BLOGS

Introduction

The English planning system stands on the cusp of its most significant restructuring in decades. As Westminster advances legislation to grant strategic planning powers to elected mayors beyond London, the implications for housing delivery, infrastructure coordination, and local democratic accountability are becoming clearer—and more contested.

For property professionals, investors, and developers operating across England's major city regions, understanding these changes is no longer optional. The shift toward mayoral-led strategic planning will reshape where and how large-scale development happens, influencing everything from land values to community infrastructure provision.

The legislative landscape

The government's devolution agenda has gathered pace since 2024, with the English Devolution Bill and related reforms establishing a framework for transferring strategic planning powers to metro mayors. These powers, long enjoyed by London's mayor, would enable regional leaders in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, and other combined authority areas to take a more active role in shaping major development decisions.

Under the proposed framework, mayors would gain influence over developments of strategic significance—typically schemes above certain unit thresholds or those spanning multiple local authority boundaries. This represents a fundamental shift from the current system, where planning decisions rest almost exclusively with individual local planning authorities.

The rationale is straightforward: England needs to build more homes, and fragmented local decision-making has often hindered the coordinated infrastructure investment required for large-scale delivery. By elevating certain decisions to mayoral level, the government hopes to unlock sites that have languished in planning limbo while ensuring housing growth aligns with regional transport, employment, and environmental priorities.

Development pipeline in mayoral regions

REalyse data reveals the scale of development already underway across England's combined authority areas. Over the past 24 months, these regions have seen substantial planning activity for large and mega-scale schemes:

• Greater Manchester leads with nearly 500 major planning applications representing approximately 48,000 housing units, with an average scheme value exceeding £18 million

• West Midlands follows closely with similar application volumes and over 41,000 units in the pipeline, averaging around £13.5 million per scheme

• West Yorkshire has nearly 400 major applications totalling approximately 20,000 housing units

• Cambridgeshire and Peterborough shows one of the highest average scheme sizes at around 138 units per development, with over 43,000 units proposed

Across all combined authority areas analysed, the pipeline exceeds 200,000 housing units from large-scale schemes alone. Average scheme values range from £7 million to £18 million, reflecting the significant capital deployment these regions attract.

This concentration of major development activity underscores why mayors are keen to secure greater planning influence. The fragmented nature of the current system—where a scheme spanning multiple boroughs may require separate approvals from each—creates friction that strategic oversight could potentially resolve.

Accelerating delivery or concentrating power?

Proponents argue that mayoral strategic planning powers could meaningfully accelerate housing delivery. When the Mayor of London gained call-in powers for strategic applications, it created a mechanism to resolve contentious schemes that might otherwise stall at borough level. Similar powers outside London could, in theory, replicate these benefits.

Large infrastructure-led developments—such as those around new rail connections, enterprise zones, or regeneration corridors—often struggle under the current system because they require coordination across multiple local planning authorities. A mayor with strategic planning powers could provide the single point of accountability that investors and developers increasingly demand.

However, critics raise legitimate concerns. Local councillors and community groups worry that mayoral intervention could override local priorities, particularly around design quality, affordable housing requirements, and community infrastructure. There are questions about whether mayors, often focused on high-profile regeneration projects, will give sufficient weight to the concerns of residents in areas earmarked for densification.

Community infrastructure levies and section 106

Perhaps the most contentious aspect concerns developer contributions. Under the current system, local authorities negotiate section 106 agreements and collect Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments to fund local services—schools, healthcare facilities, green spaces—necessitated by new development.

If strategic planning powers shift certain decisions to mayoral level, questions arise about where these contributions should flow. Should CIL from a mayor-approved development support the immediate locality, or could it be pooled for region-wide infrastructure? The legislation remains unclear on this point, creating uncertainty for developers budgeting for contributions and local authorities planning for service delivery.

REalyse analysis of planning data shows that average scheme values in combined authority areas range considerably—from roughly £7 million in West Yorkshire to over £18 million in Greater Manchester. The associated infrastructure contributions from schemes at this scale are significant, making the question of who controls these funds politically charged.

Market implications for developers and investors

For developers and investors, the shift toward mayoral strategic planning powers presents both opportunities and risks that require careful navigation.

On the opportunity side, streamlined decision-making for strategic sites could reduce planning risk and timeline uncertainty—two factors that significantly affect development viability and land values. Sites that might previously have been considered too complex due to multi-authority coordination challenges could become more attractive under a unified strategic framework.

The risk side is less clear-cut. Mayoral priorities may not always align with market dynamics. A mayor focused on affordable housing targets or specific employment-led regeneration may view certain schemes less favourably than a local authority primarily concerned with housing numbers. Understanding the strategic vision of each metro mayor will become as important as understanding local plan policies.

Additionally, the transition period itself creates uncertainty. Until the full scope of mayoral powers is clarified—and tested through actual planning decisions—developers may hesitate to commit capital to schemes that could be affected by the new framework.

Looking ahead

The transfer of strategic planning powers to elected mayors represents a calculated bet that regional coordination will unlock housing delivery at a scale the current system cannot achieve. With over 200,000 housing units in the major-scheme pipeline across combined authority areas, the stakes are substantial.

For property professionals, the imperative is clear: monitor legislative developments closely, engage early with emerging mayoral spatial strategies, and factor the changing decision-making landscape into site appraisals and investment decisions. The mayors who gain these powers will shape regional property markets for years to come—understanding their priorities is essential.

Whether these reforms ultimately accelerate housing delivery while preserving community voice remains to be seen. What is certain is that the planning landscape outside London is about to change fundamentally, and those who adapt earliest will be best positioned to navigate what comes next.