Mayors to get powers to bulldoze through major housing developments under Andy Burnham devolution push
Mayors across England are set to be given new powers allowing them to overrule local councils on major housing developments, as part of a devolution push led by Andy Burnham. Under the plans, mayors could "call in" council decisions to approve or block significant building projects, or even grant developers upfront permission to bypass the standard application process altogether. The move comes as Labour appears likely to miss its manifesto target of building 1.5 million homes in England within five years, though critics warn it risks sidelining local residents' objections.
The powers would initially apply to developments of more than 150 homes, commercial buildings over 15,000 square metres, or structures at least 30 metres tall (roughly ten storeys), and have been backed by ten of England's 14 devolved mayors. London's Mayor was granted similar powers earlier this year to unblock stalled housing sites. Burnham acknowledged the change shifts power away from councillors and local people but argued it could also be used against unpopular council proposals. Ministers would retain a backstop power to intervene, and mayors would gain more influence over Homes England funding and the ability to levy development charges for infrastructure. The Liberal Democrats criticised the plan as a "direct attack" on communities that would silence residents; a consultation is expected shortly.
- Mayors to gain power to override councils on major housing projects
- Applies to developments over 150 homes or 30m+ buildings
- Lib Dems say plan silences residents; consultation coming soon
New here? Start with this
Mayors in England could soon gain the power to override local councils and push through large housing and building schemes, even when councils have rejected them. The change is part of a wider push to hand more control to regional mayors, an approach associated with Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, and comes as the government looks likely to fall short of its target of building 1.5 million homes in five years.
The new powers would let mayors "call in" council planning decisions on big developments, such as housing schemes over 150 homes or tall buildings, and in some cases let developers skip the usual council approval process entirely. Ten of England's 14 mayors have backed the idea, and London's mayor was given similar powers earlier this year.
Supporters argue this could speed up housebuilding by cutting through local delays, while opponents, including the Liberal Democrats, say it risks reducing the say residents and councillors have over developments in their area. The plans are expected to go out for public consultation shortly.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that England's acute housing shortage demands decisive action, and that fragmented local planning decisions have repeatedly stalled viable, needed developments for reasons unrelated to their merits. Giving mayors, who are directly elected and accountable across a wider area, the power to call in or fast-track major schemes could cut through parochial obstruction, speed up delivery of homes and infrastructure, and align housing with region-wide economic and transport planning. Proponents also note the powers cut both ways, since mayors could use them to block unpopular council-approved schemes as well as approve stalled ones, and that ministers retain a backstop, so the change is a rebalancing of accountability rather than an unchecked power grab.
The case against
Critics contend that planning decisions on this scale should remain rooted in local democratic control, since councillors are closest to residents and best placed to weigh a development's impact on their specific streets, schools and services. They worry that allowing mayors to override councils, or grant developers upfront permission bypassing the normal application process altogether, risks silencing legitimate objections from people who will live with the consequences, and could erode trust in a planning system already seen by many as remote. This side values the principle that those affected by a development should have a meaningful say before it proceeds, and fears that centralising power in mayoral offices, however well-intentioned, sets a precedent for sidelining local voices whenever national targets are under pressure.