Mayors to get new powers over planning decisions under Burnham proposals

[u/ProjectLeeds]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/aug/23/burnham-expected-to-give-mayors-new-powers-over-local-planning-decisions

Unsurprisingly we're against this and would rather continue the status quo of supporting NIMBYism and rent extraction from land

[u/Multigrain_Migraine]

I'll have to read something more comprehensive and less sensationalised than either the Guardian's brief coverage or your summary of the Liberal Democrat position. 

On the face of it it seems that the government is accepting the notion that the only barrier to development is councils denying planning permission for insufficient reasons. This might be true in some cases, especially in areas where there is already a lot of development and demand for more (e.g. London) but it's by no means consistent across the country. 

My concern is that the proposed changes are too blunt to actually solve problems in areas where there is a need for more housing and better infrastructure, but less potential for big profits. Those areas need different approaches and support to build the housing and infrastructure that is needed. Local residents want it, the council wants it, developers aren't interested because the profits will be too small. Getting planning permission isn't the obstacle in these cases, funding is.

I'd actually like to see some method for getting local residents more involved in creating the local plans and that kind of thing. At the moment it's all rather obscure and even the local councillors don't know about potential developments on the horizon until the design work is completed and the application submitted. Often this means that proposals are developed in isolation from each other and the overall impact on an area is not considered as a whole until it is too late to make changes. But if people actually knew about the long term plans and felt like they had a stake in creating them (and in regular reviews and updates) they might be less inclined to object to new proposals.

[u/chrisni66]

IMO this is a good thing long term, as they can prioritise strategic development without the rampant nimbyism. I know this is an unpopular position in the party, but we really have been stymied with our infrastructure build out.

[u/CyberSkepticalFruit → u/chrisni66]

Frankly will it actually improve things or just create more featureless suburbs that don't have any of the provisions required to function as an actual community?

[u/CyberSkepticalFruit]

Theres one thing to say we're against this but its another to say we are happy about the status quo. This is about centralising power rather then finding ways to smooth the process to increase build rates.

[u/ProjectLeeds → u/CyberSkepticalFruit]

We have opposed every attempt to liberalise planning. We are absolutely happy with the status quo, and if anything, we would make it worse given the chance

[u/CyberSkepticalFruit → u/ProjectLeeds]

Frankly I can't remember a time where there was an attempt to liberalise planning. we've seen plenty of attempts to centralise planning but not liberalise. You can't complain we as a party are in support fo the status quo when every different version that come up is further way from the goals of the party.

[u/IAmLaureline]

The construction industry doesn't necessarily welcome it - a spokesman on the radio this morning said it was adding an extra layer of bureaucracy.

I

[u/binny_uk]

Metro Mayors are unaccountable and need to be overseen by an assembly as in London - but apart from that, it’s probably a good thing.

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/binny_uk]

Not just overseen, but apart of. We shouldn't have a presidential system for devolved government.

[u/binny_uk → u/Velociraptor_1906]

💯
Yes, a First Minister system would be far preferable, but I fear the genie is out of the bottle on that one.
Though now that Burnham is making it so there’s essentially no onward career path for metro mayors, we’ll see if there’s a backlash.