Archived decisions

REPORT OF THE

Cabinet / Leader

PART II

BARKER REVIEW OF LAND USE PLANNING - COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE

1. In December 2005, economist Kate Barker was commissioned to review the planning system in England. As part of the initial consultation process, the County Council made a submission in spring 2006, followed by a response to the Interim Report in September 2006. Kate Barker's Final Report was published in December 2006 and the Government invited comments on her recommendations. Accordingly, the Cabinet considered a report on 26 February 2007 summarising the recommendations, and agreed a response on behalf of the County Council.

2. The Final Report was 213 pages long and contained 32 main recommendations, some of which related to detailed matters concerning the planning procedures followed by District Councils, hence the County Council's response did not comment on every proposal. The planning system is an important mechanism for enhancing quality of place therefore the County Council's response sought to influence the Government's deliberations on Kate Barker's recommendations by submitting its views on her proposals for:

    · improving the speed and quality of decision-making

    · providing a less centrally regulated regime

    · direct community goodwill payments

    · an independent Planning Commission to decide major infrastructure projects

    · improving the responsiveness to economic considerations

    · the role of greenbelt

    · joint working by local authorities across administrative boundaries

3. During its deliberations, the Cabinet noted and welcomed the evidence in the Final Report that some of the points made by the County Council in its earlier response to the Interim Report had been taken on board. However, the Cabinet was disappointed that some of the recommendations lacked detail and therefore did not provide any real indication of how they might work in practice. Of particular concern was the proposal to set up an independent Planning Commission to determine major infrastructure projects. This may have merit in terms of quality decision making and efficiency however, it will be important that local people are given an opportunity to have their say, and for decision makers to be properly accountable. A very cautious approach to this proposal was recommended.

4. The substantive response is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.