allowing housing delivery to be coordinated with transport investment, employment sites, and community infrastructure.

Investment certainty: For institutional investors, build-to-rent operators, and major housebuilders, strategic planning frameworks can provide the certainty needed to commit capital to large-scale, multi-phase developments. The London model has attracted significant institutional investment to the residential sector, with developers understanding the strategic framework within which major schemes will be assessed.

Democratic accountability concerns

Critics of the proposals raise legitimate questions about the implications for local democracy and planning policy.

Local plan primacy: England's planning system is built on the principle that locally-adopted development plans should guide decision-making. Borough and district councils invest significant resources in producing local plans through extensive public consultation. Critics argue that mayoral override powers could undermine this democratic process, particularly where strategic priorities conflict with local community preferences.

Accountability distance: While mayors are directly elected, they serve much larger populations than local councillors. Residents concerned about a specific development may find it harder to engage with regional decision-makers than with their local planning committee. The risk is that strategic efficiency comes at the cost of meaningful public participation.

Local knowledge: Planning officers and councillors in local authorities possess detailed knowledge of their areas—from flood risk and heritage considerations to community infrastructure capacity. Strategic oversight bodies may lack this granular understanding, potentially leading to decisions that work in principle but create practical problems in implementation.

Cumulative impact: Individual housing schemes may each be acceptable in isolation, but their cumulative effect on local infrastructure, school places, GP capacity, and transport networks requires careful local assessment. There are concerns that strategic bodies focused on meeting regional targets may not adequately weigh these localised impacts.

What this means for the property sector

For developers and investors operating across England's combined authority areas, the proposed changes have significant practical implications.

Site identification and due diligence: Strategic planning frameworks will create clearer hierarchies for development opportunity. Sites identified for strategic growth—particularly around transport nodes, in housing growth corridors, and on brownfield land suitable for density—are likely to see streamlined approval processes. REalyse planning and land data can help identify sites that align with emerging strategic priorities.

Engagement strategies: Major scheme promoters may need to adjust their engagement approaches, balancing traditional local authority relationships with strategic-level advocacy. Understanding the policy priorities of individual mayors and combined authority spatial strategies will become increasingly important.

Timeline expectations: Where strategic oversight is established, decision timelines for qualifying major schemes may improve. However, the transition period—as new structures bed in and boundaries between strategic and local decisions are established—could create short-term uncertainty.

Yield and value implications: Areas where strategic planning accelerates housing delivery may see different price dynamics than those where supply remains constrained. Investors should consider how enhanced mayoral powers might affect both development viability and long-term rental and capital value growth in different locations.

Conclusion

The shift towards mayoral strategic planning powers represents the most significant change to England's planning governance since the creation of the National Planning Policy Framework. REalyse data suggests that the potential for improved coordination and faster decision-making is real—areas with strong strategic frameworks already demonstrate higher approval rates and, in some cases, shorter timelines for major housing schemes.

However, the concerns around democratic accountability and local plan alignment deserve serious consideration. The most successful implementation will likely require clear protocols that preserve meaningful local input while enabling strategic coordination on genuinely cross-boundary issues.

For property professionals, the key is to understand how these changes will affect specific markets and sites. As the legislation progresses through Parliament, monitoring strategic spatial frameworks and mayoral priorities will be essential for identifying where the new powers are most likely to accelerate housing delivery—and where local resistance may create ongoing friction.