When the Mayor takes over an application in London

The Mayor of London can take over a planning application and decide it himself, but only for a referable scheme and only if three tests are met. That power sits in article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, and when the Mayor takes over a planning application the borough stops being the decision maker for it. The applicant keeps the scheme. The borough keeps its policies. What changes is who signs the decision notice and where the argument is held.

Which applications can be taken over

Only applications of potential strategic importance reach the Mayor at all. The Schedule to the 2008 Order sets the categories, and the familiar triggers are 150 or more houses or flats, buildings above a height threshold that varies by location (lower beside the Thames, much higher inside the City of London), large floorspace figures that also vary by area, and development on Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land above a size limit. Read the Schedule rather than a summary, because the categories are drafted by location as well as by scale.

A referable application goes to the Mayor twice. At stage one the borough sends the application in before determining it, and the Greater London Authority issues a report saying whether the scheme complies with the London Plan and what would need to change. At stage two, after the borough has resolved to grant or refuse, the Mayor decides what to do with it.

Three outcomes exist at stage two. Let the borough issue its own decision. Direct refusal. Or direct that the Mayor becomes the local planning authority for that application.

The three tests before a takeover

Article 7 allows the direction only if the Mayor is satisfied of all three of the following. The development, or its scale or nature, would have a significant impact on implementation of the spatial development strategy, which is the London Plan. There are sound planning reasons for intervening. And the effects would extend beyond the borough in which the site sits.

In practice the first and third tests are usually argued together, through housing numbers, affordable housing, industrial capacity or a strategic designation. The second test is where the Mayor's officers set out why the borough's resolution does not reflect the plan. A takeover report that fails to engage with the borough's reasons is vulnerable, which is why those reports read like appeal statements rather than committee reports.

A refusal by the borough is the common trigger. Takeovers also happen where a borough has resolved to grant but on terms the Mayor considers contrary to the plan, although that is rarer.

What a representation hearing involves

Once the Mayor is the local planning authority, the GLA publishes a report and holds a public representation hearing. This is not a statutory inquiry and there is no cross-examination. It is a meeting at which the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills hears the case before deciding.

The running order is usually the same. GLA planning officers present their report and recommendation. The borough speaks. The applicant speaks. Registered objectors and supporters each get a short slot. Then questions from the chair, and a decision announced at the hearing or shortly after.

Prepare for it differently from a committee. The audience already knows the London Plan, so the useful material is site-specific: viability inputs, the daylight numbers, the transport modelling, the deliverability of the affordable housing offer. Bring the people who wrote the technical reports, because the questions land on them. An Affordable Housing Statement that explains the tenure split and the route to the threshold is worth more here than a restatement of policy.

How the decision is issued and what follows

The Mayor issues the decision notice as local planning authority, with conditions and, where needed, a section 106 agreement negotiated by the GLA rather than the borough. The borough is still the authority for discharging many of those conditions afterwards, and for enforcement, so the handover arrangements matter. Agree in the agreement itself who monitors what.

A refusal by the Mayor carries the ordinary right of appeal to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the same basis as a refusal by a borough. A grant cannot be appealed by anyone. The only route against a grant is judicial review in the Planning Court, on public law grounds, within the short period that applies to planning challenges.

Separately, the Secretary of State can call in a referable application at any point before determination, which displaces both the borough and the Mayor. That possibility is worth keeping in mind on schemes that attract national attention.

Timing and what it does to the programme

A stage one referral is made before the borough determines, and the GLA has 21 days (extendable by agreement) to respond. Stage two follows the borough's resolution, with a further period for the Mayor to decide what to do. Only at the end of that second window does a takeover direction appear.

So the delay is not the direction itself but everything after it. The GLA has to publish its own report, arrange the hearing, give notice to speakers, and then negotiate the agreement. On a large scheme that routinely adds months to the timetable, and the applicant carries the holding costs.

Illustrative example. A borough refuses a 220-home scheme on a former industrial site against officer recommendation, citing height and loss of employment land. At stage two the Mayor directs that he is the local planning authority, on the basis that the site is allocated in the borough's own plan, that the scheme delivers against London Plan housing policy, and that the industrial capacity is replaced on site. A representation hearing is held, the scheme is approved with a revised affordable housing offer, and the borough deals with the conditions that must be discharged before work starts. The figures are illustrative and are not taken from a real decision.

Strategic consequences for the applicant

A takeover is not a shortcut. The GLA case officer will reopen matters the borough had settled, particularly affordable housing, carbon, fire safety and industrial land, and the scheme that emerges often carries heavier obligations than the one the borough refused. Budget for a second round of technical work and a longer programme.

There is also a relationship cost. The borough remains your authority for every other application in that area, for condition discharge on this one, and for the next site. Boroughs that have been overruled do not forget it.

Two practical points help. First, make the strategic case early, in the stage one submission, so the GLA report records the plan compliance before the borough decides. Second, keep the technical evidence base current. A Planning Statement drafted for a borough committee rarely addresses the article 7 tests, and the one that works at a representation hearing is written against the London Plan policies by number.

If the site sits in an opportunity area or carries a strategic allocation, that is the spine of the argument. Our note on what an opportunity area allocation changes covers how those designations are used, and the related piece on design-led capacity testing deals with the density argument that usually sits alongside it.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.

If you are assembling the evidence base for a referable scheme, enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which of the 66 report types the site is likely to need.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.