Response to the Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance

Purpose and Scope

1 - Do you agree that the purpose and scope of the guidance is clear?

Yes

Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree):

RTPI Scotland has, for a number of years, advocated for the closer alignment of spatial and community planning to achieve place-based outcomes. Only through the effective implementation of place-based approaches can we ensure maximum societal value is derived from our interventions. This guidance represents a positive contribution towards achieving this aim in an equitable and inclusive way. RTPI Scotland supports the overall purpose and scope set out in this guidance, and agrees with the recognition that not everyone will find it easy to engage with planning and the potential for engagement processes to be directly or indirectly discriminatory. RTPI Scotland also strongly supports the statement quoted from the cross-cutting outcome of NPF4 in paragraph 8 of this section that “opportunities for engagement in development planning ‘should be early, collaborative, meaningful and proportionate'”.

Notwithstanding the above, place-based approaches are about capturing all aspects of a place when considering an intervention. To achieve a place-based approach, in 2019 the Scottish Government and COSLA agreed to adopt the Place Principle to help overcome organisational and sectoral boundaries. This includes improving coordination between stakeholders and enhancing collaboration and communication across local authority departments, key agencies, NGOs and the private sector. The Principle requests that all those responsible for providing services and looking after assets in a place need to work and plan together, with local communities, to improve the lives of people, support inclusive growth and create more successful places. The Place Principle supports collaborative place-based action and the Place Standard is a commonly-used tool to help people think about the quality of their place and where action might be required. Whilst the Place Principle has been around for a considerable number of years it has yet to make a significant impact upon ways of working in the public sector and in planning services.

This guidance represents an opportunity to further embed the Place Principle within the local development planning process. However, despite this important opportunity, reference to the Place Principle is noticeably absent from this draft guidance document (with the exception of one reference under Section 1 about the background to the consultation). RTPI Scotland has previously stressed that if the Place Principle is to have overarching effectiveness across all sectors and communities in Scotland, it must be properly operationalised to ensure that it effectively influences policy, practice and investment on the ground. RTPI Scotland believes that there is a need for a stronger framework for embedding the Place Principle into all policy-, plan- and decision-making practices. Furthermore, in order to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of policy and guidance (such as this effective community engagement guidance) in implementing the Place Principle, measures should be introduced to ensure that public authorities publicly report on how they have embedded the Principle in their approaches and how they have applied it in their decision-making, including any reasoning. For this guidance to contribute to the Place Principle’s operationalisation, it is imperative that strong links are made within the guidance to the Place Principle, including how appropriate application of the levels of engagement will support delivery of the Place Principle across Scotland.

In addition to the above, we recommend that the intended audience of this guidance document be more clearly stated. The Purpose section of the draft guidance states that in addition to planning authorities, the guidance “will also be helpful to communities, organisations and individuals in understanding when they can engage in the local development plan process”. Reference here to “communities, organisations and individuals” could be broadly interpreted to include all stakeholders, including Key Agencies and technical stakeholders. If, however, the intention is that this guidance be targeted at local community groups, representatives and individuals with a place-based interest in the local area in question, then this should be clearly stated. We note that this section makes clear that the guidance “is not intended to detail the approaches to or methods of engagement”, but that the Scottish Government “will consider opportunities to signpost examples of engagement practices”. Whilst we appreciate that there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the implementation of this guidance, its effective implementation is unlikely to be simple and clear-cut. It will require planning authority staff to apply specific skills and methods of engagement that will vary according to a range of scenarios and circumstances, and it is vital that staff be equipped with the appropriate training to deliver this effectively. This guidance does not currently address the training requirements for its implementation. At the very least, we believe that the collation and publication of case studies to demonstrate what is considered best practice in the implementation of this guidance should be undertaken as a priority to further assist planning authorities in undertaking their duties.

Levels of Engagement

2 - Do you agree that the terms inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower, as described in the table, are helpful terms to support understanding of different levels of engagement and the influence that results from it?

Yes

Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree):

RTPI Scotland broadly supports the spectrum of participation set out in this guidance. Table 1 of the guidance is useful in setting out clearly the purpose, expectations and responsibilities under each participation category which will help to reinforce transparency and clarity in engagement activities undertaken throughout the LDP process.

Notwithstanding the above, the terms “inform”, “consult”, “involve”, “collaborate”, and “empower” by themselves do not effectively relay their intended purposes. Their meaning, and associated weight in the LDP engagement process, comes from the detail set out in Table 1 of the draft guidance document. It is crucial, therefore, that application of these terms is undertaken in accordance with their respective definitions in the Table. Consequently, the critical importance of Table 1 needs to be emphasised in the guidance to avoid any risk of the terms being conflated or confused in their application by either planning authorities or communities down the track.

Relating to the above point, RTPI Scotland have critical concerns that current constraints on resourcing and funding could continue to act as a barrier to the successful implementation of this guidance in the LPD process. RTPI Scotland have long held the view that the ability of local authority planners to deliver on the new format LDPs and to support communities in preparing LPPs will be hindered by their limited resources and budgets, which have decreased in real terms by 42% since 2009. RTPI Scotland’s recent research (see https://www.rtpi.org.uk/research/2022/december/resourcing-the-planning-service-key-trends-and-findings-2022/) reveals that:

• Nearly a third of planning department staff have been cut since 2009
• In 2020 local authorities only spent 0.38% of their total net revenue budgets
• Planning application fees only cover 66% of their processing costs
• There are 91 new and unfunded duties in the Planning (Scotland) Act which could cost between £12.1m and £59.1m over 10 years.
• Over the next 10 to 15 years there will be a demand for an additional 680 to 730 entrants into the sector.
RTPI Scotland’s response to the draft LDP guidance (see https://www.rtpi.org.uk/consultations-rtpi/2022/march/rtpi-scotlands-response-to-draft-local development-plan-regulations/) and to the draft local living and 20-minute neighbourhood guidance (see https://www.rtpi.org.uk/consultations-rtpi/2023/july/rtpi-scotlands-response-to-local-living-and-20-minute-neighbourhoods-draft-planning-guidance-consultation/#)expressed concerns that for planners to prepare the new style LDPs, significant upskilling will be required, which may require a nationwide training programme. We reiterate this concern here with respect to the successful implementation of this effective community engagement guidance. Undertaking early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with local communities is essential to ensuring LDPs embody place-based approaches. However, such meaningful engagement and collaborative methods are resource intensive in terms of time, staff, and finances. In addition, it is imperative that planning authority staff undertaking these community engagement activities are appropriately trained to ensure they are equipped to:
• employ the right engagement methods at the right time, with the right members of the community in accordance with the guidance.
• facilitate these engagement methods in a way that ensures maximum productivity is achieved (including how to handle community backlash and/or hostile situations that may unintentionally arise).
• appropriately collate and analyse the quantitative and qualitative data gathered through these engagement activities such that it positively influences the outcomes of the LDP preparation and delivery process.#

The terms “inform”, “consult”, “involve”, “collaborate”, and “empower” alone do not provide the necessary insight into their intended meaning, nor do they provide those executing the guidance with the necessary skills and training required to ensure its effective, equitable, and consistent implementation across the whole of Scotland.

Although we are supportive of the structured approach to community engagement presented in the guidance, without additional support to local planning authorities and communities in the effective delivery of this guidance, in terms of resources and training, its successful implementation could be severely hampered. Given this, RTPI Scotland reiterates calls on Scottish Government, as made to the previous draft NPF4, for a comprehensive resource and skills strategy to be published as part of the Delivery Programme of NPF4.

Stage by Stage Engagement

3 - Do you agree that the appropriate levels of engagement have been identified for the stages of local development plan preparation?

Yes

Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree):

We broadly agree that the appropriate levels of engagement have been identified for the stages of local development plan preparation. However, we note that currently the ‘Preparing the Evidence Report’ at sub-section 3 currently includes the engagement levels of “inform” and “involve”. We suggest that “collaborate” be included as a level of engagement in this sub-section of the guidance to ensure that LDP preparation fosters collaboration and makes the best use of all available evidence and ideas from all stakeholders.

In addition, we note that the language in certain areas of the guidance is quite weak. For example, paragraph 5.2 states that planning authorities are “encouraged to involve – and if possible – collaborate with communities”. The use of such words as “encouraged”, “if possible”, and "could" in other parts of the guidance leave the intent of the guidance open to interpretation and to being watered down. For this guidance to be effectively and equitably implemented across Scotland, the language used needs to be sufficiently strong to ensure the consistent adoption and application of the different levels of engagement.

Furthermore, we note that the guidance does not address how planning authorities should resource the effective implementation of these levels of engagement into the LDP process. Although we acknowledge that planning authorities will already have established practices in place for undertaking community engagement, these will likely vary between planning authorities. As previously stated, undertaking early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with local communities is essential to ensure LDPs embody place-based approaches. However, such meaningful engagement and collaborative methods are resource intensive in terms of time, staff, and finances. In order to ensure consistent and effective application of this guidance (as well as other guidance documents published by Scottish Government), there needs to be a comprehensive resource and skills strategy in place as part of the Delivery Programme of NPF4.

In addition to the above, RTPI Scotland is concerned that the only opportunity in the guidance to implement the “Empower” level of engagement is in communities' uptake of Local Place Plans (i.e. at subsection 2). The resource implications for communities wishing to produce LPPs, for planning authorities to support their development, and for plan implementation is a substantial concern for RTPI Scotland. We have previously (see https://www.rtpi.org.uk/consultations-rtpi/2021/june/rtpi-scotlands-response-to-local-place-plan-consultation/) called upon the Scottish Government to provide dedicated resources to support LPPs in the form of a national grant scheme for communities (as has been established in England to support Neighbourhood Plans). In terms of funding allocation, we note the uneven uptake of neighbourhood planning in England where research has revealed a much lower uptake in urban and deprived communities with only 5% of completed plans in urban areas and just 6.7% of neighbourhood planning areas in the most deprived parts of the country. This raises concerns that if LPPs saw similar uneven uptake across Scotland, this would lead to the uneven and inequitable implementation of this effective community engagement guidance, with some communities benefiting less than others. It is essential that measures to address this be put in place as early as possible. Any national grant scheme should target funding to communities sitting within the bottom 20% on the Scottish index of Multiple Deprivation, or similar measurement in rural areas, or areas with significant potential for growth.

We would also reiterate that to achieve meaningful engagement, it is imperative that the planning authority staff undertaking these community engagement activities are appropriately trained to ensure they are equipped to:
• employ the right engagement methods at the right time, with the right members of the community in accordance with the guidance.
• facilitate these engagement methods in a way that ensures maximum productivity is achieved (including how to handle community backlash and/or hostile situations that may unintentionally arise).
• appropriately collate and analyse the quantitative and qualitative data gathered through these engagement activities such that it positively influences the outcomes of the LDP preparation and delivery process.#

Community engagement is not clear-cut, and whilst we agree that the guidance should not rigidly prescribe methods of engagement under each level, we believe that the collation and publication of case studies to demonstrate what is considered best practice in the implementation of this guidance should be undertaken as a priority to further assist planning authorities in the undertaking of their duties.

Sub-section 7 of the guidance refers to the ability to modify the proposed local development plan following the close of the consultation period. Although this sub-section correctly states that planning authorities do not have to modify the plan, the ability to do so comes with multiple potential benefits, including minimising conflict, reducing the length and complexity of examinations, improving the quality and robustness of the LDP etc. We therefore believe that planning authorities should be encouraged to give full consideration to utilising this mechanism.

We also take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of more fully embedding the Place Principle within the guidance. As previously stated, for this guidance to contribute to the Place Principle’s operationalisation, it is imperative that strong links are made within the guidance to the Principle, including how application of the levels of engagement will support delivery of the Place Principle across Scotland.

4 - Do you agree that appropriate levels of engagement have been identified for the impact assessments?

Yes

Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree):

We take this opportunity to raise the importance of understanding the inter-relationship and potential overlap between the engagement processes related to the preparation of these impact assessments, as well as to the LDP plan preparation. Engagement exercises undertaken throughout the LDP process (including in the preparation of impact assessments) must be properly aligned, and communities must be clear about why they are being engaged and what their engagement will influence and how (i.e. impact assessments, the evidence report etc.).

Further Consultation Questions

5 - Overall, is the approach set out in the guidance helpful?

Yes

Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not think the approach is helpful):

As previously stated, this guidance represents a positive contribution towards achieving place-based outcomes and RTPI Scotland supports the overall purpose and scope set out therein.

Notwithstanding the above, we feel the draft guidance in its current form represents a missed opportunity to contribute towards the operationalisation of the Place Principle. Although we acknowledge that there is reference to the Place Principle within Section 1 which details the background to the consultation, we believe it is imperative that strong links are made throughout the guidance to the Place Principle, including how appropriate application
of the levels of engagement will contribute to its implementation within the LDP process.

Also, although the approach set out in the guidance is clear and logical, the guidance does not address how planning authorities should resource the effective implementation of these levels of engagement into the LDP process. Nor does the guidance address the necessary training that staff will require to implement the guidance. Carrying out meaningful engagement is not always a simple or clear-cut exercise. It will require planning authority staff to apply specific skills and methods of engagement that will vary according to a range of scenarios and circumstances, and it is vital that staff are equipped with the appropriate training to deliver this effectively. As a minimum, we believe that the collation and publication of case studies to demonstrate what is considered best practice in the implementation of this guidance should be undertaken as a priority to further assist planning authorities in the undertaking of their duties. We also reiterate our calls on Scottish Government, as made to the previous draft NPF4, for a comprehensive resource and skills strategy to be published as part of the Delivery Programme of NPF4.

In addition to the above, RTPI Scotland’s response to the draft 20-minute neighbourhood guidance highlighted the inter-relationship between the 20-minute neighbourhood guidance and this draft guidance on effective community engagement. 20-minute neighbourhoods are referenced only once in this draft guidance (as an example of a theme that may generate greater community interest for collaboration). We note that implementation of the 20-minute neighbourhood guidance relies heavily on its integration into the LDP and LPP processes. This implies, therefore, a strong inter-relationship between the 20-minute neighbourhood guidance and this effective community engagement guidance. Despite this strong inter-relationship, neither guidance document is mentioned in the other. Where guidance documents are intended to work together to deliver an overarching aim, it is important they be presented as an integrated package to reduce the risk of them being treated as standalone documents and implemented in isolation. To do this, we recommend that (at the very least) reference to the 20-minute neighbourhood guidance be made in this effective community engagement guidance and vice versa, to reinforce the importance of applying these guidance documents together to ensure maximum attainment of the ambitions of NPF4.

6 - Do you have any views abut the initial conclusions of the impact assessments that accompany and inform this guidance?

Yes

Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do have views to share):

The partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) acknowledges the range of new and existing duties on planning authorities to engage with their communities, and the additional costs that this could incur. Although the BRIA does not go into detail about these additional costs, given the limited information available in the public domain, it does suggest that costs associated with these additional duties will be offset to an extent by the enhanced efficiencies this guidance seeks to implement with respect to community engagement in the LDP process.

Whilst we acknowledge that this guidance has the potential to streamline community engagement in the LDP process and enhance efficiencies, this can only be achieved if the guidance is implemented in an equitable and consistent way. Without additional support to local planning authorities and communities in the effective delivery of this guidance, in terms of resources and training, its successful implementation could be severely hampered, as could the efficiencies it seeks to embed into community engagement activities.

RTPI Scotland have long held the view that the ability of local authority planners to deliver on the new format LDPs and to support communities in preparing LPPs will be hindered by their limited resources and budgets, which have decreased in real terms by 42% since 2009 (see https://www.rtpi.org.uk/research/2022/december/resourcing-the-planning-service-key-trends-and-findings-2022/). Undertaking early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with local communities is essential to ensuring LDPs embody place-based approaches. However, such meaningful engagement and collaborative methods are resource intensive in terms of time, staff, and finances. In addition, it is imperative that planning authority staff implementing these community engagement activities are appropriately trained to ensure they are equipped to:
• employ the right engagement methods at the right time, with the right members of the community in accordance with the guidance.
• facilitate these engagement methods in a way that ensures maximum productivity is achieved (including how to handle community backlash and/or hostile situations that may unintentionally arise).
• appropriately collate and analyse the quantitative and qualitative data gathered through these engagement activities such that it positively influences the outcomes of the LDP preparation and delivery process.

We do not believe these considerations have been fully addressed, and that they could impede on the effective, consistent and equitable implementation of this guidance.

7 - Thinking about the potential impacts of the guidance - will these help to advance equality of opportunity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and foster good community relations, in particular for people with protected characteristics?

Yes

Please comment on your answer:

We agree that this guidance has the potential to advance quality of opportunity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and foster good community relations across Scotland. However, for the guidance to achieve maximum positive impact, planning authorities need to be equipped with the resources and training necessary to implement the levels of engagement in an equitable and consistent way. The guidance does not currently address how planning authorities should resource the effective implementation of these levels of engagement into the LDP process, nor does it address the necessary training that staff will need to implement the guidance effectively.

Undertaking early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with local communities is essential to ensuring LDPs embody place-based approaches.
However, such meaningful engagement and collaborative methods are resource intensive in terms of time, staff, and finances. In addition, it is imperative that planning authority staff undertaking these community engagement activities are appropriately trained to ensure they are equipped to:
• employ the right engagement methods at the right time, with the right members of the community in accordance with the guidance.
• facilitate these engagement methods in a way that ensures maximum productivity is achieved (including how to handle community backlash and/or hostile situations that may unintentionally arise).
• appropriately collate and analyse the quantitative and qualitative data gathered through these engagement activities such that it positively influences the outcomes of the LDP preparation and delivery process.

In addition to the above, RTPI Scotland is concerned that the only opportunity in the guidance to implement the “Empower” level of engagement is in communities’ uptake of Local Place Plans (i.e. at subsection 2). The resource implications for communities wishing to produce LPPs, for planning authorities to support their development, and for plan implementation is a substantial concern for RTPI Scotland. We have previously called upon the Scottish Government to provide dedicated resources to support LPPs in the form of a national grant scheme for communities (as has been established in England to support Neighbourhood Plans). In terms of funding allocation, we note the uneven uptake of neighbourhood planning in England where research has revealed a much lower uptake in urban and deprived communities with only 5% of completed plans in urban areas and just 6.7% of neighbourhood planning areas in the most deprived parts of the country. This raises concerns that if LPPs saw similar uneven uptake across Scotland, this would lead to the uneven and inequitable implementation of this effective community engagement guidance, with some communities benefiting less than others. It is essential that measures to address this be put in place as early as possible. Any national grant scheme should target funding to communities sitting within the bottom 20% on the Scottish index of Multiple Deprivation, or similar measurement in rural areas, or areas with significant potential for growth.

8 - Do you have evidence that can further inform the impact assessments that accompany this guidance, in particular in relation to the impact of the guidance on people with protected characteristics, businesses and costs to businesses?

No.

9 - Please provide any further comments on the guidance set out in this consultation

We would only seek to reiterate our previous representations that for this guidance to achieve maximum positive impact with respect to achieving effective community engagement on the ground:
• The Place Principle needs to be more comprehensively embedded into the guidance to ensure that strong links are made to the Place Principle, including how appropriate implementation of the levels of engagement will support delivery of the Place Principle throughout Scotland.
• The language used within the guidance needs to be sufficiently strong to promote the consistent application of the different levels of engagement across Scotland. Currently, words such as “encouraged”, “if possible”, and “could” provide insufficient weight which could leave the guidance open to interpretation and being watered down.
• Related to the above point, and to ensure planning authorities are able to implement the guidance to its maximum effect, it is imperative that authorities are equipped with the resources and training necessary to implement the levels of engagement in an equitable and consistent way. Without additional support to local planning authorities and communities in the effective delivery of this guidance, in terms of resources and training, its successful implementation could be severely hampered. At the very least, we believe that the collation and publication of case studies to demonstrate what is considered best practice in the implementation of this guidance should be undertaken as a priority to further assist planning authorities in the undertaking of their duties. We also repeat our calls on Scottish Government for a comprehensive resource and skills strategy to be published as part of the Delivery Programme of NPF4.

Notwithstanding the above, RTPI Scotland fully supports the intent of the draft guidance and we believe that, subject to the above issues being addressed, that it has the potential to contribute positively to the alignment of spatial and community planning to achieve place-based outcomes.