Introduced in 2004, as part of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, the Local Development Framework (LDF) was set to provide a simpler, flexible, fairer and quicker form of planning system. However, in the past few weeks the LDF scheme has been the subject of some negative, but perhaps not unexpected, criticism.

(image) A recent on-line survey of local authorities by the Town and Country Planning Association with Cushman and Wakefield found that less than 20% of planning authorities have completed their Core Strategies - considerably less than the 100% anticipated, under the terms of the 2004 Act, to have been completed by 2007.

So what are the reasons for the delay? Survey respondents cite insufficient resources (68%), change in government policy or guidance (56%), and synchronising with regional policy (38%) as primary causes.

The majority disagreed with the statement that the LDF scheme provides a more flexible, clearer and locally controlled system; an emphatic 97% stating that it has not resulted in a quicker form of plan making with it being labelled by some as a ‘resource hungry beast'.

However, not all is doom and gloom. A number of core strategies have been adopted and a large number are expected in 2010. It's also important to remember that the 2004 Act was the first new planning overhaul for over a decade and has, unsurprisingly, necessitated follow-up acts (such as the Planning Act 2008) and white papers (including ‘Planning for a Sustainable Future') to adjust and focus the new system on issues such climate change and the sustainability agenda. The adoption of core strategies has also occurred at the same time as the more detailed Regional Spatial Strategies were being created.

Improvements to the LDF suggested from the survey include the allocation of more resources (77%), fewer documents (66%) and less central control (47%). Themes the Government hopes will start to be addressed changes initiated via the 2008 Act, such as the establishment of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and introduction of the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Each is designed to ease the workload of local authorities on major infrastructure developments and developer contributions respectively. The latter certainly has the potential to assist at the pre-application stage, benefiting both planners and local developers.

What the survey findings do confirm is the justification for local authorities to hold robust evidence-base studies, required as part of the planning system. As a company, we have witnessed the long term benefits of the efficient implementation of such practice. Sharing the workload to produce PPG17 and playing pitch studies for example, can alleviate what is otherwise time-consuming and resource sapping - but essential - planning work for local authorities. We assist them to produce clear, well-supported and robustly justified reasons for policy development; which in turn helps to reduce the complexity and pressure of generating key LDF elements.

Yet further amendments can be expected if the Government changes at the next general election. The Conservatives have signalled plans to abolish regional agencies as well as the IPC and CIL. At this early stage, it seems likely that county rather than regional level planning would be implemented and the CIL would make way for reforms to Section 106 agreements. It is valid to question whether these changes will generate substantial improvement or are simply a re-branding of existing systems. Time will tell with the Conservatives Green Paper on planning due for publication in December 2009.

Find out more about KKP's expertise in supporting LDFs