Scottish Government Consultation: Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance

Argyll and Bute Council · 23 August 2023
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 23 August 2023 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL                  PPSL
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH    23rd Aug 2023 
Scottish Government Consultation: 
Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance 
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
1.1 This aim of this Report is to advise the PPSL of the Scottish Government
consultation on Effective Community Engagement in Local Development
Planning Guidance and seek approval for the proposed response to this
consultation (See Appendix 1). This response is due by 13th September 2023.
1.2 This guidance is being consulted on as part of the Scottish Government’s
wider work on planning reform and implementing of the Planning (Scotland)
Act 2019.
1.3 The planning authority, will require to have regard to the finalised guidance in
the preparation of Local Development Plan 3. It sets out the high-level
expectations on how planning authorities can comply with their legal duties to
engage with the public when preparing their local development plans. The
focus of the guidance is on compliance with statutory duties and degree of
influence of views. Potential issues relate to resource levels, descriptions of
levels of influence and integration with the Council’s approach to community
engagement.
1.4 Recommendations 
It is recommended that the PPSL: 
i) note this report and the implications of the proposed guidance for the planning
service and wider council. 
ii) approve the proposed response on this consultation to the Scottish
Government (Appendix 1).

Page 2

ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL              PPSL
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH    23rd Aug 2023 
Scottish Government Consultation: 
Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance 
2.0 INTRODUCTION 
2.1 The Scottish Government is consulting on Effective Community Engagement in
Local Development Planning Guidance. The proposed guidance is part of the
Scottish Government’s wider work on planning reform and implementing the
Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. The proposed response to this consultation is set
out in Appendix 1. The due date to respond to the consultation is 13th September
2023. 
2.2 This guidance is being consulted on as part of the Scottish Government’s
wider work on planning reform and implementing of the Planning (Scotland)
Act 2019. 
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 
3.1 Recommendations 
It is recommended that the PPSL: 
i) note this report and the implications of the proposed guidance for the planning
service and wider council. 
ii) approve the proposed response on this consultation to the Scottish
Government (Appendix 1).

Page 3

4.0 DETAIL 
4.1 The new section 16C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,
which was introduced by section 7 of the 2019 Planning (Scotland) Act, requires
planning authorities to have regard to the proposed “Effective Community
Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance”. Therefore, community
engagement throughout the preparation of Local Development Plan 3 would
require to take account of the finalised Guidance. The proposed Guidance sets
out the high-level expectations on how the planning authority can comply with
its legal duties to engage with the public when preparing its local development
plans. The focus of the guidance is on compliance with statutory duties and
degree of influence of views. The proposed Guidance sits alongside PAN
3/2010 Community Engagement, which is to remain in place. Given that
consolidation of the advice is not proposed then the relationship between the
two sets of guidance should be made clear. Appendix 1 Question 5 
4.2 There are a series of documents that require to be prepared alongside the Local
Development Plan, each of which has its own requirements in terms of public
engagement. This includes Strategic Environmental Assessment, Public Sector
Equalities Duty Assessment and Island Communities Impact Assessment. The
proposed Guidance does not supersede the requirements of these assessments.
Appendix 1 Question 4. 
4.3 The proposed Guidance covers new aspects of engagement where there are
currently no formal assessment methods or where practice in the area is evolving,
for example Human Rights assessment and Health Inequalities Impact
Assessment. In these cases, emerging good practice is highlighted. 
4.4 Table S1 sets out the local development plan engagement duties as required
under the new Act. This provides a useful list of the requirements for easy
reference. New duties such as seeking the views of and having regard to views
expressed by the public about the content of the Participation Statement and
inviting local communities to prepare Local Place Plans are noted. A statement
of how the views of specific sectors of the community, including children, young
people, disabled people and gypsies and travelers were sought and how they
have been taken into account is required. There will be resource requirements
associated with these duties. 
4.5 Table S2 notes that there are new strategies required now as part of the LDP
process that will also have public engagement requirements. These include
Woodland and Forestry Strategy, Open Space Strategy and the Play
Sufficiency Assessment. These are dealt with more fully in other regulation and
have resource requirements. 
4.6 The proposed Guidance is not prescriptive about the methods of engagement
to be used as this should be appropriate to the subject, context and groups to
be engaged. This approach is welcomed as it gives the planning authority
latitude to utilise methods appropriate to its own circumstances.

Page 4

4.7 Table 1 sets out “Levels of Engagement / Spectrum of Participation”, which
ranges from informing, consulting, collaborating to empowering and associated
descriptions. This table raises a number of issues in terms of potential
variations in interpretation and practicalities of implementation as follows:   
“Involving” – implies that each individual concern and/or aspiration would be
directly reflected in the outcome /alternatives developed. It would be
appropriate to consider every concern raised, however, it may not be practical
to include every individual concern or aspiration as an outcome or alternative
developed in the LDP process. This definition may give rise to unrealistic
expectations of the LDP process and not necessarily be an efficient or effective
way to handle issues raised. Grouping of like issues would be a reasonable
approach. It should be transparent and demonstrable how concerns and
aspirations have been assessed and addressed. 
“Collaborating” - the table states that “we will incorporate your advice and
recommendations into decision / implementation to the maximum extent
possible.” Although this does note “to the maximum extent possible” this may
still raise expectations regarding the weight to be given to one community’s
advice vis-a-vis that from other participants in the process e.g. Key Agencies or
differing community groups. The addition of a phrase such as “and taking all
views into account” may assist. 
“Empowering” – this definition states that “we will implement what you decide”.
Empowering has been linked further on in the proposed Guidance to Local
Place Plans (LPP). Although the Guidance states LPPs should be taken into
account in the LDP process, the definition of empowerment in Table 1 of the
Guidance has the potential to raise expectations regarding how the planning
authority will handle LPPs. It may not be possible to implement what is decided
in an LPP due to other community views being in conflict or a conflict with other
significant material considerations. The term “implementing” also implies a
commitment of local authority resource to the implementation of actions in an
LPP. This use of this definition, in relation to LPPs, has the potential to be
misleading and should be clarified.  Appendix 1 Question 2. 
4.8 The local development plan preparation stages are set out with statutory
minimum timings from the Act, e.g. minimum consultation period on the
proposed local development plan 12 weeks. Previously a maximum time was
set, which proved useful in managing expectations. It may be useful to give an
indication of typical timings or maximum timings within this Guidance to help
manage expectations. Appendix 1 Question 9 
4.9 It is noted that there is currently a Scottish Government review of Public Sector
Equality Duty underway. The outcomes of this will need to be taken in to
consideration in the finalisation of this Guidance. Appendix 1 Question 9 
4.10 Given the increased requirements in respect of public engagement throughout
the new Local Development Plan process, including for specific sectors of
society and reporting requirements, it would be advisable to ensure a robust
engagement strategy is drawn up as part of LDP3 programme management.

Page 5

The key elements of this may then be articulated in the statutory Participation
Statement (publication setting out how people may become engaged in the LDP
process during the various stages), the preparation of which is now subject to
engagement. 
4.11 It is understood that the council is reviewing its own guidance for community
engagement. It would be useful to ensure that the approach the council takes
considers what is required by other statutory processes, such as planning, in
order to provide a clear, efficient and effective approach to engagement across
different services within the council. 
5.0 CONCLUSION
5.1 Once finalised this guidance will require to be taken into consideration in the
preparation of future Local Development Plans by the planning authority. It sets
out high level expectations of how the planning authority should engage with
the public when preparing local development plans. It also describes how the
public can expect its comments to be taken in to consideration by the planning
authority.
5.2 There are resource implications associated with public engagement but the
detailed methods are not included in this guidance, being left to the discretion
of the planning authority. In general, the proposed Guidance is to be welcomed
although a number of issues have been raised in the proposed consultation
response (Appendix 1). 
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Policy: When finalised the proposed Guidance will require to be taken into
account in the preparation of the Local Development Plan. 
6.2 Financial  - None as a result of this consultation. 
6.3  Legal – None as a result of this consultation. However, failure to comply with
legislative requirements may result in challenges to the planning authority’s handling
of the LDP process. 
6.4  HR  None
6.5  Fairer Scotland Duty: The Guidance gives further advice on this issue for the
LDP process 
6.5.1  Equalities: The Guidance gives further advice on this issue for the LDP
process 
6.5.2  Socio-Economic Duty: The Guidance gives further advice on this issue
for the LDP process 
6.5.3  Islands Duty: The Guidance gives further advice on this issue for the
LDP process

Page 6

6.6 Climate Change - None 
6.7 Risk – None as a result of this consultation. However, failure to comply with
legislative requirements during the LDP process may result in challenges, delays and
additional costs. 
6.8  Customer Service None 
Kirsty Flanagan,
Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth
Policy Lead Cllr Green
23rd Aug 2023                                                
For further information contact: 
Sybil Johnson 01546 604308 sybil.johnson@argyll-bute.gov.uk 
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Proposed Response

Page 7

Appendix 1 Proposed Response
Question 1 – Do you agree that the purpose and scope of the guidance is clear?
• Yes • No • No view • Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree).
Question 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 • No • No view • Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree)
The terms themselves are useful, however, there are some descriptions in the table that
appear to be misleading or difficult to implement in practice.
“Involving” - This states regarding the planning authority that “we will work with you to ensure
that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the outcome /alternatives
developed”. This raises an issue, as whilst it would be appropriate to consider every
concern raised it may not be appropriate or practical to include every individual
concern or aspiration as an outcome or alternative developed in the process. This may
give rise to unrealistic expectations of the LDP process and not necessarily be an
efficient or effective way to handle issues raised. Rather than individual concerns
(“your concerns”) it should be clear that grouping of like issues would be a reasonable
approach. It should be transparent and demonstrable how concerns and aspirations
have been assessed and addressed and this may not be in all cases as an outcome or
alternative.
“Collaborating” - the table states that “we will incorporate your advice and recommendations
into decision / implementation to the maximum extent possible.” Although this does
note “to the maximum extent possible” this may raise expectations regarding the
weight to be given to one community’s advice vis-a-vis that from other stakeholders
e.g. experts such as Key Agencies or differing community groups. The addition of a
phrase such as “and taking all views into account” may assist.
Empowering” – this definition states that “we will implement what you decide”. Empowering
has been linked further on in the proposed Guidance to Local Place Plans (LPP).
Although the Guidance states LPPs should be taken into account in the LDP process.
the definition of empowerment in Table 1 of the Guidance has the potential to raise
expectations regarding how the planning authority will handle LPPs. It may not be
possible to implement what is decided in an LPP due to other community views being
in conflict or a conflict with other significant material considerations. The term
“implementing” also implies a commitment of local authority resource to the
implementation of actions in an LPP. This use of this definition in relation to LPPs has
the potential to be misleading and should be clarified.
Question 3 - Do you agree that the appropriate levels of engagement have been identified
for the stages of local development plan preparation?

Page 8

• Yes • No • No view • Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree)
Yes, subject to the clarification of the levels of engagement as set out in the answer to
question 2.
Question 4 - Do you agree that the appropriate levels of engagement have been identified
for the impact assessments?
• Yes • No • No view • Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do not agree).
The levels of engagement require to be clarified as set out in the answer to question 2. The
statutory requirements should be clear. It should also be noted that engagement should
relate to those elements scoped in to impact assessments.
Question 5 – Overall, is the approach set out in the guidance helpful?
• Yes • No • No view • Please comment on your answer (Particularly if you do not think the
approach is helpful).
It may have been useful to take the opportunity to combine PAN3/2010 Community
Engagement with this proposed Guidance to give a consolidated guidance. However, in the
absence of this the relationship between the 2 documents should be made clear.
Question 6 – Do you have any views about the initial conclusions of the impact assessments
that accompany and inform this guidance?
• Yes • No • No view • Please comment on your answer (particularly if you do have views to
share).
Question 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 • No • No view • Please comment on your answer.
Question 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?
• Yes • No • No view • Please comment on your answer.
None

Page 9

Question 9 - Please provide any further comments on the guidance set out in this
consultation.
The local development plan preparation stages are set out with statutory minimum timings
from the Act, e.g. minimum consultation period on the proposed local development plan 12
weeks. Previously a maximum time was set, which proved useful in managing expectations.
It may be useful to give an indication of typical timings or suggested maximum timings
within this Guidance to help manage expectations. 
It is noted that there is currently a Scottish Government review of Public Sector Equality
Duty underway and that the outcomes of this will need to be taken in to consideration in
the finalisation of this Guidance