16th January 2007, 02:52 PM
The Barker Review starts out thus:
The Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned this review of the planning system in England in December 2005, with the following terms of reference:
To consider how, in the context of globalisation, and building on the reforms already put in place in England, planning policy and procedures can better deliver economic growth and prosperity alongside other systainable development goals. In particular to assess:
Ways of further improving the speed and efficiency of the system,
Ways of increasing the flexibility, transparency and predictability that enterprise requires,
The relationship between planning and productivity, and how the outcomes of the planning system can better deliver its sustainable economic objectives, and
the relationship between economic and other sustainable development goals in the delivery of sustainable communities.
Its "key recommendations" to acheive these aims involve (amongst other things):
Reducung Policy Guidance;
Providing an explicit role for "market factors and price signals" in the decision making process;
An independant Planning Commission being set up to determine major infrastructure projects (ie at a non-local level);
Promoting a positive planning culture so that if plans are "indeterminate, applications should be approved";
"Encouraging" local authorities to review their green belt boundaries;
Removing the need for "minor" commercial developments to require planning permission;
Removing the requirement to demonstrate the need for development.
The main document plods through the discussion, but essentially, the "speeding up minor applications for householders" argument is a smokescreen. This is all about making it easier for big business to build big developments. Why else would the Chancellor be involved? The proposed system will involve weaker planning legislation, reduced guidance, less recourse to expert advice, reduced timescales for comments to be made and objections raised, less opportunity for the public to be involved and a less rigourous appeals process.
Be afraid.
The Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned this review of the planning system in England in December 2005, with the following terms of reference:
To consider how, in the context of globalisation, and building on the reforms already put in place in England, planning policy and procedures can better deliver economic growth and prosperity alongside other systainable development goals. In particular to assess:
Ways of further improving the speed and efficiency of the system,
Ways of increasing the flexibility, transparency and predictability that enterprise requires,
The relationship between planning and productivity, and how the outcomes of the planning system can better deliver its sustainable economic objectives, and
the relationship between economic and other sustainable development goals in the delivery of sustainable communities.
Its "key recommendations" to acheive these aims involve (amongst other things):
Reducung Policy Guidance;
Providing an explicit role for "market factors and price signals" in the decision making process;
An independant Planning Commission being set up to determine major infrastructure projects (ie at a non-local level);
Promoting a positive planning culture so that if plans are "indeterminate, applications should be approved";
"Encouraging" local authorities to review their green belt boundaries;
Removing the need for "minor" commercial developments to require planning permission;
Removing the requirement to demonstrate the need for development.
The main document plods through the discussion, but essentially, the "speeding up minor applications for householders" argument is a smokescreen. This is all about making it easier for big business to build big developments. Why else would the Chancellor be involved? The proposed system will involve weaker planning legislation, reduced guidance, less recourse to expert advice, reduced timescales for comments to be made and objections raised, less opportunity for the public to be involved and a less rigourous appeals process.
Be afraid.