Will mayors use call-in powers effectively?
There are many positives to mayors being given greater powers to intervene in strategically important planning applications.
Anything that helps unlock major housing and commercial development, specifically where local decision-making has become an obstacle, should be regarded positively.
However, a new route through the planning system is not necessarily a faster one. If a mayor calls in an application, they become responsible for determining it, which requires either a public hearing or written representations. That brings additional process, time and cost. For a genuinely strategic-scale scheme this may be justified, but the 150-home threshold raises the question of whether mayoral intervention may sometimes be disproportionate.
There are lessons to learn from London. Mayoral oversight can provide a valuable strategic perspective, but it can also introduce another layer of planning policy and another political decision-maker. Call-in powers only have value if mayors are prepared to use them decisively, consistently and on planning grounds rather than according to political convenience.
There is also a geographical limitation as outside London most mayors are in the North. Many of the areas gaining these powers are therefore where political leadership is already broadly supportive of growth. I am more concerned about the challenges of securing permission for homes in non-Labour-controlled areas where development pressure is acute but where there is no mayor with equivalent powers to intervene.
We should be realistic about what this reform can achieve. Mayoral call-in powers may rescue individual schemes, but they are less likely, on their own, to transform the number of homes securing permission without the delay and expense of an appeal.
The test will not simply be whether mayors have these powers, but whether they use them proportionately, predictably and quickly.