England's elected mayors are set to gain significant new powers over major planning applications. The change could give devolution more substance, but it will also test where strategic leadership ends and local democratic control begins.

The government is currently consulting on the implementation of the new mayoral planning powers. The consultation applies to England and closes at 11.59pm on 5 October 2026.

Under the proposals, mayors outside London would be able to intervene in applications considered to be of potential strategic importance. The suggested thresholds include developments of more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial space, or buildings at least 30 metres tall.

A mayor could call in an application and become the planning authority responsible for deciding it. They could also direct a council to refuse an application. Mayoral Development Orders would allow permission to be granted for specified developments without requiring an individual planning application, while a new mayoral infrastructure levy could help fund transport and other infrastructure.

In one sense, this is what meaningful devolution should look like. Mayors are expected to produce regional growth plans, coordinate transport, unlock housing sites and attract investment. Giving them responsibility for outcomes without the power to overcome major planning barriers would leave devolution incomplete.

There is, however, an important distinction hidden within the language. Devolution simply means transferring power away from central government to a lower level. It does not necessarily mean transferring it to the most local level. Moving planning powers from Whitehall to a regional mayor is devolution, but moving a decision from a district or unitary council to that same mayor can feel like centralisation to the community affected.

This is significant because the word "devolution" often creates an impression that decisions are being brought closer, or very close, to residents. A mayoral strategic authority may cover several councils and a large, diverse geographical area. Its mayor may have a strong democratic mandate, but the public may not regard that institution as being as local as their council or ward councillors.

The case for regional decision-making remains strong. Strategic development does not always fit neatly within council boundaries. A housing scheme in one district may depend on transport, water, health and employment infrastructure serving a much wider area. A directly elected mayor can consider those relationships and can ultimately be held accountable by voters across the whole mayoral area.

The objections from councils are nevertheless understandable. Planning decisions are among the most visible and contentious responsibilities exercised by local government. Councillors know their communities and may feel that a mayor cannot properly understand the effect of a development on one town, village or neighbourhood. There is also a legitimate concern that transferring controversial decisions upwards could weaken local scrutiny and make public participation feel less meaningful.

Yet the existing system has weaknesses of its own. Many planning meetings operate within an "objection first" culture. The people who attend are usually those most strongly opposed, while residents who might welcome new homes, jobs or infrastructure are less visible, or from my observations rarely attend meetings at all. Councillors can face intense pressure to reject development even when it complies with an agreed local plan and officers recommend approval. Mayoral intervention could provide a counterweight to that pressure. It could also simply move the politics to a different arena.

That risk becomes sharper when the mayor and national government are political opponents. If, for example, Reform UK wins more mayoralties while Labour remains in power at Westminster, planning powers could become part of a wider political battle. A Reform mayor might block developments associated with national housing or environmental policy. Ministers could then use their own reserve powers to intervene, allowing both sides to claim they were defending local people against political overreach.

The test will not be whether mayors approve more applications. It will be whether decisions become more strategic, transparent and accountable. Stronger mayors can advance devolution, but only if their new authority is matched by clear rules, meaningful local engagement and public scrutiny. As with most areas of politics, the way forward is not clear and there are plenty of obstacles to overcome.