Pathfinders’ progress against the NMDC – 2. Engagement

2. Engagement

This section summarises learnings from the Pathfinders on how to successfully carry out community and stakeholder engagement. Not only to generate insight on priorities and ambitions for the local area at the outset but throughout the design code process, to ensure that findings have been accurately reflected, and to test useability of the final design code.

$ Pathfinders spoke about the importance of managing the expectations of all groups involved in what the code would realistically cover (geographically and in scale and level of detail), and what it would be able to achieve. Setting out the purpose of design codes was therefore critical to keeping discussions relevant and focused. Being transparent also helped to foster trust and helped those involved to understand how their contributions were going to be used to develop the design code.

“One challenge is about perception of what the design code can do: perhaps politically, it is seen as the answer to all of the problems in the town centre.”

$ Sharing feedback between the community and stakeholders was important for transparency in the coding process, developing a coherent and well-rounded vision and keeping all participants informed on the direction of coding. The Pathfinders who successfully integrated community and stakeholder perspectives into the code followed an iterative process to enable a feedback loop between the community and stakeholders.

“We directly fed in what the citizens’ panel’s thoughts were into the stakeholder workshop as a sort of summary of the opening statements used to set the scene. This would then lead into a slightly more technical, more professional discussion on whatever the topics were. But always led by what the citizens had said.”

“We’ve made each iteration of the code available to people in advance of the workshop, so they’ve had a chance to look at it, digest it and see whether they think it works or not. The document has evolved and changed as a result.”

a. Community engagement

$ Accessible consultation material made for a more efficient and relevant engagement process. Communities struggled to contribute to abstract or open-ended questions and preferred having something tangible to respond to. Surveys that asked about likes and dislikes were more successful when they were accompanied by examples. This resulted in a more efficient and rewarding analysis process for Pathfinders as it allowed them to use the communities’ insights to define and refine design codes. Pathfinders found that communities responded well to working collaboratively and on equal terms with the coding team. This approach was helped by working with facilitators who did not have a planning background, and were able to support development of accessible consultation materials and events.

“[Our facilitators] were semi-independent from the process, so it’s not a planning officer with a preconception of ideas and approach who will speak in jargon.[They] come from a different background, and that was part of the success of it [the engagement].”

“They [the participants] didn’t feel dictated to, they didn’t feel like they were talked down to, or that they lacked the knowledge or expertise needed to help us make decisions going forward.”

$ Representative community engagement was a challenge for all Pathfinders, and they particularly struggled to engage young people. Solutions varied from giving talks in schools, using targeted advertising on social media, or recruiting engagement experts to run workshops with young people on behalf of the Pathfinder teams. This last activity was found to be the most successful.

Achieving representation from marginalised groups, such as those living with long-term health conditions, people with disabilities, or ethnic minorities, was most successful for Pathfinders who had intentionally reached out to affinity groups and used connections they already had.

“We’ve done lots of engagement in terms of disability groups…an access officer at one of the councils is a wheelchair user himself. He’s been out on a lot of the walk-and-talks with different user groups and really contributed to the inclusivity elements of the code.”

Financial incentives were used by a few Pathfinders to encourage participation from people who were less likely to engage normally and to renumerate participants for their time. While the view was that it may sound cost-prohibitive to pay community members to participate in engagement, it may not require continuous investment to keep people engaged, enthusiastic and participating. As one Pathfinder told us:“The incentive certainly helped them sign up. But what was interesting was [that] after the first session, they didn’t feel that they needed any kind of incentive. They were signed up, they had trust in the process, and they were enjoying participating as well. The feedback that I received was that the residents got a huge amount from being part of this process, and from feeling that they could contribute to shaping this new development.”

$ Low turnout and response rates led to delays in the design coding process for some Pathfinders. Pathfinders who hosted events around Christmas or over the summer holidays reported low turnout. It was found that the Pathfinders who made use of target advertisements for their surveys on social media received more responses. Linking to social media accounts was also found to be effective. Another Pathfinder reflected that the poor response to their survey was the result of having too many questions, which put respondents off.

$ Maintaining momentum over time was important to ensure consistent input from communities during the coding process. One Pathfinder who worked with their communications team on producing regular messaging from the beginning saw the benefits. As word-of-mouth grew, participants became more trusting of the process and would advocate for design coding – bringing friends and family to events.

Spotlight on Teignbridge District Council: A citizen assembly

Teignbridge District Council choose a bespoke approach to community and stakeholder engagement, creating a citizen panel to explore diverse views and opinions and develop a shared vision for the coding sites. The citizen panel met fortnightly, with each of the five workshops centred around a key theme such as low carbon operations, shaping the new community and buildings and streets. Using activities such as visioning exercises, creative writing and site visits, the citizen panel worked with the local authority to establish three key spatial principles for the code (creation of place, people and nature first, a connected and invested community).

The feedback collected at each session set the scene for the subsequent stakeholder discussion. A diverse range of stakeholders was brought in to discuss questions, ideas and concerns addressed by the citizen panel. This approach was repeated to create a feedback loop between stakeholders and the community which helped develop a shared understanding of each other’s priorities and challenges.

Take-aways for future design coders

Develop a clear engagement brief and programme before scoping:

$ Use a mix of digital and in-person engagement techniques, including activities that are tailored to seldom heard groups.

$ Consider using financial incentives to help establish an engaged group of residents at the outset.

$ Consult a marketing and communications expert for a comprehensive programme aligned with local engagement activities to avoid consultation fatigue.

$ Consider when people are most likely to be available for engagement activities.

$ Connect engagement activities to existing local events to reach a wider audience.

$ Develop an approach for GDPR ahead of undertaking consultation and engagement activities.

Work with third-party organisations to engage seldom heard groups:

$ Map out groups to be reached, to help inform types of activities and times to engage them.

$ Work with external organisations and affinity groups to demonstrate impartiality/build trust, for example church groups and secondary schools.

Test consultation materials ahead of publishing:

$ Have a multidisciplinary team, including non-planning backgrounds, to develop accessible material and test survey questions to ensure correct interpretation.

$ Be explicit about what is achievable to encourage more relevant responses.

$ Liaise with other departments on consultation feedback for example parking problems.

Consider the use of language to simplify planning:

$ Use accessible language and visual materials such as 3D-models, drawings and photos.

$ Don’t over complicate – focus on what people like about their place, what they would like to see improved, and their vision for the future.

Stay in touch with stakeholders and participants:

$ Keep them updated on progress and how their contributions were used.

$ Ask for feedback after events to understand how members would like to be involved in the future.

b. Stakeholder engagement

$ Investment in the stakeholder engagement process was worthwhile, as meaningful engagement and regular updates with mixed groups created buy-in, enthusiasm and positivity. Moreover, their input was necessary to ensure that the code’s content was wellinformed and would therefore be better understood and successfully applied by responsible authorities.

$ Pathfinders engaged stakeholders with interests and expertise across a range of planning themes to support the development of their design code. Stakeholders were invited to comment on relevant themes and topics to make best use of their expertise. Pathfinders with existing relationships were able to leverage them to benefit the coding process. NPGs were the least able to convene stakeholders easily, which they attributed to being perceived as residents developing a design code, with little power or influence.

$ Many Pathfinders struggled to engage elected members. Some found that political sensitivity around development, and upcoming elections, meant that their consultations with councillors were deferred or postponed indefinitely. Finding a political champion was important, as noted above, and Pathfinders who had this support felt more confident about the adoption and implementation of their code in future. Elected members were keen to be involved where a code centred on community aspirations.

“Some of the leading members, including the leader of the council, are very strong supporters of this process. They have said: ‘Who are we to take all the power? Let’s listen to different voices, different views, and bring those into our decision-making’.”

$ Some Pathfinders were initially concerned about engaging with developers, fearing that they would not respond positively to change, or that a code would be perceived to threaten the viability of proposed schemes. Pathfinders who engaged with developers and landowners throughout the coding process found that, while many were apprehensive to start with, they realised the purpose and benefits of design coding once they gained a better understanding of community priorities and the value of these insights. Particularly when they discovered that community priorities were often focused on making better places, rather than voicing opposition to development. In some cases, developers were pleased to be given the opportunity to participate in the process as they perceived the current planning system as adversarial and unpredictable.

“Developers came into the process perhaps thinking that they [the community] would not like anything. And then when we actually explain what citizens have said, they [developers] understood that ‘Okay, they’re actually quite reasonable’.”

$ Those Pathfinders with pre-existing formats for engaging regularly with developers, such as developer forums, used these to run dedicated sessions to test their design codes. It was believed that this approach may incentivise developers to adhere to the design code once it was adopted.

“We are sharing the draft of the code with the developers. But we are making sure we haven’t been sucked into accepting what they express as red lines. We know that this first iteration needs to be really challenging for them, so that we can have a tough conversation, as opposed to going through a comfortable process, accepting everything they’ve said, and putting that into a code that doesn’t cause them to change very much.”

“Currently, it wouldn’t technically prevent the developer from coming forward with a new design code. I think probably the best tool we’ve got is that there’s been lots of public and stakeholder participation in this process. And so, putting all the regulations and legislation to one side, are you really going to shoot yourself in the foot as a developer and go against all that? Especially when the code’s had all this exposure.”

Spotlight on Gedling Borough Council: Working with developers

Gedling Borough Council has an established developer’s forum for engaging and working with local developers. The forum, which meets quarterly, has garnered positive feedback and fosters a productive working relationship between the council and developers. With approximately ten to 15 developers regularly attending each meeting, the forum facilitates a twoway flow of information and provides an opportunity for developers to share challenges they face, allowing the council to gain a deeper understanding of their concerns. Importantly, the discussions in the forum do not revolve around specific sites but focus on broader issues. The council utilises the forum to provide developers with a heads-up on emerging policies and seek early feedback. This approach ensures that developers are informed about upcoming changes in the planning system, such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Gedling design code, as well as environmental considerations such as biodiversity net gain.

Take-aways for future design coders

Encourage engagement with diverse stakeholders:

$ Frame consultation activities with statutory consultees and colleagues as an opportunity to shape direction of future placemaking, align workstreams and create partnerships.

$ Understand individual aims and priorities for the design code, to help reach a consensus on what the code should address.

$ Use stakeholders’ expertise to sensecheck the vision and develop next steps.

$ Use an external mediator to bring objectivity and help diverse stakeholders reach consensus.

Encourage engagement from councillors:

$ Frame design codes as an opportunity to deliver places that build on a community’s vision.

$ Outline how design coding can boost local support for developments and can help councillors make informed decisions on planning applications.