Planning powers for mayors in England

Question 1

How to respond

Accepted Answer

You may respond by completing the online survey:

We strongly encourage responses via the online survey, particularly from organisations with access to online facilities such as local authorities, representative bodies, and businesses. Consultations on planning policy receive a high level of interest across many sectors. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised for each question.

Alternatively, you can email your response to the questions in this consultation to MayorsPlanningPowersConsultation@communities.gov.uk.

If you are responding in writing, please make it clear which questions you are responding to.

Written responses should be sent to:

Mayoral Development Management Powers Consultation
Planning Development Management
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Planning Directorate
3rd Floor, North East
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

When you reply it would be very useful if you confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

your name
your position (if applicable)
the name of organisation (if applicable)
an address (including post-code)
an email address
a contact telephone number

Question 2

Ministerial foreword

Accepted Answer

The Rewiring the State Cabinet Statement published on 31 July 2026 commits the government to delivering good growth in every part of the United Kingdom, with places able to set their own ambitions and integrate services to meet people’s needs.

In England, this requires a fundamental rewiring of the way our country works, surrendering power that for too long has been held in Westminster and Whitehall, and returning it to people and the places where they live, work and invest. Local leaders know what it will take to drive growth in their areas, creating jobs and attracting investment that speak to the strengths of their region.

An effective planning system is integral to meeting housing need, speeding up infrastructure delivery and enabling our towns and cities to realise their full economic potential. While the government has an essential role to play in setting the framework of national planning policy, standards and regulation, it is local leaders, including mayors, who should be overseeing the strategic direction of development in their areas.

For over two decades, London has set the long-term frameworks for its housing delivery, infrastructure provision, growth and environmental resilience through a statutory spatial strategy, yet to its detriment most of the rest of England is not covered by a strategic plan. That is why our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 included provision for Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs) – high-level spatial frameworks, aligned with devolution geographies, that identify broad locations for growth and development, and the necessary infrastructure needed to support it.

To ensure mayors have the tools they need to effectively deliver SDSs and drive forward housing and regeneration in their areas, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 gives them new powers over development management. We are determined to activate these mayoral planning powers as quickly as possible and this consultation on the regulations needed to bring them into force is an essential first step toward doing so.

By early next year, we want the powers that will enable mayors to call in applications of potential strategic importance and to make Mayoral Development Orders to be in place. In using these powers, we expect mayors to work in close partnership with local planning authorities in their areas to deliver the housing, infrastructure and good growth that local communities need and deserve.

Rt Hon Matthew Pennycook MP

Minister of State for Housing and Planning

Question 3

Introduction

Accepted Answer

1. This government is committed to fundamentally rewiring the state, changing the geography of government to deliver a stronger, more strategic centre that empowers local leaders, and acts as the engine room for driving economic growth across the whole country. We want good growth in every postcode, across government and the wider economy.

2. As set out in the English Devolution White Paper, England is one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. Devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change the public expect and deserve: growth, more joined-up delivery of public services, and politics being done with communities, not to them. Mayors of Strategic Authorities (Greater London Authority, Combined Authorities and Combined County Authorities) will be key to achieving this change.

3. Mayoral devolution works because mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive growth; their standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems; and their platform to tackle the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. It works because they have skin in the game and are accountable to their communities. As the Mayor of London has shown, devolution of planning powers to mayors can be an effective vehicle for the change.

4. The Mayor of London already has strong, well-established, planning powers which successive mayors have successfully used to shape London’s development. As part of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (‘the English Devolution Act’), we are giving mayors of other Strategic Authorities similar powers.

These include:

a duty to produce a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS): Under the Planning and Infrastructure Act, all Strategic Authorities are required to publish a SDS which sets out the vision for development across their area
powers in relation to planning applications of potential strategic importance (PSI applications): the English Devolution Act will give mayors of Strategic Authorities outside of London the ability to call in (and become the local planning authority (LPA) for the purposes of determining the application) for PSI applications or direct the LPA to refuse PSI applications when these applications are submitted to LPAs
power to proactively grant planning permission through Mayoral Development Orders (MDOs): the English Devolution Act will give all mayors of Strategic Authorities the ability to prepare MDOs and streamline the process for their creation. A MDO is a tool which can be used by the mayor to grant planning permission for particular development without the need for a planning application to be submitted
power to raise funds for infrastructure through a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL): the English Devolution Act gives mayors of Strategic Authorities outside of London the ability to set and charge MCIL, which is a levy on development to help fund vital strategic infrastructure to support new development and drive economic growth in their areas

5. This consultation focuses on PSI applications, MDOs and MCIL. The first 3 parts seek views on the implementation of these powers:

part 1 – powers in relation to applications of potential strategic importance
part 2 - Mayoral Development Orders
part 3 - Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy

6. Part 4 proposes some further changes to the secondary legislation for Local Development Orders.

Question 4

Part 1: Powers in relation to applications of potential strategic importance

Accepted Answer

7. One of the key sets of planning powers which all mayors outside London will gain through the implementation of the English Devolution Act are the powers to intervene in relation to applications of potential strategic importance (PSI). These powers enable mayors to ‘call in’ applications allowing them to shape strategic development in their area. In turn, this supports the implementation of their SDS.

8. The Mayor of London has had the full set of powers since 2008, and successive mayors have successfully used them to shape London’s development.

The specific powers are:

to require LPAs to consult the mayor on PSI applications
before a final decision is made to direct refusal of PSI applications, or to direct call-in and become the LPA for the purposes of determining certain PSI applications

9. The English Devolution White Paper stated that these powers would be available for mayors outside London once they had adopted their SDS^{[footnote 1]}. In view of government’s drive for housing delivery and economic growth, we now consider that the implementation of these powers at the earliest opportunity is important so mayors can use them to support the growth of their area as they prepare their SDS.

10. This part of the consultation explains the procedural framework for these powers which will be set out in secondary legislation and seeks views on the categories of PSI application and several other key matters.

What is the legislative framework for these powers?

11. The English Devolution Act will extend the specific Mayor of London powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘TCPA’) to other mayors outside London under Sections 2A-F of the TCPA in relation to the power to direct call-in and become the LPA for the purposes of determining PSI applications; and Section 74(1B) of the TCPA in relation to consultation and the power to direct refusal of PSI applications.

12. For London, the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (‘the Mayor of London Order’) sets out the definition for PSI applications and makes procedural provision for the use of these powers.

13. The intention is to prepare similar legislation for mayors outside London, drawing on the practical experience of using these powers over the last 18 years. A separate order for London will be retained as it is well established but we intend to update it, particularly to reflect the English Devolution Act’s introduction of a written representation procedure for called-in PSI applications.

The process for dealing with PSI Applications

14. The process for mayors dealing with PSI applications will be based on the current 3-stage process for London under the Mayor of London Order.

This 3-stage process will involve:

Stage 1 - consultation

15. Where a PSI application is made to a LPA, in addition to any general publicity and consultation with statutory consultees, the authority will be required to refer the application to the mayor. In response, the mayor must respond with their views about whether the development proposals comply with the SDS within a certain time period (in London, this is 6 weeks). At any time in the process, the mayor will have the flexibility to issue a written notice stating that they have no wish for further involvement in the application. In that case the LPA will proceed to determine the application, subject to any intervention by the Secretary of State.

Stage 2 – decision to intervene

16. For these applications which the mayor wishes to consider, before making a final determination, the LPA will be required to notify the mayor of their “minded to grant or refuse” decision.

17. Upon notification, the mayor will have 14 days to decide whether to intervene or leave the authority to determine the application. The mayor may intervene by:

directing the authority to refuse the application - when issuing a direction to refuse to the LPA, we intend to provide (as in London) that the mayor must give reasons for that direction and send a copy of the direction to the relevant LPA who must publish this on the planning register
calling-in the application where the mayor becomes the LPA and determines the application (the application progresses to Stage 3)

18. The applicant will also have the power to request the mayor to intervene and determine the PSI application if the application has not been determined within its statutory time period. The mayor may decline the request.

19. For both the power to direct refusal and the power to call in a PSI application, the mayor will need to consider that certain statutory tests are met.

Stage 3 – determining called-in applications

20. If the mayor decides to call in a PSI application, they will become the LPA for the application for purposes of determination. The LPA will be required to send all representations (including those by statutory consultees, members of the community and Town and Parish Councils) to the mayor for them to consider. The mayor may also call in any connected application (such as Listed Building Consent, or Hazardous Substances Consent) which is linked to the PSI application so these can be considered together.

21. Before the mayor can determine the application, they will be required to proceed either by way of holding a hearing in public or by way of written representations. This allows the LPA, the applicant and other stakeholders such as statutory consultees and Parish and Town Councils the opportunity to have their say.

22. A decision by a mayor to grant or refuse a PSI application will be made on the same statutory basis as the LPA (or the Secretary of State.) Planning law requires decision-makers to consider applications for planning permission in accordance with the development plan (which includes both the SDS and local plan for the area) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The mayor will also be responsible for negotiating any associated section 106 agreement for the development.

23. The Secretary of State can still intervene and call in a PSI application for determination which a mayor has called-in, and applications determined by mayors are also in scope of Consultation Directions requiring the Secretary of State to be notified of the intended decision. An applicant can also appeal to the Secretary of State where a mayor refuses planning permission.

Implementation

24. Subject to the outcome of this consultation and parliamentary scheduling, we intend to lay the secondary legislation for the powers in relation to the PSI applications by the end of this year. This secondary legislation will set a commencement date for the powers in early 2027. We will engage further with mayors over the coming months as we finalise that date.

25. To use these new powers effectively from day one, strategic authorities outside London will need to:

consider how decision making would practically operate within the authority
ensure there are officers with development management experience
establish planning casework management systems
prepare standing orders and other procedural guidance

26. We will work closely with strategic authorities on the practical implementation of these powers including sharing learning from London’s extensive experience.

27. We expect the on-going resourcing for this function to be funded through the authority’s general resources, but there will be an opportunity to generate income through discretionary pre-application services and other charges.

28. If these powers are granted in advance of the adoption of a SDS, government will expect that SDS preparation will continue to be prioritised, with the aim of adopting SDSs in this parliament. Through regular liaison with strategic planning authorities, government will monitor SDS progress against the statutory published timetable for each SDS, and will consider utilising the Secretary of State’s intervention powers if it becomes clear that progress on the SDS is slowing down.

Proposals for consultation

29. To inform the preparation for the secondary legislation, there are 5 areas we would like views on:

the PSI application categories
the basis of intervention before the SDS has been adopted
the scope of written representation procedure for called-in PSI applications
approach where development corporations are the LPA
further technical changes to the procedure

Proposal: PSI application categories

30. We propose that there should be a common approach to defining PSI applications for mayors outside of London. PSI applications are intended to cover the categories of development which, through their size, location or nature, are most likely to be of potential strategic importance of an area. A common approach provides clarity to developers operating across strategic areas that similar applications would be PSI applications.

31. Annex A sets out the list of proposed categories of development which will be PSI applications. It is modelled on the categories of development in the Schedule of the Mayor of London Order – and the categories fall under 3 broad themes:

large scale development which covers the largest applications for residential and commercial development and tall buildings
major infrastructure development which includes transport, waste and energy schemes
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

32. As these are based on the thresholds in London it does not include some developments which do not often occur in London, for example, agricultural infrastructure (including intensive farming), or development within National Landscapes. We welcome views on whether these and other types of development should be included and at what threshold.

33. The Secretary of State has separate powers under section 74 of TCPA to direct that a mayor must be consulted in relation to a specific application; where this power is used the application will automatically become a PSI application.

34. As mayors outside London gain planning powers in relation to applications of PSI, it is important that we ensure that interventions are growth-focused and that SDS preparation is prioritised.

35. We therefore welcome views on whether the scope of powers to intervene in relation to PSI applications should expand as SDS are progressed. For example, large-scale development categories might be in scope from day one with other common categories of development (major infrastructure, development which could affect strategic policies such as development on Green Belt) made available to mayors following SDS adoption. This would help ensure that sufficient resources can be allocated to prioritising SDS preparation.

36. In such a scenario, large-scale development categories for residential and commercial development (150 dwellings, 15,000 m² floor space) would align with the thresholds for the Secretary of State’s new and proposed consultation directions where a LPA propose to refuse an application.

37. Once SDSs are adopted, to complement the common categories, we want to provide scope for localisation to reflect the unique challenges and opportunities of each strategic area. The Mayor of London Order sets certain specific categories of development which represent areas of strategic importance in the London Plan. For example, the Mayor of London Order includes a PSI category for a crossing over or under the River Thames, or a higher building height threshold for development in the City of London (150m).

38. Other strategic authority areas may also have similar features that require a specific planning policy. We propose that such local or area-specific development categories and/or thresholds should be contingent on the mayor adopting a SDS. These categories should be linked to particular opportunity areas or policies within the SDS. We will engage with mayors to explore how new categories of development can be brought forward through secondary legislation following SDS adoption.

39. From 11 May 2026, Category 3J, relating to the development of 50 homes or more in instances where a local authority is minded to refuse an application, was introduced into the Mayor of London Order. Applications considered under this category are subject to a streamlined procedure, namely that no initial Stage 1 or formal response is required from the mayor unless a refusal is intended. New Category 3J was introduced as part of the ‘Support for Housebuilding in London’ package developed in partnership with the Mayor of London to respond to the acute housebuilding challenges the capital is facing and the resulting under delivery against the housing targets set out in the London Plan. As such, it was explicitly designed as a bespoke process for use in relation to a key policy in that Plan.

40. However, we want to make sure that mayors outside of London have the right set of tools to support housing delivery in their areas prior to SDS adoption. We would therefore welcome views from mayors, local authorities and others about whether new Category 3J, and the streamlined procedure it entails, should be considered a local variation (and so considered after the SDS is adopted) or whether given the importance of support housing delivery across the country, it could be incorporated into those suite of intervention powers available before a SDS is adopted.

41. We do not propose to make any major changes to the categories for development in London. They were recently amended to include developments of 50 homes or more, and allow the Mayor of London to call in development of 1,000 sqm floorspace or more on Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land. However, we would like views on whether the energy scheme category proposed for other mayors should be included in London.

Question 1

Do you agree with the proposed PSI application categories for areas outside of London, as set out in Annex A?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why, please reference specific categories.

Question 2

Do you propose any other categories of development which should be considered a PSI application, including in London?

Please reference the particular category if you are proposing amendments to it.

Question 3

Should mayors outside of London be able to call in Category 3J (50 homes or more) applications where local planning authorities are minded to refuse?

[Yes, No]

Please provide reasons why.

Question 4

Do you agree that the scope of powers to intervene in relation to PSI applications should expand as a SDS is progressed?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Basis for intervention

42. We want to ensure that the statutory basis for call-in within the secondary legislation is the same across the country in order to provide a consistent basis in which mayors can intervene.

43. Within London the mayor may only intervene where certain criteria set out in the Mayor of London Order are met. For call-in, he may only call in a PSI application under Article 7(1) where in his opinion:

the development or any of the issues raised by the development to which the PSI application relates is of such a nature or scale that it would have a significant impact on the implementation of the SDS
the development or any of the issues raised by the development to which the application relates has significant effects that are likely to affect more than one London Borough
there are sound planning reasons for issuing a direction

44. The Mayor of London may also direct refusal of a PSI application under Article 6(1) where he considers that to grant permission on a PSI application would be:

contrary to the SDS or prejudicial to its implementation
otherwise contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London

45. Prior to the Mayor of London adopting the London Plan, Government Office for London Circular 1/2000 “Strategic Planning in London” was used to guide the mayor’s planning decisions. No equivalent guidance exists for areas outside of London, as it is this government’s view that mayors are best placed to set the vision for their area.

46. We propose, in the interim period before SDS adoption, mayors may only intervene where, in their opinion, the development would be directly linked to housing and economic growth of the area, and where sound planning reasons warrant intervention – this will be set out in secondary legislation.

This would mean mayors may only:

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

47. These powers are not about mayors revisiting or undermining decisions made in up to date local plans, but to support delivery of housing and economic development, and to support sound planning decisions.

The impact on the growth of the area will include consideration of:

for PSI housing applications - whether LPAs are meeting their housing targets
for non-residential PSI applications - any Local Growth Plans published by the mayor

48. When considering sound planning reasons for intervention, the secondary legislation will set out matters for consideration. For example, Article 6 (2) of the Mayor of London Order sets out the range of matters the Mayor of London must have regard to, these include the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, and any national policies or international obligations. In order to support emerging SDSs we will also make clear that the emerging SDS, which has reached published draft stage will be a consideration.

Question 5

Do you agree that where a SDS is not yet adopted , a decision by a mayor to either direct refusal or call in a PSI application will need to be justified in respect to growth?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

49. Once a SDS is adopted, this will be the basis for intervention as is the case in London. We have reviewed the intervention criteria for London and following engagement with the Mayor of London and Boroughs, we consider that Article 7 1) b), which requires development to affect more than one London Borough, is unnecessary. Criteria 1) a) and c) already require the mayor to consider the implementation of the London Plan which applies beyond borough boundaries.

50. This criterion is also disapplied where applications fall within Categories 1A (more than 150 homes) and 3J (50 or more homes) and do not apply to the direct refusal powers. This shows that development does not need to demonstrably affect more than one borough for the mayor to consider it to be of strategic importance.

51. We therefore propose to remove criterion 1) b) from Article 7 from the Mayor of London Order. In order to ensure a consistent approach, secondary legislation which sets the PSI process outside of London will reflect the amended tests in London.

This means that following the adoption of a SDS mayors will be able to:

direct refusal of a PSI application where, in their opinion, the development proposed 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 a PSI application where, in their opinion, the development or any of the issues raised by the development to which the PSI application relates 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

Question 6

Do you agree with the proposed criteria for mayors to use their PSI application powers following adoption of a SDS?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Scope of written representation procedure for called-in PSI applications

52. Through the English Devolution Act, the government amended the mayoral powers for called-in PSI applications under section 2F Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘TCPA’) so that representations to the mayor could be made through a written representations procedure for certain types of PSI applications instead of a public hearing held by the mayor. This was in response to concerns in London that the hearings procedure took too long and was disproportionate for certain decisions.

53. The amended section 2F specifies that the written representations procedure can be used for PSI applications which are section 73 applications (which seek to vary conditions to existing permissions), section 73B applications (which seek to make variations to existing permissions), or connected applications related to a PSI application. It also give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe in secondary legislation more categories of development or applications.

54. A written representation procedure may be particularly appropriate when the planning matters raised by the PSI application are more straight-forward, but we recognise that a hearing will be more appropriate in some cases. However, as is current practice on planning appeals, decision-makers are best placed to determine the appropriate procedure. We want mayors to have the choice to decide which procedure they should use based on the specific circumstances of the PSI application.

55. We propose that the secondary legislation will enable mayors to use the written representations procedure to determine applications for all PSI applications for planning permission.

56. In dealing with applications through the written representation procedure, section 2F provides safeguards to ensure that views are heard by the mayor. As with hearings, section 2F requires the mayor to give the applicant and the LPA the opportunity to make representations. It also requires the mayor to prepare and publish a document setting out:

those, in addition to the applicant and the LPA, who may make written representations
the procedure for making written representations, as happens for oral hearings currently
the form in which, and the period within which, written representations must be made

57. Secondary legislation will ensure that the mayor informs the applicant and LPA of the procedure to be used following call-in as soon as practicable.

Question 7

Do you agree with the proposed approach to written representations for called-in PSI applications?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Approach to development corporations

58. Historically, development corporations have delivered large and complex development and regeneration projects. Development corporations provide the benefits of geographic focus, broad planning and land assembly powers, and the ability to attract inward investment, as well as harness private sector delivery expertise.

59. There are a number of different development corporation models. These include Mayoral Development Corporations (MDCs), which are a corporation established by the mayor of a strategic authority; and centrally-led Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) and New Town Development Corporations (NTDCs) which are statutory bodies established by government. Locally-led NTDCs were introduced in 2018 and subject to further legislation, local authorities will also be able to establish locally-led UDCs.

60. While we would expect centrally-led UDCs and NTDCs to work closely and align priorities with mayors, ultimately they are accountable to government and should be free to deliver without external interference. This is why we propose that secondary legislation will specifically restrict the use of PSI application powers where a centrally-led UDC or NTDC is the LPA for the application. A similar approach had been used in the Mayor of London Order to restrict the call-in of PSI applications on land related to the London Thames Gateway Urban Development Corporation and Olympic Delivery Authority (when they were in place). PSI application powers could still be used by the mayor where a locally-led UDC or NTDC was the LPA for the application, unless secondary legislation is made to restrict this.

Question 8

Do you agree to the approach to exclude centrally led UDCs or NTDCs from a mayor’s powers to direct refusal and call in PSI applications?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Technical changes to procedure

61. The Mayor of London Order has successfully formed the regulatory basis for decision management for planning decisions in London since 2008. However, it is nearly 20 years old and would benefit in areas from minor technical updates.

62. These include:

enabling electronic notifications between the LPA and the strategic authority
clarifying only validated PSI applications should be sent to the strategic authority at Stage 1
changing the time periods from ‘days’ and ‘weeks’ to ‘working days’

63. We will incorporate such minor technical changes into the secondary legislation which sets the PSI process for areas outside of London, and welcome views on minor technical amendments which could be included.

Question 9

Do you have any suggestions for minor and/or technical changes to the PSI application procedure?

[Yes/No]

Please provide details.

Question 5

Part 2: Mayoral Development Orders

Accepted Answer

64. This part of the consultation seeks views about our proposals for the secondary legislation about the scope of a Mayoral Development Order (MDO) and the procedures for making one.

What is a Mayoral Development Order?

65. A MDO is an upfront grant of planning permission by a mayor for development on a particular site. We envisage that MDOs would be used by mayors for substantive development which supports the delivery of housing or economic growth in their area or where they have a direct interest in the development of the site as a promoter or partner.

66. Normally, planning permission for such development would be through an application to a LPA which can take time to prepare and determine – and the outcome of the decision can be uncertain. Instead a MDO can be prepared by the mayor to establish the principle of development and set a consenting framework for detailed approvals to speed up decision making and provide certainty.

67. LPAs have similar powers through Local Development Orders (LDOs) which grant upfront planning permission for specific development. The Secretary of State also has powers to grant planning permission for specific development through a Special Development Order (SDO).

68. LDOs have been used successfully by LPAs to unlock the development potential of sites by de-risking the permission process. They have predominantly been used to grant planning permission for commercial development, but have also been used to grant permission for residential development. Two case studies are set out below to provide an indication of their use. We envisage MDOs operating in a similar way.

Case Study 1 – Gravity Enterprise Zone, North Somerset^{[footnote 2]}

Location: Near Puriton, just off Junction 23 of the M5

Local Planning Authority: Somerset Council (formerly Sedgemoor District Council)

Site area: 261.54 hectares

Adoption date: 23 February 2022

Details:

The LDO grants outline planning permission to facilitate the delivery of substantial commercial floorspace (up to 1.1 million square metres for an advanced manufacturing facility and smart campus, including a wide range of supporting uses and associated infrastructure. The permission also provides for up to 750 dwellings (C3 Use) and supporting uses up to 100,000 square metres (retail, cafes, day nursery, sport and leisure facilities, and health centre).

Development proposals coming forward that comply with the parameters and conditions of the LDO will not require any application for planning permission. Instead, applications will only be needed to demonstrate the proposals are in conformity with the order and the adopted Design Guide under it.

Figure 1: Site layout

Figure 1 shows a plan for the site layout for the Gravity Enterprise Zone LDO. The plan identifies the boundary of the LDO and which types of development will be permitted in different areas of the site.

Source: Gravity Smart Campus Design Guide (Somerset Council, LDA Design)

Case Study 2 – Nansledan, Cornwall^{[footnote 3]}

Location: Nansledan, Newquay

Local Planning Authority: Cornwall Council

Adoption date: 16 March 2021

Details:

The LDO grants outline planning permission for development comprising a maximum of 3,700 dwellings (C3 Use), 87,000 square metres of gross internal floorspace in Use Classes B (B2, B8, C (C1 & C2), E and F (F1, F2) (including development granted permission under extant outline or full permissions, or under permitted development, located within the LDO area.) It also grants permission for a GP surgery, pharmacy, church, sui generis uses, bus shelters, rail halt, park and ride, Household Waste and Recycling Centre, highways and access, landscaping, pedestrian paths and cycle paths, bastion wall, drainage infrastructure, earthworks and engineering works necessary to carry out the development, green infrastructure, play areas, sport and recreation, allotments, Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace, associated works.

The LDO establishes the planning framework for the site: Parameter Plans indicate where built development is to be situated, main street hierarchy, and heights of buildings; and the Design Manual also sets out indicative masterplan and design principles to be followed in the various districts of the area. This allows applications to be dealt with in a more timely, and streamlined way when compared to a conventional planning permission. Developers need to demonstrate that proposed development is in conformity with these core documents as opposed to having to engage with the planning merits of each application. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Certificate of Conformity needs to be provided by the LPA.

Figure 2: Parameter Plan

Figure 2 is one of the parameter plans for the Nansledan LDO showing the boundary of the LDO and the number of storeys (ranging from 1 to 4 storeys) which will be permitted on different parts of the site.

Source: Nansledan Parameter Plan (Duchy of Cornwall, Cornwall Council, Adam Architecture)

Figure 3: Design guide

Figure 3 is an extract from the Design Manual showing images of Halfenten which will form the town centre area for Nansledan and describing its key attributes.

Source: Nansledan Design Manual (Duchy of Cornwall, Cornwall Council, Adam Architecture

69. We have also provided the Greater London Authority with £200,000 funding to work through the details of how the technical and legal processes for establishing a MDO will work in practice, drawing on successful LDOs and SDOs. This work will help inform guidance and best practice which will be shared with other strategic authorities.

MDO legal framework

70. The powers for MDOs are set out in Sections 61DA to 61DE of TCPA. These were first introduced in the Infrastructure Act 2015 for the Mayor of London and were updated by the English Devolution Act which will streamline the procedure for preparing a MDO and will give mayors outside of London the powers to make one.

Key provisions include:

Section 61DA which enables a MDO to be made by the mayor to grant planning permission for development specified in the MDO. This may cover one or more sites within the strategic authority area
Section 61DB which enables the MDO to be granted either unconditionally or subject to such conditions and limitations specified in the order, and sets provisions in relation to approval of conditions
Section 61DC which enables the Secretary of State to make provision by a development order (secondary legislation) in relation to the preparation and making of a MDO. This includes publicity, consultation, and consideration of representations
Section 61DD which allows revisions or revocations to a MDO, under certain circumstances, by the mayor, or the Secretary of State who can direct the mayor to make revisions to a MDO and can revoke a MDO

71. Not all the provisions in the Infrastructure Act 2015 have been commenced. We intend to bring into force both these original provisions and the changes under the English Devolution Act. There are further consequential provisions for MDOs across the TCPA – for instance in relation to planning fees within section 303, and in relation to compensation following the revocation or modification of a MDO in section 108.

72. There will also be secondary legislation made at the same time in relation to limitations on the scope of a MDO; and the treatment of conditions under a MDO. This consultation focuses on the content of this secondary legislation.

Implementation

73. In order to support the ambition of mayors seeking to use MDOs to unlock development in their area, subject to the outcome of this consultation and parliamentary scheduling, we intend to lay the secondary legislation and implement the legal framework for MDOs by the end of the year.

Proposal: Limitations on the scope of a MDO

74. As a MDO is designed to promote housing delivery and economic growth, we want to ensure that the regulatory framework reflects this and does not allow for any unintended uses for MDOs. The TCPA allows the Secretary of State to specify an area or class of development in respect of which a MDO must not be made. We propose 2 statutory limitations.

Schedule 1 development under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

75. Like LDOs, we propose that MDOs are not able to grant planning permission for development set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (‘Schedule 1 EIA Development’). Development under Schedule 1, due to its nature and scale, will likely have significant environmental effects. Similarly other routes to permission, including LDOs, simplified planning zones, and permitted development rights, do not allow the grant of permission for Schedule 1 EIA development due to the significant environmental effects.

76. For clarity, Schedule 2 EIA development would still be within scope of a MDO (like LDOs). The provisions within the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations) would continue to apply, including the requirement for screening and (if needed) scoping. Similarly, as in the case of LDOs, the assessment provisions in The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 will apply to the making of a MDO.

Question 10

Do you agree that Mayoral Developments Orders cannot be used for Schedule 1 EIA Development?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Minerals development

77. Minerals development can have significant environmental effects requiring considerable mitigation, restoration, and aftercare of the land once the extraction of minerals has finished. Development of quarries and open cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, or peat extraction where the surface of the site exceeds 150 hectares would be considered Schedule 1 EIA development, so would be out of scope of the MDO powers. Other minerals development would still require careful and thorough consideration of environmental impacts, including Environmental Impact Assessment where this is required.

78. Minerals development is also distinct from many other forms of development as it represents a temporary land use that can often extend over many decades. Following the restoration and aftercare of minerals sites, there are a wide range of potential after uses, including but not limited to the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, agriculture, recreational activities and built development.

79. This is why the consenting framework for minerals development is unique and would not align with the consenting approach envisaged for MDOs. Therefore, we propose that the secondary legislation exclude MDOs for minerals development.

Question 11

Do you agree that Mayoral Development Orders cannot be used for minerals development?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Summary of the MDO procedures

80. We propose to model the statutory procedures for making a MDO on the LDO framework set out in Article 38 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. The proposed process for making a MDO under secondary legislation can be summarised as:

preparation - the mayor would first prepare a draft order which would have the purpose of granting planning permission for the development. This draft order would include relevant technical assessments and a draft statement of reasons for it. This would include an Environmental Statement under the EIA regulations if the development is EIA development. There may be non-statutory consultation and engagement on early options with the local communities, land owners and other statutory consultees
publicity and consultation – the mayor will be required to publish and consult on the draft order for a specified time. This will allow the relevant LPAs, members of the community, statutory consultees, and other interested parties the opportunity to have their say on the draft order and associated documents
making the order – the mayor will consider the representations received and, if they decide to take forward the proposals, make the order. When making the order the mayor will publish this along with a summary of the responses received on their website and notify the relevant LPAs

81. Once a MDO is made, there are 2 further matters requiring secondary legislation:

consenting of development following the order - the order will impose conditions on development, some of which may require discharging.
revising and revocation – the mayor can revise or revoke the order following a consultation with the relevant LPAs and those with an interest; this will include Parish and Town Councils. The Secretary of State may also direct revision or revocation of the order, but must first consult with the mayor and give reasons for this.

82. The proposed provisions which will be set out in the secondary legislation are set out in further detail below.

Proposal: Preparing the MDO

83. We propose that secondary legislation will require the mayor to prepare 3 statutory documents:

a draft of the order
a statement of reasons for making the order, including a description of the development to be allowed
a plan identifying the land to be covered by the order

84. If the order will grant planning permission for EIA development, an Environment Statement would be required to be prepared under the EIA regulations. Other technical assessments may be required depending on the nature of the development.

85. A clear statement of reasons is important as a MDO needs to be justified in planning terms, it is not simply an administrative decision. This statement of reasons will set out this justification for the development subject to the MDO, supported by evidence and assessments.

86. It will be important in particular to ensure that key planning matters are considered early in the process. This will include environmental mitigations and the likely infrastructure requirements to be secured through planning obligations, and the mechanism by which any subsequent conditions are discharged, for example who is the approving authority for such matters. We will prepare guidance to assist mayors in preparing MDOs.

Question 12

Do you agree with the proposed approach to preparing a Mayoral Development Order?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Publicity and consultation

Publicity

87. Once a draft MDO and its associated documents have been prepared, we want to ensure that all those with an interest have the opportunity to consider the draft order, and associated documents, and have an opportunity to make representations. We propose that mayors would be required to:

publish the draft order and statement of reasons on a website for no less than 30 days
where the development subject to the order is considered EIA Development, be accompanied by an Environmental Statement
display a site notice in at least one place near or on the land to which the order (if made) would relate, and this site notice must be left in place for 30 days
write to every person who is an owner, occupier, or tenant of the land subject to the draft MDO whose name and address is known to the mayor
notify the relevant LPA and provide them with a copy of the draft MDO and statement of reasons
make the MDO (and associated) documents available for inspection at either the principal offices of the mayor or any other location identified by the mayor (which could for example be the offices of the relevant LPA)
provide the local planning register authority (if not the same as the LPA) with a copy of the draft MDO and statement of reasons, which must be placed on the planning register

88. We propose that all notices will set out key information about the draft order (as happens with LDOs and planning applications.) This would include a description of the development which would granted by the draft MDO, where the documents can be inspected, and when representations can be submitted by. The mayor would not be able to make the MDO until the publicity period has lapsed. We consider that these arrangements, which largely mirror those for LDOs are appropriate minimum requirements – mayors may go beyond these if they feel it is appropriate to do so.

89. The minimum 30 day period aligns with the period for EIA development in the EIA regulations.

Consultation

90. It is important that mayors consult relevant LPAs who would be affected by the MDO. LPAs are the key local decision maker and will have views about the planning merits of the proposals. They are also well-placed to identify and secure any planning contributions (such as infrastructure improvements) which will be required to support the development being brought forward by the MDO, as well as potentially dealing with subsequent consents. We therefore propose that mayors are required to consult the LPA responsible for the area where the development in the draft order will occur.

91. We also want to ensure that the views of statutory bodies are sought. This will ensure that key planning matters such as highways, strategic transport, flood risk, heritage, and environmental impacts of the proposed development can be fully considered. We propose that the most appropriate and proportionate approach would be to require consultation with any statutory consultees which would otherwise be consulted had the development come forward as a planning application; this would mirror the approach taken for LDOs. The consultees, and the developments which they would be consulted on, are set out in the table in Schedule 4 of DMPO.

92. Beyond this, we want to ensure that a mayor consults whoever else, in their opinion, would be affected by the proposed order. Within the LDO framework the LPA is given limited discretion as to who else should be consulted, Article 38(3) of DMPO lists those who must be consulted where the mayor considers their interests would be affected by the LDO. We propose to replicate this approach for MDOs, so the mayor must consult the following bodies where the mayor believes they will have an interest in the MDO:

a LPA, county council or parish council any part of whose area is in or adjoins the area covered by the Mayoral Strategic Authority
strategic authority whose area adjoins the area covered by the Mayoral Strategic Authority
a neighbourhood forum for a neighbourhood area any part of which is in or adjoins the area covered by the Mayoral Strategic Authority
Natural England
Environment Agency
Historic England
Secretary of State for Transport (where they are the highway authority)
Strategic Highways Company (National Highways)
Any person to:
- whom the electronic communications code applies by virtue of a direction given under section 106(3)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 (application of the electronic communications code)
- who owns or controls electronic communications apparatus situated in any part of the area covered by the MDO
any of the following persons who exercise functions in any part of the area covered by the MDO:
- an integrated care board
- NHS England
- a person to whom a licence has been granted under section 6(1)(b) and (c) of the Electricity Act 1989 (licences authorising supply, etc)
- a person to whom a licence has been granted under section 7(2) of the Gas Act 1986 (licensing of gas transporters)
- a sewerage undertaker
- a water undertaker
any of the following bodies which have been identified to the mayor by a relevant LPA (recognising that the mayor is unlikely to hold details on these organisations):
- voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the area covered by the MDO
- bodies which represent the interests of persons who share a protected characteristic in the area covered by the MDO
- bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in the area covered by the MDO

93. We propose that the mayor consult on the MDO for a minimum of 30 days and would not be able to make the MDO until the consultation period has lapsed. These would represent the minimum statutory requirements and mayors may want to carry out further engagement if they feel it is appropriate to do so.

Treatment of representations

94. It is likely that given the strategic scale of MDOs, development in most instances would be considered as EIA development, so this 30 day period would also align with provisions within the EIA framework. This avoids adding complexity by making different publicity and consultation provisions for both EIA development and non EIA development.

95. Similar to a LDO, where comments are received within the consultation and publicity periods we want the mayor to be under a duty to consider the relevant planning matters raised before determining whether to adopt the MDO in its draft form. The mayor would not be under a duty to consider representations which have been submitted outside of these timeframes.

Question 13

Do you agree with the proposed approach to publicity and consultation of a Mayoral Development Order?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Making the MDO

96. Following publicity and consultation on the draft MDO the mayor can make the MDO. When making the order, we want to ensure there is transparency about the decision and how representations have been considered. We propose that when making a MDO mayors will be required to publish:

a copy of the MDO, as it is intended to be made
the statement of reasons for making of the MDO
any environmental statement
a summary of the representations received during the publicity and consultation, and how these have informed any modifications to the draft MDO

97. After making the order, we want the mayor to notify the Secretary of State, LPA and those who have made representations so they are aware that the order has been made. We propose that mayors will be required to, as soon as possible following the making of the MDO:

send a copy of the final MDO documents (listed above) to the Secretary of State and LPA
provide the final MDO documents to the local planning register authority (if the local planning register authority is different to the LPA). The local planning register authority will be under a duty to publish the final MDO documents on the planning register as soon as practicable
keep the final MDO documents at the principal offices of the mayor or any other location identified by the mayor (which could for example be the offices of the relevant LPA), and be made available for inspection
publish the final MDO documents on their website, including details of where and times when these can be inspected

Question 14

Do you agree with the proposed arrangements for making a Mayoral Development Order?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Approval of conditions

98. A MDO will set a consenting framework for development through conditions and limitations for development on the site. Some of these conditions may need to be approved before development can be brought forward. In particular, reflecting the practice of some LDOs, the MDO may require a developer to submit details to demonstrate that the development is in accordance with the order (through a certificate of conformity mechanism secured by conditions.)

99. Section 61DB(2) of TCPA expressly enables the MDO to specify that the approval of conditions can be done by a specified person (which must be a relevant LPA or the mayor); and section 61DB(4) of TCPA expressly enables conditions to be submitted to another person where the body responsible for approving the condition has not determined the discharge of condition within the statutory time period, or agreed alternative time period (this is known as ‘non-determination’).

100. We propose that the process for approving conditions after the making of a MDO is the same to that for a discharge of condition to a planning permission by a LPA under Article 27 DMPO. This is a well-established process which provides the applicant and decision-maker with flexibility, with the amount and level of detail required reflecting the scale and complexity of the conditions sought to be discharged.

These would consist of:

minimal information requirements - the application would need be made in writing to the approving authority (e.g. LPA or mayor) and identify the planning permission in respect of which it is made; and include such particulars, and be accompanied by such plans and drawings, as are necessary to deal with the application
the approving authority will have 8 weeks from the submission of this information to provide the applicant with a decision, unless the applicant and decision-maker have agreed (in writing) a longer time period

101. These provisions would apply regardless of who the decision-maker is; we do not propose any further specific provision to apply for these applications.

102. Where an application for approval of a condition is refused the applicant will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if there is a refusal, as is the normal practice. However, in the case of the non-determination after the statutory period has ended, the deemed discharge framework will not apply. Instead, we propose if the LPA is responsible for determining an application for approving a condition, while the applicant could still appeal to the Secretary of State, they could also apply to the mayor to determine the application. This will help ensure timely decisions are made.

103. We will also consider how the regulations will structure the fees for approval of conditions attached to a MDO as part of wider reforms to planning application fees.

Question 15

Do you agree with the proposed approach to approval of conditions following the grant of permission through a Mayoral Development Order?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

104. Planning obligations mitigate the impact of development and, in particular, are an important tool to secure the delivery of affordable housing. We would expect planning obligations to be addressed typically by a condition in a MDO that a s106 obligation securing specified obligations with specified triggers must be entered into before development can commence (commonly known as an “Arsenal condition”).

Proposal: Revising or revoking a MDO

105. Powers within section 61DD of TCPA enable mayors to revise or revoke a MDO. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to direct a mayor to revise a MDO or revoke a MDO through an order, and when exercising these powers the Secretary of State must give reasons for doing so. Where a MDO is revised or revoked, a person with an interest in the land may be subject to compensation for any expenditure incurred (such as development already carried out.)

106. The Secretary of State also has the power to, by a development order (secondary legislation), set the process for revisions and revocations, including arrangements for publicity, consultation and consideration of representations.

107. Where a mayor seeks to revise or revoke a MDO we want to ensure that there is sufficient publicity and transparency, and the views of those potentially affected are considered. We propose that secondary legislation will require a mayor to carry out the following steps before being able to revise or revoke a MDO:

108. Publish their intention to revise or revoke the order on a website and the reasons for revoking the order, for no less than 30 days. If revising the order, this must include details of the proposed revisions:

notify each relevant LPA, of their intention to revise or revoke the order and give them no less than 30 days to provide their approval
publicise their intention to revise or revoke the order in a local newspaper for no less than 30 days
notify every person with whom the mayor consulted when preparing the order who submitted representations on the draft order, and any other known person who may have an interest, providing details of where relevant documents can be inspected and giving no less than 30 days to make representations
the mayor when making revisions or revoking a MDO must take into consideration the representations received

109. Where the Secretary of State seeks to direct that the mayor revise the order, or revoke a MDO through an order, we propose that secondary legislation will require the Secretary of State to carry out the following steps:

serve notice on the mayor and each relevant LPA. The notice must specify the period (not less than 30 days) within which the mayor and relevant LPAs may make representations to the Secretary of State, and where these can be made
if revising the MDO through a direction, the notice must contain details of the revisions and the reasons why
if revoking the MDO through an order the notice must contain the reasons why

110. Where the MDO has been revised or revoked the mayor or Secretary of State (as appropriate) must provide the following to the LPA (and local planning register authority if different to the LPA):

their decision
their reasons for the decision
(in the case of revisions) the revised order

111. The local planning register authority will be under a duty to publish this information on the planning register.

Question 16

Do you agree with the proposed approach to revisions and revocations of a Mayoral Development Order?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Question 6

Part 3: Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy

Accepted Answer

112. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced through the Planning Act 2008 and enabling regulations in 2010 (“the CIL regs”). CIL helps LPAs to raise funds for the infrastructure required to support new development in their area. Alongside section 106 planning obligations, CIL plays a critical role in supporting sustainable development by providing additional funding for charging authorities to deliver local infrastructure projects that support the development of their area more broadly.

113. In order to become a CIL charging authority, an authority must adopt a CIL charging schedule which sets out its levy rates. A charging schedule sets out which types of development are liable for the levy and the relevant associated rates. In setting levy rates, a CIL charging authority must strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of using CIL to fund (in whole or part) the costs of required infrastructure whilst taking into account other sources of funding and the potential effects of CIL on the viability of development across an area. The draft charging schedule must undergo statutory consultation and examination in public.

114. Currently, London is the only place where a strategic tier authority (the mayor) may set a levy in addition to the local tier authority (London boroughs and Mayoral development corporations). Receipts from MCIL in London have played and continue to play an important role in funding the delivery of the Elizabeth Line.

115. Therefore, the English Devolution White Paper committed to extend the power to charge a MCIL to mayors of strategic authorities outside of London subject to there being a SDS in place. This will enable other mayors to raise revenue from new development to help fund strategic infrastructure needed to support housing delivery and economic growth across their areas.

116. The English Devolution Act amends the Planning Act 2008 to allow the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities (“strategic authorities”):

117. to be charging authorities for CIL purposes, provided certain conditions and requirements (which will be set out in the CIL regs), are satisfied by them and their relevant authority for the area in which they are mayor.
to approve a CIL charging schedule (or to determine that an existing CIL schedule ceases to have effect) by a resolution to this effect, passed by simple majority at a meeting of members of the relevant combined / combined county authority.^{[footnote 4]}

Implementation

118. Subject to the outcome of this consultation and parliamentary scheduling, we intend to lay secondary legislation which will include the necessary amendments to the CIL regs to provide the legal framework for this new expanded MCIL regime.

119. The CIL regs already provide for London MCIL. We therefore anticipate that most amendments will be technical amendments to ensure that existing provisions also cover the expanded MCIL for non-London mayors. These amendments will include widening the definition of “Mayor” in CIL regulation 2 beyond its current limited meaning of the Mayor of London, and require the local tier authorities for areas where expanded MCIL is to be charged:

120. To act as collecting authorities on behalf of the mayor (CIL regulation 10):

to have regard to MCIL rates when assessing the viability impact of their own proposed CIL rates (CIL regulation 14)
to include the mayor in any consultation on their CIL charging schedule (CIL regulation 15)
to refer any Exceptional Circumstances Relief (ECR) claims to the mayor (CIL regulations 55 and 58)

121. Proposed amendments to the CIL regs will also need to ensure that: (a) expanded MCIL is covered by the exclusion in CIL regulation 59A from the requirement that a “neighbourhood portion” is passed to parish councils (or the equivalent in unparished areas); and (b) where expanded MCIL and local CIL are both charged, it is clear which instalment policy (where relevant) applies – see CIL regulation 70.

Proposal: Conditions and requirements for becoming a MCIL charging authority

122. As noted above, the legislation enables conditions and requirements (set out in the CIL regs) to be placed on the mayor of a strategic authority and the relevant authority for the area in which that person is mayor. Such conditions and requirements must be complied with in order for the mayor to be a charging authority for CIL purposes. It is intended that a SDS should be in place in the mayoral area before CIL can be charged by the mayor. In the context of London, CIL regulation 22 already allows for a public examination of a SDS to take place at the same time as the examination of a London MCIL charging schedule. The government proposes to follow this same approach for expanded MCIL . We welcome views on the benefits or challenges of this approach, including where both involve overlapping or complementary work.

Question 17

To what extent, and in what ways, could evidence and analysis used to prepare a Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) inform work to prepare a CIL charging schedule?

[Free text]

Question 18

Should SDS examination generally take place at the same time as CIL charging schedule examination, and where would greater flexibility be justified?

[Yes/No]

Please provide your reasons.

Question 19

How might the requirements for updating a MCIL charging schedule best ensure mayors of strategic authorities can keep rates reflective of market conditions?

[Free text]

123. Current CIL guidance^{[footnote 5]} sets out that “the Mayor and the [London] boroughs should work closely in setting and running the levy in London, through mutual co-operation and the sharing of relevant information” and states that they should take account of the other‘s rates when setting their own. However CIL regulations 14(3) and 14(4) only place this requirement on the borough. The government therefore proposes, in addition to expanding the existing requirement to non-London local tier authorities, to add a reciprocal requirement for mayors in the CIL regs, in line with guidance (which will itself be updated to cover expanded MCIL).

Question 20

Should the CIL regulations require mayors to take account of local tier authority CIL rates when setting their own rates?

[Yes/No]

Please provide your reasons.

Question 21

Are there further conditions or requirements (i.e. beyond those which already exist, and those proposed in this consultation) that mayors should need to fulfil before they can charge MCIL?

[Free text]

Proposal: Spending of MCIL by mayors of strategic authorities outside of London

124. In London, CIL regulation 59 limits MCIL to funding “roads or other transport facilities, including, in particular, funding for the purposes of, or in connection with, scheduled works within the meaning of Schedule 1 to the Crossrail Act 2008.” In line with the government’s commitment to shift power into the hands of those who know their communities best, we propose that the approach for strategic authorities should build on this model by providing greater flexibility and empowering strategic authorities to fund a wider set of infrastructure priorities across England.

125. Through this consultation, the government would welcome views on the appropriate scope of what the expanded MCIL could fund for example, potential strategic infrastructure in specific areas. The government’s current view is MCIL should primarily be used to fund projects where the benefits extend to communities across mayoral strategic authorities (i.e. beyond a single local tier authority boundary). This might, like London, take the form of transport infrastructure, but examples of other infrastructure identified as strategically important within the area would also be welcome. While the funding would not normally be expected to cover matters within a single local authority’s responsibility and they might be expected to fund themselves, we would welcome views on where this might be appropriate, avoid duplication, and be of benefit to communities.

126. The government would also welcome views on how rate-setting may be informed by what any new MCIL is to be spent on. The CIL regs give CIL charging authorities a significant amount of flexibility when setting CIL rates as these can differ based on the use, location and scale of development. It could be, for example, that rates are based on the distance of development to stations if MCIL is funding train or tram infrastructure.

Question 22

Do you agree that MCIL outside of London should be capable of funding a broader range of strategic infrastructure than the current model in London (which funds strategic transport infrastructure only)?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Question 23

What type of strategic infrastructure do you think MCIL should be capable of being used to fund, and how might this affect rate-setting?

[Free text]

Question 24

Could there be exceptional cases where it would be appropriate for MCIL to fund matters in an area that would usually sit within a single local tier authority’s responsibilities?

[Yes/No]

Please provide more detail.

Proposal: Collection of MCIL

127. The CIL regs place administrative responsibilities related to the collection of CIL onto “collecting authorities”. As previously stated, and in line with the current approach in London, the government intends that the relevant local tier authorities act as CIL collecting authorities on behalf of mayors. However, the government recognises that, while in London all boroughs charge a local CIL, this will not be the case for all local tier authorities within mayoral strategic authorities. CIL regulation 61 allows collecting authorities to retain a portion of the CIL they collect to cover their administrative expenses (regardless of whether or not they charge their own CIL); further to this, the government welcomes views on how MCIL collection can be administered most effectively.

Question 25

How can the collection of MCIL work simply and effectively in all circumstances, including when the local tier authority does not charge its own CIL?

[Free text]

Question 26

Do you have any other observations or comments on the expanded MCIL proposals, or anything related to them?

[Free text]

Question 7

Part 4: Local Development Orders

Accepted Answer

128. The proposed secondary legislation for MDOs is largely based on the framework for LDOs. This framework has successfully been in place for 20 years and we do not propose to change it substantively. However, we want to make sure that LDOs can continue to be used effectively and the procedures reflect modern practice. We are proposing some changes relating to listed buildings and minerals development and welcome views on any other minor procedural changes.

Implementation

129. Subject to the outcome of this consultation and parliamentary scheduling, we intend to lay the secondary legislation and implement changes to the LDO framework by the end of the year.

Proposal: Limitations and scope of LDOs

Listed Buildings

130. Under Article 38(12)(a) DMPO a LPA cannot make a LDO to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building. Whilst we want to ensure that the significance of listed buildings, including their setting, is protected from inappropriate development we do not want them to limit the ambition of LPAs; heritage led regeneration schemes can create a sense of place and connect new development strongly with the character of the local area.

131. This was originally designed to protect listed buildings, but we think this limitation is unnecessarily restrictive and undermines the opportunity to use LDOs in 2 ways:

first, it limits the ability for LPAs to make complementary LDOs to Local Listed Building Consent Orders (LLBCOs) which streamline the consenting of certain works to listed buildings. Several LPAs have made LLBCOs for simple energy improvements (such as solar panels), but in some cases, express planning permission by an application is still required. A complementary LDO would ensure alignment between planning permission and listed building consent
second, the current limitation (with its phrasing “development affecting a listed building”) is broad and impacts not just development to a listed building but its setting. This limits the use of a LDO in supporting urban regeneration where there are listed buildings nearby – such as town centre locations

132. Important statutory safeguards for listed buildings will remain in place. In particular, the LPA when making a LDO will remain subject to the special regard duty under section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting or any of its features of special architectural or historic interest when granting planning permission. Any works to a listed building where planning permission has been granted by a LDO will also still need listed building consent in the usual way.

Question 27

Do you agree to removal of the restriction that LDOs cannot be used to grant planning permission for development affecting listed buildings?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Restricting LDOs for minerals development

133. Similar to how MDOs are not suitable for minerals development, (see Part II) due to the potential environmental affects and its unique approach we do not believe LDOs are suited to be used for minerals development either. We therefore propose to amend secondary legislation to restrict the use of LDOs for minerals development also.

Question 28

Do you agree that Local Development Orders cannot be used for minerals development?

[Strongly agree, Partially agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Partially disagree, or Strongly disagree.]

Please provide reasons why.

Proposal: Minor procedural changes

134. Currently, Article 38(6) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires a LPA, during any consultation on a LDO to make a copy of the draft LDO, any environmental statement, and statement of reasons available for inspection at their principal office during normal working hours and at such other places within their area as they consider appropriate.

135. The requirement to make the document available at their principal office is to ensure that those who would be affected or who would otherwise have an interest in the development have an opportunity to inspect the documents in a designated location. This is not be practical in some circumstances, especially if the development in question is not anywhere near the principal office of the LPA.

136. We therefore propose to remove the requirement to have the LDO and associated documents available at the principal offices of the LPA, and instead enable the LPA to chose where to provide these for inspection.

137. We welcome views on whether further minor technical amendments could be made to the LDO procedure.

Question 29

Do you have any further minor technical changes to the Local Development Order procedure?

[Yes/No]

If yes, please provide more detail.

Question 8

Public Sector Equality Duty and environmental principles

Accepted Answer

138. We would like to hear about any potential impacts of the proposals in the consultation on businesses, or of any differential impacts on persons with a relevant protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010 compared to persons without that protected characteristic, together with any appropriate mitigation measures, which may assist in deciding the final policy approach in due course.

139. Similarly we would like to hear about any impacts identified under the 5 environmental principles set out in the Environment Act 2021.

Question 30

Do you have any views on the implications of the proposals in this consultation for you, or the group or business you represent, and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic?

[Yes/No]

If yes, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how.

Question 31

Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

[Yes/No]

If yes, please provide more detail.

Question 32

Do you have any views on the implications of these proposals for the considerations of the 5 environmental principles identified in the Environment Act 2021?

Question 9

About this consultation

Accepted Answer

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation. In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Question 10

Personal data

Accepted Answer

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under UK data protection legislation.

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer

MHCLG is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller. Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a Government department i.e. in this case a consultation.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and Government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period.

Your personal data will be held for 2 years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point

6. Your rights, for example, access, rectification, restriction, objection

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

a. to see what data we have about you

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO. Email dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or write to:

Knowledge and Information Access Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas.

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making.

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure Government IT system.

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for 2 years before it is deleted.

Question 11

Annex A: Common PSI Categories to apply outside of London

Accepted Answer

Large scale development (immediately from day one)

General PSI categories Mayor can use direct refusal and call-in powers unless stated otherwise)	Proposed threshold	Relevant London Category (if applicable)
Development of homes	more than 150 homes	1A
Floor area of non-residential or mixed-use development	more than 15,000 square metres of non-residential floorspace or mixed use development	1B
Building height	Over 30 metres in height	1C
Building height	Increase of 15 metres in height and which would result in building(s) over 30m	1D

Large scale infrastructure (available following SDS adoption)

General PSI categories Mayor can use direct refusal and call-in powers unless stated otherwise)	Proposed threshold	Relevant London Category (if applicable)
Mining operations	10 ha. Site area	2A
Waste development	Waste development with capacity or more than: 5,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum; or 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum Waste development where the development occupies 1 hectare	2B
Infrastructure development	Aircraft runway Heliport (including a floating heliport or a helipad on a building) Air passenger terminal at an airport Railway station or tram station Tramway, an underground, surface or elevated railway, or a cable car Bus or coach station 4 hectares of storage and distribution development Air terminal to increase its capacity by more than 500,000 people per year Storing 70 or more buses and/or coaches Area for storing buses and/or coaches more than 0.7 hectares	2C
Waste development non-compliant with the development plan	Site area more than 0.5 hectares Where capacity is more than: 2,000 tonnes per annum of hazardous waste 20,000 tonnes per annum of waste	2D
Energy development^{[footnote 6]}	Solar Development between 50-100MW Onshore Wind Development of 50-100MW Battery Storage (standalone) capacity of 100MW or more Electricity network projects	Not applicable

Development which could affect strategic priorities (available following SDS adoption)

General PSI categories Mayor can use direct refusal and call-in powers unless stated otherwise)	Proposed threshold	Relevant London Category (if applicable)
Loss of housing or housing capacity (direct refusal only)	Loss of 200 homes Prejudice the use of land for residential use where site area is 4 hectares or more	3A
Development of business, general industrial and storage and distribution (direct refusal only)	Development of 4 hectares which is used for business, general industrial, and storage and distribution, and likely to prejudice the use of that land for any such use	3B
Loss of playing fields	Development resulting in the loss of 2 hectares of playing fields	3C
Development on Green Belt	Building with 1,000 square metres floorspace on Green Belt	3D
Development of uses outside the development plan (direct refusal only)	2,500 square metres floorspace in the below uses where they do not in accord with development plan: shops, financial and professional, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, hot food takeaway, business, general industrial, storage and distribution, hotels, residential institutions, non-residential institutions, and assembly and leisure	3E

Question 12

Annex B: Local PSI categories which apply in London

Accepted Answer

Mayor of London PSI categories	Threshold	Relevant London Category
Building heights	the building is more than 25 metres high and is adjacent to the River Thames the building is more than 150 metres high and is in the City of London the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London	1C
Development on land allocated as Metropolitan Open Land	Building with 1,000 square metres floorspace on Metropolitan Open Land	3D
Car parking (direct refusal only)	Development including the provision of 200 car parking spaces (non-residential)	3F
Material change of use of waste materials site (direct refusal only)	Material change of use of site used for waste materials (treating, processing, recovering, disposing, or refuse of waste materials) where the site: occupies 0.5 hectares or more; or has capacity of more than 2,000 tonnes per annum of hazardous waste ; or has capacity of more than 20,000 tonnes per annum of waste.	3G
Housing not in accord with development plan and adjacent to waste (direct refusal only)	Development of houses, flats or houses and flats, which do not in accord with development plan and is on a site adjacent for treating, keeping, processing, recovering or disposing of refuse or waste materials where the site has capacity of more than: 2,000 tonnes per annum of hazardous waste; or 20,000 tonnes per annum of waste	3H
Material change of use towards storing buses or coaches (direct refusal only)	Change of use which does not accord with the development plan, for the keeping and storing of buses or coaches, or buses and coaches: Where capacity is 70 or more; or Which has site area of 0.7 hectares or more.	3I
Development of 50 homes or more (call-in only where a London Borough seek to refuse planning permission - subject to streamlined procedure)	Development which comprises or includes the provision of 50 or more houses, flats, or houses and flats.	3J

*[LDO] Local Development Order *[LDOs] Local Development Orders

Both Liverpool City Region and West of England MCAs have these powers as part of previous City Deals, but neither have used them. We intended to replace these bespoke powers for these 2 MCAs with the new powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. ↩
Source: Somerset Council ↩
Source: Cornwall Council ↩
To note, this differs from London MCIL, where the Mayor of London must approve a charging schedule personally. ↩
Paragraph: 029 Reference ID: 25-029-20190901. ↩
The current Mayor of London Order does not include onshore wind or solar development as they do not often occur in London. However, in other parts of the country, they can be more common and play an important role in meeting our clean energy and net zero objectives. Such schemes can create significant local interest that may be appropriate for mayoral oversight. We propose that PSI development includes solar and onshore wind projects with a generating capacity between 50MW and 100MW (inclusive), electricity network projects (including construction of converter stations, switching stations, new grid substations and other ancillary works to network projects), and large grid-scale battery storage projects with a capacity of 100MW or more, all of which are currently consented under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. We note that onshore wind and solar projects with a generating capacity of more than 100MW are consented under the Planning Act 2008 in England and are determined by the Secretary of State and are therefore outside the scope of this consultation. Electricity network projects that are consented under the Planning Act 2008 or section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, and are therefore determined by the Secretary of State, are also outside the scope of this consultation. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England

Topic of the consultation

Scope of this consultation

Geographical scope

Public Sector Equality Duty and Impact Assessment

Body responsible for the consultation

Duration:

Enquiries

How to respond

Ministerial foreword

Introduction

Part 1: Powers in relation to applications of potential strategic importance

What is the legislative framework for these powers?

The process for dealing with PSI Applications

Stage 1 - consultation

Stage 2 – decision to intervene

Stage 3 – determining called-in applications

Implementation

Proposals for consultation

Proposal: PSI application categories

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Proposal: Basis for intervention

Question 5

Question 6

Proposal: Scope of written representation procedure for called-in PSI applications

Question 7

Proposal: Approach to development corporations

Question 8

Proposal: Technical changes to procedure

Question 9

Part 2: Mayoral Development Orders

What is a Mayoral Development Order?

Case Study 1 – Gravity Enterprise Zone, North Somerset[footnote 2]

Case Study 2 – Nansledan, Cornwall[footnote 3]

MDO legal framework

Implementation

Proposal: Limitations on the scope of a MDO

Schedule 1 development under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

Question 10

Minerals development

Question 11

Summary of the MDO procedures

Proposal: Preparing the MDO

Question 12

Proposal: Publicity and consultation

Publicity

Consultation

Treatment of representations

Question 13

Proposal: Making the MDO

Question 14

Proposal: Approval of conditions

Question 15

Proposal: Revising or revoking a MDO

Question 16

Part 3: Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy

Implementation

Proposal: Conditions and requirements for becoming a MCIL charging authority

Question 17

Question 18

Question 19

Question 20

Question 21

Proposal: Spending of MCIL by mayors of strategic authorities outside of London

Question 22

Question 23

Question 24

Proposal: Collection of MCIL

Question 25

Question 26

Part 4: Local Development Orders

Implementation

Proposal: Limitations and scope of LDOs

Listed Buildings

Question 27

Restricting LDOs for minerals development

Case Study 1 – Gravity Enterprise Zone, North Somerset^{[footnote 2]}

Case Study 2 – Nansledan, Cornwall^{[footnote 3]}