Scottish Government

GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING Perceptions of the Wider Public

INTERVIEWS WITH THE UNINVOLVED

2.142This next section reports on the interviews held with members of the pubic who had not previously been involved in planning, the 'uninvolved'. A total of 22 uninvolved people were interviewed. Again it should be noted that the numbers participating in each case study area were relatively small and therefore the views expressed should be seen as illustrative rather than representative of the wider area.

Characteristics and planning awareness of interviewees

2.143 There was a balance between male and female interviewees, but a predominance of middle aged and elderly over the young. In some case study areas, the interviewees were identified through approaching voluntary organisations that were not involved in planning. This led to some interviewees being 'involved uninvolved', in the sense that although not involved in planning, they were involved in other ways, for example being community representatives or voluntary organisation workers. However, over the 6 case studies there was a wide spread of interviewee from the point of view of their level of involvement in community issues and occupation, ranging from young professionals and working mothers to pensioners and members of minority ethnic populations.

2.144 Awareness of planning procedures was mixed, with knowledge of development control being generally higher than that of development plans, including awareness of what were perceived as 'bad' planning decisions. There was also higher awareness of local plans than of structure plans. For the minority with some knowledge of planning processes, this had been gained mainly through information in the press, word of mouth and past experience in applying for planning permission, as well as, in some cases, through employment in related fields. Awareness of specific initiatives seeking to enhance public involvement in the 6 case study areas also varied. While in some areas most interviewees knew about recent or ongoing consultations, in others none of the uninvolved interviewees were aware of specific initiatives when prompted.

Barriers to involvement.

2.145 Some interviewees in all 6 case studies perceived public consultation on planning to be 'tokenistic'. Views included the feeling that the agenda is set by the PA, that consultations focus on providing information rather than on allowing the public to make a difference, that officers do not take any notice of comments made, that they are about public image rather than action and that consultation is therefore a waste of people's time. One interviewee summed up this perception as follows: "People think council planners will do what they want. They'll go through the motions".

2.146 This cynical perception of consultation was felt by some interviewees to explain public apathy. Apathy was strongly perceived as a key barrier in 3 of the case studies. Others reported that apathy is influenced by additional barriers, ranging from personal and social factors to cynicism regarding the possibility of exerting any influence and negative views of local authorities generally, as detailed in the following paragraphs. In 2 case studies, feeling directly affected by a specific issue was seen as a factor that could break this apathy, though not always.

2.147 In 4 of the case studies, lifestyle and personal choice emerged as an important reason for non-involvement. In some cases it was suggested that many people are too busy and have other priorities, with planning having to compete for people's attention with other pressing issues such as employment. It was noted that the timing of public meetings clashed with some people's daily schedules.

2.148 Lack of information and awareness was also linked to apathy, and was strongly asserted in 5 of the case studies. Information provision on specific planning consultations and on ongoing plan-making processes was perceived to be lacking, and there was also some reported difficulty in accessing information through formal channels as opposed to informal links. Information was a specific concern raised by minority ethnic respondents, who noted the additional barrier of language. It was felt that lack of awareness might contribute to the negative perceptions of councils and their services, including planning.

2.149 Negative perceptions of PAs featured strongly in 2 case studies, where public distrust of statutory authorities was expressed. Reasons for this distrust varied, including views that "the officers lead the councillors", that developers' interests are given priority, that the PA as a whole does not take a long term view, that there is inefficiency and waste in local government, and that planning decisions ignore the needs of more deprived communities. The perceived PA attitude to development was summarised by one interviewee as follows: "the council seems to think they own the land so they can do what they like with it".

2.150 Perceptions of local authorities were also reported as barriers in 2 case studies in the sense that people felt intimidated by "big institutions" and the processes involved. This was a particular concern of minority ethnic respondents and was seen to be relevant to other 'mainstream' organisations whose membership tends to be predominately white. These respondents tended to resort to informal networks for information and advice.

2.151 Lack of skills to engage with the planning systems was a concern identified in 2 case studies. Planning procedures, which rely on written representations and on formal Inquiries, were seen as barriers by people who felt they did not have the necessary writing skills or who could not afford to pay a legal representative. Again minority ethnic interviewees reported that language was a barrier in this category.

2.152 Concerns around time were highlighted as barriers in 2 case studies. There was a perception that opportunities for public involvement often occur too late. In addition, it was felt that meetings require notice well in advance, and weekend and evening meetings were preferred. It was suggested that officers should consult with communities on the best times to hold meetings.

2.153 Finally, other views and concerns included the suggestions that "only a certain style of person would become involved"; that people may not get involved if they have had bad experience with consultations in planning or in other policy areas; that it is particularly difficult to involve young people; and that the long-term nature of planning is difficult for the public to relate to.

Factors facilitating involvement

2.154 A key concern of the uninvolved was how planning procedures, issues and consultations are publicised. In 4 of the case studies, many specific ways to better inform the public were suggested. These wide ranging suggestions are fully listed in Appendix IV. The most frequently suggested methods were eye-catching flyers/posters, highly visible items in local newspapers (i.e. articles, letters and advertising rather than using the Public Notices section), local TV and local radio. There were also suggestions to target people directly, including personal letters of invitation and personal visits, as well as e.g. publishing news items in minority ethnic language newspapers.

2.155 Feeling directly affected was noted by those from 3 of the case studies as a factor facilitating involvement. It was suggested that opportunities to tap into this could be helped by better publicity and notification. Suggestions included requiring development companies to distribute information on proposed developments to residences in a wider area than is currently required.

2.156 Another key concern was the feeling that there should be a dialogue between planning officers and communities, an issue that was raised in 4 case studies. This included planning officers working closely with community groups (e.g. small local groups and minority ethnic groups as well as community councils) and playing an intermediary role, as well as being more proactive in engaging people who would not normally get involved. Starting from the community or local level, through for example community forums that allowed debate, was seen as a factor facilitating involvement.

2.157 The need to establish a dialogue was also perceived to enhance consultation. Consulting earlier was suggested in 3 case studies and that PAs needed to "listen before they talk". Making it clear that involvement will make a difference was also recommended in 3 of the case studies. As well as explaining how to become involved more clearly, this involved listening to what people say, valuing people's views and time, and, importantly, providing feedback to demonstrate that the public's views have been taken into account.

2.158 Dialogue was also felt to be needed between different departments. In 2 of the case studies, there were calls for more 'joined-up government' or a multi-agency approach to planning. In addition, there was a similar level of support for increased transparency in PAs, which was seen as conducive to higher public involvement. A view was expressed that councils need to "market themselves with the truth, the whole truth".

2.159 There was a considerable level of support for education and training, for different reasons. In 4 of the case studies, it was suggested that school children should be educated in the planning process and in political processes more generally. It was felt that school education could be complemented by producing programmes for children's TV channels. This was seen as a means of raising awareness of planning issues and procedures from an early age.

2.160 A key role for training of both professionals and community members was seen in 2 of the case studies. The training that planning professionals currently undergo was perceived to be "all academic". Therefore there was a call for "two-way capacity building", in which professionals and community members learn to understand and engage with each other, possibly jointly. This could also include community mentoring to prevent volunteer 'burn-out'. This kind of training was seen as an effective way of breaking down 'us and them' barriers.

2.161 The use of ICT was seen as a potential means of engaging more people in the process in 2 of the case studies. Suggestions included using an online version of a comments box.

2.162 Specific suggestions to facilitate the involvement of minority ethnic groups included targeting existing facilities utlised by individuals from such communities, as well as 'tagging' onto social events organised by such centres. Staff working in these centres were seen as a valuable interface with communities, although with certain limitations. In addition, it was felt that universities and careers advisors had a role in promoting planning as a positive career choice for young people from minority ethnic backgrounds.

2.163 In addition to working through schools, specific suggestions to facilitate the involvement of young people included using youth projects and workers. In doing so providing swift answers and feedback, following up issues that are raised and identifying actions that can deliver tangible results in the short to medium term were perceived to be important.

2.164 Finally, some specific suggestions that were made by individuals included: using Service Points, such as those run by Highland Council; creating a gradation of types of development, with different planning application procedures according to size or impact; stating the deadline for objections in public notices, as opposed to the statutory period for responses; paying community volunteers that become involved in consultations; and simplifying the language that is used.

2.165 While uninvolved respondents were candid about the possible factors which would improve public involvement in planning, some stated that they would be unlikely to get involved due to personal circumstances, such as lack of time and other commitments and priorities.

Other issues

2.166 Uninvolved interviewees generally felt that people should be more aware of planning and have opportunity to get involved. There was a perception in one case study area that public involvement reduced the scope for misuse of public power.

2.167 When the planning application and plan-making procedures were explained to the interviewees, on the whole they tended to find the processes reasonable. However, some areas of concern were identified for both processes. In summary, concerns over plan-making procedures included: issues about information and notification; time-scales for public consultation; the weight given to the views of local residents as opposed to those of developers; the influence of central government policy; and who decides to hold a Public Local Inquiry. Concerns over development control procedures included: the availability of information on procedures; the extent and quality of neighbour notification; early disclosure of proposals; the role of community councils; who takes planning decisions; and the lack of third party rights of appeal.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES VIA THE WEBSITE

2.168 This section reports on the findings from the web-based questionnaire. The questionnaire served the same purpose as the interactive displays, covering similar themes.

2.169 Between mid February and the end of May 2002, 17 respondents had completed a full web questionnaire, 14 had completed some questions and 42 had visited the website but did not respond to questions. All 17 completed questionnaires and 3 of the incomplete ones were from people who had been involved in some way in planning. All the returns containing responses to the qualitative questions ( see Appendix II) were from respondents who had been involved (except one). The following summary of 20 website questionnaire responses must therefore be viewed as a sample of views from the 'involved'. The website questions and page layout mirrored those in the interactive displays, which are shown in Appendix II.

Forms of involvement

2.170 Eight (40%) of the involved respondents stated they had been involved in the preparation of development plans. Fifteen (75%) of the involved respondents had dealt with development control. Four (20%) of the respondents stated they had been involved in some planning procedure without specifying what type.

2.171 Involvement in development planning had been most frequent through community councils. Others included: objecting to structure plans; as a planning professional; as a director of retail co-operative societies; as a project manager in construction; through active participation in politics; and through attending a local plan meeting.

2.172 Most of those who had been involved in development control had submitted planning applications, with many also having received neighbour notification. Some noted other forms of involvement in development control, such as through being a member of the local community council, a concerned resident, or objecting to proposals.

Barriers to involvement

2.173 The barriers to involvement that were noted are summarised as follows:

• Lack of awareness of planning issues until a problem has been exposed
• Lack of awareness about consultation procedures
• The issue of time, which people dedicate to other priorities until something directly affects them
• Tediousness of looking through planning applications
• Timing of meetings and exhibitions during working hours.

Factors that would make involvement easier

2.174 There was a higher level of response to this question than to that on barriers. The suggestions are summarised as follows.

• Giving more weight to local views: This covered a series of issues. It was felt that local authorities needed to change their approach based on information only - "decide and defend" - to one in which they actually took account of people's views. This entailed giving more weight to the views of local residents as opposed to the "short-term interest of developers". It also meant that local authorities needed to provide a better sense that they were not just paying 'lip service' to public consultations. One suggestion for achieving this was to use Village or Community Plans which had a statutory place in the system, i.e. more genuine 'community planning' rather than the current system, which was described as "agency planning".
• Making increased use of the Internet and e-mail: Suggestions included completing applications through the Internet and making them available for viewing on the web, the latter facilitating scrutiny during consultation, as well as providing more information on the web and sending locally targeted information on proposals by e-mail.
• Making more and better information available: This encompassed providing documentation in plain English and making more information available on what is happening locally, with a suggestion of circulating written summaries of current and forthcoming issues to local areas.

2.175 Though not suggestions or recommendations, 2 further points were noted:

• that contentious development is what engaged people and made them learn about the process; and
• that objectors were at a distinct disadvantage because much research had to be done to determine valid planning grounds for objection.

Adequacy of existing procedures for public involvement

2.176 Fifteen (75%) of the involved considered existing procedures to be insufficient; 2 (10%) considered these to be sufficient, and the remaining 15% did not answer this question. The question on reasons for considering whether existing procedures were 'adequate' elicited the highest level of qualitative response, which are summarised as follows, ranked according to frequency:

• Perception of local authorities: A lack of trust of councils and their officers was noted, which required constant non-partisan scrutiny, which in planning terms could mean local development councils scrutinising major planning applications. This was compounded with the perception that local authorities' priorities seems to lie in favour of big business or developers and infrastructure and utility projects, with objections being ignored.
• Lack of awareness of opportunities and the system: It was perceived that currently the onus was on the individual to find out and local authorities needed to take a more proactive role in heightening public awareness (and therefore participation) in planning. Suggested ways to raise awareness included using public libraries on a mandatory basis; providing 24 hour access to consultations using the Internet; covering planning issues at school; providing training and support in procedures and systems to individuals and groups at low or no cost.
• Balance of power: There was a perception that power to decide on planning applications ought to be devolved from the local authority to the local community, especially in the case of smaller developments, where the planning officials and committees who took the decisions were seen as having no real association with the area.
• Lack of council response: It was felt that there was not enough feedback after correspondence with local authorities. This was perceived to be linked to a lack of transparency in the decision-making process and often with deliberate obstruction of information.
• Time-scales: In plans, these were generally seen as being too long, generating a series of problems such as: people being told they should have objected earlier, and thus causing resentment; the idea that " the council will do what it wants to do anyway"; and a feeling of disempowerment.
• Procedural aspects: There was a perceived need for quality audit or stable direction to avoid the situation where, after much investment in long discussions, agreements are overtaken by other economic factors.
• Right of appeal: There was a call for a right of appeal for objectors - "only then will letters of objection really mean anything".

Conclusion

2.177 The themes that emerged through the web-based questionnaire reflect some of those which were noted as factors that inhibit citizen participation in the literature review. From this response, awareness of issues and procedures, and the balance of power in decision-making appear to be important themes. The former can be addressed through specific information, publicity and training initiatives and techniques, but the latter would require some deeper-reaching reforms on how the current planning system operates.

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

2.178 This section summarises the key specific findings of the field research, drawing on the case study material, website responses and telephone poll, as reported above, and includes a listing of procedural recommendations by source.

Perceptions of barriers to and factors facilitating involvement

2.179 Many planning authorities (PAs) have been involved in, and have expended considerable effort on, a variety of public participation activities over and above their statutory responsibilities. They have taken this approach mainly because they feel that it leads to improved decision-making. Planning officers tended to have a positive view of these wide ranging initiatives, although they also highlighted the existence of various barriers to broader public participation. Internal barriers identified included limited resources and the time required, while external barriers included public lack of awareness and understanding of planning, and the perception of planning as being legalistic and intimidating.

2.180 The 'involved' on the other hand tended to be more critical of officers attempts to engage the public, and negative views were prevalent, including concerns over public apathy/alienation; negative views of planning officers and of the local authority; the perception of consultation as "shallow" or "cosmetic"; concern over centralised control of planning; the perception that the planning system is complicated and intimidating; and the view that community councils were not well supported by PAs. The 'involved' called for better publicity and education to raise awareness of opportunities for public involvement in planning; training for planning officers and community volunteers to work better together; and a stronger and more continuous dialogue between PAs and the public, including improved decentralisation, transparency and shared decision-making.

2.181 Complementing these findings, key barriers to involvement identified by the 'uninvolved' included: their view that public consultation on planning is 'tokenistic', in practice being more about informing rather than allowing the public to make a difference; their lack of awareness and the lack of available information; issues of lifestyle and personal choice; and general apathy, which respondents linked to these factors. The 'uninvolved' considered that factors facilitating involvement included: raising awareness through better publicity and notification; establishing a continuous dialogue between planning officers and communities which would tap into local knowledge, as well as more 'joined-up' government; and various forms of training, ranging from school children's education to joint professional and community training. However, many 'uninvolved' indicated they would not engage with the planning system even if they were aware of opportunities, due to personal circumstances, choice and cynicism, among other factors.

2.182 The interviews with planning officers, the involved and the uninvolved allowed the researchers to identify a wide range of factors that were perceived as facilitating involvement, which are also listed in Appendix IV. Some of these were specific recommendations affecting planning procedures, which are summarised as follows, listed by source.

Specific procedural recommendations (source: displays & workshops)

• public consultation should take place before major planning applications are submitted;
• there should be guidelines for the public on how to write objections;
• policy documents need to be more 'friendly' to the general public;
• consultation on planning issues should be continuous, starting earlier, with more time allowed for this and with specific feedback on resolutions;
• publicity on planning issues should include using mass media and directly contacting local groups;
• planning documents need to be couched in simpler language;
• there should be an obligation for local councillors to attend community council meetings and take community council views into account;
• central government should finance appeals by local communities (or alternatively ask developers to finance community council costs in appeal);
• third party right of appeal should be available for community councils.

Specific procedural recommendations (source: planners)

• there needs to be a change to the 1983 regulations to allow officers to consult on the Draft Plan;
• plans (including strategic plans) should allow a level of detail that makes them meaningful to communities;
• there is a need for guidance on the legal aspects of e-mail submissions;
• the Inquiry process needs to be simplified (less legalistic and intimidating);
• public meetings should be held long before the recommendation stage for plans;
• consultation should be tailored to local areas and participants' level of understanding;
• the use of methods of involvement that encouraged deliberation e.g. participatory workshops;
• visual techniques should be used to identify key issues.

Specific procedural recommendations (source: the 'involved')

• public meetings need to be held in neutral venues;
• there is a need for longer lead in and response times on planning issues;
• planning officers should use existing local networks and initiatives;
• planning officers should engage more directly and continuously with the community;
• the community should have opportunities for early involvement in planning;
• all development proposals should be required to be notified to community councils;
• community councils should be required to consult more widely;
• planning officers should use appropriate techniques for participation/consultation, including new technologies and workshop based meetings;
• planning documents need to be couched in simpler language;
• appropriate timescales should be allowed for responses (21 days rather than 14 days for comments on planning applications);
• the planning system needs to be more holistic, to include economic development, etc;
• planning officers need stronger powers to 'police' development;
• neighbour notification should be carried out by an independent body with clear criteria;
• third party rights of appeal should be introduced.

Specific procedural recommendations (source: the 'uninvolved')

• a wider range of publicity should be used;
• neighbour notification should be carried out over a larger area for major developments;
• community forums would permit improved community involvement;
• the community should have opportunities for early involvement in planning;
• the planning system must provide feedback to public inputs;
• planning should be an integral part of 'joined-up' government;
• the planning system should use ICT more;
• there needs to be a gradation of types of development, with different planning application procedures according to size or impact;
• deadlines for objections in public notices need to be clearly stated;
• planning documents need to be couched in simpler language.

Specific procedural recommendations (source: website)

• more weight needs to be given to community views;
• the planning system should make greater use of ICT (allowing 24 hour access to consultations);
• information should be locally targeted;
• there is a need for more and better information on planning issues for the public;
• the planning system should use public libraries on a mandatory basis;
• power to decide on planning applications should be devolved from the local authority to the community;
• the planning system must provide feedback to public inputs;
• plans need shorter timescales;
• the planning system needs a form of quality audit;
• third party rights of appeal should be introduced.

2.183 These specific procedural recommendations relate to aspects of the current planning system. However, it is important to stress that their implementation as isolated measures (partially or totally), without considering the wider implications of the views expressed by the interviewees during the research, would provide a very limited response to the deeper issues and scope for improvement that this research has revealed. The following chapter thus focuses on these broader issues, drawing also on the other inputs that have informed the research, to provide a more comprehensive set of conclusions and recommendations.