As the Mayor of London takes control through a new development corporation, decades of local ambition, planning tension and political drama come to a head.
Oxford Street has a need, and a capacity, to reinvent itself perhaps unmatched by any other street in London. From its Roman origins, variously known as Via Trinobantina or, with slightly less Italic flair, Military Way, through the rather foreboding Tyburn Way of the medieval and early modern periods, to the “road to Oxford” (and hence Oxford Street) first recorded in the late seventeenth century, the street has continually evolved – sometimes by accident, occasionally by design.
The masterful, recent and perhaps unexpectedly topical Survey of London volume on Oxford Street notes, with spectacular understatement, that “the oversight and maintenance of this relentlessly busy route have always been fraught with care and controversy.” The authors no doubt had in mind the chaos of the medieval vestry system, prior to the road being turnpiked, but the street’s twentieth-century history has been no less fraught. In the post-war period, the tension between cars, public transport and users of the street has intensified even as various schemes to improve its environment have been advocated, and at times implemented, such as Centrepoint and the associated widening of St Giles’ Circus.
There is a certain historical continuity to this disorder. Oxford Street has always been chaotic – in its function, in its politics, and in its governance. And perhaps it always will be. That persistent messiness is part of what makes the latest intervention—the creation of a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC)—so significant. Because while this may be the most ambitious governance shift in decades, it is also, in many ways, just the latest chapter in a long and unsettled story.
From ORB to Opportunity
The early 2000s saw Westminster City Council, working alongside Sir Terry Farrell and the newly established Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), launch the Oxford–Regent–Bond Streets (ORB) Masterplan. Regent Street, under the single stewardship of The Crown Estate, has since been transformed. Bond Street has secured its luxury character, aided by significant public realm investment. But Oxford Street – fragmented in ownership, more mid-market in feel, and far more contested – has proved a tougher challenge.
In 2016, a joint effort between the Mayor, Westminster City Council and TfL sought to pedestrianise the street. It was bold, well-resourced and prominently featured in the Mayor’s manifesto. But it quickly ran into political difficulty. Oxford Street is not just a shopping street, but also a vital east–west artery. Residents feared displacement of traffic, reduced accessibility (given the Central line’s poor step-free access), and disruption to their quality of life.
By the 2018 local elections, the Conservative administration in Westminster was under pressure from single-issue candidates. Though re-elected, they changed tack – rejecting full pedestrianisation in favour of a redesigned street that retained vehicle access. The Mayor, nonplussed, walked away from the project.
Yet Westminster pressed ahead. The Council committed substantial capital funding from its own reserves and worked hard to secure financial pledges from major landowners who stood to benefit from increased property values. Design work and consultation were already well underway by 2020. Covid-19 didn’t derail the scheme. In many ways, the pandemic only underscored the urgency of adapting Oxford Street to new retail realities, including the loss of two of its four remaining department stores.
When Labour won control of Westminster in 2022—for the first time in the Council’s history—they did not abandon the programme. Instead, they built upon it, reinforcing the mixed funding model and pressing ahead with enabling works. In an era of churn and short-termism, Oxford Street stood out as a rare case of policy continuity across political administrations.
Enter the MDC
Then, in September 2024, came the twist. With delivery already underway, the Mayor – now in his third term – announced the creation of a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) for Oxford Street. Backed by the newly appointed Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, the move was pitched as a step-change in governance: unlocking delivery and bringing strategic oversight to one of London’s most complex urban environments.
It was also, undeniably, a surprise.
The MDC model has previously only been used in areas of large-scale regeneration: post-Games Stratford, the brownfield land at Old Oak. But Oxford Street isn’t a blank canvas. It’s a dense, layered, fully developed part of the West End, with a rich mix of uses, diverse landownership and an active residential population. The decision to apply the MDC model here – to retrofit it, rather than deploy it from scratch – marks uncharted territory.
Most public discussions on Oxford Street have, inevitably, been about the vexed and emotive issue of pedestrianisation. The ambition is to create a world-class environment that restores Oxford Street’s place at the heart of London’s economy and visitor offer. The detail is still to come. A more formal consultation on design and delivery is expected in the autumn.
Planning Power Shift
But the underlying intent goes well beyond public realm: to elevate ambition, de-risk delivery and create a more durable framework for investment.
That means the more fundamental shift is in planning powers. The Oxford Street MDC will become the local planning authority (LPA) for the defined area—taking over responsibility from Westminster and Camden. This means it will determine all planning applications and have the power to produce its own local plan, replacing those of the boroughs.
Initially, it will operate under existing borough policies. But even before it develops new ones, it may interpret current frameworks differently—especially in contested areas such as height, use class flexibility or heritage. Consider, for instance, the controversial M&S redevelopment at Marble Arch, which was ultimately called in and refused by the Secretary of State, then approved under a different Secretary of State. Under an MDC, would that same decision have played out differently? Indeed, how might the MDC interpret Westminster’s contentious Retrofit First policy, which of course had its genesis in the contested territory of M&S Marble Arch?
The Mayor has said the Corporation will aim to “transform the Oxford Street area and stimulate economic improvement to allow [it] to fulfil its potential.” This is not just local government Kremlinology; it signals a more pro-growth stance, better aligned with GLA objectives such as intensification, sustainability and economic recovery. Planning under the MDC may also be more regionally focused – concerned with Oxford Street’s role in London’s future, not just its present-day local dynamics.
A Complex Delivery Landscape
As with any new delivery body, there are questions about how the MDC will operate in practice.
Where will it find the staff to run a fully functioning planning authority? What will happen to live applications submitted to the boroughs? Has it considered the full range of planning activity it will need to manage – from large scale redevelopments through to adverts, listed building consents, shopfronts and trees? What about that unglamorous but essential part of the system – planning enforcement? How will the MDC coordinate with the boroughs that will continue to control the side streets, in terms of public realm, highways and servicing?
Coordination with the boroughs will be vital. Westminster and Camden will still control highways, waste, street cleaning and servicing—along with additional cleansing from New West End Company. The street itself cannot function without them. There are also reputational risks if the MDC and the boroughs issue conflicting messages to residents or businesses.
Over the coming months, further detail is expected on organisational structure, appointment of a Chair and Chief Executive, and the composition of the planning committee. It is anticipated that the MDC board and committee will be representative – comprised of elected members, businesses and mayoral appointees. Understanding how to engage in pre-application discussions—and with whom—will be vital for developers, consultants and communities alike.
Political Dynamics and Local Tensions
Politically, the creation of the MDC has not landed smoothly.
While it was made possible by Labour holding power at City Hall, in Westminster and now nationally, it was not the product of three-way consensus. In fact, the City Council was not formally involved in the decision and was taken aback by its announcement—just as it had started to see tangible progress from its own programme. Internally, many view the move as a duplication of effort, and a potential undermining of local leadership.
The announcement also coincided—unhelpfully—with a high-profile council by-election in the West End ward. Former Westminster Conservative Cabinet Member Tim Barnes regained his seat from Labour, turning local frustrations into political capital. In ultra-marginal wards like West End, the optics of a centralised GLA-led body overruling the local council may become a gift to the opposition in the run-up to the 2026 local elections.
That potential will only increase if the MDC is seen to displace or disrupt local work. While the Mayor sees it as a way to break the deadlock, Labour figures in Westminster are still bruised—particularly given they had delivered cross-party continuity on the project, and were making progress. In that context, the MDC risks being seen as a London Labour own-goal.
Implications for Investors and Landowners
For retailers, developers and investors, the arrival of the MDC represents both risk and opportunity.
On one hand, it introduces a new player and a period of adjustment. Engagement strategies will need to change. Live applications may be affected. And the broader context, especially given the political tension around the move, is unlikely to be settled quickly.
But longer term, the potential prize is significant. A dedicated LPA for Oxford Street, backed by both City Hall and central government, could help unblock investment, promote greater design ambition, and give landowners a clearer, more consistent path to delivery.
The fractured landownership and operational constraints won’t vanish overnight. But the MDC offers a route to overcome the inertia that has dogged previous attempts to secure lasting change. For investors with a long-term stake in the West End, early and constructive engagement will be essential.
Conclusion
That Oxford Street is complex and contested is perhaps one of the few constants of this most troublesome of streets. In the Mayoral Development Corporation, it now has a delivery vehicle as complex—and as ambitious—as it is. This raises practical questions, especially over the next few months, but also creates opportunities to take a more strategic, regionally influenced approach to both the public realm and development along the street
The next 12–24 months will determine whether the MDC becomes the catalyst for transformation or another chapter in the street’s long saga of contested change.
Next May, the MDC may find itself operating in the middle of a Conservative-controlled borough—creating new flashpoints just as City Hall, the borough and central government all seek to work together. Oxford Street wouldn’t have it any other way.
James Wickham is a Partner in the planning & development team at property advisors Newmark. Nathan Parsad-Wyatt is Co-Founder and Director of public affairs consultancy Hedry.
