How we did it ... Redbridge builds core of expertise for strategy

Mark Smulian, Planning, 11 July 2008

Background: The council, in line with government advice, needed a core strategy that a planning inspector would accept as sound.

Who is behind it? Redbridge planning officers and councillors.

Project Aims: To deliver a sound strategy that conformed with national and city planning policies but that would also reflect the borough's need to accommodate growth while meeting residents' concerns about its impacts on quality of life.

Skills involved: In-house capacity development so the council did not depend on consultants, support from senior councillors, a focus on sound planning principles.

In March, the London Borough of Redbridge became the first of the capital's councils to adopt a local development framework (LDF) core strategy. It was judged sound by an inspector who found that it reflected the council's overall aims in its community strategy and corporate plan.

Planning director Marc Dorfman explains that his team recognised at the outset that while the planning system changes frequently, "the underlying fundamentals have not".

A good grounding in how you make a plan good for a decade or more is needed, he says. "You also need a healthy disrespect for the way that the government - and I have to say my own profession - keeps fiddling with plan-making techniques. Just be able to read the rules and comply with them," he advises.

Redbridge decided that it would keep plan preparation in-house and a team leader and five staff were allocated to the work on a full-time basis. For his part, Dorfman says he "made sure that they were not deflected from the task".

Almost all the work was done by Redbridge staff, including sustainability appraisals. The council resolved to build up its own capacity, knowledge and confidence so it did not become dependent on consultants. This approach saved money and meant that the plan was firmly integrated with other council work.

Work began on the LDF in 2004 and several development plan documents (DPDs) were prepared together with the cost spread. Dorfman explains that each stage of producing the document cost £7,500.

The planners also engaged senior councillors early in the process and ensured that officers from outside their department were involved. "We did not have to persuade councillors that it was important," he says. "A cross-party group was set up that worked with us throughout the three-year process."

Redbridge faced the need to accommodate substantial growth, something that was a cause of concern to residents. Consultation responses showed that they feared the impact on the local quality of life of excessive densities, loss of open spaces and overstretched services.

The core strategy resolved this by concentrating growth in town centres and around transport corridors and interchanges. This approach was backed by a strong policy of requiring developer contributions for community infrastructure, which allowed the council to protect the green belt and the area's residential character.

Dorfman advises other councils to aim for clarity, warning that no inspector is likely to accept vague policy statements such as "the council will encourage" particular agendas. He says: "Many policy needs are already in government policy statements but the LDF is there to develop local differences and delivery mechanisms." In Redbridge's case, the London Plan was also a vital factor and it became clear that inspectors would allow little deviation from it.

Where controversy arises, Dorfman suggests that sound evidence to back a council's position should be presented, because even if inspectors reject this they may choose to make binding changes rather than declare a strategy unsound. He also advises councils not to delay DPD submission until the system settles down. "You may wait a long time," he warns.