Effective community engagement in local development planning guidance: consultation

In paragraph 4, the following line is unclear: “Approaches and methods for engagement are in place and will continue to develop over time” and assumes a familiarity with existing engagement approaches and emergent methods that some of those seeking to gain guidance may not have – especially if, for example, a community body were seeking inspiration for engagement on a Local Place Plan (and notwithstanding that the guidance is intended for Local Development Plans). By saying that approaches and methods are in place, the guidance appears to be referring to a defined ‘topic’ without giving useful explanation for those that are less familiar with that ‘topic’.

Our understanding, gained from a Heads of Planning Scotland discussion, is that Scottish Government’s Planning Advice Note 3/2010 Community Engagement will still stand, alongside this guidance. This should be made clear.

In paragraph 5, in relation to “…we will consider opportunities…”, Scottish Government signposting examples through a central location (website) would be useful and this guidance could more firmly commit to doing so as and when suitable examples are identified or are brought forward.

It is noted from the document linked from footnote 31 (www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics) that the Protected Characteristics are listed alphabetically; it would be clearer to adopt this same technique where the examples of protected characteristics are listed in paragraph 9.

In paragraph 10, the various groups that could face discrimination during consultation are described; but it is unclear why extra detail is provided in relation to recommending seating for those who are pregnant (noting that ‘pregnancy and maternity’ is a Protected Characteristic), while no extra details are given that could help other individuals/groups/Protected Characteristics. Giving some more examples might help e.g. DDA-compliant, accessible venues.

The majority of the terms in Table 1 appear helpful, with the following points noted:

In respect of ‘Inform’, “we will not withhold relevant information” is supported in principle but the guidance itself would be more transparent if it were to acknowledge that in some very limited circumstances data protection considerations may mean that some information needs to be withheld.

In respect of ‘Involve’, “we will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the outcome / alternatives developed” may be going too far or require clarification – the broad intent in terms of where this sits within the spectrum is understood, however, to the participant this could suggest that the Plan will give them what they seek – and this ignores the balancing of considerations that the planning authority may be faced with, including opposing or incompatible positions held by other participants.

It is noted that the draft guidance applies ‘Empower’ to Local Place Planning which, in the context of communities having the power to prepare and submit a Local Place Plan, is where it does best sit. However, two statements in the bottom row against the term ‘Empower/Empowering’ may have the potential to over-promise - if there is an expectation of a final sense check over “we will implement what you decide” and “To hand over the ability to make decisions and / or take action” by the Scottish Government or Planning Authority, then this should be clearly stated. If to be retained, then perhaps “we will implement what you decide” would better read “we will play our part in implementing what you decide”.

It would be beneficial if the guidance would clearly express the differences between the meanings of ‘consultation’ and ‘formal consultation’, and how these terms sit in relation to ‘engagement’.

In general, the appropriate levels of engagement have been identified for the stages of local development plan preparation, with the following points noted:

We presume that Scottish Government considers that ‘Involve’ sufficiently covers the infrequent but regular ‘consultation’ on the DPS Participation Statement (before the beginning of the LDP preparation cycle and at a lesser rate thereafter), but if not then this needs to be reflected by the addition of the word ‘Consult’ with an explanatory asterisk or footnote, in the ‘Engagement Level’ column in the first row of Table 2 and in the ‘Engagement Level’ box immediately above stage 1.1.

In Table 2, the Activity ‘Publishing the Development Plan Scheme and Participation Statement’ should be ‘Prepare the….’ (in line with the heading given elsewhere in the document for Stage 1) or ‘Prepare and Publish the….’.

Stage 1, paragraph 1.11, second bullet should read “place a copy in every public library in the area to which it applies”.

Stage 1.5 is unclear - it states that “The DPS Participation Statement will be the means of reporting (publishing) that the planning authority has met its statutory engagement requirements for children and young people”; however, the purpose of the DPS Participation Statement is to communicate what shall be done, not to report on what was done. Suggest reword: “By including in the DPS Participation Statement information on such arrangements as they consider appropriate to promote and facilitate participation by children and young people in the preparation of the local development plan, and by reviewing/updating that on a sufficiently frequent basis, the planning authority will thereby meet the statutory requirements in relation to engagement of those groups.”

Stage 6.4 – the second bullet point should read ‘disabled people’.

In general, the appropriate levels of engagement have been identified for the impact assessments. However, the reformed LDP preparation process has moved away from a Main Issues Report stage that included site-based information, was informed by early and effective Strategic Environmental Assessment and was subject to public consultation, leading to a Proposed Plan which could reasonably represent the settled view of the planning authority. The reform means that it seems likely that in practice, planning authorities will need to consider undertaking pre Environmental Report (and pre Proposed Plan) engagement on SEA – and therefore on actual potential content for the Proposed Plan. There might be a Call for Sites and Ideas too. Whilst this could perhaps take the form of focussed stakeholder engagement rather than general public consultation, it should still be within scope of this guidance and there should be specific and clear recognition of it as likely to feature in plan preparation.

The approach set out in the guidance is generally helpful; however, certain areas of the guidance would benefit from clarification and/or more in-depth explanation (see previous answers) to ensure that it is helpful to all potential users – although Scottish Government may intend that whilst the views of a wide range of interests may have been sought on the draft to inform its development, the final guidance is for Planning Authorities alone. This would benefit from being clarified.

There is a general issue of concern arising from the potential costs of engagement. Anticipated variable take-up of Local Place Plan production by communities (due to resources, capacity, etc) could leave many communities without an LPP, and the planning authority’s resources could very well be too stretched to best fill that gap – thereby disadvantaging some communities – a lack of equality and acting against a Just Transition. Notwithstanding that there are various potential funding sources that communities could try to bid in to, consideration should be given to a specific, sizeable, Scottish Government fund to specifically assist communities with Local Place Planning.

The guidance will help advance these things. However, it is through the Planning Authority preparing the LDP in the appropriate, inclusive way that these things can actually be achieved. We note that the Evidence Report must include a statement on how the planning authority has sought particular stakeholders’ views, and how these views are taken into account in the report. The Gate Check will prove a useful check to ensure an authority has sufficient evidence prior to proceeding towards creating a proposed plan.

N/A

N/A