Policywatch

The Barker Review

Kate Barker’s review of land use planning is a welcome contribution to the debate about how to best improve the often cumbersome planning system in Britain. The challenge now is to ensure that the government acts on the report and incorporates its main suggestions in the white paper on planning reform, due to be published in the spring.

Barker’s report makes the case for the planning system to facilitate sensible development. Where planning applications fit in with the agreed local plans for the provision of new development, Barker argues that this development should be approved unless there is an obvious reason for its rejection. And further, if the local plans are not clear, planning permission should still be granted, unless, again, there are substantial reasons to reject it. Minor commercial developments that have little wider impact should not have to obtain planning permission, including commercial micro regeneration.

Of particular significance is Barker’s call for the planning system to incorporate economic objectives. National guidance for economic development should reflect the full benefits of development, and local and regional bodies should work together to ensure that economic development is given a higher priority.

As also recommended by the Eddington Review of transport, Barker calls for the creation of an independent planning commission to determine planning applications for major infrastructure. The commission will take its lead from clear statements of government policy, and if implemented would help to provide the speedy provision of infrastructure to aid development in Britain. This “streamlining” is also reflected in Barker’s call for ministers to only determine strategically important planning applications, cutting the number of call-ins of applications by half.

In addition to speeding up the planning application process Barker also advocates improving the efficiency of the appeals system, arguing that by 2008-2009 all appeals should take place within six months. The review proposes the creation of a planning mediation service to help deliver this objective, as well as providing an extra £2m of funding to the Planning Inspectorate that will determine the most appropriate route for applications to appeal decisions.

Barker calls for a review of the £50,000 cap on fees for planning applications and easier access for businesses to pay for a premium service. The skills of planning officers are also addressed, with Barker calling for more training and investment for planners and an increased status for chief planning officers, as well expanding the support function of the Advisory Team for Large Applications to assist with major planning applications.

Reginal and local planning bodies should review their green belt boundaries to ensure they remain relevant

Kate Barker

The review also addresses how new fiscal incentives can be used to help fund development. The introduction of the proposed planning gain supplement is mentioned, which the BPF remains sceptical about, but other innovative forms of funding are suggested such as the use of Local Authority Business Growth Initiative and the use of tax increment financing. The review argues that urban land should be used more efficiently and that this could be encouraged through business rate relief for empty properties, land remediation relief, and a charge on vacant and derelict brownfield land.

One recommendation that has, somewhat mistakenly, attracted a lot of controversy is Barker’s call for a review of green belt land. This land designation should already have a variety of planning purposes as it is not, as often portrayed, an environmental designation. The review simply calls for local authorities to take a positive approach to applications in green belts which will enhance the surroundings. This is not a call for mass development on green belts.

Summary of the policy documents

Towards the end of last year several government consultation documents were released; including, a planning policy statement on climate change (PPS1), a planning policy statement on housing (PPS3) and three consultation documents relating to the introduction of planning gain supplement (PGS).

PPS1 on climate change addresses how spatial planning can tackle the effects of climate change, both through mitigation and adaptation of the planning system. Of particular significance is the introduction of regional trajectories for expected carbon performance of new residential and commercial development. It is intended that this will help the government achieve its long-term aim of implementing zero-carbon development. The statement instigates a number of steps to be followed regionally and locally which will provide for better use of energy resources, giving local authorities the responsibility of shaping the provision of low-carbon and renewable technology in their areas.

PPS3 on housing was developed in response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply in 2004 and with regard for the need to deliver more homes. The paper aims to reflect government commitment to improving the affordability, quality and supply of more housing. PPS3 suggests that the above goals can be achieved by greater decentralisation of the planning process, delivering a flexible supply of land for housing, and a broader, more strategic market-based approach to decision-making, using evidence rather than local boundaries as a criterion. It also tries to define in more detail the term “affordable housing”, replacing ambiguity with detailed guidance impinging on flexibility.

The PGS consultations are split into three areas. First, paying PGS which looks at the practicalities of how a PGS charge could be paid and the best time for this charge to be incurred. Second, valuing PGS which addresses how PGS will be calculated, seeking clarification on the definitions involved in the valuation process. Third, reform of Section 106 and planning obligations that looks at what planning obligations should be included in the reformed system which will see Section 106s work in unison with a PGS charge.