The Government is proposing to give mayors across England new powers to take over major planning applications from local councils, extending a system that London has operated for years.
According to the BBC, mayors in 13 areas of England would gain powers similar to those already available to the Mayor of London. The proposed powers would cover developments involving more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial space or buildings over 30 metres high.
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has described the powers as an “essential part of the toolkit” mayors need to deliver housing and regeneration, while Conservatives have questioned whether councils should lose the ability to make planning decisions within their own communities.
Local democratic decision-making should not lightly be overridden. But there is another side to mayoral call-in powers which deserves greater attention: they can provide an additional safeguard when major planning decisions may be vulnerable to intensely local political pressures, relationships or considerations that should have no place in a properly functioning planning system.
London’s experience provides useful evidence. Under the Mayor of London Order 2008, a power extensively exercised by then Mayor of London Boris Johnson, the Mayor can take over certain strategically important planning applications and become the local planning authority. This is not an unrestricted power to overturn any council decision. Once an application is called in, a public representation hearing must be held before it is determined.
Harrow itself provides particularly relevant examples. In 2017, Mayor Sadiq Khan called in the Palmerston Road development in Wealdstone after Harrow Council had rejected the proposal. The scheme involved 186 homes in a 17-storey development. Following City Hall’s intervention, the development was approved with 41 per cent affordable housing. City Hall said its planners had worked with the applicant following the call-in, including further consideration of affordable housing.
More recently, there has been another striking Harrow example. In September 2025, Harrow’s Planning Committee resolved to refuse the proposed redevelopment of 134 Kenton Road, which had been actively opposed by the Conservative ward councillors, despite council planning officers recommending that planning permission be granted. The Mayor called the application in on 1 December 2025, transferring responsibility for determining it from Harrow Council to City Hall. A public representation hearing was subsequently held on 20 March 2026. After considering the application, Deputy Mayor Jules Pipe resolved to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, with the final decision notice issued on 12 May 2026.
There has also been intervention over Stanmore Station car park. After Harrow indicated in September 2021 that it was minded to refuse that development, the Deputy Mayor decided the following month that the Mayor would become the local planning authority. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant before a representation hearing could take place.
These examples demonstrate why the call-in mechanism should not be characterised simply as central or regional government taking democracy away from councils.
Planning committees operate in an intensely local political environment. Councillors may face organised campaigns, electoral pressures and competing interests. Large developments may also involve land and investment worth many millions of pounds. A system of checks and balances is therefore valuable.
The important principle is not that the mayor will necessarily make a better decision than a council. It is that strategically important decisions can, in defined circumstances, receive another level of independent scrutiny against published planning policies and tests.
Seen in that context, mayoral call-in is more than a tool for accelerating housebuilding. Properly designed, it is also a safeguard within the planning system, a second pair of eyes when the scale, circumstances or wider significance of a decision justify one, helping ensure that major planning decisions are tested beyond the immediate local political environment.
According to the BBC, mayors in 13 areas of England would gain powers similar to those already available to the Mayor of London. The proposed powers would cover developments involving more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial space or buildings over 30 metres high.
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has described the powers as an “essential part of the toolkit” mayors need to deliver housing and regeneration, while Conservatives have questioned whether councils should lose the ability to make planning decisions within their own communities.
Local democratic decision-making should not lightly be overridden. But there is another side to mayoral call-in powers which deserves greater attention: they can provide an additional safeguard when major planning decisions may be vulnerable to intensely local political pressures, relationships or considerations that should have no place in a properly functioning planning system.
London’s experience provides useful evidence. Under the Mayor of London Order 2008, a power extensively exercised by then Mayor of London Boris Johnson, the Mayor can take over certain strategically important planning applications and become the local planning authority. This is not an unrestricted power to overturn any council decision. Once an application is called in, a public representation hearing must be held before it is determined.
Harrow itself provides particularly relevant examples. In 2017, Mayor Sadiq Khan called in the Palmerston Road development in Wealdstone after Harrow Council had rejected the proposal. The scheme involved 186 homes in a 17-storey development. Following City Hall’s intervention, the development was approved with 41 per cent affordable housing. City Hall said its planners had worked with the applicant following the call-in, including further consideration of affordable housing.
More recently, there has been another striking Harrow example. In September 2025, Harrow’s Planning Committee resolved to refuse the proposed redevelopment of 134 Kenton Road, which had been actively opposed by the Conservative ward councillors, despite council planning officers recommending that planning permission be granted. The Mayor called the application in on 1 December 2025, transferring responsibility for determining it from Harrow Council to City Hall. A public representation hearing was subsequently held on 20 March 2026. After considering the application, Deputy Mayor Jules Pipe resolved to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, with the final decision notice issued on 12 May 2026.
There has also been intervention over Stanmore Station car park. After Harrow indicated in September 2021 that it was minded to refuse that development, the Deputy Mayor decided the following month that the Mayor would become the local planning authority. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant before a representation hearing could take place.
These examples demonstrate why the call-in mechanism should not be characterised simply as central or regional government taking democracy away from councils.
Planning committees operate in an intensely local political environment. Councillors may face organised campaigns, electoral pressures and competing interests. Large developments may also involve land and investment worth many millions of pounds. A system of checks and balances is therefore valuable.
The important principle is not that the mayor will necessarily make a better decision than a council. It is that strategically important decisions can, in defined circumstances, receive another level of independent scrutiny against published planning policies and tests.
Seen in that context, mayoral call-in is more than a tool for accelerating housebuilding. Properly designed, it is also a safeguard within the planning system, a second pair of eyes when the scale, circumstances or wider significance of a decision justify one, helping ensure that major planning decisions are tested beyond the immediate local political environment.