Post-COVID Planning: Shaping Digital First Community Consultation in Scotland

On the 24th of April 2020, the requirement in Scottish planning to undertake in-person community consultation before larger planning applications are made was suspended as a result of the impact of COVID-19. Applicants were instructed to pursue web-based engagement approaches instead. One year later, digital community consultation remains the status quo, with no clear plan for either reverting to in-person engagement or standardising what is effectively the latest in a long line of digital-led changes to systems of governance.

Change is normal in planning. Its emergence as a state function largely occurred across the the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, albeit initially following a top-down approach, without community engagement. The impact of World War II on the wider built environment, and housing supply specifically, is often seen as the point where this approach began to change, accelerated by the citizen aspirations for improved quality of life witnessed during the 1960s. Today, the act of involving people in planning and its decision-making processes – community engagement – is considered a key component of democratic planning systems. 

Change is also normal in Scotland’s planning system. Planning powers were devolved in 1997, and community engagement with planning has been a stated Scottish Government priority since then. The Scottish planning systems categorises applications as local, major or national, with the hierarchy intended to structure the role of local inputs, amongst other things. For larger developments – those categorised as major or national – a period of pre-application consultation (PAC) is required. As part of this, developers are obliged to undertake community consultation which until April 2020 was mandated through legislation to be an in-person, public event.

Though this recent change to digital consultation was reactionary, other disruptive changes have been more deliberate. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gave rural agricultural crofting communities purchase rights without owner’s consent; made compulsory purchase possible for community groups interested in abandoned and neglected land; and, gave groups interested in other land the opportunity secure the right to buy it should it become available. Future changes indicated by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 include a requirement for planning authorities to invite communities to prepare Local Place Plans, and a proposal that local authorities pursue infrastructure levies, applying charges to planning permissions to fund infrastructure of community value.

Broadband and 4G connectivity is another Scottish Government priority, something which is fortunate for those instructed to pursue web-based engagement alternatives during this period of change. In December 2017, the ‘biggest public investment ever made in a single UK broadband project’ was announced, aiming to provide broadband of at least 30Mbps to every premises. However, while initially aimed to be achieved by 2021, current timelines suggest that Scotland’s southern and central regions will be served by this programme by 2023, with a later unspecified date for the country’s more sparsely populated northern regions. A separate programme is in place to address lack of 4G connectivity in some, but not all, parts of the country.

Regular internet use in increasing for every age group in the UK, sitting at 99% for those aged 16-34 since at least 2015. A prioritisation of digital approaches in Scottish Government programmes is therefore unsurprising. This includes a digital first service standard (DFSS), practiced in central government services since 2016. The principle of the DFSS is for digital government services to be so good that all who can use them, prefer to use them. For those who cannot use them, an equivalent offline service is available. The DFSS is therefore not a solely digital approach, but an approach which means that services are designed primarily to be undertaken digitally, with non-digital equivalents available. 

Aspects of the Scottish planning system already follow this approach. An online portal for planning and building standards applications was launched in 2016 and, at the time of writing, 95% of planning applications are made through it. Yet despite this, PAC’s default is an in-person process, exempt from the DFSS due to it not being a central government service. Though this is arguably justifiable, these circumstances seem mainly to demonstrate a willingness to allow administrative circumstances to dictate the approach taken.

Like the rest of the UK, Scotland’s planning system is plan-led. Decisions on planning permission are triggered when those interested in undertaking developments commence planning processes. Today’s planning in Scotland is a multi-stakeholder process, with aspirations that public participation processes are a manifestation of citizen values. For PAC this means that, while the Scottish Government can and does mandate community consultation values and requirements, the process itself is initiated, undertaken and reported on by developers, with engagement outcomes demonstrated to government when a planning application is made. PAC, while an integral part of planning, is operationally and conceptually different to the central government services shaped by the DFSS.

As Scotland reaches the 1 year anniversary of an unintended and supposedly temporary change, a clear opportunity exists to reshape community consultation, delivering a process optimised for the world we live in today. With one year of experience to refer to, as well as five years from the DFSS, detailing the key considerations for digital first community consultation is easier now than it would have been at the time this temporary measure was swiftly introduced.

Five Principles for Digital First Community Consultation

1. Digital Inclusion Is About More Than Infrastructure

Inclusive planning is driven by a desire to shape a built environment representative of its citizens. Community consultation is synonymous with this approach, though in-person engagement can be imperfect due to an operational style that suits those with time and motivation, and a feedback process more welcoming for the dominant social groups most used to being heard. The concept of ‘inclusion’ can be controversial, with some stakeholders suggesting it implies one group granting access – something which could then be revoked.

If planning is a process which responds to social change, technological change could be considered a continuation of past conceptual approaches, even if the resulting outcomes are more tangible in nature. Concern in the Scottish Government about insufficient innovation in planning suggests digital is the direction of travel:

Citizens, on the other hand, started realising this potential a long time ago, spending years learning about digital engagement simply by using Web 2.0 technologies – tools associated with the second stage of the internet’s development where dynamic content and online conversation are the norm. While not all agree that this change has benefited society, planning’s need to evolve in line with societal trends is more important than universal agreement on whether those trends are positive.

In Good Services, Lou Downe shares that ‘regardless of how your service is consumed, the internet is where your users start’. This corresponds with the regular internet usage statistics in the UK and further suggests that both internet reach and internet use are important for understanding digital inclusion. For Scotland, the opportunity of reaching remote areas through digital first community consultation is attractive, yet it is also these areas that are more likely to be without fast or reliable methods of connectivity. Inclusion is therefore not just about infrastructure reach and internet use, but also quality of methods of connectivity.

A consciousness of other challenges, such as computer literacy, hardware access, and economic or social circumstances that result in people being digitally disconnected, is also crucial. Citizens can have superfast broadband to their building, but no connection in their home. They can be online but lack appropriate hardware. They can have hardware but not know how to use it. Inclusion is complex. However, technological progress is now so embedded in society that a cultural shift has occurred, shaping expectations of service delivery. A consciousness of the challenges associated with inclusion in digital first community consultation is crucial, but as a way of informing appropriate solutions, not further delaying digital first methodologies.

2. Meaningfulness Is Context Specific

Meaningful engagement is a stated Scottish Government expectation of community consultation. This is explained as a process where communications are two-way in nature, and where citizen inputs are analysed and reflected in applications. Yet the reality for the concept of meaningfulness is that it is personal, and shaped by a project’s circumstances. Context is key for meaningfulness, making it reasonable to suggest that the requirements for a digital process would be different to an in-person one. 

As with in-person consultation, representation matters if planning is to facilitate the creation of a built environment that reflects its citizens. Networking gives citizens the opportunity to connect with other stakeholders and be part of two-way communications. And engagement makes it possible for views to be shared, heard, analysed, and incorporated.

Digital meaningfulness must therefore avoid being passive in nature. However, it also has to respond in a way that reflects its context. There is a known potential for lack of civility online, and for a loss of nuance. Yet there is also potential for reaching more people, generating a wider basis of opinion and a quantity of responses that enables a different type of evaluation. Consideration for how inputs have been influenced by the context matters, but so does an evaluative approach which embraces the positives of the circumstances.

Being digital first is therefore not just about timing. It is about applying digital first thinking at all stages, from how inputs are evaluated to how services are delivered. A precedent exists for services mimicking the non-digital when they launch in a new format – think Apple’s faux-leather design approach during the iPhone’s earlier years – and a risk exists where current in-person community consultation processes are duplicated digitally, ticking the box of digital engagement but not genuinely following digital first thinking, nor responding appropriately to the context. Digital first means reflecting context and truly prioritising digital methods in delivery, engagement and evaluation.

3. Digitalisation is Already Happening for All Stakeholders

In Scotland, over 94% of properties have access to internet with speeds over 30mbps. 2019 figures from the UK’s Office of National Statistics show that only 7.5% of adults in the UK have never used the internet – a number that has been decreasing every year (though data is not available for Scotland alone). While evident that advances are being made with broadband and 4G infrastructure, an urban/rural divide remains. Similarly, though regular internet use among UK adults is increasing, adults who are elderly and/or disabled are less likely to be regular internet users.

It could be considered a statement of the obvious to suggest that it is rational to tailor consultation methods to the approaches valued by those you are trying to engage with. Despite lack of universal progress, digital needs to at least be a core engagement option. As neatly summarised by one participant during a recent event on digitalisation in planning:

It is going to become more and more weird that anything across planning isn’t digital, with public expectation going the digital direction.

Service Designer, Digitising the Future of Environmental Impact Assessment

Digital expectations are also experienced by developers – those responsible for submitting planning applications. Developer frustrations about pre-COVID pre-application consultation include that it is too formulaic, too simple, and doesn’t go far enough. Others have effectively already gone digital first with community consultation, albeit for projects outside of PAC processes.

Lastly, the Scottish Government itself long ago concluded that digital first methods are viable for their own services, reaching that conclusion with consideration for infrastructure reach and usage trends. Though the infrastructural and social conditions are demonstrably not in place for community consultation to be digital only, a digital first approach does not claim nor aim to be digital only, just digital first.

4. Be Ready for a Culture Clash

With PAC a multi-stakeholder process, you can expect different expectations from all involved. The likely introduction of an additional stakeholder for delivery of digital consultation methods further complicates this. Though Scottish planning has ‘iterated’ at various stages of its existence, iteration in the world of digital services occurs at a different pace – far more rapid than is typical of the democratic and consultative norms of planning. A foundational challenge is therefore that the pace of planning is slower – something which is not a problem to overcome, but an important characteristic.

A risk exists of lack of compatibility between the iterative working approaches of the technology sector and a lack of genuine fluency in such methods among developers and government, with a potential worst-case scenario where the platforms used for consultation dictate the shape of the engagement itself.

While there is value in the familiar, those in the tech sector argue for digital services that harness technological characteristics rather than replicating in-person processes. It is possible, however, that early digital innovations in community consultation would be better served by pursuing a path of recreating non-digital methods – a web 1.0 approach – before becoming more representative of the technological platform they inhabit – a web 2.0 approach.

The requirements of PAC as currently established by government are not intended to accommodate regular iteration. Any compromises – one direction or another – would inevitably impact the experience of undertaking PAC, potentially failing to match the expectations of citizens or any other stakeholder.

A hypothetical risk is that democratic planning and digital services cannot be cohesively aligned, with the resulting compromises meaning that the benefits of digital engagement are not fully realised. However, this seems like an unlikely stumbling block. While government stakeholders could not realistically be expected to deploy the same working fluency in technological innovation as someone in that sector, that target is not actually required. It is not a Government requirement to detail how iteration and innovation should be practiced, just that the core requirements impacting these things are clear.

5. Substantive Change to Standards is Needed

The Scottish Government’s operation of DFSS since 2016, albeit on central government services, suggests that achieving a new equilibrium is possible. However, the approach required for the community consultation in PAC would involve additional changes to the structures which shape the specifics of the digital first approach due to its multi-stakeholder operations.

Guidance would be needed to address issues related to data sharing and ownership, timing and duration of consultations, and requirements for managing the iteration of consultation. With this process being multi-stakeholder, the most crucial change would be clarity – ensuring each player understands their role, where their responsibility sits and – perhaps most importantly – where it stops.

The government says to developers you must engage, you must demonstrate this as part of your planning application, and there are certain requirements. Yes there are things that have to be done, but it’s up to the developer to demonstrate they have done a sufficient job of engaging with people, getting their views and taking them into account. The role of the government is to be clear what someone needs to do, what are the requirements that need to be met, and how they should be met. But without, ideally, being too prescriptive.

Head of Consultation

Even within a mandated digital first approach, guidelines could retain flexibility, or indeed not. It can be required that developers use specific methods, applications or approaches that have been evaluated and approved by those responsible in government, offering citizens familiar opportunities for online engagement, and potential for more readily comparable data. Flexibility, on the other hand, means potential for innovation, experimentation, and context-specific engagements. A choice would need to be made. In both cases, clarity on data ownership is essential.

Digital engagements offer an opportunity to operate on a different timescale, both with the consultations themselves and the analysis of data afterwards. A valuable opportunity exists within the activities that happen outside of the community consultation, potentially informing future engagements or planning more widely. Harnessing that opportunity would require sufficient clarity about the timing expectations of digital first community consultation.

Recommendations for Scottish Planning

• Digital first community consultation should begin early in the engagement process: This affords time for meaningful discussion, data generation, and evaluation, which could then influence resulting non-digital methods such as a later, second in-person PAC engagement.
• It should run over a longer period of time: Rather than mimicking in-person processes and running a short consultation, digital first PAC benefits from being able to run for longer, including during and after in-person elements, acting as a community hub for project engagements.
• Relevant demographic information should be monitored: Understanding whether participants are representative of their communities requires information to be asked for and received. The process of requesting this information, if undertaken appropriately, demonstrates to users that representation is valued.
• Multiple engagement methods, including remote and offline options, should be practiced: Offering different feedback methods, varying in medium, duration, and privacy, provides options reflective of the range of engagement preferences in a community. Remote, offline options introduces broader appeal, including for those without internet access.
• Inputs should be evaluated and presented at a later-stage, in-person PAC event: Beginning at an early stage, before an in-person component, offers the opportunity to analyse initial inputs and use those findings to introduce additional value to a later in-person PAC stage.
• Technical capabilities and stakeholder expectations should inform iteration: As societal trends and technological capacity of hardware and software evolves, digital first PAC approaches should change too, offering a sufficiently responsive service.
• Digital first service standard criteria specific to the PAC working approach need to be developed: PAC operates differently to central government services. The digital first criteria deployed for central government services would not be suitable and a modified digital first framework specifically for PAC would be needed.

---

Photo: Ross Sneddon