According to a GOV.UK government announcement, mayors across England are set to receive call-in powers over the most significant planning decisions in their areas. The stated purpose is to let mayors intervene where a scheme is judged important to local growth, bringing mayoral authorities outside London closer to the strategic planning role already exercised in the capital. The government said the proposal has backing from ten mayors across different parties. In practical terms, the change would shift a limited but important set of larger applications from being solely a council matter to becoming a potential mayoral decision as well.
A call-in power allows a mayor to step into an application that would otherwise be determined by the local planning authority. Under the government's proposal, that could include taking over a qualifying case and directing its progression or refusal where the scheme is judged important to growth. The thresholds outlined by the government are specific: more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial floorspace, or a building above 30 metres, roughly ten storeys. Those figures define which applications may be considered for intervention; they do not mean every qualifying scheme would automatically be taken out of council hands.
The announcement goes beyond call-ins. Ministers said mayors would also be able to grant permission in advance for certain development, allowing work to start without a developer submitting a separate planning application in those cases. If used carefully, that power could shorten the process on sites a mayor wants to bring forward quickly. The legal framework, however, would not disappear. The government said every decision must still follow planning rules, the relevant local plan and national policy. Applicants would keep the right of appeal, and ministers would retain a reserve power to intervene themselves. The reform therefore changes who can make or steer a strategic decision, rather than the policy tests the scheme has to meet.
Ministers were explicit that councils would continue to determine the great majority of planning applications. The government used recent housing delivery figures to make that point, highlighting authorities already building at scale rather than presenting the reform as a blanket criticism of local decision-making. Over the last three years, the government said Salford delivered 7,584 homes against a requirement of 4,249, Leeds delivered 11,690 against 10,151, and Knowsley delivered 1,888 against 772. The policy message is that the new mayoral role is intended for strategically important cases, while ordinary local applications would remain with councils and their planning committees.
The package also gives mayors a stronger role in housing finance. Homes England would still lead the biggest projects, but the government said its funding and expertise would be directed towards priorities agreed with local mayors. That would tighten the link between plan-making, site assembly and the public money used to unlock delivery. On funding, the announcement states that £1.3 billion from the national fund for land and infrastructure has already been allocated to seven established mayoral areas. A further £234 million of brownfield funding has gone to seven mayoral areas, and £1.5 billion has been committed for devolution through the Housing Accelerator Fund. Taken together, those sums show that the planning changes sit alongside a wider shift in how central housing support is channelled.
A further proposal would let mayors outside London charge a levy on development to help pay for major infrastructure. The government said the model would mirror the tool used in London to support the Elizabeth line, linking new building more directly to the transport and other enabling works needed to support growth. For developers, councils and communities, the practical effect would be a more strategic tier of decision-making on the largest schemes, not a replacement of the local planning system. Councils would still handle most applications, but projects above the national thresholds could face mayoral intervention, mayoral funding priorities and a greater expectation that infrastructure costs are addressed alongside housing delivery.