Are we on the cusp of a planning revolution?

Setting aside five heatwaves, a change of prime minister, the FIFA World Cup, as well as local elections in certain parts of the country, the last few months have certainly been active for the UK planning regime. They may also prove to have been revolutionary.

A new National Planning Policy Frameworrk, numerous local plans moving forward, a consultation on a series of proposed standard templates for section 106 agreements and unilateral undertakings, and now a consultation on the scope and nature of strategic authority mayoral powers (which also includes proposals for Mayoral CIL and Mayoral Development Orders).

I, for one, welcome such an intervention. It will be the first time that strategic authority mayors across the country will be put on an equal footing with the Mayor of London in having planning powers. Given Andy Burnham’s announcement to dispatch 100 Whitehall officials to help regional mayors, this will surely have a positive impact on delivery. Power to regional officials and a devolved approach can bring a wealth of opportunities to their places.

The consultation proposes giving all strategic authority mayors the ability to intervene in planning applications that are of “potential strategic importance” – otherwise known as PSI applications. This approach closely mirrors how the system operates in London. What constitutes an application that is of PSI is part of the consultation too but mainly include those that are considered as such immediately and those that would become as such once a spatial development strategy (SDS) has been adopted.

The grounds of intervention differ depending on whether a SDS has been adopted or not.

Where an SDS has been adopted, the strategic authority mayors are able to:

1. direct refusal of a PSI application where, in their opinion, the development proposed would be contrary to the SDS, prejudicial to its implementation or otherwise contrary to good strategic planning in the area;
2. call in a PSI application where, in their opinion, the development or any of the issues raised by the development to which the PSI application relates is of such a nature or scale that it would have a significant impact on the implementation of the SDS and there are sound planning reasons for intervention on the implementation of the SDS.

However, before a SDS is in place, strategic authority mayors would only be able to:

1. direct refusal of a PSI application where the development would be detrimental to the area’s growth and would be contrary to good strategic planning in the area;
2. call in a PSI application if the development would have a significant impact on the growth of the area and there are sound planning reasons for intervention.

Critics suggest this could discourage authorities from putting spatial development strategies in place and that mayors could easily find criteria to support or stand in the way of a development. No-one knows how this will play out in different strategic mayoral authorities, but given the consultation is open until 5 October 2026, perhaps one response could be to only allow such powers when spatial development strategies are in place. This would ensure that interventions are growth-focused and that SDS preparation is prioritised.

There is also concern that such powers would create another layer of bureaucracy. But individual councils have historically been able to veto plans or put something forward that is unacceptable, so allowing strategic authority mayors to have such planning powers can only mean good growth for their areas if used properly. Such mayoral powers are of value if they are used proportionately, consistently, decidedly and not according to the political will of the day. Anyone who may abuse such powers would of course be open to judicial review.

Strategic planning has been devolved in London longest. It is now time for local leaders in other parts of the country to also have authority in our planning system to get the most out of regeneration, public health, transport and housing projects. This is about empowerment and allowing the rule-based planning system to flourish for the good of an area and its communities.

Burnham just needs to make sure that these mayors have the necessary capability and resources to take effective decisions. His decision to second civil servants into mayoral authorities signals that he is alive to the need for people and expertise.