Effective community engagement in local development plans: consultation response summary

Summary of Responses: Overarching themes

Expectations Management

Respondents noted throughout the consultation the importance of managing expectations during engagement exercises. This was noted in particular reference to the ‘Involve’ level and in more widely in relation to local place plans. It was felt the guidance could note the importance of clarifying that not all local place plan elements may be incorporated into a local development plan and that while the approach to local place plan preparation is collaborative, that it isn’t for the planning authority to lead that engagement.

Methods of engagement

Many respondents’ comments on methods of engagement indicated that the guidance should be doing more on methods of engagement, including:

• engagement between statutory bodies and communities;
• innovation in methods;
• value of community learning and development;
• provide examples/examples offered;
• dealing with practical matters arising around engagement;
• making use of existing local engagement opportunities; and
• improving and valuing inclusion of local voices and people with protected characteristics.

Requests for the inclusion of methods or examples of engagement within the guidance or as a separate resource was a theme repeated in responses across the range of questions in the consultation. Respondents felt the provision of engagement methods would aid delivery consistency, accessibility and awareness raising. Counter to this, some local authority category responses suggested that not having methods in the guidance allowed for local approaches to engagement. They supported the guidance in signposting to where information on up to date methods could be found.

Additional links to associated guidance were suggested alongside points about good engagement practices, including;

• that show-stopper issues be raised early;
• that use be made of existing community events for local development plan engagement;
• that issues be kept plain for communities; and
• that there is regional level support for engagement.

The responses suggested that while there is demand for further information about methods this was not necessarily an ask for a prescriptive approach to when and how they are applied.

Capacity and resources

Resourcing and capacity pressures for planning authorities and communities, including those with protected characteristics, to undertake/participate in engagement was raised as a repeated theme in the consultation, noted as something that would affect implementation.

Suggestions around resourcing and capacity included:

• provide a resourcing scheme targeting areas of deprivation and growth;
• provide resources for disabled persons organisations/access panels;
• provide a resources and skills strategy for NPF4 delivery;
• provide dedicated resources for local place plans; and
• provide resources for local authorities to communicate the guidance to communities.

The potential supportive role for Community Learning and Development professionals was raised.

Respondents noted the general difficulties of reaching and engaging people, a low level of understanding of local development planning within communities and the risk of uneven implementation particularly in areas of deprivation. It was suggested that the potential impact of poor engagement experiences should be highlighted within the guidance.

Local development plan stages

Addressing consultation fatigue was a repeated theme noted across multiple responses to questions within the consultation. This was in relation to the amount of engagement and the alignment across local development plan preparation processes.

Suggested changes included calls for:

• more aligned, fewer, effective engagement opportunities;
• guidance on reducing engagement burdens; and
• guidance on aligning local development plan and impact assessment engagement.

Responses also called for clarity around the timing and relationship between the local development plan and the local place plans.

Accountability

Responses called for clarity in the guidance as to how statutory organisations are accountable for their engagement activity.

Reference was made to accountability aspects in the Public Sector, Scotland Specific duties, and alignment with the Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations. The quality of engagement was also raised.

A connection between provision of methods, accountability and trust can be seen in responses. Comments suggest a lack of feedback mechanisms and the transparency of how local place plans are taken into account in local development planning.

Equality matters

How the approach acts on equalities outcomes for people with protected characteristics through approaches to engagement was raised commonly. There was a focus on ensuring that processes and arrangements for engagement are accessible, noting that accessibility to engagement should not be an issue for those being engaged to manage but should be recognised by those conducting the engagement.

It was suggested that the guidance could be amended to provide more information about involving different groups of people and those with protected characteristics, including taking an intersectional approach, with good practice examples demonstrated through examples.

While there was suggestion that the guidance could help to build trust, the likelihood of the guidance creating change, particularly for disabled people and across urban and rural communities was queried.

Presentation

The presentation of the guidance, level of complexity, length and the clarity and consistency of the language used, particularly for the terms that relate to different groups, were noted as requiring some attention.

Suggestions for change included, using plainer, clearer language, offering clearer framing, defining key agencies, and providing a clearer definition of terms.

It was thought that for the guidance to be effectively and equitably implemented across Scotland the language would need to be sufficiently strong to ensure consistent adoption and application of the different levels of engagement. Words such as ‘encouraged’, ‘if possible’, and ‘could’ may leave the intent of the guidance open to interpretation and at risk of being watered down.

Suggested changes to improve accessibility included, making the guidance more concise, omitting, or changing terms too broad for general understanding, using hyperlinks and an annex to remove repetition of legislation, re-formatting the guidance based on the tables, using a larger paper size, improving graphics, and including a diagram for the levels and stages.

Implementation

Many respondents from all the categories made comments that were seen as potential obstacles to the implementation and delivery. These were particularly in relation to local authority resources and capacity, capacity within communities, language used, and the accessibility of the guidance, which are covered in earlier themes.

It was thought that the guidance could aid decision making if there was a mechanism by which to apply weight to contributions made during engagement.