Mayoral planning powers test No. 10’s devolution promise — and its accountability gap

What ministers are proposing

The planning consultation would implement provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. It covers three main powers: mayoral intervention in strategic planning applications, Mayoral Development Orders and a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy for mayors outside London.⁶

The most politically visible change is the proposed call-in power. Local planning authorities would have to refer applications of potential strategic importance to the mayor. The mayor could then leave the decision with the council, direct refusal or call in the application and become the planning decision-maker.⁶

The government says the model draws on the Mayor of London’s powers, which have operated since 2008. But extending them outside London would shift the balance between councils and regional mayors in areas where local planning authorities have traditionally had the decisive role on major schemes.⁶

Ministers also want mayors to be able to make Mayoral Development Orders. These would grant upfront planning permission for development on a particular site, creating a framework intended to speed later approvals and reduce uncertainty for housing or growth projects.⁶

A third limb, the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy, would allow mayors outside London to raise funds from development to support strategic infrastructure.⁶

The safeguards in the planning package

The consultation includes several safeguards, though many depend on secondary legislation and later implementation. For called-in planning applications, the proposed process includes consultation with the mayor, a second-stage decision on whether to intervene, and determination through either a public hearing or written representations.⁶

The document says mayors would have to consider representations from local planning authorities, applicants, statutory consultees and affected communities when determining called-in applications.⁶ The Secretary of State would also retain call-in powers, and applicants could appeal to the Secretary of State if a mayor refused planning permission.⁶

For Mayoral Development Orders, the consultation proposes that mayors prepare a draft order, a statement of reasons and a plan identifying the land covered. It also proposes a minimum 30-day publicity period, website publication, site notices, notification to owners or occupiers where known, consultation with the relevant local planning authority and consultation with statutory bodies that would otherwise be consulted on a planning application.⁶

The consultation also proposes a boundary around mayoral powers where centrally led development corporations are involved. It asks whether centrally led urban development corporations or new town development corporations should be excluded from mayoral powers to direct refusal or call in strategic applications, reflecting the fact that those bodies are accountable to central government rather than regional mayors.⁶

These provisions create procedural checks. They do not, by themselves, answer the broader political accountability question. A mayor might follow the process correctly and still make a decision that councils, MPs or residents consider poor, opaque or skewed towards one part of a region.

Spending powers raise the bigger accountability question

The scrutiny issue is sharper because the planning reforms sit alongside wider discussions about devolving fiscal power. The Guardian reported on 4 October that ministers are examining ways to prevent regional leaders from misusing new spending powers as Whitehall prepares to devolve more revenue to local levels.¹

Options reportedly under discussion include a new Westminster select committee, stronger reporting rules, a new audit body for local and regional government, and possible recall arrangements for mayors.¹ The paper also reported that Treasury committee chair Meg Hillier said stronger scrutiny structures must accompany any transfer of spending power.¹

That debate matters because England no longer has the Audit Commission, the body that once had a dedicated role in local government spending oversight before its abolition in 2015.¹ The current oversight landscape is more fragmented, with responsibilities spread across local auditors, inspectors, departments, councils, mayoral combined authorities and Parliament.

A derivative News Dive summary of the same debate points to the same issues: equalisation, audit and the risk that richer tax bases could pull ahead unless fiscal devolution is designed carefully.⁵ Because that account appears to aggregate other reporting, it is best treated as a corroborating pointer rather than an independent primary source.

Recess narrows immediate parliamentary scrutiny

The timing is awkward for ministers. On Sunday 4 October, the Commons and Lords were not sitting and the House of Commons was already in recess.³ On Monday 5 October, when the consultation closes, Parliament’s official calendar again records that both Houses are not sitting and that the Commons will next sit on 12 October.²

That does not mean scrutiny disappears. MPs can pursue questions, committee inquiries and debates once the House returns, and committees can continue preparatory work outside the chamber timetable. But the formal opportunity for immediate Commons questioning is constrained as the consultation closes and ministers move towards drafting secondary legislation.

The consultation says secondary legislation for strategic planning application powers is intended by the end of the year, with commencement in early 2027, subject to consultation and parliamentary scheduling.⁶ That leaves a narrow window for Parliament to test whether the safeguards are adequate before the powers are operational.

Local government’s concern: capacity and legitimacy

For local government readers, the practical question is whether strategic authorities will have the planning capacity to use the powers well. The MHCLG consultation says authorities will need development management expertise, casework systems, standing orders and procedural guidance before the powers are used from day one.⁶

Sector discussions already point to uneven local capacity and the importance of coherent regional leadership. A Future Cities Forum report on science cities and devolution highlighted the role of strategic authorities, spatial planning and investor confidence, with contributors stressing the need for joined-up leadership and clear local accountability.⁴

That is the policy argument for devolution: large housing, transport, research and regeneration projects often cross council boundaries, while investors and infrastructure providers want a clear regional decision-maker.

But it is also the source of the democratic tension. A mayor may have a direct electoral mandate across a region, while a council may have the closer relationship with a specific affected community.

The unresolved accountability gap

The government’s planning proposals contain mechanisms for consultation, publication, hearings, written representations, appeals and Secretary of State intervention. Its spending-power discussions appear to be moving towards additional reporting, audit and parliamentary scrutiny.⁶¹

The unresolved issue is how these mechanisms fit together. Whitehall can retain reserve powers, but that risks weakening the devolution ministers say they want. Parliament can scrutinise departments and perhaps regional spending frameworks, but it does not directly manage mayoral decision-making. Local authorities can challenge or object, but may be overridden on strategic applications. Voters can remove mayors at election time, but elections are a blunt tool for individual planning or spending decisions.

No. 10’s devolution project therefore faces a design problem as much as a political one. If powers are devolved without clear audit, disclosure and intervention routes, ministers risk creating an accountability gap. If the safeguards are too centralised, devolution may become delegation in name only.

The consultation deadline on 5 October is only one stage in that argument. The decisive test will come when ministers set out the secondary legislation, the fiscal devolution package and the oversight architecture meant to make both work.