The Very Model of a Modern Mayoral Authority: Major consultation on Mayoral planning powers opens

And our busy August just keeps going….

Exactly one week after the NPPF Launch, a *major* consultation on the scope and nature of mayoral planning powers has opened.

It is an implementation consultation, and one specifically focussed on three significant planning mayoral planning powers:

• the power to intervene in applications of potential strategic importance 
• the power to make Mayoral Development Orders; and
• the power to set Mayoral CIL.

There are also some other bits an bobs in there about local development orders, but those are not the focus of this blog.

The consultation opens today and runs until 5 October 2026.

It is an important one, and I mean REALLY important. If carried through, this would be the first time that strategic mayoral authorities across the country will be put on an equal footing with London in having planning powers that can directly influence delivery. Powers which could be used for good, or ill, depending on your view point (and more importantly, the views of the mayor in question).

Right. Now we are all clear on the stakes… let’s get into the consultation itself.

Intervention

The consultation proposes giving all mayors of Strategic Authorities the ability into intervene in planning applications that are of “potential strategic importance”.

The procedure for this would mirror that which is currently in place in London, following a three stage process:

• Stage 1: Consultation – the LPA will have to refer an application of potential strategic importance to the mayor when it is received. The mayor will have to respond with comments on how the application fits with the Spatial Development Strategy for the area within a specified period of time.
• Stage 2 – decision to intervene – if the mayor wants to consider an application then the LPA tell the mayor in advance if they are “minded to grant or refuse”. The mayor will then have fourteen days to decide if they want to intervene. An applicant can also ask the mayor to intervene if an application has not bee determined within the statutory timescales. Intervention can take two forms:
  • A direction to refuse – which would need to be accompanied by the reasons for that direction, which must then be published by the LPA on its the planning register; or
  • Calling-in the application where the mayor becomes the LPA and determines the application
• Stage 3 – determining called-in applications – here the mayor becomes the LPA and determines the application, either through written reps or via a hearing. The mayor will also be responsible for negotiating any associated section 106 agreement for the development. An application determined by a mayor can still be called in by the Secretary of State.

Applications of Potential Strategic Importance

The types of application that would be considered potentially of strategic importance is a large part of the consultation. The intention is that these fall into two camps. Applications that would be considered to be PSIs immediately, and those which would only become PSIs once a spatial development strategy had been adopted.

The types of applications that would be considered of potential strategic importance immediately would include:

The types of applications that would only be caught by a PSI designation after a spatial development strategy had been adopted would include:

• major infrastructure development which includes transport, waste and energy schemes; and
• development which could affect strategic policies, including loss of housing, new large-scale commercial and industrial development, loss of playing fields and development within the Green Belt.

This list is not complete. It currently omits non-urban development types – such as development in National Landscapes or intensive agricultural schemes. The consultation is seeking views on how to expand the definitions and what else should be included.

Grounds for Intervention

The basis on which a mayor can intervene is also intended to differ depending on whether a spatial development strategy has been adopted or not.

Before a SDS is in place, mayors would only be able to:

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

According to the consultation:

Once an SDS has been adopted, then the intervention criteria would be judged against the content of the adopted spatial development strategy.

At this point the mayors would be able to:

• direct refusal where the development would be contrary to the SDS, or prejudicial to its implementation, or would otherwise be contrary to good strategic planning in the area
• call in an application where the development, or any of the issues raised by the development, 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.

Procedure – written reps and development corporations

The consultation also proposes:

• allowing all called-in applications to be determined by written reps, if the mayor considers it to be appropriate
• requiring the mayor to publish guidance as to which applications would be determined by written reps and which by a hearing
• preventing the mayor from calling in or issuing directions to refuse applications that are to be determined by Development Corporations that had been set up by central government – or to be specific about it “centrally-led Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) and New Town Development Corporations (NTDCs)”.

That last proposal is very sensible, as it avoids the potential for disagreements between government backed Development Corporations and locally elected mayors on…. oh, I don’t know… the location of developments that form part of the government’s flagship new towns programme…

Mayoral Development Orders

The consultation also proposes imposing certain statutory limits and procedural requirements on the mayors ability to make mayoral development orders.

MHCLG intends to prevent mayoral development orders being used for:

• Development that would fall within schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations* which includes things like power stations, airports, chemical refineries and new motorways
• minerals developments of all types.

Other types of EIA development could be made via a mayoral development order, it would just need an environmental impact assessment as part of the process.

Speaking of procedure, the consultation describes the process of preparing an MDO as follows:

The draft MDO would need to be consulted on for a minimum of 30 days – with requirements for site notices, written notification to owners and occupiers of the site and for the draft MDO to be made available on the relevant LPA’s planning register.

There is also to be an express duty to consult LPAs within the Mayoral Strategic Authority Area, statutory consultees and other relevant stakeholders who may have an interest in the MDO.

The mayor would then be under a duty to consider the relevant planning matters raised in consultation responses submitted during the consultation period before determining whether to adopt the MDO in its draft form. The duty would not be extended to consultation responses submitted after the consultation deadline.

Once adopted, both the Mayor and the Secretary of State would have the power to revise or revoke the MDO, the proposed procedures for which are also set out in the consultation.

Mayoral CIL

Now, this part of the consultation is a bit of a special interest of mine. So please bear with me, as things might be about to get a little nerdy.

It has been well-publicised that the new Mayoral Strategic Authorities will get the ability to levy mayoral CIL. This consultation provides some of the details as to what that might look like.

Unsurprisingly, it looks a lot like mayoral CIL in London, but with a few key differences.

• Firstly, mayoral CIL will only be available after a mayor has adopted a spatial development strategy – with the intention being that the SDS and the new mayoral CIL charging schedule are capable of being examined together.
• Unlike London, where the duty is one way and only on the individual LPAs, for the rest of the country the new mayors will be under a reciprocal duty (with their constituent LPAs) to take account of existing CIL Rates when setting within the area when setting their own. I.e. the mayors will need to take account of the existing CIL rates of the boroughs in the strategic authority areas, and the constituent authorities will need to take account of the Mayoral CIL rates.
• The new mayoral CIL is currently intended to be spent primarily on“projects where the benefits extend to communities across mayoral strategic authorities” although this is under consultation.
• As is currently the case, the collecting authorities would be the constituent LPAs within the mayoral strategic authority – which may well be a bit of a headache for those LPAs which haven’t opted to adopt their own CIL rates locally.

As I may have mentioned previously, setting rates for these new mayoral CIL areas is not going to be an easy feat.

Many mayoral strategic authorities will be made up of a mix of CIL charging areas and areas that do not currently charge CIL. Those LPAs who do charge CIL will already have set their charging rates without taking any prospective mayoral CIL rates into account – and often in a much better economic climate than we have at present.

As such, finding a mayoral CIL rate that works across an entire strategic authority area, taking local rates into account, without both being to complex and putting viability of development across the area at risk is unlikely to be straightforward. Unless, by some miracle, all charging authorities within a mayoral strategic authority area decide to simultaneously review their CIL charging schedules at the same time as Mayoral CIL is adopted – something which (at the moment) they are under no obligation to do….

Gilbert & Sullivan

And finally, since I have had the Pirates on Penzance stuck in my head since the newspaper reports over the weekend. I thought I would finish with a bit of pound store G&S**…

I am the very model of a modern Mayoral Authority,
I’ve powers to intervene and set strategic CIL you see,
I know the MDOs, and I quote the powers you’ve given me
those strategic interventions, I promise to not use NIMBY-ly
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters infrastructural,
I understand equations, which will help keep its funding full,
About cross-lpa co-operation I’m teeming with a lot o’ news,
After all, they will have to collect the CIL I want to use.

I’m very good at making spatial development strategies;
I know the housing market and where reservoirs should go, you see:
In short, in matters transportation, housing, and infrastructure-y,
I am the very model of a modern Mayoral Authority.

*or to give them their proper name The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 

** I did warn you things were going to get nerdy