1. No category

User Experience of
Neighbourhood Planning
in England Research
Prof Gavin Parker with Tessa Lynn, Matthew Wargent and Locality
4
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
Background
The neighbourhood planning process
The research need
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.4
Introduction
The research brief
The research methods and sample details
The telephone survey sample
The questionnaire used for the telephone interviews
The focus groups
Rationale, strengths and weaknesses of methods
Characteristics of the neighbourhood areas surveyed
8
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
3.
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.3.9
3.3.10
3.3.11
3.4
3.4.1
Introduction
The motivations behind neighbourhood planning
Introduction
Who initiated the neighbourhood plan?
Why communities chose neighbourhood planning
Knowledge of alternative planning tools
Overall experience of neighbourhood planning
Introduction
Expectations of the neighbourhood planning process
Overall experience of the neighbourhood planning process
Other outcomes from neighbourhood planning
Expectations and burden of the neighbourhood planning process
Ambition and aims for the neighbourhood plan
Relations within the neighbourhood
Proportionality of neighbourhood planning
What might make neighbourhood planning more attractive to communities?
Making neighbourhood planning more attractive to communities
Overall views on how to improve the neighbourhood planning process
Experience of stages within the neighbourhood planning process
Neighbourhood Area Designation (and Forum where appropriate)
17
17
17
17
17
18
19
23
23
23
24
26
26
28
29
30
31
31
32
34
34
5
5
5
6
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
3.4.8
3.4.9
3.4.10
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.6.5.1
3.6.5.2
3.6.5.3
3.6.6
3.6.7
3.7
Designation stage - improvement or simplifications
Gathering evidence
Writing a neighbourhood plan
Community engagement and pre-submission consultation and publicity
Documentation accompanying a neighbourhood plan proposal
Publicising of a neighbourhood plan proposal by the Local Planning
Authority
Independent Examination of a neighbourhood plan
‘Making’ (bringing into force) a neighbourhood plan
Improvements to or simplification of the stages
Capacity and skills of those producing neighbourhood plans
Introduction
Nature of the active neighbourhood planning group and group capacity
Internal factors that helped or inhibited progress
Skills in the neighbourhood planning core groups
Missing skills and how groups have responded
Support with the neighbourhood planning process
Introduction
Support received
The role of consultants
The role of the local authority
Use of neighbourhood planning information and support sources
Face to Face Support
Peer Support
Advice, Guidance and Templates
Costs and inputs
Views on improvements to support, including the role of Government
Summary and conclusions
42
42
45
45
46
46
46
46
47
48
49
49
49
50
51
54
54
55
56
57
58
59
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
Introduction
Focus group themes
Reflection on the focus groups
Common themes
Specific points raised by different types of groups
Common or dominant ideas for change and improvement
62
62
62
63
64
64
66
5.
5.1
5.2
Introduction
Key findings
69
69
69
2
36
36
38
40
41
5.3
5.3.1
Overview - The neighbourhood planning process
Suggested changes to improve the neighbourhood planning process
71
73
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.5
5.5.1
5.6
5.7
5.8
Guidance, toolkits and templates
Guidance
Toolkits and templates
Local authority role
Support, advice and the local authority role
Other Support and Advice
Mutual learning and the ‘co-production’ of neighbourhood plans
Evidence gaps
73
74
74
75
75
75
76
77
6.
Annex
Annex
Annex
Annex
A: Additional tables and charts
B: Access to grants to support neighbourhood planning
C: Focus Group Feeback
D: Telephone interview questionnaire
3
79
80
85
86
109
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Department for Communities and
Local Government, Integration and Community Rights Directorate. We are also grateful
for assistance from Dave Chapman (Trifomis Ltd), Carole Reilly and Locality and Planning
Aid England staff, and particularly for the time and consideration provided by all those
who were interviewed, and the focus groups participants.
4
Neighbourhood planning was initiated in 2010 1 as part of the coalition
Government’s commitment to transferring power to local communities. From
early 2011, in parallel to the introduction of the legislation that brought
neighbourhood planning into statutory force (the Localism Act, 2011), the
Government supported over 200 neighbourhood planning frontrunner
communities. These frontrunners were intended to test, develop and refine the
approach taken in the emerging legislation to developing plans at a very local
scale. The formal provisions for neighbourhood plans were subsequently set out
in the Localism Act (2011) and detailed regulations were issued in 20122. Many
of the early neighbourhood plans to be ‘made’ were therefore developed by
these frontrunner communities.
Over the past three years Government support for neighbourhood planning
(to include Neighbourhood Development Plans, Neighbourhood Development
Orders and Community Right to Build Order 3 ) has taken a number of forms,
including: funding for community groups and local authorities, support for a
variety of advisory services and different types and forms of information, as well
as civil service staff dedicated to the management of neighbourhood planning
and related rights enabled under the Localism Act.
This report does not include a detailed overview of the neighbourhood planning
process. However, in brief, the neighbourhood planning process follows
prescribed stages that are set out in the primary legislation and in the
neighbourhood planning regulations. The process requires an application to be
made to a local planning authority for a neighbourhood area to be designated.
In parished areas, a parish or town council applies for designation. In non
parished areas those wishing to prepare a neighbourhood plan or an Order must
also apply to be designated as a neighbourhood forum.
Once a neighbourhood area (and where appropriate a neighbourhood forum) has
been designated, those preparing the neighbourhood plan or Order (termed
1
Open Source Planning. (2010) Conservative Party Policy Paper #14, see: http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/planning-green-paper.ashx
2
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations (2012), see: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/contents/made and
the later regulations on the referendum stage, see: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2031/made
3
See: Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/givingpeople-more-power-over-what-happens-in-their-neighbourhood
5
Qualifying Bodies) through engagement within the community, and the
development of an evidence base, write a draft Plan or Order. They consult on
the Plan or Order and submit the (modified) draft Plan or Order to the local
planning authority. The Plan or Order then proceeds to the Independent
Examination stage where it is checked to see that it meets a number of legal
tests, including whether it meets a set of ‘basic conditions’. If it does, then the
neighbourhood plan or Order proceeds to the referendum stage where it is put
to a formal vote. Those eligible to vote are usually all those on the electoral
register in the affected neighbourhood. If a majority of those who vote are in
favour of the Plan or Order, then the process culminates in the principal planning
authority accepting or ‘making’ the neighbourhood plan or Order.
The key stages in the neighbourhood planning process are also further outlined
and explained in the Government’s planning guidance available on the Planning
Portal4, and via the Locality Neighbourhood Planning Roadmap.5
This report has been produced as part of the support contract for neighbourhood
planning and timed to feed into a review of neighbourhood planning in England.
At the time of this research an estimated 1019 groups had either started or
expressed an intention to embark on neighbourhood planning. As the then
Minister for Planning stated in a speech in March 2014, it was appropriate to take
stock and review progress:
“We have, I think, now reached the point where there has been enough
experience of neighbourhood planning with enough different kinds of
communities for us to learn lessons and to ask whether there is not a
version of neighbourhood planning that might be more easily
accessible and quicker for some communities.” (Nick Boles MP, 3rd
March 2014).
The primary purpose of the research reported here is to develop further
understanding of user experiences while undertaking the process of developing
a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) and/or Neighbourhood Development
Order (NDO)/Community Right to Build Order (CRtBO); jointly referred to here
as neighbourhood planning. The research will help to inform future approaches
taken towards neighbourhood planning, including how to improve and increase
4
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/
see: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/ (correct as of 01/07/14) and
http://mycommunityrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Neighbourhood-Planning-Roadmap1.pdf
5
6
its effectiveness as well as the shape that support offered to those using the
right should take.
In structure, the report sets out the findings derived from primary data
collection involving a telephone survey of 120 neighbourhood planning groups
and six focus groups. The report seeks to understand how the neighbourhood
planning groups have fared, to reflect on the conditions in which neighbourhood
planning operates and what steps might be taken to improve it.
7
Neighbourhood planning has gained significant momentum, by spring 2014 more
than 1000 groups had started to use neighbourhood planning tools. It was
therefore deemed timely to reflect and review progress, in order to assess the
case for making improvements to neighbourhood planning.
This research addresses this need by seeking feedback from users of
neighbourhood planning. The research brief and approach taken are set out
below.
The brief for the research centred on gathering lessons from communities. The
aim was to understand neighbourhood planning implementation and to suggest
improvements and potential streamlining of the process. The research reported
here sought to address the following objectives:
1. To gather evidence on the implementation of neighbourhood planning to
establish how the process could be improved;
2. To make recommendations on how best to improve the system to make it
more efficient and less burdensome, so that more communities take it up
and those that do get to the end of the process more quickly;
3. To assess whether there is a case for new options, or revised processes;
4. To understand the current take up of Neighbourhood Development Orders
(NDOs) and Community Right to Build (CRtBO) Orders to determine if these
options are sufficient for areas who wish to permit growth and whether they
would be able to do so with, or without, the development of a
Neighbourhood Plan;
5. To understand what might enable a broad range of areas to undertake
neighbourhood planning;
6. To understand the effectiveness and targeting of the current neighbourhood
planning support package.
8
The research reported here is based on primary data collection, focusing on
neighbourhoods who were actively involved in preparing neighbourhood plans,
under the Localism Act (2011). The data was therefore derived from respondents
from areas that had experienced the process of neighbourhood planning first
hand.
120 telephone interviews were completed with neighbourhood planning groups.
A further six focus groups were convened. The survey gathered evidence about
which issues and means were most relevant in terms of enabling and constraining
successful plan-making.
Many considerations have shaped neighbourhood planning groups’ experience of
the process and a number of external factors have shaped take-up and progress.
The contextual issues affecting neighbourhood planning include factors relating
to: local planning history; attitudes to neighbourhood planning at the local
authority level; context and resources at the neighbourhood level; understanding
of the scope of neighbourhood planning; understanding of (statutory) process;
other local issues; and gaps in skills. Given these issues the sampling for the
telephone survey and focus groups needed some care to ensure that the breadth
and depth of data collected enabled a clear picture to be formed and reflected
upon.
Of the more than 1000 groups active in neighbourhood planning by the Spring of
2014, over 700 had reached a stage where a neighbourhood area had been
designated by the local authority (as of April 2014) 6 . Figure 1 indicates the
numbers, progress and spread of neighbourhood planning across England.
6
Informally gathered data by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
9
Telephone interviews were used to ensure both a high response rate and that
the evidence collected was of high quality. In total, 120 neighbourhood planning
interviewees were surveyed from a sample frame of 200 areas which met the
criteria. To meet the criteria groups had to have had sufficient experience of
the neighbourhood planning process so that they could provide feedback on the
strengths and weaknesses of the system. Six focus groups were convened to
reflect a variety of situations, see Section 4.
In order to ensure that the survey sample was robust and defensible, while
covering a wide variety of experiences of neighbourhood planning, the sample
was selected from all known areas where a neighbourhood area had been
designated by a local planning authority, and where the qualifying body had been
involved in the process for six months or more. This strategy enabled the
10
collection of relevant feedback from all areas that had significant experience of
undertaking neighbourhood planning.
It is known that the take up of neighbourhood planning in non-parished areas has
tended to be slower than in those with a parish tier. To ensure that there was
sufficient data collected from forums (non-parished areas) the sampling strategy
included all forums as long as they had been active in neighbourhood planning
for at least 6 months or where their local planning authority had designated them
as a neighbourhood forum. Seventy-eight (78) forums were contacted which met
those criteria and all were invited to participate in the survey. This resulted in
50 of the 120 achieved sample (42%) being drawn from those eligible Forums.
Applying the basic criteria, set out above, to the parished areas active in
neighbourhood planning resulted in a list of 659 parished groups who would be
eligible for inclusion in the survey. This list was then stratified into two
categories relating to the progress that areas had made:
a. Those who had reached pre-submission consultation stage; and
b. Those who had not.
All advanced parished areas (those who had experienced the pre-submission
consultation stage at least) were eligible to be interviewed. As a result 97
parished groups were identified who met this criteria. All were invited to
participate in the telephone survey. This led to 51 parishes, which had been
prioritised, being able to assist in the study from that set. There was therefore
a need to top-up the parish component of the sample with 19 other parished
areas, which met the minimum requirements, in order to meet the target 120
participant sample size (representing over 16 per cent of the overall population
of 737 groups; 78 forums and 659 parished areas).
Of the 200 groups in the sample frame 174 were contacted in order to achieve
the 120 responses; the response rate from the telephone survey was therefore
69 per cent.
A structured questionnaire was developed and administered (see Annex D for the
full questionnaire). This was designed to explore the stages, analyse the key
issues and allow for qualitative data to accompany data from closed question
responses.
11
The main themes explored were:

What obstacles and difficulties groups preparing Neighbourhood
Development Plans were encountering (external, regulatory, internal, with
partners e.g. Local Planning Authorities);

How groups were finding the different stages of the process;

Whether there were issues common to all groups or whether there were
issues specific to some ‘types’ of group, and what needed to be present to
overcome these issues/barriers;

How elements of neighbourhood planning could be improved (e.g. support,
Regulations, communications, orchestration);

What options there were to ‘improve’
implementation (targeting, knowledge etc.);

What groups wanted to get out of Neighbourhood Development Plans (in
order to understand if the design and support fits the needs/aspirations of
communities);

What learning there has been within groups (e.g. of neighbourhood planning,
planning, process, engagement, intra-community issues);

How the groups’ attitudes and understandings have developed and what
these encompassed;

The role partners have played in neighbourhood planning.
neighbourhood
planning
A series of six focus groups were convened with key types of neighbourhood
planning groups who were operating in differing contexts. Each focus group
session was organised around key themes for discussion. The themes reflected a
balance of general issues and areas for deliberation, as well as key issues that
reflected the focus group context, points emerging from the telephone
interviews and wider literature and experience of neighbourhood planning.
The focus group format was designed to enable in-depth discussion to examine
key issues and deliberate over experiences, strengths, weaknesses and possible
modifications to neighbourhood planning. Further explanation of the focus group
themes, discussions and the findings are provided in Section 4.
12
The sampling strategy aimed to maximise the quality of data likely to be
collected, while maintaining a good forum/parish and urban/rural
representation and a good geographical spread. Given the overall population of
737 groups at the time of the research, 120 provided a sample of more than 16%
of the population.
The timing and duration of the research was set, with the research needing to
be completed in the period April to June 2014. Given that the number of groups
who had fully completed the neighbourhood planning process was limited, the
number of respondents who had experienced latter stages of neighbourhood
planning was therefore limited.
The telephone interview approach was chosen because it gave greater control
over the characteristics of the respondents in comparison with a web-based or
postal survey. It also had the advantage of collecting the data more speedily
than alternatives. The focus groups helped ensure further depth, and provided
the opportunity for groups to talk though their experiences and reasons why
neighbourhood planning had proceeded in the ways so far experienced. The
combination of these methods allowed respondents’ views to be elicited across
the key themes outlined above, whilst exploring the issues in sufficient depth.
The telephone interviews were designed so that they could be reasonably
undertaken within an hour. The focus group duration varied from between 2-3
hours, and in both cases any longer periods for interview or discussion are
considered unreasonable and the quality of data gathered is likely to be
affected. However, given the nature and multiplicity of issues, stages and
contextual factors involved, which shape the neighbourhood planning
experience, there is scope to further discuss and examine many issues and
experiences, in ways that the selected tools and the scope of the review
constrained. This is particularly an issue with the use of questionnaires that are
better at deriving a quantity of information, but not necessarily nuances or depth
of experience. This limitation was mitigated by the use of a mix of closed, open
and supplementary questions to prompt respondents (see also section 5.8 on
evidence gaps).
Because of the sampling strategy the telephone survey should not be considered
a wholly representative sample. The forum component was drawn from a sample
of all known forums meeting the eligibility criteria. The parish component of
the sample was less representative; it contained all 97 parishes which met the
criteria (see 2.3.1) resulting in 51 of those participating and was ‘topped up’
13
with an additional 19 which provided responses from a wider range of areas but
who met the basic criterion of having been active for at least 6 months. Because
of this, the data presented has not been weighted and precision of percentages
should be interpreted cautiously. Therefore tables, where possible, present
parish and forum responses separately and statistical significance has not been
computed.
This section briefly outlines the main characteristics of the sample in terms of,
size and how long the areas have been active in neighbourhood planning.
The sample was comprised of different types of groups located in a variety of
neighbourhoods and with various population sizes, as explained below:
i.
Type of qualifying body (parish/town council or designated
neighbourhood forum). 70 of the interviewees were from parished areas
and 50 from areas with a neighbourhood forum. The overall spread of all
participants (parished and forums) from across England is shown in Figure 2.
Note: numbers in the bars are percentages (Base n=120)
ii. Staged reached in the neighbourhood planning process. Of the sample
group who participated [n=120], 60 per cent had reached pre-submission
consultation stage and beyond (i.e. categorised as ‘advanced’). Figure 3
shows both the stage reached by the respondents when surveyed.
14
iii. Urban or rural classification of the neighbourhood area. Sixty four per cent
of the Parished areas were rural (45), with the remainder classified as ‘urban
areas’ (25). Only 10 per cent (5) of the Neighbourhood Forums were
classified as rural. This mean that a total of 70 of the interviewees were
drawn from areas formally deemed to be urban.
iv. Population size of the neighbourhood areas surveyed. The average
population of neighbourhoods varied widely across the sample. A majority of
all areas surveyed had populations below 10,000 (68%) with 58 of the groups
having populations fewer than 5,000 people. Only eight had a population of
over 20,000 and the smallest population covered was 240 (Table 1 shows
population against parish/ forum split).
Population size of the neighbourhood areas surveyed
Respondents (n)
(Percentage)
Small Population%
(<5,000)
Medium
Population%
(5,000-15,000)
Larger Population%
(>15,000)
Parish
59
28
13
69
Forum
27
56
17
41
Note: Table excludes respondents who responded 'don't know' (Base n=110)
15
v. Neighbourhood planning tools being used by the respondents. All of the
interviewees were preparing Neighbourhood Development Plans and only 2
were specifically using a Community Right to Build Order, with only 1 other
area using the Neighbourhood Development Order tool.
vi. The timing of the decision to take up neighbourhood planning within the
sample. The length of time that areas had been involved in neighbourhood
planning were relatively evenly balanced across the period since
neighbourhood planning frontrunners were introduced in early 2011 until
our cut-off point in the second half of 2013 (as participants needed more
than 6 months involvement in developing a neighbourhood plan to be
considered for the sample). Table 4 below shows that 53 per cent of the
sample had been involved in neighbourhood planning for over 2 years (prior
to June 2012), with 27 per cent being forums and 27 per cent of parished
areas having been involved for more than 2 years.
The interviewees were asked when the decision to embark on neighbourhood
planning was taken and this is reflected in Figure 4 below.
Note: the figures in the bars show the percentage of all respondents excluding those who responded don’t
know/no answer (n=112).
The above highlights that the achieved sample had been involved in
neighbourhood planning across a wide time period. This ensured that respondents had enough experience of neighbourhood planning.
16
–
Section 2 detailed the nature and characteristics of the neighbourhood planning
groups interviewed. This highlighted the range of groups involved, the approach
taken to select them and how information was elicited from them.
The following sections report the main findings from the telephone interviews,
including the users’ experience overall, their views relating to the different
stages of neighbourhood planning, as well as commentary on support received
and
advice used. This section therefore focusses on:
i. The motivations behind neighbourhood planning
ii. The overall experience of neighbourhood planning
iii. Experience of stages within the neighbourhood planning process
iv. Capacity and skills of those producing neighbourhood plans
v. Support with the neighbourhood planning process.
The section concludes with a summary and conclusions.
This section of the report explores: the key characteristics of the areas and
groups interviewed; their aspirations and motives in pursuing neighbourhood
planning; the experiences and capacity of groups undertaking neighbourhood
planning; and the support they have taken up. The main findings from the
structured telephone interviews are set out below exploring who has been
involved and why.
Table 2 shows those who had initiated the neighbourhood planning process. In
summary:
17

The largest group who acted to initiate neighbourhood planning were parish
and town councils, 50 per cent overall (i.e. 60 of the 70 parished areas).

Local groups, including existing community associations or residents groups
acted to initiate discussions about neighbourhood planning in many cases.

For the neighbourhood areas with a forum, 66 per cent of neighbourhood
plans were instigated by an individual or community group.

In 16 per cent of cases it was indicated that the local authority had acted to
initiate neighbourhood planning.

In follow up questions it was evident that in, some cases, parishes which
were interviewed recognised that they were already active in planning
matters and that this may have increased their awareness of neighbourhood
planning, and therefore their initiation of the process.
7
Instigator of the Neighbourhood Planning Process (percentage)
Respondents
(n)
Local
Authority%
Business
Improvement
District
Group%
Other%
60
11
0
6
70
0
24
2
8
50
Individual
Community
Member%
Existing
Community
Group%
Parish or
Town
Council%
Parish
14
9
Forum
24
42
(Base n=120)
Interviewees were asked why they had decided to embark on neighbourhood
planning. The two key motivations for starting a neighbourhood plan appeared
to be:

Reinvigorating the local area (usually through providing a vision for the
future), and

Protecting the desirable characteristics of the area.
The great majority of groups (81) wanted to have a greater say in planning and
development in their own areas, and to help shape a future vision for the
7
Note that in most instances percentage responses are set out in the text and in the tables, with the number of groups responding
shown alongside the text in brackets. Where the number of respondents reported are small the number of groups are shown in the
text, as the percentages may be misleading.
18
neighbourhood. The quotations below provide an indication of the sentiments
expressed about this by respondents:
‘In theory we should have more power now under the Localism Act - if you’re not
part of it you don’t get a say, so that’s why we started. Hopefully neighbourhood
planning will give us some say, people comment that we [the Parish Council] don’t
have any more power than an individual, so we want to have our voice listened to’
[Int. 68]
‘What we want to do … is to have genuine involvement of local people in planning
decisions, it’s just the sheer process of involvement’ [Int. 36]
‘We wanted to stop situations where we weren’t being listened to, and give the
community a voice.’ [Int. 3]
Also that:
‘[The] neighborhood plan… primarily dictates where the housing will go, what type
and size…local people want homes for younger people when they leave home and
older people to downsize. We want housing to be the right type, preferably in places
we like… [and control] phasing of construction - rather than have it all in one go’
[Int. 50].
‘The bottom line was to get the community to be involved in thinking about planning
policies for the future’ [Int. 18].
Interviewees were asked about whether their groups had considered other
planning and related tools as a means to achieve similar ends, or to pursue part
of their neighbourhood planning aims. The findings did not indicate any lack of
knowledge of other planning mechanisms, but there appear to be some tools
that are less familiar to neighbourhoods (see Table 3), or that were not
considered useful.
19
Respondent aware of tool
(percentage)
Planning Tool
Respondents (n)
Yes%
No%
Don’t
know%
Supplementary Planning Document
39
48
13
119
‘Article 4' Direction
24
44
33
119
Area Action Plan
26
52
21
117
Parish Plan
28
58
14
107
Note: Rounding has been applied (Base n= 119)
Cross tabulation was completed against those groups that were using, or were
considering using, their neighbourhood plan to allocate sites for development,
and their knowledge of other planning tools, to see if they had considered other
means to shape development type or location. Although there was little or no
correlation between the decision to allocate sites and knowledge of other
planning tools, further interviewee responses showed that:
 Supplementary Planning Documents were better known by those from
parishes compared to the forums;
 there was little difference in awareness of ‘Article 4’ directions by those
from parishes and forums;
 Area Action Plans were better known by those from forums.
Overall this provides a mixed picture of the awareness or knowledge of
alternative or complementary tools. It is logical that parishes should have more
knowledge of other planning tools, as they routinely engage with formal land use
planning as consultees. Also, although there was no significant correlation, those
with greater knowledge seemed more likely to be intending to allocate sites for
housing in their neighbourhood plan. Thus, while it cannot be claimed with any
certainty that other planning tools are well understood or had been carefully
considered by neighbourhood planning groups, this may indicate that the
decision to use neighbourhood planning relates to a primary aim of influencing
planning more directly. In effect some groups had made the decision to use
20
neighbourhood planning because of the control over the process and the
statutory weight a Neighbourhood Development Plan provides.
Given the availability of other neighbourhood planning tools, interviewees were
asked whether their group were aware of Neighbourhood Development Orders
(NDOs) and Community Right to Build Orders (CRtBO). The interviewees were
first asked whether they had heard of Neighbourhood Development Orders:
 61 per cent (72) interviewees said they had;
 14 per cent (17) had not; and
 A third group, 25 per cent (30) stated they had a vague knowledge of the
tool (n=119).
In terms of the awareness of Community Right to Build Orders, this was similar
to that of Neighbourhood Development Orders:
 60 per cent (71) asserting knowledge of CRtBOs, with;
 26 per cent (31) only vaguely so; and
 14 per cent (17) having not heard of Community Right to Build (n= 119)
It is further noted that only 5 of the sample had heard of one of the tools but
not the other (n=119).
When asked whether a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right
to Build Order was actually forming part of their neighbourhood planning
project:

For Neighbourhood Development Orders only one group (1) said ‘yes’, with
eight (8) others possibly looking to include an Order. Ninety-two (92) per
cent (110 groups) reported that they did not plan to use Neighbourhood
Development Orders.

For Community Right to Build Orders, 93 per cent of groups (111) were not
planning to use this mechanism. Only two (2) groups were using Community
Right to Build Orders and six (6) interviewees responded that this was a
possibility for their groups.
The interviewees who had indicated a lack of knowledge, were asked whether
they thought Neighbourhood Development Orders might be useful, given that
they give automatic planning permission for development that is consistent with
the Order. There was an even spread of replies, with 27 per cent (32) expressing
interest, 40 per cent (48) clearly saying ‘no’, and a further 33 per cent (40) who
were uncertain.
21
Of the respondents who felt it would be useful, or were unsure, 10 interviewees
stated that it was too soon for them to consider it. Of those not intending to use
this tool it was clear that they either felt it inappropriate for their
circumstances, or (almost 40%) did not know enough about Neighbourhood
Development Orders. This highlights a possible need to communicate and
promote this tool, as there appears to be little detailed knowledge or
understanding and possibly more latent interest than use.
Interviewees were also asked about Community Right to Build Orders (these are
a specific type of Neighbourhood Development Order that allows parish and town
councils and certain types of community organisations to grant planning
permission for development8). Forty per cent (48) did not regard Community
Right to Build Orders as useful, leaving 24 per cent (29) who did and 36 per cent
(43) who were not sure about their application.
In terms of whether their organisation was legally able to develop a Community
Right to Build Order proposal, eight (8) per cent (10 groups) indicated that they
were and 82 per cent (98) did not know. This left a small group of ten (10) per
cent (12 groups) who claimed not to be eligible. It was explained by some
respondents that they did not feel that the option of a Community Right to Build
Order was suitable or appropriate. Of those who may consider it at some point,
they had either not considered it in full, or said that it was ‘too soon’ to have
contemplated using this tool.
The above indicates the need for further exploratory work on the communication
of these tools. This might result in greater promotion, encouragement, or more
accessible information. It is also possible that there is a need for reflection on
the design of these tools, however this can only be determined if a greater
number report an understanding of the tool, but still choose not to use them.
8
The CRtBO tool may be used for example to enable affordable housing or other small scale development, see: http://mycommunityrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LOCALITY-BUILD_UNDERSTANDING.pdf (correct as of 01/07/14)
22
This section reports a general view from the groups on their overall experience
of neighbourhood planning, before moving on to examine aspects of
neighbourhood planning in more detail in sections 3.4 to 3.6).
The interviewees (n=119) were asked: “has neighbourhood planning proved to
be what your group expected?” Fifty seven per cent of parishes and 53 per cent
of forums (average 56 per cent, totalling 66 groups) thought that it was broadly
as expected, 44 per cent thought not (see Table 4).
Given that some of the sample had not progressed to the latter stages of
neighbourhood planning this may underline a need to clarify the scope and
details of neighbourhood planning to entrants or those considering it. Indeed
when asked to explain whether neighbourhood planning had proved to be what
the group expected, many asserted that it involved more work than anticipated
and more bureaucracy, both of which are consistent with the findings around the
burdens issue highlighted later. Fourteen interviewees claimed that, while it has
been hard, they entered into the process with this understanding. Eight
interviewees felt that neighbourhood planning has not delivered as much power
or control as expected. A small group of those indicating ‘don’t know’ felt that
it was too early to make that type of judgement.
Neighbourhood Planning - as expected? (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Yes%
No%
Don't Know%
Parish
57
27
16
70
Forum
53
24
22
49
Note: Table excludes 1 respondent who felt it was too early to make a comment.
Rounding has been applied (Base n=119)
When assessed against whether the Qualifying Bodies had reported that the local
authority was supportive, most of those who had experienced a ‘supportive’ or
‘very supportive’ local authority thought that neighbourhood planning was as
expected. Cross-tabulation confirmed that the use of consultants was not
23
significant in this regard. This appears to show that a supportive local authority
is part of the expectation of groups undertaking neighbourhood planning.
In terms of early and later adopters, there was a clearer alignment between
expectation and experience amongst the later adopting groups. This could be an
indication of how knowledge of the neighbourhood planning process is
developing over time. There were mixed views about what to expect of
neighbourhood planning and what the interviewees had experienced. However,
of the 66 interviewees that stated that neighbourhood planning was as expected,
a significant number (74 per cent), indicated that it was not as burdensome as
they had first thought (see also Annex A, Tables A and B).
Respondents were asked: “how did the process go (overall)?” For the clear
majority of groups, 91 per cent (n= 120) the process went ‘well’ or ‘OK’ (see
Table 5 below) and in general terms, those pursuing neighbourhood planning
were navigating the system reasonably well. The ‘not so well’ category responses
(and the ‘OK’) indicate that there are various issues faced by groups, and are
explored here, and below in section 3.4 across the neighbourhood planning
stages. In some cases where respondents indicated ‘OK’ they had managed to
overcome challenges either themselves or with assistance from the local
authority or consultants.
Overall Process (Percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well%
OK%
Not So Well%
Parish
40
54
6
70
Forum
36
51
13
50
(Base n=120)
The proportion of parished areas and forums indicating that the process went
well, or OK, overall, suggests that many of the issues tackled had been overcome
in some way, using resources available. Furthermore, some respondents reported
that obstacles were perhaps to be expected given the nature of plan-making
process and the voluntary dimension that characterises neighbourhood planning.
Of the 11 groups indicating that the process had not gone so well, a key theme
reported was that the process had been much harder and more time consuming
than expected. All of these respondents indicated that the process was
24
burdensome. This position (on expected level of burden) was shared by a wider
group of respondents (see Section 4 and Annex A, Tables C, D and E).
When the overall experience of the neighbourhood planning process was crosstabulated with views on the level of support received from a local planning
authority, the support provided did not appear to significantly affect the groups’
views of the process overall. This may suggest that the issues lay as much with
the process itself and/or the capacities within the core group, or wider
community, and the assistance that others such as consultants provided (Annex
A, Table C).
Forty-six per cent of respondents reported that their local authority was
supportive. Of these groups all indicated that the process had gone ‘well’ or
‘OK’. However, for many groups (62) there was some degree of difficulty,
although only a small number (11) reported that the process had ‘not gone so
well’. As such, it is reasonable to assume that other challenges beyond the local
authority were present and associated with neighbourhood planning. The
findings on overall satisfaction with the process were cross-tabulated against
Local Plan status, against early/later adopting areas and against area deprivation
as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) ranking to see if these
made a difference. None of those revealed any significant pattern.
Interviewees were prompted for particular points about what had gone well in
the process so far. Respondents typically highlighted that working as a team, and
the associated engagement and relationship building in the community, and
partnership with the local authority was positive, as highlighted by these
selected quotes:
“The general collective willingness to do something together” [Int. 65]
“A commonality of purpose, where people are prepared to work together from
distinct communities” [Int. 67]
“Recognising that there is a huge public interest – 100 per cent of the 350 people
who responded stated that they are interested in planning matters [Int. 76]
The achievement of reaching key stages in the neighbourhood planning process
e.g. successfully getting a neighbourhood area designated, or producing a draft
Plan, were highlighted by some as providing motivation and encouragement for
them to continue.
25
Interviewees were asked an open question about whether there had been other
consequences that had resulted from starting to develop a Neighbourhood
Development Plan, Neighbourhood Development Order or Community Right to
Build Order:

Seven respondents stated that the community were more knowledgeable, and
able to question the local authority more effectively after being involved in
neighbourhood planning for some time.

Four respondents indicated that they had been able to engage in positive
discussions with developers to bring forward proposals in their area.

Eight respondents mentioned developing stronger personal relationships and
knowledge of the neighbourhood area.

A small number of groups took the opportunity to stress that neighbourhood
planning is ‘the right thing to do’ in principle, and that a clearer message
about the value and benefits of neighbourhood planning was needed from
central government.
In seeking detail about whether the process overall so far had been more or less
burdensome than expected, a majority 72 per cent (86) indicated that it had
been more burdensome, with 23 per cent (27) reporting it was less burdensome
than expected. The remaining six interviewees were unsure (n=119).
Table 6 demonstrates the split across forums and parishes and their perceptions
of the burdens involved in neighbourhood planning.
Was the burden greater than expected?
(percentage)
Yes%
No%
26
Respondents
Don't Know%
(n)
Parish
72
23
5
69
Forum
72
22
6
50
Note: Table excluded one respondent who felt unable to answer. (Base n=119)
For the majority, who indicated that the process was more burdensome than
expected, the issues centred on concerns about not having clear enough
guidance, with one respondent highlighting that trying to plan around what was
described as a ‘moving target’ had proved difficult. Other issues mentioned here
included:
 A greater increase in development pressures than had been expected, or
prior to neighbourhood planning starting;
 Changes in national planning policy, specifically changes to the permitted
development rights relating to changes of use;
 Local Plan status affecting their ability to proceed;
 Planning applications being considered during the neighbourhood plan
writing process (which, if accepted, would change the focus/purpose of the
neighbourhood plan, introduce delay and mean having to rewrite the Plan
accordingly).
 The nature of the task, and the requirements of the local authority were also
cited by four interviewees.
Overall, respondents appeared to have expected neighbourhood planning to be
quite burdensome. The explanations offered about the nature of burdens related
to:
 The unforeseen effort/time involved (53);
 Specifically writing planning policies was difficult;
 Changing advice, and policy locally and nationally, was seen as a problem by
a similarly small number (4);

The difficulty in conveying the process, and associated issues, to the
community for several groups.
For four areas, some of the burden was said to have been alleviated by strategic
use of consultant support.
27
In seeking to assess ambitions for the neighbourhood plan, interviewees were
asked whether the scope of the neighbourhood plan had become more or less
ambitious over time, and whether or not they were seeking to allocate sites for
development within their plans. The breakdown of ambition against stage
reached and in terms of groups changing their ambition or the scope of their
plan, indicates that during the process of working on the Plan aspirations had
altered:

Thirty-two per cent (38) of the respondents stated that their ambition had
increased since initiating their neighbourhood plan;

while 13 per cent (16) had become less ambitious; and

Forty-eight per cent (58) had stayed within their initial scope of ambition
[n=120].
Respondents were slightly more likely to have increased their ambitions over
time where they were from later adopting groups. No evidence for a relationship
between changes in ambition and perceived support from the local authority was
found.
When asked to explain reasons for a change in their ambitions, some respondents
(10), claimed that planning constraints, or a frustration with planning rules or
local policy had an impact on them. Some groups (12) had increased their vision
because they had learnt more about the process and possible opportunities
available. Seven others, who had identified issues within the community that
they were not aware of previously, stated that although they added elements to
their Plan it did not affect their ambition.
Where ambitions had decreased, eight interviewees claimed that neighbourhood
planning was more limited than they had initially thought. Workload implications
had apparently acted to temper ambition in six cases. In a few cases respondents
acknowledged that their views were not necessarily those held by the wider
community and consequent adjustments to the initial scope or orientation of the
Plan, or its intent, were deemed necessary. Ten interviewees stated it was too
early to say at that point.
Respondents were also asked to explain what they thought they would ultimately
achieve. The key thing that emerged was to influence local planning and
development. This reinforces comments above about what had prompted
neighbourhood planning activity. A few interviewees indicated that there was
28
some uncertainty over how or whether this would materialise. Other notable
aims mentioned here were:

To introduce their own policies;

To improve infrastructure; and

To keep green spaces.
Some interviewees also indicated a range of other, more specific, items that
they hoped to achieve through their Plan that related to local circumstances,
and need, such as encouraging particular services and housing types.
All interviewees (n=120) were asked about their intentions concerning the use of
their Plan to allocate development sites for homes. Of all the groups interviewed
58 per cent were definitely seeking to allocate sites for housing in their Plan and
a further 17 per cent may allocate sites for housing (see Table 7). Table 7 shows
the breakdown between parishes and forums.
Allocating Sites for Homes (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Allocating Sites%
Might Allocate
Sites%
Not Allocating
Sites%
Parish
62
6
33
70
Forum
52
32
16
50
Note: rounding has been applied (Base n= 120)
Interviewees were asked how community relationships had changed through the
neighbourhood planning process. Relationships were thought to have improved
in almost half of the areas, with no substantive change reported in many others.
Only a very few (six areas) thought that relations had got worse.
Respondents were asked to expand on their responses and suggest improvements
to relationship building. The main ideas expressed concerned increasing
awareness and interest, as well as educating more people about planning and
the neighbourhood planning process.
29
In only one case were the topics to be included in the neighbourhood plan seen
to be a source of internal division, and this was seen as causing a worsened
relationship between the steering group and the wider community (Annex A,
Table F).
Respondents were asked: “Is the neighbourhood planning process proportionate
to your aims?” This yielded a strong feeling among the respondents that the
process was proportionate (see Table 8). Sixty per cent (71) of respondents
considered the process proportionate against 20 per cent (24) who thought it
was not, and a further 20 per cent (24) who were not sure (n=119).
The most common responses by those that thought it was proportionate related
to a recognition that a statutory plan needed be thorough. Others who felt it had
been disproportionate thought that the process is intrinsically time consuming
and there may be a degree of ‘gold-plating’ in the way that neighbourhood
planning is set-up. This appears to support the views expressed in relation to the
perceived burdensome nature of neighbourhood planning described above.
Is the neighbourhood planning process proportionate to
your aims? (percentage)
Respondents
(n)
Yes%
No%
Don't Know%
Parish
65
23
12
69
Forum
54
17
30
50
Note: Table excludes one respondent who felt they could not appropriately answer. Rounding applied
(Base n=119)
Attitudes to this question were examined to see if they were different when
using consultants to support the process. Some 69 per cent (82) of the sample
had used consultants, and 31 per cent (37) had not. There appeared to be no
significant difference in attitude regarding proportionality. Similarly there was
no clear relationship between proportionality and Local Plan status, local
authority support or group capacity.
30
Respondents were prompted on what might be done to make neighbourhood
planning more attractive to communities. While 39 per cent (44) of interviewees
responded that a faster process may make neighbourhood planning more
attractive to communities, many appreciated the time it takes to build
relationships and momentum within a community (i.e. ‘it cannot be rushed’) and
there was a concern among a small group of interviewees that, if the process is
made faster, then care would need to be taken not to allow the quality to
decrease (see Table 9). As such, some respondents were cautious about this
question and 12 felt the need to comment that they appreciated the importance
of thoroughness and ‘robustness’ e.g. faster neighbourhood planning but not if
quality was eroded. The quotes below indicate the rationale for this. There was
a theme across the responses however that there needed to be more clarity in
the process aided by templates, independent advice and consultant input.
“Our feeling is that we want to take it slowly. Don’t move faster than the
community” [Int. 16]
“Couldn’t be done faster - would put extra pressure on volunteers’ [Int. 39]
“Can do things faster but not in as much depth” [Int. 54]
“Would say timeframe driven by all sorts of peculiarities, skill sets etc.” [Int. 95]
In common with other responses reported elsewhere in the survey, clearer
guidance was seen as a tool to speed-up neighbourhood planning. Other items
cited were removing/speeding-up, or combining, the Neighbourhood Forum and
Neighbourhood Area designation stages (18) and associated consultations (9).
The six week period for consultation on applications for a neighbourhood forum
to be designated was seen as too long, and the need to consult on both Area and
Forum applications was seen as unnecessary.
There was a view expressed across several different questions as to the need to
review and ensure adequate resources, funding and overall support was available
to groups wanting to produce a neighbourhood plan. This may reflect the more
general finding that the majority of groups have found the process challenging
and have needed support from a variety of sources to progress their Plans.
When asked about what might be done to make neighbourhood planning more
attractive to communities, various suggestions were made. There seemed to be
few clear elements that were seen as important, rather, all the aspects
31
highlighted were seen to be valuable to some degree (see Table 9). This could
be read as a general appreciation that, while these elements of information are
available and useful, they could either be improved, extended or better
promoted.
Item
Percentage
Respondents
(n)
Better explanation of process
49
56
More face-to-face support
44
50
More shared learning/peer support
41
46
Faster process
39
44
Better explanation of range of simplicity/comprehensiveness
possible in Neighbourhood Development Plans
38
43
4
4
58
69
Nothing / too hard to say
Other*
Note: Interviewees could select more than one item and make further points in the ‘other’ category
(Base n=113)
When examining whether the areas identified for improvement varied by early
or later adopters there was no discernible difference.
When asked to reflect on their overall experiences, and make suggestions on how
perceived burdens could be eased, respondents reported that having a greater
understanding of the effort required, and the scope of neighbourhood planning,
at the beginning of the process was needed. Respondents also commented that
many local authorities could be more proactive in encouraging neighbourhood
planning in their area. One interpretation of the latter point is that a more
formal partnership with the local planning authority should be considered,
possibly through a memorandum of understanding. This point was discussed in
the focus groups (see section 4).
Many other points were raised on neighbourhood planning overall. These tend to
reinforce responses made by interviewees elsewhere, including:
32






Clearer guidance and toolkits on drafting neighbourhood plans;
More nuanced funding arrangements to reflect need, circumstance and type
of inputs needed, along with clarity on accessing available resources
(centrally and locally);
The need for (direct) support on neighbourhood planning, either from the
local authority or a third party;
Increase the public awareness of neighbourhood planning, driven from
central government and Local Authorities;
More locally based support and knowledge;
Access to mediation (i.e. between the local authority and neighbourhood
planning group, and possibly the local authority to act as the mediator where
there are divisions within the community).
Respondents were asked to reflect on what aspects of the neighbourhood
planning process overall could be clarified or accelerated. Ideas related to the
simplification of neighbourhood planning to ensure that it is easily understood.
This elicited a useful group of points, and possible actions, a number of which
repeated earlier comments (see above). These included:






Raising awareness of neighbourhood planning generally;
Increasing understanding about the work involved at the beginning of the
process;
Being clear about the benefits, scope and limits of Neighbourhood Planning;
Production of a toolkit and appropriate guidance (this was raised across all
stages);
Developing the basis for the neighbourhood planning group and the local
authority to work together i.e. the relationship was raised (linking to
suggestions for memorandum of understanding);
Clarification on the relationship between an emerging neighbourhood plan
and an emerging Local Plan.
The interviewees were asked what, if any, other changes could usefully be made
to improve or simplify neighbourhood planning overall. There was an overall
frustration expressed from nine groups at not really knowing what needed to be
done through the stages. A small number of interviewees said that experience
of neighbourhood planning will grow and it is important to store and share this.
Many interviewees wanted to have clearer guidance and templates, and simple
overall guides were requested. There was a mix of views expressed about the
consultant role versus efforts to make neighbourhood planning accessible and
navigable for lay people.
33
Interviewees were asked to reflect on how the different stages of neighbourhood
planning had gone for them, beginning with the designation stages. In order to
understand the experience of the various stages, respondents were asked to
reflect on these stages as they were applicable to their group. The main focus
was on neighbourhood plans, given that the vast majority of areas are producing
these. Specific questions were posed on Neighbourhood Development Orders and
Community Right to Build Orders separately, as set out in section 3.2.4 above.
All the interviewees were asked about how well the process of applying for a
neighbourhood area designation had gone (see Table 10). The majority did not
experience significant issues indicating it had gone ‘well’ or ‘OK’ (81% of n=71).
In looking at the differences between parished areas and forums, many
respondents from parished areas did not think the question was relevant to
them. Notably, only 21 respondents were able to respond. It was therefore not
possible to pursue this further. That the parished areas felt area designation
went well or was not relevant to them may be largely due to the fact that
parishes already have well established geographical boundaries.
Fifty-six per cent of forums responded that they felt this stage went well.
The above highlights that a majority handled this stage effectively. However, in
this group the largest issue reported was delay in the process, with the local
authority being considered to be too slow.
Area Designation Process (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well%
OK%
Not So Well%
Parish
81
0
19
21
Forum
56
25
18
50
Note: Table excludes respondents who did not take part in the neighbourhood area designation process.
Rounding applied (Base n=71)
34
There were no strong geographical differences found, but the designation of a
neighbourhood area was slightly more challenging for some groups in London
compared to elsewhere.
Where delays were referred to the reasons for the delays overall were varied
and included: the number of regulations to be aware of, the lack of information
deemed to available, and obstruction or perceived obstruction by some local
authorities (Table 11). This was seen as being exacerbated by a lack of
communication by the local authority, and a feeling within communities that
local authorities had no obligation to respond in a timely manner.
It was stated by a few interviewees that the local authority had been new to the
process and was unable to provide information about the rules associated with
area designation. The research could not elaborate on these points further;
however when responses were cross-tabulated against perception of local
authority support, there was a clear relationship between the two.
Although some groups appear to have managed even where there was no
support, or in a few cases where the local authority were seen as obstructive
(see Table 11), overall the presence and quality of local authority support
appears to have affected the perception of how the designation stage had
progressed.
Area Designation process (percentage)
Local Authority
Support
(percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well
OK
Not So Well
Very Supportive
75
13
13
32
Somewhat Supportive
50
38
12
26
No Support
67
0
33
6
Obstructive
43
0
57
7
Note: Table excludes respondents who did not take part in the area designation process. Rounding
applied (Base n=71)
35
When asked what might be improved or simplified in this stage, the most
significant responses related to clarifying the guidance and regulations for
neighbourhood planning and finding ways to speed-up the process. When asked
to consider how to achieve this, interviewees wanted the local authorities to be
more responsive and active in neighbourhood planning generally, as well as
reiterating the need to improve guidance on this aspect of planning.
Of the 71 respondents who had taken part in the process of designation, (other
respondents had not taken part in the area designation process), the majority
valued the support available and considered it to be excellent or good (Table
12).
However, 19 per cent (13 cases) of the sample asserted that there was no advice
on this aspect of neighbourhood planning. This appears to give weight to the idea
of further development of advice and support, both centrally and locally, given
that such support could help unblock or expedite neighbourhood planning for
groups who ‘stall’ at this early stage.
Quality of Advice on Area Designation (percentage)
Respondents
(n)
Excellent%
Good%
Satisfactory%
Poor%
Not
Available%
Parish
13
31
38
0
19
19
Forum
32
34
8
8
19
50
BI Table excludes respondents who did not take part in the area designation process and those who
responded don’t know (Base n=71).
Overall the evidence gathering phase was deemed to be relatively smooth. 93
per cent (89) of the groups who had undertaken this stage indicated it had been
completed ‘well’ or ‘OK’. Only seven (7) respondents indicated that the process
had not gone so well (n=96). Where there were difficulties, the main issues
identified were related to not knowing what evidence was required and where
to get the evidence from (see Table 13).
36
Evidence Gathering Process (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well%
OK%
Not So Well%
Parish
76
17
8
66
Forum
63
30
7
30
Note: Table excludes respondents have not reached the evidence gathering stage.
Rounding applied (Base n=96).
Overall, the finding that this aspect went smoothly for most groups is somewhat
surprising given other feedback concerning lack of consultation templates and
uncertainty about proportionate evidence. In looking to see if there was a
correlation between problems at the evidence gathering stage and the Local Plan
status (given that where the Local Plan is in place it could be hypothesised that
the Local Plan and local planning authority could assist with relevant evidence
for the neighbourhood plan), no link was apparent. Those who thought that this
stage was more straightforward cited how they had drawn on existing evidence
and had used consultants to assist with the work.
Delays or problems with assembling evidence for the neighbourhood plan was
seen as relating to a general lack of resources, time and volunteers. Knowledge
and understanding on the part of other partners was also seen as an important
issue that slowed progress, in that inputs and knowledge were needed from the
local authority (for information, help with evidence and general guidance on this
aspect), as well as from others. When asked why there were issues with
assembling evidence, the source of the problem was seen by five respondents as
‘not knowing what was needed’. Three indicated that some evidence from the
census or other sources did not disaggregate down to the neighbourhood level.
Of those interviewees who felt that this stage needed to be changed (13 groups
in total), toolkits, templates and a range of comments, unified by a theme
relating to training, information and advice on evidence gathering, were cited.
When broken down this involved:




The need for clear instructions;
Improving the clarity of advice overall and resolving conflicting advice;
Making evidence and other statistical information on the area more readily
available; and
Reviewing the role of the local authority (under the ‘duty to support’).
37
A network of neighbourhood planning professionals (with access to professional
planners) was suggested by one interviewee in order to share good practice.
Among the groups that had reached this stage, the majority (92 per cent) thought
that the plan-writing phase had gone either ‘well’ or ‘OK’ (65 groups). Only six
(6) indicated that it had not gone so well (Table 14).
Plan writing process (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well%
OK%
Not So Well%
Parish
53
38
9
53
Forum
50
44
6
18
Note: Table excludes respondents who had not reached the plan writing stage (Base n=71)
When checking to see how many of the groups that had drawn on consultants to
assist with this task had encountered problems, a small number of groups using
a consultant indicated that they experienced problems (see also Annex A, Tables
G and H).
If it is assumed (based on the fact that there was a ‘well’ category available)
that those who reported the plan writing stage as ‘OK’, experienced some
difficulties in the process (along with four respondents who reported that it had
‘not gone well’) then, those who were allocating sites for housing did have more
difficulty compared to those not allocating sites for housing. However, given that
interviewees had indicated ‘OK’, also suggests that whilst there were some
challenges these were overcome.
Interviewees were also asked about specific delays or problems with writing the
neighbourhood plan and the responses covered a variety of issues. Leading
factors cited included:
 Dealing with amendments after the pre-submission publicity and consultation
stage;
 A lack of planning knowledge;
 Translating community aspirations into ‘planning language’.
38
Organisational obstacles were also cited, one respondent reported that getting
the whole team to write together and agree was an issue. Some groups had relied
on consultant input, or found the stage problematic due to a lack of skills. The
indicative quotes below highlight how or why some areas specifically
encountered difficulty with plan writing:
We were delayed by a change in consultants” [nt. 1]
“The community just haven’t got the expertise” [Int. 5]
“The biggest problem is lack of expertise” [Int. 6]
“Trying to plan on a moving target has proved impossible” [Int. 59]
Those who did not see any significant issue at this stage cited the use of
consultants as a useful resource to progress the Plan. When prompted,
interviewees also saw the following as relevant issues, which largely relate to
time constraints, delays and questions of drafting of the neighbourhood plan:
 Experiencing delays due to waiting until the Local Plan (Core Strategy) is/was
adopted;
 Lack of time to be trained;



The perception that planning documents are difficult and complicated;
Difficulty of writing policy documents that people would be able to read and
understand at the referendum stage; and
It being hard work to present the Plan in an acceptable way (i.e. for the local
authority/Independent Examiner).
Interviewees were asked about how these issues could be addressed.
Respondents asked for improved guidance on writing plans, and there was a
widely held view that there should be proformas or templates available. There
was also a wish to have more clarity on what supporting documents are required.
Suggestions were made on improvement or simplification that included having a
proforma for a Plan available at the beginning of the process and having access
to standard policies. These were sometimes linked to developing a clearer
structure and having illustrations of what Independent Examiners are looking for
in submitted Plans. The use of consultants in the early stages of plan writing was
highlighted as helpful by a small group and this was actively advocated by three
(3) interviewees. Respondents also generally felt a need for planning skills and
for professional input. However, there were some qualms about this, as
indicated below:
39
“Communities need significant assistance translating ideas and theory to the Plan
and planning language” [Int. 1]
“Guidance implies we can put a broader range of things in the Plan than in reality
you can…support would have speeded it up immensely” [Int. 72]
“Whole process is designed for professionals; outside our scope” [Int. 57]
“I think if the residents are to understand it, there needs to be a local writing it.”
[Int. 20]
Interviewees were asked about their experience of the consultation and
community engagement elements. Overall this was viewed very positively (only
one respondent indicated that it had not gone well, see Table 15).
However, this stage was viewed as being slightly more difficult by some forum
areas. The main issue reported, when prompted, was that little or no advice
about community engagement was received. However, others stated that not a
lot of advice was required. Several sources of advice were mentioned explicitly,
including Planning Aid England, the relevant rural community council and the
Local Planning Authority.
Consultation Process (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well%
OK%
Not So Well%
Parish
86
12
2
57
Forum
71
29
0
24
Note: Table excludes respondents who had not reached the consultation phase (Base n=81)
When asked how guidance on engagement and consultation could be improved,
only a few interviewees made suggestions for improvement. These included a
request for simple guidance or templates to help with consulting on the draft
neighbourhood plan.
40
A few also suggested how this stage might be simplified, and it was recognised
by this small minority of respondents that it was important to ensure that
residents took part and the neighbourhood plan documents were readable for
the lay person. Several respondents said that it was important to keep a record
of all consultation events from the beginning to avoid work at a later date.
A few interviewees perceived that they had wasted some time here as they had
not realised this was an important task in order to evidence the process. These
findings reinforce a wider point about the importance of clear guidance
generally.
The task of preparing accompanying documents that must be submitted with the
draft neighbourhood plan was investigated with the 43 areas who considered this
relevant.
Of the areas who had dealt with this stage, 58 per cent (25) groups saw the basic
condition statement as navigable, with a group of only 11 who thought it was
difficult or very difficult. Of the same group, 77 per cent (33) thought that the
statement of community consultation had been manageable or better, leaving
ten who had struggled. In exploring this topic in relation to use of consultants,
it was found that:
i. The Basic Condition Statement:
 Of the 25 respondents that saw the basic condition statement as ‘easy or
manageable’, 20 had used a consultant;
 Of the 11 respondents that saw the basic condition statement as ‘very
difficult or difficult’, nine had employed a consultant.
ii. The Statement of Community Consultation:


Of the 33 respondents that saw the statement of community consultation
as ‘easy or manageable’, 26 had employed a consultant;
Of the 11 respondents that saw the statement of community consultation
as ‘very difficult or difficult’, nine had employed a consultant.
41
Overall this question did not elicit many strong views, with mixed views of the
local authority performance in support of the post-submission publicity element.
The publicity process for the draft Plan was seen as relevant by all the eleven
respondents, (see Table 16).
Publicity Process (percentage)
Respondents
(n)
Very Well%
Not So Well%
Parish
75
25
8
Forum
67
33
3
Note: Table excludes respondents who had not reached the publicity phase.
Rounding applied (Base n=11)
Interviewees elaborated on this aspect of neighbourhood planning in the
following ways:
“The District Council should have sent a circular, rather than rely on us and the
website. Should have got literature out through the postal system” [Int. 57]
“Borough Council helped a little. 90% was down to the group. Things could be
improved; would have been useful to have had Borough Council Public Relations
department involved” [Int. 64]
“We broached how we wanted it and the Local Planning Authority were happy for us
to do it with them paying for it.” [Int. 105]
“The Council [Local Authority] were fine, I don't know if we’re doing their work for
them or not” [Int. 34]
Where they had reached this stage in the plan making process, interviewees were
asked about how the process of examination had proceeded. Thirteen qualifying
bodies asserted that they had sufficient experience to be able to respond to this.
A mixed picture emerged from this small group.
Of the thirteen responding, eleven had actually reached this stage; ten thought
the stage had gone satisfactorily and three reported that it had not gone so well.
42
When prompted about delays or problems, the response was that nine of the
thirteen had experienced some delays or problems with the examination.
Problems identified or anticipated were:
 The interpretation by the Independent Examiner of policies in their Plan;
 The local authority being slow and in one case a delay was caused by the
local authority protocols in the run up to local elections (sometimes referred
to as the purdah period);
In one (1) other case developers had applied for a judicial review of a decision
which was seen as delaying tactics.
Due to the relatively small number of respondents, it was difficult to draw any
clear conclusions about the relationship between the experience of examination
and other characteristics of the areas. A selection of those who thought that the
process went ‘OK’ or ‘not so well’ commented as follows:
“We’re still chasing the Local Authority on this again to get back to us” [Int. 27]
“It was promised to us end of April, but haven’t heard - have problem with referendum
regulations - because of local elections councillors can’t get involved (purdah).” [Int.
48]
“Just seemed to take a long time, not sure why” [Int. 52]
“Independent examination is one area where the process is extremely weak… It took
a lot longer than we thought” [Int. 55]
“The interpretation the Examiner has put on the planning context of the
neighbourhood Plan and the conclusions and amendments required us to make
changes to take forward and hasn’t left us with much of a Plan.” [Int. 57]
When asked whether they thought that the requirements to pass an Independent
Examination were proportionate to the ambitions of their neighbourhood plan,
a larger group of 31 felt able to answer, based on observations, discussion and
preparation for this stage. Seventy-seven per cent of these respondents (24)
thought it was proportionate to the ambitions of their Plan. Many groups were
happy with existing regulations and mentioned that the process was clear and
rigorous. Only seven groups disagreed.
43
Respondents were then asked to suggest what might be improved or simplified
here. Given that only a small number had passed through this stage care must,
however, be taken with the responses. The only issue mentioned by more than
one interviewee, was the issue of interpretation of policy. Other suggested
improvements or simplifications included:

Clarification of timescales and obligations of the local authority to respond;
and

Simplified guidance on the examination stage and ability of the examiner to
discuss their thinking directly with neighbourhood planning groups.
The quotes below indicate the reasoning for the improvements suggested above.
One of the quotes also highlights a lack of understanding of what happens when
and if a plan fails at examination stage:
“We know what we have to do to satisfy the Examiner… Suggest putting all
information into a simple form and in one place” [Int. 1]
“I think the light touch is a good thing, but it’s daunting spending a long time
working on it. The big question is where do you go if it fails? You’re going to make a
lot of people unhappy if nothing happens I think” [Int. 4]
“We tried to cover issues (such as licensing) that maybe we couldn’t do, but the
advice is that they think it needs to come out and go into the appendices – some
things weren’t allowed in there. Perhaps this is something we should have been told
before” [Int. 41]
“The Examiner chose not to have a hearing or contact the group at all. Ended up
with a report that was accepted in the end, but had the Examiner taken the effort
to ask about evidence base we could have provided additional data. …need to issue
guidance to Independent Examiners that they are not acting in the role of a planning
inspector, they are looking to consult if necessary with communities whose plan they
are examining…” [Int. 55]
“The way I read them – they’re interpretable – they are too slanted toward the Local
Authorities – there’s not enough on Local Authority timescales for getting things
done, they can sit on their hands if they want – if you want to get in ahead of the
Local Plan for example, and there should be more guidance on general conformity’
[Int. 116]
44
In terms of making the plan, the research did not discuss this with interviewees
in any detail, given that so few had passed through that stage of neighbourhood
planning. One parished area and one forum interviewed had successfully created
a neighbourhood plan and both had reached this point through the use of
consultants. Relevant quotes from these groups are as follows:
“The Local Authority and us have had quite an open relationship, I don’t think that’s
what needs changing; it’s the planning system that’s the frustrating bit…We are
proud of ourselves for being early and urban and not taking too much notice of other
groups, I think some other groups worry too much about what other groups are
doing…it’s about keeping awareness and a sense energy” [Int. 15]
“The District Council [Local Authority] was resistant… only way the burden could be
alleviated is to have a greater physical presence on the part of DCLG - it’s good to
have someone on the phone, but having someone on the ground would be great. They
ought to be visiting every neighbourhood frequently. I understand this is a question
of resources” [Int. 52]
When looking at the substantive stages together several themes emerged from
the interviewee’s experience. Suggestions for change at the key stages can be
summarised as follows:
a. Area designation: delay from the local authority was seen as holding matters
up for a minority of the sample, as well as a plea being made to clarify
guidance on how to implement area designation more smoothly.
b. Evidence gathering: for some, delays or problems with assembling evidence
for the neighbourhood plan was seen as relating to a general lack of
resources, time and volunteers. Several interviewees indicated that some
evidence was not available and toolkits and templates were cited as ideas to
help with this stage.
c. Plan-writing: respondents asked for improved guidance on writing plans and
there was a widely held view that there should be proformas or templates
available. Secondarily, there was a wish to have more clarity on what
supporting documents were required. Suggestions were made about
improvement or simplification that included having a proforma for a
neighbourhood development plan available at the beginning of the process
and having access to standard policies.
45
d. Community engagement, consultation and publicity: this went well for
most groups but it was noted that little advice or guidance on community
engagement was available. Further advice and guidance on this dimension of
neighbourhood planning was recognised as being useful.
e. Examination stage: clarification of timescales and obligations of the local
authority to respond, alongside the production of simplified guidance on the
examination stage, and the opportunity for the examiner to discuss thinking
directly with neighbourhood planning groups, were all suggested.
f. Neighbourhood Referendum: the main issue identified for this stage was not
highlighted in the interviews, but was raised by focus group participants (see
section 4) and this related to clarification on publicity and campaigning in
support of a neighbourhood plan in the run up to the referendum.
Interviewees were asked a number of questions relating to the participants
involved in producing the Plan. The intention was to elicit understanding about
the capacity, skills and expertise of the groups preparing neighbourhood plans.
Some respondents indicated that local authority help had been an important part
in enabling progress for the neighbourhood planning group. For 16 respondents
there were key people in the community who drove things forward, often with
key skills or professional backgrounds. Having a strong volunteer base generally
and piggybacking on prior work (in particular Village Design Statements and
parish plans) was seen as useful in 15 cases, although not necessarily as an
instigating factor but in providing a platform. Equally, the ability to draw on
external resources, including local authority time, was highlighted by 20
interviewees, and consultancy time was rated as important by seven
interviewees (n=118). While able to draw on a wider pool of volunteers, the
coordination and production of the neighbourhood plan tended to rest on the
shoulders of a relatively small number of people (core team), regardless of the
number who were active in some way.
The factors which were reported as having inhibited progress and which were
associated with the internal dynamics of the neighbourhood planning group are
set out in Table 17.
46
Factor
Number (freq.)
People leaving the group
29
Disagreements over content or approach
26
Lack of time, resources and skills
22
Conflicts of interest
8
Tension over developments
7
Neighbourhood planning not achieving aspirations
4
Keeping momentum/interest
4
Individuals with own agenda
3
None
50
Note: respondents were able to select more than one option (Base n=120)
Table 17 indicates that in a considerable number of groups there have been
internal issues that have may have been reasons for the process taking longer.
The top three inhibiting factors were: changes in group composition (29);
internal disagreements (26); and a lack of capacity or expertise within the steering group (22) (see also 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 below).
Interviewees were asked whether the Qualifying Body had the capacity to pursue
multiple tasks or stages of neighbourhood planning in parallel (hypothetically, a
planning group could pursue designation processes while already embarking on
community engagement).
Interestingly, this result highlighted that 50 per cent of groups (59) had already
acted to do this, as far as they perceived current rules allowed. A further group
of 17 thought that they could do so. This left a subset of 36 per cent (42) who
thought not, or who were uncertain (n=118).
Groups that had pursued more than one stage in parallel simultaneously had done
so by setting-up multiple working groups. This enabled parallel working, but does
require a larger number of willing and skilled volunteers. This may account for
47
some of the groups who argued that they could not do this due to lack of experience and resources. Some preferred to be sequential in their approach.
Table 18 indicates that among the groups who had used consultants, there is
some evidence that they thought it more likely to see fast or multi-tracking of
work as being possible. Sixty seven per cent (54 respondents) thought this was
possible (n=118).
Ability to Multi-Task (percentage)
No% Don't know%
Respondents
(n)
Have done
this%
Yes
Possibly%
No consultant(s)
used
35
24
30
11
37
Consultant(s)
used
57
10
30
4
81
Note: Table excludes respondents who felt they could not appropriately answer.
Rounding applied (Base n=118)
While the above indicates that the use of consultants raises confidence in
progressing neighbourhood planning more quickly or efficiently, there is an issue
to be reflected upon about a possible tension between community ‘ownership’
of the process and the Plan, and efficiencies made possible by the use of
consultants. This was raised in the focus groups (see Section 4).
Respondents were asked to consider what skills and knowledge were held in their
neighbourhood planning group, which were relevant to neighbourhood planning.
Many respondents indicated the presence of useful skills in the group or which
could be drawn on by neighbourhood planning groups.
While general town planning knowledge was present in more than half of the
groups, the message coming through was a need to have specific planning
knowledge or skills for specific tasks. Where interviewees were asked to indicate
all skills present, or required, many groups claimed to have one or more useful
skills missing. In terms of missing skills, the most common response was
knowledge of and skills in design. Interviewees were asked whether they had
been able to access the missing skills/knowledge from elsewhere; 82 per cent of
48
those who responded (77) had done so, with only 17 groups unable to do so
(n=94). The extra skills had largely been sourced from consultants or from the
relevant local authority. It appeared that overall, this, plus drawing in further
people from the wider community to assist, had covered most skills gaps.
However, there is a slight disconnect between this set of responses and those in
3.5.3 above, where interviewees were asked about inhibiting factors. It would
appear that the lack of skills introduced delay rather than being fatal to
progress.
Interviewees were asked to consider the role and potential roles of partners,
especially the local authority (as principal planning authority), consultants
advising on neighbourhood planning and central Government.
The majority of the participants interviewed had received some resource support
from central government. Table 19 below shows the forum/parish split against
the type of support received. Sixty-seven per cent (80 groups) had received
either a grant or direct support or both: 42 per cent of forums and 26 per cent
of parishes had received both. The slightly higher proportion of forum areas
receiving no support may reflect the fact that more of these are at early stages
of the neighbourhood planning process. The level of income received in the form
of grants by the sample is set out in Annex B.
Neighbourhood Planning Support (percentage)
Respondents
Grant Aid%
Direct
Support%
Grant Aid &
Direct
Support%
No Support%
Parish
43
7
26
25
61
Forum
20
4
42
33
45
(n)
Note: Table excludes respondents where support received is unknown.
Rounding applied (Base n=106)
Further analysis revealed that a third of the sample who responded 'don't know’
(12 groups) had in fact received both grant aid and direct support.
49
The previous sections have already highlighted that many neighbourhood
planning groups saw consultant input as important. For the 68 per cent (82
groups) who had made use of paid consultants, their contribution had been
across all aspects of plan preparation. However, the most critical input had been
work on the technical planning aspects such as policy writing, site appraisals,
Sustainability Appraisals and Strategic Environmental Assessment and report
writing as well as general advice or direction. In ascertaining how useful the
consultant input had been Table 20 shows the reported views.
Perceived usefulness of consultants (percentage)
Essential
%
Helpful
Little Too early
but not impact/
to say%
essential unhelpful
%
%
Don’t
know%
Other%
Respondents (n)
Parish
74
15
6
2
0
4
53
Forum
62
14
3
7
14
0
29
Note: Table excludes respondents who did not use a consultant.
Rounding applied (Base n=82)
This highlights that the majority who had used consultants viewed them as
important. When comparing consultant use against parished/forum areas, 56 per
cent of forums (28) and 78 per cent (54) of parished neighbourhoods were using
consultants (n=120). When the use of consultants was compared against the
deciles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (for the neighbourhoods where the
groups are situated), this showed no clear pattern of use of consultants across
the deciles (see Annex A, Tables I and J).
Interviewees had used consultants (including consultancy paid for through grants
available from the neighbourhood planning support programme) for a very wide
range of inputs. In order to capture the full picture of consultant activity the
interviewees were prompted about other future roles and inputs they
anticipated coming from consultants. These were predominantly seen as writing
at least some of the plan, producing technical reports and dealing with revisions
to the draft plan or at post-examination stage.
When asked why the neighbourhood planning group could not do this itself, a
lack of expertise and time to carry out all the tasks were cited as the most
50
common factors. A degree of uncertainty also underpinned comments made
about the technical issues latent in neighborhood planning and the desire to have
advice and ‘back-up’ from consultants. Others also noted that ‘independent’
advice was valued by them and was helpful with managing parochial politics.
The interviewees were asked how supportive the local “council” had been so far.
This was in order to establish the perceived role of the local planning authority
in relation to neighbourhood planning (Table 21). Over 83 per cent (100 groups)
stated that they felt that the local authority had been very or somewhat
supportive. Forty six per cent of areas stated that their local authority was very
supportive, while more than a third (38 per cent) felt that the local authority
was somewhat supportive and that there was room for improvement. The
breakdown by parish/forum is set out in Table 21.
Local Authority Support (percentage)
Very
Supportive%
Somewhat
Supportive%
No Support%
Obstructive%
Respondents(n)
Parish
43
38
11
8
70
Forum
49
38
7
5
50
Note: Rounding applied (Base n=120)
When the perception of local authority support was cross-tabulated against local
plan status no strong relationship was found, similarly for the experience
between early and later adopting groups.
Comments from interviewees relating to positive local authority support
included:
“Completely supportive, no issues - we’ve not gone to them since the planner left the
District Council …we submitted formal application and that went through fine and
timely - nothing more we need them to do” [Int. 21]
“They’ve done everything we’ve asked, we’re happy with the light touch.” [Int. 19]
51
“Right from the start - when I first mooted the idea about a joint plan, their initial
reaction was ‘no’ but within a week we persuaded them it was a good thing to do and
they committed resources and continued to support us.” [Int. 10]
“They’ve just been there when we needed the guidance, it’s knowing that they’re
supportive as much as anything” [Int. 48]
“It’s been a learning process for [our assigned planning officer] as well, he made it
clear that we’re all in the same boat - he’s given us the courage of our convictions.”
[Int. 41]
In terms of more critical points raised only eleven interviewees claimed ‘no
support’, while only 7 per cent (8 groups) took the view that the local authority
had been obstructive and two others had had mixed experience with their
Authority and cited cross-boundary issues as the main problem.
While only a small minority of respondents indicated that support from their
local authority was not working well, given that a ‘made’ neighborhood plan is
difficult to achieve without Local Planning Authority support and leadership, it
is still important to understand what may lie behind the respondents’ concerns.
The eight respondents who stated that, from their perspective, the local
authority had been ‘obstructive’ cited the following as examples:
 Factors associated with the Local Plan taking priority;
 Slow responses generally from the local authority;
 Lack of clarity about the support the local authority would or could provide;
and
 Apparent or assumed philosophical objections to neighbourhood planning
from within the local authority.
These more critical points are highlighted through the following quotes:
“They’ve tried to slow us down and haven’t provided the duty to support” [Int. 17]
“We’ve had no help from the local council whatsoever - they started charging us for
meetings in council buildings - even though I’m a Councillor and should receive this
free - I considered not paying but eventually backed off. We had a nub of people
involved, with help from the District Council - they said they didn’t have resources,
political leadership didn’t want it – there is little or no communication” [Int. 30]
“They initially seemed philosophically opposed to the idea. When they looked at the
draft they said things like this may not be compliant but didn’t actually help with
what we should do. They’ve held us up at every stage. It’s been the biggest problem
52
- there should be a mechanism to ensure that they help all neighbourhood planning
groups - another parish in the area is having the same issue [Int. 80]
“Did try to talk us out of it in the beginning… the Local Authority asked for an
extension of time just the day before a consultation process ended to confirm
whether or not it needed Strategic Environmental Assessment – again asked for
extension to reply. First stage of Local Plan Examination – kept them busy (only
recently). They need to learn about neighbourhood planning and allow more time
for meetings and guidance” [Int. 51]
“They’ve done nothing except say we’re not in compliance - and they did this very
late in the day too” [Int. 90]
These quotes indicate some issues centering on co-operation and attitudes
toward neighbourhood planning existing in some local authorities. Several
interviewees specifically indicated problems with their local authorities when
applying for a neighbourhood area to be designated.
There was also a view expressed by seven interviewees that some local
authorities could be more generally proactive about neighbourhood planning.
The respondents who indicated there was ‘less or no support’ from the local
authority were asked how this could be improved. One suggestion made was to
ensure that the local authority receive more encouragement and training on
neighbourhood planning; this suggestion was directed particularly towards local
councillors.
Where the local authority had been seen as supportive, the positives derived
from this were seen in terms of more general co-operation with neighbourhood
groups and planning staff, who needed to maintain that approach to ensure
neighbourhood planning success. Dedicated neighbourhood planning staff were
mentioned specifically as a positive where they existed. Similarly, help from
local councillors was also seen as being good, and where it was present this had
made a difference (also see the aspects of the positive role and actions of the
local authority expressed in the quotes above).
Overall the experience of working with the local authority is mixed with some
very good experiences and some less positive. Key points appeared to relate to
attitudes to neighbourhood planning, and the timeliness of support or
performance of tasks were notable as being important to neighbourhood
planning groups. In some cases local authorities were perceived to have delayed
progress.
53
The information or support sources that had been most useful to the groups are
set out in Table 22 and each type of advice is considered in turn.
Rating of Advice (percentage)
Source
Very/Quite
useful
%
No help%
Misleading
%
N/A
78
18
1
3
78
18
1
3
79
7
2
11
50
28
0
22
Neighbourhood Planning
Websites
Printed guides on
Neighbourhood Planning
Face to Face advice on
Neighbourhood Planning
Support from another
Neighbourhood Planning group
Note: rounding applied (Base n=120).
Face-to-face support was seen to be useful as it enabled a relationship to be
built up over time. Groups also stated that it was important that support
providers know the locality.
When looking across how different types of support were viewed by more or less
advanced groups it is suggested that face-to-face support becomes even more
valued later in neighbourhood plan production. There was a perception that
face-to-face support had been more valued over the process because of the
specific and detailed issues and questions that arose, with a greater proportion
of middle and later stage groups finding face to face support ‘very useful’. This
may relate to other findings, for example where the ‘planning’ knowledge
became more valued and necessary later in the process i.e. at plan writing stage
and beyond.
It is notable that many of the interviewees found a variety of sources of available
advice useful. Those mentioned explicitly were: Royal Town Planning Institute,
54
Planning Aid England, Locality, Department of Communities and Local
Government, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Princes Foundation, National
Association of Local Councils, Eden Project (Planning Camps), Local Planning
Authority, Glasshouse, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment,
Action with Communities in Rural England/the Rural Community Councils. Online
sources mentioned included the websites of the previously named organisations,
websites of other neighbourhood planning groups and social media websites such
as LinkedIn.
There was a view expressed by a number of respondents that face to face local
authority support needed to be present, and some also stressed the need to
ensure the local authority staff were well trained. Of those, 20 interviewees
specifically identified that their local authority’s support had enabled progress.
Peer support was seen as useful to help avoid reinventing the wheel and more
accessible networking/training opportunities were raised as a useful mechanism
by 17 interviewees, which also relates to a desire for peer support (n=120). More
work to determine how to enable this could be undertaken with a view to
understanding the optimum timing/frequency, cost and location of such events
as well as content. However:


Peer support or looking at other groups’ websites was viewed as useful by 28
per cent (34) of those interviewed;
Seventeen respondents felt that support from the local authority/local
planning authority was most useful;

Five participants felt that the Planning Camp was extremely useful;

Four respondents specifically mentioned a DCLG event as being useful;

One respondent highly recommended an Eden Project workshop on engaging
young people.
The views expressed about peer support, possibly reflecting the variable and
specific knowledge applicable to each neighbourhood, was that it could be
regarded as more helpful earlier in the process. However, there was some
marginal improvement in the way interviewees of later-adopting groups rated
this (and who presumably were getting more from peers who had direct
experience of the process, see Annex A, Table J to compare against views and
experiences of regulations).
55
While the different forms of advice were all valued, there were some useful
improvements suggested:

A strong point was made about the timing of support and guidance and there
is a logic in ensuring early guidance is available, and that this guidance is
authoritative;

Templates and step-by-step guides were seen as useful to help frame the
approach and assist in orientating the steering group. A point was made that
advice and guidance needs to be consolidated and simplified, as there
appeared to be different advice available and this was confusing;

Ten respondents wanted simplification of all information in order for it to be
accessible to the general public;

Advice or guides for policy writing were requested.
Further consideration needs to be given to this in terms of exactly what advice
is needed and when it is likely to be most beneficial to groups. The research
could not ascertain the degree of detail required to understand what specifically
would be needed, in which media and at what stage in the process.
The different forms of advice were viewed by interviewees as follows:

Online resources and neighbourhood planning websites. Respondents
expressed confusion about the amount of information available on different
websites. Consolidated web information was seen as helpful by five
interviewees, and online space for groups to connect and discuss was also
noted. However, there was some difficulty for Qualifying Bodies trying to
identify other similar areas for peer support. In terms of specific sources the
neighbourhood planning websites were not rated any differently or made
little difference for early, middle or later stages of neighbourhood planning
or for early/later adopters.

Guidance. There was little difference in the rating of the usefulness of
printed guides across the early, middle and latter stages and in terms of
early/later adopters of neighbourhood planning. However, guides for
specific aspects and topics did appear to be valued, and those mentioned by
respondents included: guidance on access to funding and approximate costs
involved from an official source; how to hold a public consultation; policy
writing and exemplars of how to write a policy; Strategic Environmental
Assessment/Sustainability Appraisal; the Basic Condition statement; and the
statement of community involvement.
56
In addition, respondents mentioned that small villages and urban areas
needed specific resources, given the issues likely to be present. Information
on topics such as youth engagement and working with business populations
were cited. It was perceived by the few respondents mentioning these, that
there has been little or no existing guidance on these subjects.
The interviewees were invited to estimate costs incurred and inputs made so far
in their neighbourhood planning activity. Respondents were prompted to
consider this in advance when confirming their availability for interview.
Most interviewees found it difficult to estimate accurately the amount of
volunteer effort that had been accumulated and did not want to underestimate
the amount of work that had gone into the process. As a result only 28 per cent
(34) respondents were able to provide cost estimates for this question. While
some interviewees could calculate how much time had been put into meetings,
most could not go beyond this to estimate how much people had done in their
own time.
The estimation of volunteer days from those able to respond varied widely. Of
the five interviewees from the 21 who had reached draft Plan stage or later that
were able to provide an answer on costs:

Volunteer costs ranged from 1,000-5,000 hours (i.e. 130-665 days) of
volunteer time.

The estimates of consultant input time ranged widely from ‘30 minutes’ to
33 days.
It was therefore difficult to determine with certainty the full costs incurred,
given that recording of a variety of inputs and costs is not routine nor a
requirement, and that those able to respond were at different stages of
neighbourhood plan preparation. There is, therefore, merit in looking further at
what and when (i.e. across stages) different costs have been incurred. Case study
research could be useful to develop understanding of costs with such information
being useful for benchmarking purposes (see Annex B, Access to grants to support
neighbourhood planning).
57
Over 50 per cent of the sample (63) thought that some problems they had
encountered with the neighbourhood planning process should be addressed by
the Government. Although in many cases they did not detail their specific
problem, or the solution (n=119).
How the neighbourhood planning regulations were viewed by groups at different
stages yielded a mixed picture, with numerous different issues being raised. Over
half had had some problems with regulations at some point; however, given the
different neighbourhood planning stages reached by the interviewees it is
unclear which stages and their regulatory requirements were the most
problematic. Of the 47 groups who were at the pre-submission consultation stage
for example, 62 per cent (29) saw problems or had experienced some problems
with the regulations (See Annex A, Table K).
The comments can be broken into two main types relating to the regulation
and the wider planning system as follows:
i.

Clarity over the role of the local authority;

Simplification of the process for multi-parished areas
(including area designation);

Confusion over what options are available
(e.g. all community rights);

Clarity over how to review a neighbourhood plan in order to keep it up
to date.

Simplification of the grant application process;

Facilitate understanding of the planning hierarchy;

Problems broader than neighbourhood planning, including changes to
permitted development rights for changes of use e.g. farm buildings,
office to residential;

Issues with developing a neighbourhood plan alongside an emerging
Local Plan;

Problems with planning applications being submitted before the
neighbourhood plan was ‘made’ (i.e. brought into force).
ii.
58
Of the respondents looking for issues to be addressed there were several main
points where changes were suggested:
 A need for clarification and simplification of the process and requirements
(again templates were raised as useful);
 A desire to generally see the process be more transparent for users, although
it was not possible for respondents to be more specific about which parts or
aspects were opaque;
 Streamlining of the process was expressed in a variety of ways including
reforming the process for designating a neighbourhood area and a
neighbourhood forum, including enabling (or indeed highlighting the
possibility of) the merging of the two consultation stages;
 Ensuring timely compliance from local authorities;
 Clarity over what a neighbourhood plan can contain and what supporting
documents are required (or to educate local authorities to advise on this
clearly).
The interviewees were prompted to consider whether templates to support
certain stages or the use of project plans for neighbourhood planning could assist
them and if so, in what ways. These tools were generally popular, however 24
groups stressed that if templates or project plans were introduced they should
not be overly prescriptive in design and content. This presents a delicate task.
To strike an appropriate balance between ‘one size fits all’ and offering
something that is too broad to be of practical use.
With over 91 per cent of interviewees indicating that generally the
neighbourhood planning process had gone well, it is clear that generally most
groups were both enthusiastic and felt that they were making good progress.
Beyond this headline however, the interviews yielded rich information and
insight, and as a result there are a number of issues and ideas that can be
reflected upon with a view to improvement.
The main drivers for neighbourhoods getting involved in neighbourhood planning
were as follows:
 To have more say over development in the area;
 To create more of a vision for the neighbourhood; and
 To respond to development pressure.
59
Whilst many of the groups seeking to have more say in development within their
neighbourhood had led to the allocation of sites for development in the Plan,
over 59 per cent of interviewees considered the process to be proportionate.
This tends to indicate the perceived importance given to a neighbourhood plan.
While over half of respondents considered the process to be proportionate, only
just under a quarter (23%) had anticipated the level of work involved. For these
groups it was claimed that neighbourhood planning was not as burdensome as
they may have expected. In other cases, however, there was some frustration
expressed about the time taken to make progress, and what was seen by many
others as a burdensome process.
Networks, relations and knowledge appear to be growing; both in terms of
planning and an understanding of needs and issues locally. The survey highlights
a wide range of experience with different inputs, partners and across the various
stages of neighbourhood planning. The key points that emerge from this work
may be distilled and summarised as follows:
Attitudes and actions:
 Motivations and aims for neighbourhood planning centre on wanting to
influence planning decisions and shaping the future of the neighbourhood;

Many communities are choosing to use their neighbourhood plans to allocate
sites for housing;

There was a low level of knowledge and take-up of the other neighbourhood
planning tools (i.e. Neighbourhood Development Orders (including
Community Right to Build Orders), which may be more about awareness and
capacity than a lack of desire to use those tools;

There is a perceived need to promote neighbourhood planning more to the
wider public (both centrally and locally). Therefore interviewees wanted
Government to enhance the messaging about the value and benefits of
neighbourhood planning.
Progress with neighbourhood planning:
 For some areas neighbourhood planning is proceeding well, but it is seen as
time consuming by many and as burdensome and complicated by some. Thus,
many are progressing, albeit with support from others, notably planning
consultants;

It was perceived that the relationship with the local authority is important
and support is necessary to progress the Plan and that some delays to
neighbourhood plan progress were attributed to local authorities;
60

There are some other external factors that have affected a minority of groups
including difficulties in progressing where there is no district-level Local Plan
(or Core Strategy);

Neighbourhood planning is commonly driven forward by a small group of key
people upon whom significant burdens can fall;

Numerous internal factors acted to introduce some delay including personnel
changes or internal disagreements.
Skills, knowledge and support:
 Eighty two per cent of those responding had been able to access the skills
and knowledge needed for neighbourhood planning. In addition to the wide
range of skills and knowledge that can be drawn upon from within the
community, partners were also seen as having a key role given the range of
skills needed to produce a neighbourhood plan;

Project planning is an issue than needs to be addressed early on the in
process.

Technical planning input is seen as critical, given the nature of the process
and the requirements of plans, to successfully pass through the Independent
Examination and become ‘made’; as a consequence the majority (68 per
cent) of groups accessed specialist consultancy support to help with part of
the process.

The local planning authority role is important and 83 per cent of respondents
found their Authority to be very supportive or somewhat supportive, but
there were areas that could be strengthened. These included: ensuring
appropriate knowledge and training for local authority staff; timely decision
taking; a desire to work in partnership with the Authority; and for support to
particularly focus on certain tasks, such as evidence gathering/application of
evidence to inform policies.
Information and advice:
 Face-to-face support is valued highly, particularly for tasks such as project
planning and plan writing;

Simplification of guidance is desired and will help ensure accessibility for lay
people;

A wide range of clear guidance, templates and/or proformas are wanted for
efficiency and to aid mutual/peer learning;

Preparation and planning support for the Independent Examination may need
to be improved to avoid delays.
61
A series of six focus groups were convened with different types of neighbourhood
planning groups and operating contexts. Each session was organised around key
themes as set out below.
The focus groups were assembled from selected individuals to represent the
characteristics of the theme. There were a total of 29 participants, and each
focus group was facilitated by a neutral researcher, with assistance from a
note-taker and included a Locality or DCLG representative plus the Chair. The
focus group format was designed to enable in-depth discussion.
All groups were recruited from areas that had reached at least the stage of
having a designated neighbourhood area and had been in the neighbourhood
planning process for more than six months, except for the focus group of stalled
areas. Participants were also selected following criteria based on the theme of
the focus groups, as well as giving priority to areas further along in the process.
Participants needed to be available within the timeframe required by the
research brief and so the numbers attending each group varied, dependent partly
on the schedules of the neighbourhood planning volunteers. The numbers in each
group varied between three and nine neighbourhoods being represented across
the focus groups. The selection of groups was also informed by the emerging
questionnaire responses and existing knowledge held by the Locality
neighbourhood planning support consortium.
The six groups and the themes covered were as follows:
a. Successful negotiation of neighbourhood planning:
To explore the experience of successfully using the neighbourhood planning
rights. All groups had already passed Examination and had completed plans
within approximately two years.
62
b. Urban disadvantaged areas:
These groups were drawn from the eligible forums (i.e. active in
neighbourhood planning for at least 6 months), containing neighbourhoods
within the most deprived 20 per cent of areas9 using the Index of Multiple
Deprivation, and participants were also spread geographically.
c. Growth areas:
These were a mix of urban and rural areas from around the country with high
growth and development pressure.
d. Village expansion/sparsely populated areas:
Parishes that actively wanted to see development in their neighbourhood
(e.g. affordable housing) but have had some difficulty in allocating sites or
otherwise negotiating local or other policy. Such areas tend to be low in the
settlement hierarchy.
e. Weaker land market areas:
To explore how neighbourhood planning might help to shape development
and encourage demand.
f. Stalled areas:
Neighbourhoods who were interested in neighbourhood planning but did not
eventually embark on, or otherwise progress, with neighbourhood planning
activity (Note: these groups were identified in dialogue with Planning Aid
England and Locality.)
The main points covered in each of the focus groups are set out in Annex C.
The focus group findings contain a number of consistent messages, whilst
differences across the sessions were not particularly pronounced or numerous.
Some of the most commonly expressed points relate to specific stages, or were
presented for different reasons; for example, guidance on policy writing relates
to a specific stage. It was notable that many of the common themes that
emerged complement the findings set out in Section 3. The aspects that were
9
As neighbourhood planning areas have varying geographies, the areas were categorised in relation to whether they contained a
Lower Super Output Area in the 20 per cent most deprived quintile.
63
highlighted by particular types of groups are also set out here, followed by the
common or seemingly important ideas for change and improvement.
There were a number of messages and suggestions that appeared across many or
all of the discussions. The participants were keen to produce a neighbourhood
plan above other tools because of its statutory status and the majority intended
to take some degree of control over the timing, type, design and location of
development in their neighbourhood.
Attitudes and consequential behaviours in the local authorities towards
neighbourhoods and neighbourhood planning appeared variable but crucially
were recognised as important in all focus groups - as were communications with
the local authority and their support. Participants all saw value in establishing a
more organised and clear set of obligations around the duty to support, and there
was backing for mechanisms such as memoranda of understanding to help clarify
and structure those relations needed for successful neighbourhood planning.
Neighbourhood planning was seen as a time intensive process and the
neighbourhood plan took participants much longer than expected. This was a
view shared across all of the focus groups. There was a theme around seeking
more clarity and confidence about tasks and requirements that emerged and this
led to various calls for templates and specific advice on stages, tasks required
and issues arising. The idea of ensuring adequate project planning gained
currency across the focus groups. All of these ideas were considered useful to
enable a less burdensome or quicker neighbourhood planning process.
Funding came through the discussions as a theme from some focus groups. This
centred on a concern about the transparency and use of funds for neighbourhood
planning. This topic was raised in relation to the resources that specific tasks or
stages involved may need, and more generally the purposes that funds were used
for. The allocation of resources where support was needed most was mentioned
in more than one group.
 Those who had not progressed, or progressed more slowly, expressed a
frustration with the burdens involved, and highlighted the importance of good
relations and support from the local authority. For such ‘stalled’ groups the
attitude of the local authority was also seen as critical, along with apparent
misconceptions on the part of Qualifying Bodies about what was involved and
the scope of neighbourhood planning. They also thought that orientating or
targetting resources to help unblock stalled groups would be beneficial.
64
 There was some frustration shared by many of the participants, (but a
particular issue for areas where there was significant development pressure),
that development proposals on sites identified or not allocated in their
emerging neighbourhood plans are acting to undermine the neighbourhood
plan, and may damage community confidence in the Plan and the process
overall. This is where the moratorium on planning permission idea was raised.
 Some neighbourhood planning groups were happy to allocate housing sites and
others preferred not to do this, relying on policies in the neighbourhood plan
– this came up in the high development pressure focus group. Yet it was not
determined whether this was a ‘line of least resistance’ approach that reflects
concerns
to
maintain
intra-neighbourhood
support
for
the
neighbourhood plan, given that two of the areas in this group that had opted
to be policy-led were predominantly rural neighbourhoods.
 The urban areas involved felt that a neighbourhood plan should be a vehicle
to help identify and influence the local authority on a wide range of issues
faced in those areas. They also stressed that the process, as well as the Plan,
should be accessible and clearly understandable for all and that the forum
was a positive thing in itself; acting to provide a locus for interaction with the
local authority. The urban areas group also thought that larger area
neighbourhood boundaries were not appropriate or manageable, so in some
cases urban wards were not necessarily appropriate delimitations for
neighbourhood planning areas.
 Those involved in agreeing Area Designation saw that this stage of
neighbourhood planning did present challenges and some focus groups felt
that community development and engagement was important early on in
neighbourhood planning. Determining the boundaries of the area had been
problematic for some Qualifying Bodies and more support, guidance or
stipulations relating to this consideration would be welcomed.
 For more advanced groups there was a frustration that their efforts were not
given any weight until the neighbourhood plan was ‘made’. They were also in
a position to comment on specific inputs that were useful, such as policy
writing assistance and technical advice on Strategic Environmental
Assessment. These areas were also beginning to reflect on a need to work
across neighbourhood planning boundaries to join up planning efforts.
65
 The sparsely populated areas focus group wanted to add more detail and
control over policy and resultant development in their neighbourhood. They
cited a need for good community development skills to help inform people,
and navigate the different attitudes existing within the community.
 Areas which operate within highly depressed land and development markets
do not appear to be so active in neighbourhood planning, and there was a
feeling that Local Authorities did not always see neighbourhood planning as a
priority. It merits further inquiry to understand how such areas would benefit
from using neighbourhood planning or similar local planning tools, or whether
other existing mechanisms or additional initiatives, including incentives or
other fiscal tools would be needed to stimulate growth in those places, if
deemed desirable.
The themes and ideas for change and improvement, as well as obstacles that
should be tackled, arising across the focus groups are organised into two groups:
i. Local authority role and other contextual factors:

It was clear that the relations with and support of the local authority was
a significant factor that supported successful negotiation of
neighbourhood planning and conversely that a lack of support here could
be a significant obstacle;

As such the interpretation of the duty to support is seen as variable and
may need further specification and possibly more oversight, in order to
broker appropriate support and interaction;

A strong theme that emerged in the focus groups was the need to consider
local authority responsiveness in terms of the:
 Timeliness of responses by some local authorities (which was
perceived as uneven);
 Effective use of neighbourhood planning funding (i.e. burdens money);
 Capacity and skills/knowledge of neighbourhood planning process and
regulations generally (which were seen as uneven).
Dedicated neighbourhood planning staff in local authorities were
perceived by some to be the answer.
The status or progress of Local Plans were seen to add uncertainty for
Qualifying Bodies and could destabilise neighbourhood plans, given that
this affected the process and timings of neighbourhood planning (as well
as fuelling a suspicion on the part of some participants that Local

66
Plan-making priorities deflected
neighbourhood planning support);
some
local
authorities
from

It was seen as legitimate to review the timings for stages, including the
current consultation periods (i.e. Forum/Area and consultation on draft
Plans) with a view to shortening or combining these;

While mentioned in only one focus group there was the consideration of
cross-boundary issues at the neighbourhood scale. This was raised given
that as neighbourhood plans grow in number and more adjacent plans
emerge this could logically become more of an issue.

Clarity for Qualifying Bodies on the likelihood or basis for Judicial Review
was identified as a need in the focus group discussions;

Allowing development proposals to come forward during the
neighbourhood planning process was seen as having a destabilising effect
on some neighbourhood planning groups, and on the progress of the
neighbourhood plan. Consideration of how weight could be given to
emerging (draft) neighbourhood plans and exploration of how a
‘moratorium’ on development could work (e.g. when the neighbourhood
plan is in the later stages of development) was requested;

The training and consistency of Independent Examiners and their decisions
was lodged by some of the focus groups as a possible emerging issue,
which was linked to a feeling that a system of review / learning should be
built in to the Independent Examination aspect of neighbourhood
planning;

The rules and issues around voting rights in the referendum and
campaigning rules were identified as requiring revision or further clarity
(if there is scope to adjust them) as they appear somewhat constricting.
ii. Tools, support and advice:
 There was a concern to see that funding is nuanced sufficiently to ensure
that those groups which need funds get them – evidently more thought on
criteria to enable this would be needed;

Possible use of a memorandum of understanding or similar protocol to
outline and bind responsibilities – this could assist in maintaining
momentum and support for neighbourhood planning, and in similar
fashion;

Project planning could assist future neighbourhood planning groups, both
to adjust expectations but also to promote efficiencies;
67

Guidance and templates were advocated by many to help scope and
navigate the neighbourhood planning process, in terms of stages and key
issues likely to be encountered, but it was stressed that such tools should
leave scope for neighbourhoods to retain the initiative. These were
advocated both generally and in relation to;

Community development and engagement. This was identified as a critical
element – enhanced advice and training on this was seen as beneficial;

Planning skills and technical support - policy writing and other technical
support around, for example; Strategic Environmental Assessment was
deemed useful and sharper guidance was identified as useful;

The encouragement and facilitation of more peer learning was seen as a
positive iteration to be implemented;

Mentoring or critical friend appointments were seen as useful – and a
reflection on how this could become mainstream requires attention, given
that few people are as yet likely to be equipped to perform such a role to
a sufficiently high standard.
68
The research reported here develops further understanding of user experiences
while undertaking the process of developing a Neighbourhood Development Plan
(NDP) and/or Neighbourhood Development Order (NDO)/Community Right to
Build Order (CRtBO) (jointly referred to here as neighbourhood planning). The
main aim was to suggest improvements and potential streamlining of the
process, alongside the objectives of enhancing accessibility and take-up of
neighbourhood planning rights; setting these out is the primary purpose of this
section of the report.
The intention is that the evidence gathered will help to inform future approaches
taken towards neighbourhood planning, including how to improve and increase
its effectiveness, as well as the shape that support offered to neighbourhoods
should take.
The research made use of telephone interviews with 120 neighbourhood planning
groups and explored some of the issues that groups experienced through a series
of six focus groups, as detailed in section 2 of the report.
While Sections 3 and 4 have summarised the findings from the telephone survey
and focus groups respectively, this section brings the findings together. In
addition further points for research that are relevant to neighbourhood planning
operation and which merit further attention are set out.
The survey in particular identified that most groups were making good progress
with their neighbourhood plans, and that knowledge and understanding of
neighbourhood planning was growing. There was also a view that more could be
done to promote neighbourhood planning among the wider population.
When considering the survey and the focus group, it is clear that some points
emerged more clearly in the interviews while others were stressed by focus
group participants.
69
The features identified in the focus groups, which were less pronounced through
the survey, included the importance of the local authority in enabling progress.
While local authorities were recognised as important in the survey, the focus
group participants were able to highlight the experiences of working with local
authorities both in constructive ways and at critical points, as well as indicating
where instances of delay or perceived obstruction had occurred. Thus the
presence of variable performance of local authorities strengthens the case for
more clarity over the duty to support and tools such as memoranda of
understanding and project planning.
A second area that was stressed more in the focus groups was the concern over
planning decisions being made locally during the process of preparing the
neighbourhood plan, and which affected progress in terms of substance. That is,
the actual content of the plan could be affected and introduce delay. Secondly,
that the operating environment in this respect could demotivate some
participants. Whilst the focus group participants were not able to offer solutions,
this appears to be a key issue that needs to be addressed.
Guidance was requested by most participating in the research. In particular,
there was a desire for more consolidated and authoritative guidance, while
detailed guidance through toolkits and templates was identified as useful. Some
participants also wanted to ensure that such guidance would
allow for local circumstances to be accommodated. While all forms of support
and guidance were seen as potentially useful, it was face-to-face support that
was valued most highly and particularly during the plan-writing stage.
The survey work also highlighted a low level of take-up and limited
understanding of both neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right
to Build orders. It was clear that few respondents knew about these tools, but
that they could clearly play a role in helping to implement neighbourhood
planning.
The key areas identified through survey element and in the focus groups have
been categorised under the headings of rules and process, guidance, toolkits and
templates, and local authority support. The following section sets out the main
findings and suggestions under these headings.
70
Overall, it is clear that participants view neighbourhood planning as an initiative
with merit and having further potential, although it is not without its challenges
and difficulties. However, the majority of areas involved in the research
reported that they had overcome difficulties encountered, often with the aid of
consultants or the local authority or both.
There is a general feeling, borne out in the telephone interviews and through
the focus group process that many neighbourhoods had embarked on
neighbourhood planning primarily because they wanted to have some control
over development in their area.
Involvement in neighbourhood planning was often primed by having completed
previous community based work. However, there are a number of groups who
have taken the decision to embark on a neighbourhood plan because of a feeling
of resentment about local authority level policy and decisions made in the past,
and wanting to take control. Interestingly there are also a number of areas where
neighbourhood planning activity was initiated by the local authority. This
situation acted as a driver for some neighbourhoods to engage with
neighbourhood planning, with the promise of greater control in the
neighbourhood as a motivation.
The use of key local individuals and teams, as well as funding to support the
activity has acted to enable urban, rural and more or less deprived
neighbourhoods to embark on neighbourhood planning. As more groups take up
this community right, it will be important to analyse further whether particular
groups are more inclined or able to undertake a neighbourhood plan than others
and whether they complete the process.
The majority of respondents felt that local authority support was critical, and
where this is present the neighbourhood planning groups have made smoother
progress. There were no apparent differences between how local authorities in
rural and urban areas are supporting neighbourhood planning. The majority of
groups reported that the local authority had been supportive, and only a limited
number suggested that they had been obstructive.
In terms of clarity over the process and being able to move easily through the
process, many groups commented on the importance of a clear time-bound
project plan from the outset. In addition the use of a ‘critical friend’ (not
necessarily a planning specialist) was seen as important to ensure that the ‘plan
making process’ stayed on track.
71
In considering designation, it was clear that designation issues have been more
of a problem in some urban areas. This is particularly the case for area designation. Commonly the research participants highlighted community development
and communications as important in this respect, and necessary to ensure
engagement with the neighbourhood planning process by a wide range of people.
Some groups recognised that an effective engagement strategy and associated
techniques would assist in developing ownership and deepening the quality of
the Plan in the early stages. Others indicated that the consultation periods and
stages for determining areas and forums could be done in parallel or otherwise
expedited. Overall, advice and support in this phase was recognised as
important, although it was not always readily available, or sufficiently well
collated.
In general terms, groups had underestimated the scale, complexity and time
needed to produce their neighbourhood plans. There was mixed support and
understanding of the process, although learning and the sharing of learning has
been rising in the past year or so. In terms of preparing the draft Plan, the
greatest challenge was to prepare well-crafted policies, in particular translating
community aspirations into robust planning policies. Many groups had made use
of consultants in various ways, but notably to assist with this aspect of
neighbourhood plan-making. Respondents also saw merit in more advice and
templates for such activity, as well as for technical elements such as Strategic
Environmental Assessment.
The Independent Examination stage was causing some anxiety amongst
participants and a concern was raised that groups should be able to explain the
thinking underpinning the plan to the examiner. Additionally, a concern to
ensure that consistency between Independent Examiners was raised in terms of
equity for individual plans and Qualifying Bodies and for the integrity of the
neighbourhood planning system as a whole. The referendum stage provoked
some mixed views regarding its role, or even its necessity, but there was clear
feedback that the rules relating to voting, and to publicity prior to the vote,
should be looked at to ensure good, informed turnouts.
While the research ensured that different aspects of context and types of groups
were considered, there were no significant differences between early or later
adopting groups or areas where a Local Plan was present or not. However,
numerous ideas were presented or emerged during the research about rules and
process, guidance and tools and advice, support and the local authority. These
are set out below:
72
i. Further clarity over the duty to support on local authorities should be
provided.
ii. It appears wise to reflect on how Local Planning Authorities can best support
neighbourhood planning effectively and economically and how existing
resources are deployed. There is variable practice on this, and further
reflection on how to most innovatively and efficiently provide support is
needed.
iii. Simplification of the process of designation stages (Area, Forum). This was
seen as relatively straightforward by many, but in a certain number of cases
there were obstacles and delays within the neighbourhood, as well as derived
from the local authority. More targeted and clearer guidance on issues and
considerations for boundary setting for non-parished areas merits attention.
There was agreement that speeding-up, or possibly conflating, consultation
periods in this element of early neighbourhood planning activity could be
introduced.
iv. In relation to the referendum there appears to be a need to look at the
eligibility for voting in the referendum. There is also an expressed need for
clearer messaging on interpretation of the rules for canvassing for either
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ votes, at the referendum stage.
v. Finally there was an appetite for clearer messages and resources in relation
to the future role and status of neighbourhood plans. It was seen to be unclear how neighbourhoods will be able to extend or adjust plans over time.
Similarly, it remained unclear as to whether groups will need to, or be
equipped to, produce new neighbourhood plans or revised plans when
required.
Many interviewees and focus group participants cited guidance on neighbourhood
planning as needing improvement, both in terms of consolidation and specificity.
Some guidance was seen as confusing, or that it was difficult for Qualifying
Bodies to apply existing guidance to specific circumstances. The matter of
improving, and/or focusing such guidance appears to cover a wide range of topics
and forms. However, the clear message from those involved in the research was
that more attention to topics such as community engagement was desired, as
well as technical aspects such as writing planning policy and Strategic
Environmental Assessment.
73
i. The overall perception was that guidance needed to be more definitive or
authoritative (an updated and more in-depth Locality ‘Roadmap’, for
example, appears one potential solution).
ii. Most participants would prefer guidance which provided for adequate scope
and flexibility for the local conditions and preferences that will be reflected
in their neighbourhood plans.
iii. Ensuring that lessons learned and ‘practices that work’ are recorded and
shared should be considered an important component of central
government and local government support.
iv. Experience of the examination stage and modifications to the neighbourhood
plan was limited, but it was felt that there is a need to ensure that training
of, and consistency among, decision-makers is addressed, including
Independent Examiners.
v. There was a demand that peer learning is facilitated more actively, possibly
via the use of critical friends and/or mentors.
vi. Thinking around implementation (and next steps) for neighbourhoods were
seen by some as being underdeveloped. There is little advice and knowledge
exchange post-referendum on other resources and vehicles to assist
neighbourhoods to realise their ambitions expressed in the neighbourhood
plan (beyond the neighbourhood plan achieving ‘made’ status).
This aspect of support was discussed by research participants to varying degrees
of specificity. There was considerable support for more templates and
comprehensive toolkits as means to overcome uncertainty across all stages, and
it is felt that these should provide a critical level of clarity and certainty for
Qualifying Bodies to progress matters. Specific ideas that relate to tools and
templates to assist groups included:
i. Improved project planning to assist groups to organise, reflect on needs and
create a realistic schedule. This could be conditional on the release of
support funding.
ii. The production of indicative templates for neighbourhood planning tasks and
stages should be considered, including model policies, but such templates or
proformas should not constrain neighbourhood planning groups (in common
with the sentiment expressed about guidance not being overly prescriptive).
iii. A view was expressed that more general information to assist groups, before
embarking upon neighbourhood planning, would be useful. This along with
toolkits and other support materials, should ideally be in a simple form,
74
located in one ‘go to’ source and their availability needs to be widely shared
and understood.
In terms of the local authority role and performance, there were clearly
frustrations experienced by some Qualifying Bodies with their local
authorities, while others were pleased with the approach and relations fostered
through neighbourhood planning. It was perceived that there was variable
support and understanding amongst local authorities, and a mix of reasons were
offered by participants for this. Further work to explore attitudes, capacity and
behaviours amongst local authorities may be a useful supplement to this work.
In relation to this issue of the development of partnership and agreed
demarcation of roles and actions, consideration should be given to creating a
memorandum of understanding or similar protocol to outline the commitment,
responsibilities and mutual expectation between the local authority and the
neighbourhood planning group (Central and Local Government). In addition,
dedicated liaison staff also appears to be one option that could assist with this
dimension of neighbourhood planning.
Face-to-face support by the local authority, and through consultants, was valued
by interviewees. Templates and focused advice were often cited as a means to
help communities shape the approach and form of the neighbourhood plan
content and to help avoid delays or minimise frustration. Overarching this is a
perceived need to be able to draw on planning expertise and that such expertise
was not necessarily readily available from the local authority.
The evidence from this research strongly suggested that, in principle,
neighbourhood planning can be undertaken by most communities if effectively
supported, and in particular if the relevant local authority is supportive. It was
stated, in both the interviews and the focus groups, that Local Planning Authority
input and attitude made a significant difference to neighbourhood planning
progress, with numerous factors cited where local authorities, whether
deliberately or not, can slow down or frustrate neighbourhood plan progress.
Respondents indicated that more focused advice and support from local
authorities would be welcomed.
Clarity over the process and being able to move easily through the process was
seen as important, particularly in the focus groups. Many groups commented on
75
the importance of a clear time-bound project plan from the outset. In addition,
the use of a ‘critical friend’ (not necessarily a planning specialist) was seen as
important to ensure that the ‘plan making process’ stayed on track.
The role of consultants was identified as important in many cases and particular
importance was placed on face-to-face support. The most valued consultant
roles included technical input on policy writing and dealing with matters such as
Strategic Environmental Assessment.
Other key support and advice that were noted include:
i. The availability of advice that could help achieve neighbourhood planning
goals was seen as useful. Mechanisms and techniques, such as community
land trusts, and negotiations with developers were indicated in the research;
ii. In terms of the plan-making process (i.e. evidence, consultation, drafting)
there is a need to explore the most efficient and effective ways of using the
available skills, knowledge and resources that are found across all of the
relevant partners (as part of embracing co-production more fully and
overtly);
iii. Support of key individuals who ‘carry’ the neighbourhood plan process locally
was seen as useful, and consideration should be given to how to ensure
effective support for such actors (with local authorities seen as important
partners in particular).
‘
’
In reflecting on the findings of the work, there is a wider point to be made about
the respective roles of different actors involved in neighbourhood planning and
the overall relationship directed at the same aim of producing robust
neighbourhood plans. It was felt that new, or better defined roles, and
enforceable performance from local authorities and consultant planners may be
needed, both in terms of communication and styles of advice and also support
that invests knowledge, but more straightforwardly, in terms of response times
and clarity of role. Given that all parties have been learning by doing, there is
now a recognition that the next phase of neighbourhood planning may need to
ensure that accrued knowledge and understanding is shared vertically and
laterally, and in a way that develops and captures mutual learning effectively.
Consideration about how to ensure this happens should merit attention by DCLG
and neighbourhood planning consortium partners.
Neighbourhood planning is ostensibly community-led, and that was the clearly
stated aspiration expressed by Government in 2010-11. While neighbourhood
plans are initiated by community representatives, in practice successful
neighbourhood planning implementation is co-produced. Such co-production
76
involves not only partnership, but actors making better use of each other's assets
and resources to achieve better outcomes and improved efficiency. This reflects
efforts to reorientate other aspects of local governance in the past decade or
so.
Given this environment and observed practice there is, arguably, an implied
need for all partners to acknowledge who, how and on what basis the different
parties are likely to need to contribute to neighbourhood planning in the future.
This will necessarily vary from place to place and over time, and/or
neighbourhood planning stages. In order for this to happen a reflection on how
to plan, as well as what to plan for, needs to be communicated effectively to all
parties and as part of discussions about who is doing the planning.
The notion of co-production is not necessarily new but it provides a lens through
which to consider how best to organise neighbourhood planning in the future;
i.e. what structures are most effective to help shape the thinking around the
design and allocation of policy tools and resources. Some of the findings and
ideas for change and improvement already raised here reflect this concern and
could assist in structuring revised neighbourhood planning practices. For
example the points made regarding the memorandum of understanding or
protocols between the local authority and the Qualifying Body reflect a concern
to try and create a semi-formal ‘contract’ between the parties who need to be
involved. These should recognise the respective inputs required for timely, well
produced neighbourhood plans that, critically, also have widespread community
support. Project planning, mentoring and effective resourcing at local authority
level, and the targeting of support based on need and capacity should also
feature in future thinking about neighbourhood planning.
This review has uncovered or confirmed a number of areas relevant to
neighbourhood planning activity that could benefit from further investigation.
Some of the topics cited here, whilst beyond the scope of this review, were
discussed to some degree (and expressed in this report). The areas identified
include:
i.
Factors which may prevent, or possibly reduce, demand for neighbourhood
planning, in non-participating neighbourhoods.
ii. Business-led plans and their role: exploring further the function,
value-added and locus of such plans.
iii. Rules and practices surrounding, and possibilities of modifying,
neighbourhood plan referenda: with a view to questions of inclusivity and
their ability to attract a healthy and informed vote.
77
iv.
The characteristics and value of Neighbourhood Development Orders and
Community Right to Build Orders: where and why have they been deployed?
What has discouraged their use in other areas?
v.
Contribution of other planning tools to the localism agenda either alongside
or instead of neighbourhood development plans.
vi. Understanding of the most effective roles and divisions of labour between
the main actors involved (e.g. neighbourhood planning steering groups,
local authorities, DCLG, consultants and others).
vii. Local authority knowledge of and attitudes towards neighbourhood
planning: exploring inertias and challenges for local authorities as well as
the benefits in terms of informing local policy.
viii. Case study evidence on the inputs, costs and expenditures involved in
neighbourhood planning, overall and to the different parties involved.
ix. Understanding of how tools such as neighbourhood planning can act to
stimulate development in depressed land and development markets.
Further study should seek to understand how such areas would benefit from
using neighbourhood planning or similar local planning tools, or whether
other mechanisms or additional mechanisms are required.
x. When a robust sample group emerges, then a detailed review of the content
of neighbourhood plans would be useful to reflect on the ambition/scope
of the plans, and to explore the rationale for inclusion or exclusion of topics
or policies.
xi. Similarly, the tracking of implementation and the revision of
neighbourhood plans after achieving ‘made’ status when sufficient time
and experience has passed.
xii. Exploration of the levels of knowledge and understanding of wider planning
issues and topics within neighbourhoods.
78
A.
B.
C.
D.
Additional tables and charts
Access to grants to support neighbourhood planning
Focus Group Feedback
Telephone interview questionnaire
79
Further tables and charts that are referred to in the main report are set out below for
information.
Local Authority Support
Respondents who felt
neighbourhood planning was as expected
(percentage)
Respondents (n)
Yes%
No%
Don't Know%
Very Supportive
58
29
13
55
Somewhat Supportive
57
20
23
46
No Support
36
27
37
11
Obstructive
57
43
0
7
Note: Table excludes 1 respondent who stated ‘don’t know’ (Base n= 119).
Respondents who felt neighbourhood
planning was as expected
(percentage)
Respondents
(n)
Yes%
No%
Don't Know%
Early adopter (before and including April 2012)
44
38
18
52
Late adopter (after April 2012)
63
17
20
65
(Base n=117)
Overall Process (percentage)
Local Authority Support
(percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well%
OK%
Not So Well%
Very Supportive
47
53
0
55
Somewhat Supportive
33
52
15
46
No Support
27
64
9
11
Obstructive
25
38
37
8
(Base n=120)
80
How burdensome is neighbourhood
planning overall? (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Burdensome%
Not Burdensome%
Designated area
53
47
15
Designated forum
67
33
36
Pre submission Consultation
stage
74
26
47
Submitted Draft plan
90
10
10
Independent Examination
89
11
9
0
0
0
100
0
2
Referendum
Made Neighbourhood Plan or
Order
Note: rounding applied. (Base n=119)
Was the burden as expected (Percentage)
Respondents (n)
Yes%
No%
Don’t Know%
Parish
72
23
5
70
Forum
72
22
6
50
Note: Table excludes 1 respondent who stated ‘don’t know’. (Base n=119)
81
Respondents who reported a change in
the relationship with the broader
community (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Better%
No Change%
Worse%
Designated area
21
79
0
14
Designated forum
41
53
6
34
Pre submission Consultation
stage
64
36
0
44
Submitted Draft plan
60
40
0
10
Independent Examination
67
22
11
9
Made Neighbourhood Plan or
Order
50
50
0
2
Note: Table excludes those who answered ‘don’t know’. (Base n= 114)
Respondents reporting use of consultant in plan writing
(percentage)
Respondents (n)
Well%
OK%
Not So Well%
No Consultant
Used
33
67
0
15
Consultant Used
57
32
11
56
Note: Table excludes respondents who had not reached the plan writing stage. (Base n=71)
Respondents reporting use of consultants (percentage)
Respondents (n)
No Consultant used%
Consultant(s) used%
Parish
22
78
70
Forum
44
56
50
(Base n=120)
82
No
IMD deciles
Consultant(s)
Consultant(s) used
Respondents (n)
1
1
7
8
2
4
4
8
3
3
5
8
4
5
5
10
5
3
7
10
6
5
10
15
7
3
13
16
8
2
10
12
9
8
11
19
10
4
10
14
38
82
120
Total
Note: the neighbourhoods were ranked in this table using Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) level data.
Respondents reporting problems with Rules/Regulations (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Yes%
No%
Don't Know%
Parish
50
47
3
68
Forum
57
28
15
50
Note: Table excludes respondents who felt this question was N/A. (Base n= 118)
83
Stage Reached
Respondents reporting problems with Rules/
Regulations (percentage)
Respondents (n)
Yes%
No%
Don't Know%
Designated Area
40
33
27
15
Designated Forum
42
55
3
36
Pre-Submission Consultation stage
62
29
9
47
Submitted Draft Plan
50
50
0
10
Independent Examination
88
12
0
8
Note: Table excludes 1 respondent who felt they couldn't appropriately answer. (Base n= 116)
84
B-1 shows the level of grant received by the groups represented in the telephone survey.
No grants
received %
<£5,000
%
Between
£5,001 –
£10,000 %
Between
£10,001 £20,000 %
Between
£20,001 £30,000 %
£30,000+
%
Respondents
(n)
Parish
9
15
30
28
13
4
67
Forum
28
3
35
19
10
5
40
Note: Table excludes respondents who answered ‘don’t know’.
Rounding applied (Base n= 107)
Note: While the research could not examine the full range of inputs and costs associated with neighbourhood
planning, there is clearly scope to do further work to look at the inputs and costs of such activity and to
include, inter alia:

Volunteer time expended;

Public funds used for grant or direct support;

Other consultant costs incurred;

Local authority inputs and costs (including referendum);

Other materials and expenses.
85
Annex C records the feedback from each of the six focus groups. The six groups and the
themes covered were as follows:
Successful negotiation of neighbourhood planning: to explore the experience of
successfully using the neighbourhood planning rights. All groups had already passed
Examination and had completed plans within approximately two years.
Urban disadvantaged areas: these groups were drawn from the eligible forums (i.e. active
in neighbourhood planning for at least 6 months), containing neighbourhoods within the
most deprived 20 per cent of areas using the Index of Multiple Deprivation, and
participants were also spread geographically.
Growth areas: these were a mix of urban and rural areas from around the country with
high growth and development pressure.
Village expansion/sparsely populated areas: parishes that actively wanted to see
development in their neighbourhood (e.g. affordable housing) but have had some difficulty
in allocating sites or otherwise negotiating local or other policy. Such areas tend to be low
in the settlement hierarchy.
Weaker land market areas: to explore how neighbourhood planning might help to shape
development and encourage demand.
Stalled areas: neighbourhoods who were interested in neighbourhood planning but did not
eventually embark on, or otherwise progress, with neighbourhood planning activity (Note:
these groups were identified in dialogue with Planning Aid England and Locality.)
Responses for each of the groups consider:
a. Motives and context
b. Experiences
c. Ideas for change or Improvement
86
This focus group was drawn from areas that had passed through to examination or
referendum stage within a period of two years or less. This meant that the groups could
reflect on all or most of the formal steps involved in neighbourhood planning from direct
experience. The main theme for this group was how neighbourhood planning areas, such
as theirs, had navigated the process successfully, with a view to discussing how and what
they had done and what may be changed or improved.
Motivations of the groups here were focused on being able to control the type and design
of development likely in their neighbourhood. Some anticipated that neighbourhood
planning could be used to help mobilise a wider set of objectives, and it was argued that
links to other objectives (i.e. beyond land use planning) could help motivate some
people to undertake or be involved in neighbourhood planning. It was noted that all
attendees were parishes who had also completed some kind of Village Design
Statement/community plan prior to embarking on neighbourhood planning.
It was agreed that Community Infrastructure Levy income or other financial benefits were
a factor for some present, but this was not necessarily the overriding consideration in
completing a Plan. This was not regarded as an initial motive, but was seen as a relatively
recent development which was important.
Some participants stated that they had felt a little like ‘David vs Goliath’ and they were
trying to ‘protect’ the neighbourhood via the neighbourhood plan. Despite their success
it was, however, often a trying, complicated and time consuming process. The imbalance
of power was recognised between developers and the community and was a nagging
concern, as well as a driver, for some of the neighbourhood planning groups. Notably
there had been some individual negotiation with developers (outside of Community
Infrastructure Levy/Section 106 activity) which had brought the potential for additional
money or other benefits to the neighbourhood.
87
It was said that there was much more ‘planning’ content to the process than initially
envisaged by the groups. This has required a lot of support and a need for planning
knowledge, provided either from within the community or externally (via consultants).
Despite having progressed well, it was recognised that for some groups the local authority
was not ready to take the neighbourhood plan forward when the Qualifying Body desired
and this had caused delays, frustration, or both. This was attributed to a lack of
willingness or knowledge in the local authority, and where there was support, there was
also sometimes a lack of clarity about issues arising or questions posed and, as such, levels
of ‘knowhow’ were seen as important. Some delays were also compounded due to lack of
continuity (e.g. local councillors changing), given that the neighbourhood planning
process takes around two years or longer. Overall, for some representatives the
neighbourhood plan has helped strengthen relationships with the local authority and
where this has happened individual relations were seen as important in forging this
partnership.
Opposition within some sections of the community was a common feature, but it was
argued that this can be changed or appeased through the neighbourhood planning process.
To aid this process strong community development skills were seen to be needed. It was
perceived that it takes time to change attitudes towards development. The language used
and approach taken was regarded as important; and sharing and explaining responsibility
for key issues (such as housing for the younger generation) to the community was an
important element of this. The groups recognised a need to build trust within the
community and that a transparent neighbourhood planning process can expedite this.
Participants stated that having prepared a non-statutory community plan prior to
neighbourhood planning did not mean there were no other difficulties experienced, but it
was recognized that there was some understanding or grounding provided by such
exercises. It was asserted that smoothing the process by investing in early preparatory
work, i.e. ‘frontloading’, and community development activity was useful. It was stressed
that whatever changes are made to neighbourhood planning in the future, the
transparency and community development elements should be preserved.
Having appropriate skills on a steering group was seen as important. The principal obstacle
to progress was seen to be learning to navigate the planning system. Several participants
explained that others in future should expect or anticipate that the main person or people
undertaking the neighbourhood planning work will come under pressure from other
interests. This was repeated in at least one other focus group and some reflection on
support for such people appears worthy of attention, given that a degree of
neighbourhood planning progress appears to be dependent on the efforts of such
individuals.
88
There was a misunderstanding that Qualifying Bodies cannot campaign for a ‘yes’ vote in
a referendum. Such concerns were voiced in other focus groups as there was a degree of
nervousness about the referendum needing to be based on an informed vote.
Overall the group felt that they had, in some cases, helped develop knowledge and
understanding within the local authorities that should make it easier for subsequent
neighbourhoods implementing neighbourhood planning. It was anticipated that newer
neighbourhood planning areas should not all therefore face the same challenges as them.
The key changes considered worthy of exploration were varied but given the longer
experience of neighbourhood planning amongst this group the points made cover specific
technical issues encountered, as well as wider or more general means of improving the
navigability of neighbourhood planning.
The improvement of guidance and advice, in particular on the ‘what if’/how to’ questions
was seen as useful. For example ‘how to’ assess whether a neighbourhood plan will need
a Strategic Environmental Assessment10, or in another example ‘how to’ ensure that the
evidence base for the draft Plan is appropriate. One participant in this focus group argued
for a substantial and authoritative neighbourhood planning ‘Handbook’ to underpin and
guide the process. More generally a desire for some kind of straightforward ‘how to’
manual for neighbourhood planning groups was seen as being beneficial for new entrants.
The main point emphasised here was for the guidance to be authoritative.
Organising the neighbourhood plan through a project plan that is worked up early on, or
prior to embarking on the process proper, was perceived as important. The participants
concurred that there should ideally be simpler policies and plan writing information (the
term ‘concise and precise’ was used). There was an appetite for the preparation of
templates for elements of neighbourhood planning. Again Sustainability Appraisal and
Strategic Environmental Assessment were mentioned in this respect.
Lessons learned on the value of community engagement were emphasised. It was seen
that working with the wider community is important, but that striking a balance between
enthusing, without misleading the community, is necessary. Participants asserted that it
is difficult to achieve this without knowledge and understanding of the neighbourhood
10
One of the basic conditions that neighbourhood plans are tested against is whether the making of the plan is compatible with
European Union obligations, including obligations under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (the SEA Directive). An
environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes that are likely to have significant effects on the
environment. Further details of the relationship between neighbourhood plans and the requirements under the Directive can be
found in the Government’s planning guidance (see http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/strategic-environmental-assessment-and-sustainability-appraisal/sustainability-appraisal-requirements-for-neighbourhood-plans/).
89
planning process, rules and limits. Improved organisation and community development in
the early stages of the process might lead to faster progress at the latter stages of
neighbourhood planning (e.g. because less time is spent writing and consulting on
iterations of the plan). It was also claimed that the inclusion of broader, non-land use
policies in the wider or ‘supplementary’ part of the Plan can act to increase buy-in from
the community.
The use of professional input (i.e. planning expertise) was emphasised as important. It
was suggested that qualifying bodies did not necessarily need to do technical work
themselves. It was argued that this could be bought in if funding were available.
A point made strongly in the discussion was that it was necessary to introduce a
‘moratorium’ on planning permissions whilst the neighbourhood plan was being
developed, and that this should be pursued. How this could work practically was not
resolved, but the point reflects a frustration at development proceeding that could
undermine the emerging neighbourhood plan.
In relation to the latter stages of plan making, the issue of inconsistent approaches and
decisions taken by independent examiners was raised. This issue of consistency therefore
needed to be addressed, now that sufficient experience has been accrued. It was also
suggested that there should be an opportunity to improve the process of screening and
checking plans before examination and/or allowing examiners to pass plans subject to
(minor) changes.
90
The unifying theme for this group was how qualifying bodies in relatively disadvantaged
urban areas11 had approached and managed neighbourhood planning. All but one of the
participants operated in a non-parished area and had a neighbourhood forum. While it
was acknowledged that such urban communities are different and that community
knowledge and skills vary greatly, this type of obstacle was not really highlighted in the
discussions.
The main motivations expressed among the group centred on a desire to rebalance power
and control in planning, and to assert a voice in decisions about their neighbourhood.
There was therefore a strong desire to transfer power to the neighbourhood scale. There
was also a motive to influence local authority decision-making and make it more ‘localist’.
These motivations appear to be stimulated, in at least some places, by a history of
promises that had been seen not to have been kept by local authorities.
The neighbourhood plan was seen as providing influence over development; given both its
statutory footing and in terms of control over the design, type and scale of development.
For some present, however, it was the forum itself that was as important, if not more so,
than the plan; as it gave a voice and focus for ongoing interaction with the local authority.
In considering the advantages of a neighbourhood plan, respondents suggested that Local
Plans were seen as taking too long and not fine-grained enough, whereas the
neighbourhood plan was seen as a mechanism for a more ‘delicate brush’ than the Local
Plan - adding detail and local relevance.
The delivery of neighbourhood planning was important to the groups. However, it was
clear that the process of preparing neighbourhood plans uncovered wider concerns within
communities, and participants felt that their plans needed to be able to deal with issues
such as access to jobs, the future, and facilities for young people.
11
All participants in this focus group were from areas including neighbourhoods ranked as in the most deprived 20 per cent,
according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (based on LSOA).
91
The neighbourhood planning process was also seen by some participants in the focus group
as a means to engage with long-term residents and in some cases to solve unwelcome
patterns of development and to encourage types of housing needed by residents and their
families. Increasing affordable housing provision was mentioned explicitly in this vein as
well as leisure facilities in the neighbourhood.
The consensus in the group was that it had taken a long time for their applications to
designate a neighbourhood area to be decided, and for the group to be designated as a
neighbourhood forum. The participants agreed that Local Authority support, both in
tangible forms but also in terms of attitude was critical. Most groups had only passed
through to the pre-submission stage of the process. It became apparent that there were
quite low levels of awareness of both the planning system generally, and of what was
required for the later stages of neighbourhood planning. This became apparent in the
course of the discussion.
The early stage groups represented felt that the balance of effort was ‘90 per cent
community development and 10 per cent planning’, in contrast to the ‘successful
negotiation’ of neighbourhood planning focus group perspective which perceived a reverse
balance. These different assessments appear to reflect the conditions faced, as well as
the types of activity and inputs required at different stages of neighbourhood planning.
There appeared to be a high level of involvement and support from community
development workers, (either from the local authority or third sector organisations), in
the early stages. This was seen as useful and helped address the challenges of developing
consensus over the boundary of the neighbourhood area and composition of the
neighbourhood forum.
The process to reach agreement of the boundary of the neighbourhood area was discussed,
and it was felt that in some cases the Ward boundary was not appropriate for the
neighbourhood (due to a combination of size, community characteristics and resources
available to cope). It was agreed that a larger area can be too difficult to plan for; both
due to population size and also the possible diversity and complexity of planning matters
present. There was some concern that larger areas were being suggested, either by those
who wanted to be included (but did not want to produce a neighbourhood plan
themselves), or boundaries were being imposed by Local Authorities. It was asserted that
this could add to resource pressures and therefore weaken what the Plan could achieve,
or the time taken to realise it. More guidance on selecting boundaries was suggested and
was linked to support on managing relationships (i.e. community development and
engagement knowhow).
92
There was surprisingly little concern expressed about lack of skills, despite the
disadvantage of the areas represented. In fact some areas thought that their past
experience had created a relatively strong network of people and groups; including
residents associations and similar who were able to respond to the challenge and
opportunities presented by neighbourhood planning.
The issue of language (English as a second language), and literacy levels more generally,
were stated as a potential barrier, not least because planning language itself was seen as
dry and difficult to explain to the wider community. Overall, there was a perceived need
for more explanation of neighbourhood planning and for this to be communicated in a way
that residents could readily understand. Plan writing support was seen as very important.
An associated point raised was the real challenge of communities not understanding
planning or planning terminology. There was a danger perceived that the final Plan may
not be directly recognised by the wider community, because of this need to translate
community aspirations into planning language.
Participants agreed that the process was quite different to their initial expectations, and
some said that they were not sure they would have embarked on it had they realised what
was involved. It was stated that forum members in some cases did not understand the
limits to neighbourhood planning at first. Overall their experience has underlined that in
order to carry a community along with the process they could not ‘rush’ a neighbourhood
plan. Timing is therefore viewed as key, with a possible tension existing between hurrying
people through and actually losing momentum in the longer run. It was also stated that
maintaining commitment and longer term support was seen as particularly difficult
although it was not clear exactly why.
This focus group raised the challenge of not having a dedicated team or sufficient
resources. This was contrasted with parish councils that have parish clerks and could raise
a precept. This was compounded by the perception that forums were not able to use
grants flexibly to buy in the types of help required. The importance of having access to
funds for room hire and printing was highlighted, and the point was also made that if
steering groups have to spend time fundraising, they cannot work on the Plan.
Implementation of a plan’s policies was seen as the true test of a neighbourhood plan. It
was said that communities have been promised a lot through neighbourhood planning, but
whether anything will happen as a result remains to be seen. Other participants wanted
to place a stress on criticisms of neighbourhood planning, as for some it did not appear to
bring power to communities as yet. It was viewed as over-bureaucratic and process driven,
non-flexible and overall misleading for some community members.
93
A concern raised by some participants was that all of the work in the stages preparing of
plan could be lost or perceived as being ‘wasted’, if it was unsuccessful at the referendum
stage. The process was characterised by one participant as an ‘all or nothing’ exercise.
This raised the question of whether it was possible to compartmentalise neighbourhood
planning in some way that could provide incentives, rewards or guarantees to groups if
they reached significant stage points.
There was a mixed picture painted on relations and support from the Local Authorities.
Some participants talked of a positive relationship and support and in such cases the local
authority had been instrumental in keeping groups on track. It was claimed that these
were Authorities that had made specific staff available for neighbourhood planning. This
may point towards examining further the merit of a funded link officer in each local
authority.
When it came to the independent examination stage of the process, some groups wanted
to ‘pick’ the examiner based on their previous examination performance, reports or other
feedback. There may be a potential issue here, as something resembling a ‘beauty
contest’ may not be the best approach towards ensuring the integrity of the
neighbourhood planning process.
This group expressed the need for clearer advice, and as part of this some form of guide
would be welcomed. Templates for the various stages and for typical scenarios were
regarded as useful too. A point made here was that more guidance was generally felt to
be welcome but was preferred on balance to act as a guide rather than a prescription.
However it was identified that different support was needed for different groups. It was
suggested that simple guides could explain what neighbourhood planning is and this could
be used by Qualifying Bodies to explain neighbourhood planning to the wider community.
A key idea suggested was to look at improvements to project planning. In one case the
local authority had provided such a project plan and kept prompting the Qualifying Body
to keep to it. It is notable that this project plan idea was also connected in the discussion
to the presence of a neighbourhood planning link officer. The idea of orchestrating and
‘mapping’ the resources needed to deliver the plan through early project planning was
well received, but no other specific methods or details were suggested.
Help with analysing responses to consultation and how to look at policy options and policy
writing were suggested as important gaps. A skills audit tool was considered to be helpful
for assessing the need to recruit volunteers on to the forum or neighbourhood planning
steering group. Mutual or peer learning was seen as positive, and the idea of skills and
knowledge exchange visits clearly appealed to the group. The group saw the value in
94
having a pre-exam scrutiny process, to ensure that the submitted neighbourhood plan was
likely to adhere to examination requirements.
The referendum stage was seen as a potential challenge by some participants as turnouts
at elections are often low in the some neighbourhoods. Low turnouts were seen as
something that could be seen to affect the legitimacy of the neighbourhood plan. There
was some disappointment at the perceived inflexibility of the voting system. Suggestions
for change or improvement included the use of non-traditional polling places, or
permitting voting over a number of days. As with other focus groups, the rules around
campaigning during the run up to the referendum were not widely understood.
95
The main theme for this group was the exploration of neighbourhood planning group
experience in high development (or growth pressure) areas. The participants were drawn
predominantly from parished areas, and therefore some of the points also featured in the
sparsely populated area focus group discussions. The participants were typically well
advanced through the neighbourhood planning process. The key point made in this group
was the frustration felt given that development proposals could invalidate, or undermine,
their emerging neighbourhood plan.
The groups had generally started from a position of a lack of faith (poor experiences
leading to low expectations) in local government and the planning system. The quality of
public sector planners and public advocates used by local authorities was also seen as
inferior, or scarcer, compared to the resources available to developers and landowners.
Neighbourhood planning was seen as presenting an opportunity to redress this. Thus there
was a motivation expressed around ‘managing change on our terms’ and getting a chance
to say what type of development went where in response to planning applications. This
was in contrast to perceptions of decisions in the past.
While accepting development, they wanted to shape change and to protect local
character. In some areas it was deemed important to preserve distinctive places and avoid
the merger of settlements. Links were made to the need to also think through and
influence the development of supporting infrastructure. There was a desire from some
participants to see sustainable places with an emphasis on attracting or encouraging
employment uses as well as addressing the need for housing. The context of growth had
prompted participants to think about the wider needs of their area over time, and this
often meant a more complex Plan was required. For example in some areas where growth
was envisaged the neighbourhood plan needed to include consideration of education,
other services and employment uses.
Most present had parish planning or Village Design Statement backgrounds which had given
them some experience of community engagement. In some cases this had provided useful
material that was used to inform the neighbourhood plan.
The language used and the scenario painted by this group was one of developers ‘circling
the village’ and putting in speculative planning applications. Given the pressure for
development, the neighbourhood plan and steering group could be seen as a buffer or
96
intermediary between NIMBYs12 and developers; serving to provide a more reasonable and
detailed plan to absorb development.
Neighbourhood planning had clearly been a bigger commitment than participants had
expected. However, even knowing what they know now, they indicated they would still
want to produce a neighbourhood plan. It was agreed that the neighbourhood planning
process can have a positive impact on community ‘cohesion’ and bring about a change of
attitudes to development.
Planning and development pressure in the areas represented in the group had a significant
influence on the decision to embark on neighbourhood planning. The absence of an
up-to-date Local Plan, or challenges to the housing targets in Local Plans, was seen as
making the pressure on, and importance of, the neighbourhood plan even greater.
Given that it takes considerable time to produce a neighbourhood plan, the participants
were frustrated that planning and development decisions, and policy making, was able to
carry on, despite or in parallel with their efforts to prepare their Plan. This situation can
cause frustration in the wider community and the neighbourhood plan steering group. It
was argued that this situation can severely undermine the emerging Plan, making it
appear less relevant, since it sits at the lowest tier in the development plan hierarchy.
Frustration was apparent as the group believed that a decision maker cannot give any
weight to the neighbourhood plan when determining planning applications until the plan
has finally been made. It also raised questions about where to focus time and resources,
on the neighbourhood plan or fighting more immediate planning applications. The threat
of a Judicial Review of the neighbourhood plan process was also a concern, and the need
for clarification about the basis or possible reasons for Judicial Review was raised.
This focus group was less positive, compared to others, about the role of their respective
local authorities. A range of issues had been encountered and were attributed to a lack
of resources or capacity, a lack of understanding of the system or were explained by Local
Authorities not being open to different approaches. Some groups indicated that they
considered themselves lucky, as they had skills in the community and had benefitted from
access to government support and funding. This implied that without such support a
neighbourhood plan would have been more difficult.
Various skills and knowledge were perceived as being needed; notably technical planning
skills and those of developing and maintaining relationships with stakeholders in order to
keep momentum.
12
Those seen who oppose development on the basis of: “not in my backyard.”
97
There was a concern that there was inconsistency in examiner decisions. It was clear that
the Qualifying Bodies are scrutinising independent examination reports and, as indicated
in other focus groups, consistency is seen as an issue that needs consideration.
It was claimed that guidance should be improved to ensure that new groups understand
what was involved in neighbourhood planning. The suggestion of checklists for groups to
ensure they had covered all the necessary or recommended considerations and
preparations at the start of the process and a toolkit to help shape thinking, were both
viewed as useful. The discussion on this, when taken together, was tantamount to
proposing that better project planning overall was needed.
There was some frustration about the perceived limits to policies that appeared possible
for neighbourhood planning groups. Some representatives wanted more freedom to set
locally relevant policies, for example to set limits on affordable housing and the example
of ‘locals only’ housing was voiced. Other already existing tools were recognised by some
as assisting with such objectives. It became clear that knowledge of a wider range of
planning tools such as supplementary planning documents, area action plans, and ‘Article
4’ directions, was not extensive. One representative expressed enthusiasm about the
establishment of a Community Land Trust to develop low cost housing, a tool that other
participants were not familiar with, but expressed interest in, suggesting that advice on
how to deliver a plan could be welcome.
More specific suggestions for support included assistance with an engagement strategy.
This was seen as important to ensure inclusivity, representativeness and wider buy-in for
the Plan going forward into a referendum. It was stated that policy writing support needs
attention, together with tools to help with decision making, but these should not be
prescriptive e.g. ‘if you are thinking of doing this you might want to consider or, have a
look at this’. There was a stated need for more specific technical support, for example
on Strategic Environmental Assessments, site assessments, and how to objectively assess
housing needs.
The group suggested that more facilitated communication between the areas could be a
next step in developing neighbourhood planning, with a need to look at ways of rapidly
speeding up the transfer of experience from place to place identified. ‘Planning Camps’
(i.e. peer learning and training), such as those currently provided through the
neighbourhood planning support arrangements, were seen as useful in this regard, as well
as online forums. Mentoring arrangements, when prompted, were also regarded as a good
idea.
98
As with other focus groups, it was suggested that some form of moratorium on planning
permissions being given once a neighbourhood plan has been submitted could be
considered. This was seen as a means of avoiding circumstances overtaking the emerging
Plan.
The group also suggested that appropriate training for Independent Examiners was
important to ensure consistency in the examination process.
99
This group was convened for Qualifying Bodies who were operating in sparsely populated
rural contexts. The main theme emerging for this group was working to mediate interests
within the community and working with the local authority. Mixed experiences were
reported here with some good support and liaison in some areas, as well as less enthusiasm
for neighbourhood planning being demonstrated by the local authorities.
A lack of trust in the local authority was a key theme of this group. The aim therefore was
to regulate and shape growth and provide more detail to policy. The group wanted to take
control in light of a perceived lack of detailed understanding, or positive attitude to their
particular area on the part of the Local Planning Authority. Examples were cited, such as
where one Authority had imposed a ‘blanket prohibition’ on development in areas like
theirs, following a traditional settlement hierarchy13 approach to development across the
district. The participants claimed they were not ‘against development’ and not averse to
allocating sites; instead they had a desire to shape development. This is an important
claim that may indicate how neighbourhood planning can be a tool to ensure that
development is accepted more readily, if some degree or control over that development
has been secured at the neighbourhood scale.
As with other groups it was agreed that community-led planning processes (such as parish
planning) can help develop a broad understanding of some of the issues and solutions that
neighbourhood plans may cover later.
In one case neighbourhood planning had provided an opportunity for those concerned with
the longer term development of their area to take the lead rather than depend on the
parish council or local planning authority. In this instance the neighbourhood planning
project was led by a steering group of the parish council, on behalf of, and reporting to,
the parish council. This connected with what was seen as a ‘mixed’ experience of their
local authority and highlighted how critical the local authority relationship was.
The time taken to prepare the Plan was not well understood initially, and the process of
preparing the plan for submission, even after writing the policies, seemed burdensome
and bureaucratic. It was felt that consultation periods appear to be doubled-up and, as
13
Categorising settlements is commonly used to help determine the level of growth that will be allocated to a particular place. A
hierarchy is commonly based on the number of key facilities and services available in settlements, as well as information on
employment and travel to work. This is in keeping with the ‘functional’ approach to planning, whereby it is the role and function of
a settlement that will determine its position in a hierarchy.
100
with at least one other focus group, this was seen as an item that could be reviewed.
Turnaround times on draft plan by local authorities also added to delay. Overall some
parts of the plan and the paperwork felt disproportionately burdensome, given the
(limited) aims of the neighbourhood plan. There is an opportunity to consider what is
already covered during the Planning application process and what is necessary for the
neighbourhood plan, given that it needs to conform to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan.
The groups did need help with policy writing and it was recognised that in reality the
neighbourhood plan has three audiences: the community, developers and the Local
Planning Authority as decision makers. One group had become risk averse and had
explicitly aimed to write their neighbourhood plan draft to conform to the National
Planning Policy Framework as a primary consideration; given uncertainties over Local Plan
progress and eventual soundness.
Cross-boundary issues were raised and there was some unease that neighbourhood
planning groups were working in small areas that were clearly related or have an impact
on each other, but there was little or no capacity and no effective mechanism to assist
with cross-boundary cooperation or integration.
The participants voiced concern over whether the final policies will actually deliver as
the community desired and this was linked to a recognition that drafting 'watertight'
policies was a very technical and difficult exercise. It was recognised that decisions are
ultimately made by the local planning authority and if there is a lack of ‘ownership’ by
the authority then the Plan could be subverted or ignored. It was acknowledged that local
authority involvement needed to be on-going as they were the ones implementing the
Plan. Equally, it was acknowledged that the Plan needed to be implemented by
developers.
For some the possible Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) income was a consideration,
and this had some influence in making their housing policies more flexible. It became
clear through discussion that participants’ understanding of the Independent Examination
and referendum stages was fairly limited, even for those who were nearing those stages.
Again clear project planning and details of the requirements to successfully complete a
Plan appeared to be needed.
Better explanation of what is involved in terms of time and activity required was seen as
being beneficial for new entrants to neighbourhood planning. Planning knowledge was
seen as key, consequently it was suggested that new entrants would benefit from advice
on what constitutes development and can therefore be addressed through a
neighbourhood planning and what constitutes ‘other’ non-planning matters.
101
The idea of a ‘health check’ at key stages that could help ensure quality and compliance
was suggested.
It was stated that existing advice and guides needed to be consolidated, and that this
should be accessible and easy to find. This appeared to relate to clear descriptions of the
steps and tasks involved, which it was thought could be set out in some form of user
handbook. A review of the Locality ‘Roadmap’ may be worth pursuing (as indicated in
other focus groups). This point also conveyed the idea that what is needed is improved
project planning and support for this type of preparatory activity.
Similarly a protocol or memorandum of understanding that could assist in establishing
expectations and the needs of parties was received positively when suggested.
It was stated in this group that neighbourhood planning needs dedicated officers in Local
Authorities, and it was affirmed that policy writing support was needed and that more
should be made of the duty to support; again echoing the findings in chapter 3 above. The
feeling was that in terms of resources, the ‘new burdens’ money should be ring-fenced
for neighbourhood planning and it was argued that some flexibility in funding rules (i.e.
purpose, timing of funding) should be enabled.
Participants questioned whether both the six week pre-submission publicity and
consultation and the post submission six week publicity period on drafts plans were
necessary (especially if engagement has been strong within the neighbourhood).
Participants in this groups would like to see Qualifying Bodies become more active and
engaged as a locus for planning locally. This was seen to reflect, in part, a frustration
with moribund or ‘reactive’ parish or town councils (and corresponded to a similar point
about the role of forums in the urban areas focus group).
102
This group was convened to reflect on how neighbourhood planning is performing in areas
where development pressure was lower. It came across however that even in such areas
development activity was still present and possible sites were apparent to the
neighbourhood planners and other actors and indeed it was noted that some sites were
already allocated in Local Plans in such areas. It was noted that all of the participants in
this focus group had some prior or professional knowledge of planning.
The communities present wanted to direct development and growth. There was a desire
to lever in other desired development e.g. community and leisure facilities were cited.
There had been a perceived lack of attention or investment by Local Authorities in some
areas, and so some groups argued that they wanted to adopt a DIY or self-help approach
to get needed change into their area, and that the neighbourhood plan appeared to
provide a tool for this.
The statutory status of the neighbourhood plan appears to be an overriding selling point this trumps the use and availability of other tools which tend to be seen as ineffective or
not carrying enough weight. There was a mixed experience of local authority roles and
performance cited amongst the participants’ experiences, but there was a feeling that
the Local Planning Authorities had been not engaged enough overall. Thus neighbourhood
planning was seen as a tool to shape perceived future demand for growth, and as a method
for achieving local infrastructure goals. There was a point voiced about (planning)
stipulations on sites that made them unviable, and that through neighbourhood planning
these could be adjusted, so that positive outcomes would be achievable. It was also
perceived by those present that the neighbourhood plan could assist in shaping developer
expectations.
The expectations of the work involved and the likely timings were reflected upon and
seen as unrealistic, both on the part of the Qualifying Body and the local authority; it was
seen that tasks generally had taken much longer than anticipated. Neighbourhood
planning groups had needed the local authority to sign things off and the groups were
reliant on the timeliness and quality of this process which had been uneven. It was agreed
that the role and specific actions or timings required here could be spelled out as part of
a memorandum of understanding or similar protocol.
103
Several participants had been trying to make sure Plans were accessible to a wide
audience, evoking the questions of engagement and accessibility of planning language
once again. Structuring or managing expectations was seen as useful and efforts aimed at
ensuring appropriate communications about the limits and potentials of neighbourhood
planning should be sustained. As with another focus group, the translation of community
aspirations into planning language was a concern. Writing such policies was seen as a very
specialist job, and those without specialist planners on board would be very dependent
on the Local Authority.
Preparing for submission of the final draft neighbourhood plan is recognised as a time
consuming process, even where no substantive changes to the draft plan are being made.
The issue of emerging neighbourhood plans not carrying significant influence in the
planning system (even at advanced stages) was a bugbear. There was frustration that
despite the efforts and diligence involved decisions over development were tending to
give little or no regard to emerging neighbourhood plans.
This focus group raised the role of local businesses in the neighbourhood planning process.
More specifically the fact that outside of designated business areas, businesses cannot
vote in a referendum, despite the fact that there may be substantial business activity, for
example a small retail or food service presence. Concern about low turnout amongst those
who were eligible to vote was also raised by this focus group. The group thought that
participants in neighbourhood planning would appreciate better guidance on Qualifying
Bodies campaigning on a ‘Yes/No’ basis, as well as general publicity to ensure awareness.
It was claimed that too much change or revision at the Independent Examination stage
could stall a neighbourhood plan and the issue of the voluntary nature of neighbourhood
planning and the danger of giving up on the project, if too many obstacles were presented,
was raised. It was highlighted that the current requirements ran the risk of the process
becoming professionalised.
More guidance on project management was also seen as useful, and leadership and
planning knowledge were both recognised as different but crucial skills in neighbourhood
planning. There was support for a form of protocol or memorandum of understanding
between the neighbourhood planning group and local authority. Policy writing was eased
by the presence of specialists in support as consultants. Inputs for Strategic Environmental
Assessment and technical aspects of this were required and seen as rather daunting uncertainty existed about what was needed, and why. It was stated that the legal
situation with existing neighbourhood organisations becoming forums could do with some
‘ironing out’, although there were not specific recommendations about how this could be
achieved. Community engagement was seen as critical to the overall process and it was
104
noted that inadequate early stage consultation is potentially difficult to correct
afterwards.
Guidance on what precipitates the need for certain elements to be included or undertaken
e.g. Strategic Environmental Assessment, was cited as being important. Overall there was
a consensus that the ‘figure it out yourselves attitude’ (i.e. the light touch approach
perceived to be maintained by DCLG) is not an efficient one for volunteer groups. More
explanation of wording and meanings in planning was seen to be necessary and simple
advice notes or a handbook was seen as an aid here. The idea that ‘rules’ needed to be
clearer led to the group favouring some form of template that would usefully aid clarity.
The perception was that the examination process could be a bit ‘brutal’ for some
volunteer led groups – with developer and landowner representation being regarded as
intimidating. The idea of screening and health-checking before reaching that stage
appeared to have traction given these concerns, and the idea was mooted of bringing the
pre-examination review into mainstream practice and possibly ensuring that an earlier
stage check is made. Thinking in more detail about how to give weight to draft
neighbourhood plans (again linked to the possible planning permission moratorium idea
expressed elsewhere) was seen as a useful area to explore.
There was a desire expressed for government to explore who should be eligible to vote in
the referendum, with the suggestion that the rules should be more inclusive and allow for
others with an interest in the area to vote (e.g. traders and relevant businesses without
an address in the neighbourhood).
105
The main theme for this small group of participants was to explore the reasons for some
groups stalling on their initial aspirations to create a neighbourhood plan. Despite having
been frustrated by some aspects of partner behaviour (i.e. local authorities), the
participants were able to discuss their motives and experiences freely. As would be
expected, much of the discussion in this focus group related to early stage issues and
obstacles. There were only three participants in this group; two were rural areas
(parished) and one urban fringe (non-parished).
The motives and aims of the areas represented were fairly simple and centred on the
character of place (i.e. the neighbourhood). This was viewed as important and it was
considered worth developing a neighbourhood plan to assist with shaping development in
terms of design, scale and type. One representative wanted simply to ‘shape housing
types’. The lack of a Local Plan, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework,
was seen as a prompt which led to one Qualifying Body thinking about what they needed
to do to protect themselves and what development they wanted to see.
The groups did feel that their initial understanding of the scope or degree of control over
development and the process of neighbourhood planning was not accurate and that it had
taken some time to grasp what was possible and then how legal and regulatory
requirements were likely to affect their neighbourhood plan ‘project’, or the aspirations
they held. It emerged during the discussions that the groups had a lack of clarity about
the necessary form of a neighbourhood plan.
All present had become frustrated by a series of issues and obstacles that were largely
unexpected. It was indicated that the lack of preparedness and attitudes at local authority
level were mixed, and often unhelpful to the ‘early adopting’ neighbourhood planning
areas. One participant claimed that the local authority wanted to keep all planning power
at the district level and were deliberately obstructive.
One participant argued that they have been able to influence site allocations anyway as
their status as a neighbourhood planning group gave them voice. The lack of a Local Plan
also hampered progress in one area and had apparently influenced the attitude of the
local authority towards their emerging neighbourhood planning work.
106
There was a feeling of isolation expressed by two of the participants and a perceived lack
of support. The need to get support early in order to build momentum and stability was
desirable, but there may be more emphasis required if key community actors are not to
be deterred from steering neighbourhood plan work in future. It was agreed that
neighbourhood planning can be an antagonistic process given the issues at hand and there
was a danger; that had transpired for some participants, of the vilification of those leading
the plan process. This was expressed in the ‘successful’ focus group too and it was
acknowledged by the group that such individuals can become an important resource for
the plan process in that neighbourhood.
Reasons for slow or stalled progress were seen as a result of cumulative obstacles,
although for one group it was the local authority blocking their area designation that
completely halted progress. More widely resources and support from the Local Authorities
were seen to be variable and it was suggested perhaps ‘political’. The Local Authorities
were seen as being not ready to actively support neighbourhood planning, and there was
a perceived clash of priorities between neighbourhoods and Local Authorities, with the
latter seeing progression of the Local Plan as taking precedence.
Two areas reported that changes to proposed neighbourhood boundaries being made were
not consistent with the Qualifying Body’s wishes (and in apparent conflict with existing
guidance). In one case to avoid the inclusion of strategic development sites. This was seen
as undermining the neighbourhood planning process as the sites would still affect the
neighbourhood but the adjacent neighbourhood would not necessarily get benefits from
Community Infrastructure Levy receipts or any real say in the development on those sites
since they would fall outside of their plan area.
The groups felt uncertainty over the rules and boundaries or requirements that
neighbourhood planning placed upon them, and some of their concerns have been
demonstrated in other areas where they observe plans failing, or for example the need
for Strategic Environmental Assessment being confirmed. This, along with other factors,
such as professional planning and policy terminology being employed, has left steering
groups feeling that they had somewhat ‘lost control’ of their neighbourhood plan. It was
felt it would be useful to be offered advice on how to deal with or
communicate with developers appropriately, without harming relations within the
community or jeopardising the integrity of the neighbourhood planning process. It was
stated that despite such concerns they were learning much more about planning, and
neighbourhood planning activity is developing further interest in local issues.
Furthermore, it was purported that allowing development to take place during
neighbourhood plan preparation acted to undermine their efforts. Some of the emerging
results were also off-putting to some groups (e.g. revisions, and the failure of the
107
submitted
plan
at
examination
in
the
Slaugham
case
was
cited).
The duty to support was an example where the guidance on neighbourhood planning was
viewed as being unclear or not sufficiently strong, and it appeared to participants in this
group that Local Authorities could interpret it as they wished or substantively ignore it.
Overall the neighbourhood planning process needed proper support, and there was a need
to get Local Authorities to lead the process for Qualifying Bodies in their neighbourhood
and get them to outline the process effectively.
In terms of changes that were seen as useful, this group viewed having a critical friend or
mentor as helpful as a source of support and advice. For instance this could involve
enrolling a volunteer who had successfully helped oversee a neighbourhood planning
process elsewhere.
It was perceived that smaller or less skilled communities may need extra assistance, this
prompted discussion of a more bespoke approach to future support. It was recognized
that there should be more work done to understand and ensure that groups themselves
know what is required of them (as well as others), and that support and expectations are
proportionate. Project planning also appeared to be of assistance in this regard; mapping
of the work or developing a project plan that also identifies who is doing what, or who
will be needed to assist with likely future issues was welcomed. Templates for particular
tasks or stages were also seen as being useful by all participants.
It was agreed in this group that there was possible value in developing a model protocol
or memorandum of understanding between Qualifying Bodies and the local authority; to
ensure that expectations and needs are understood and addressed realistically. Some
groups recognised now that they should have engaged earlier and more determinedly with
the local authority. If a shared need to shape a memorandum of understanding were
understood then both parties would have an initial basis and driver to work from
collaboratively.
Some queried whether and how a duty to cooperate could or should work between
parishes or forums. Given the cross-boundary issues apparent in some places (and the fact
that such a duty exists between Local Authorities), this was seen as an issue that may
become more significant over time.
It was said that some thought about level of precept and population size could be a factor
in helping to determine the amount of financial support given to areas. Given the
orientation of this group, it was suggested that funding could be used to target the factors
that blocked or stalled groups.
108
Q1. Please confirm the name of the neighbourhood.
Q2. What stage have you reached in Neighbourhood Planning?
a) Expressed interest

b) Designated Area

c) Designated Forum

d) Pre submission Consultation stage

e) Submitted Draft Plan

f)

Independent Examination
g) Referendum

h) ‘Made’ Neighbourhood Plan or Order

Q3. Is the neighbourhood parished or not?
Q4. Population covered in the neighbourhood planning area.
Q5. Is the NDP/NDO looking to allocate sites for homes?
Q6. What are the main features about the NP area that have affected the NP experience
so far?
Q7. When was the decision made to embark on Neighbourhood Planning?
Q8. What did you want to achieve?
Q9. Is this why did you decided to embark on NP? Or other reasons?
Q10. Who instigated or started this?
•
Individual community member

•
Existing community group

•
Parish town council

•
BID Group

•
Local Authority

•
Other (please specify)

Q11. Please explain how the group started the NP process?
109
Q12. How many of your NP group are ‘active’ in Neighbourhood Planning?
Q13. What factors have enabled progress for the NP group?
Q14. Has the NDP/NDO increased or decreased in its ambition since the beginning?
Q15. Please explain why/
Q16. What do you think you are likely to end up achieving?
Q17. What internal factors have inhibited your Neighbourhood Plan progress, if any?
(tick as many as apply)
•
People leaving the group

Disagreements over content or approach
• Conflicts of interest
• Other (please specify)
•



Q18. Would you say that relations within the broader community have changed since
embarking on NDP overall?
Q19. Why is that? (i.e. which section / groups in the community better / worse?)
Q20. Please confirm whether your group has received help from Supporting Communities in Neighbourhood Planning fund provided by Government through Locality?
Q21. If YES was it:
• Direct Support
• Grant Aid
• Both Direct Support & Grant



a. Designation of area [non-parished]
Q22. How did the process go?
Q23. Please explain
Q24. Have you experienced any delays or problems with the area designation stage of
the process? (What?)
Q25. Why? / Source of the problem.
Q26. What do you think could be improved or simplified?
Q27. How should it be changed in your view?
Q28. Advice / support on this?
110
b. Evidence gathering
Q29. How did the process go?
Q30. Have you experienced any delays or problems with assembling evidence for your
plan? What are they?
Q30b. Why? / Source of the problem.
Q31. What do you think could be improved or simplified?
Q32. How should it be changed in your view?
Q33. Please give details/explanation.
c. Plan Writing
Q34. How did the process go?
Q35. Have you experienced any delays or problems with writing your plan? What are
they?
Q35b. Why? / Source of the problem?
Q36. What do you think could be improved or simplified?
Q37. How should it be changed in your view?
Q38. Please give details/explanation
d. Consultation and community engagement
Q39. How did the process go?
Q40. What advice and support have you found or received on? Community engagement /
Consultation on the draft plan?
Q40b. How could guidance on consultation on the draft plan be improved?
Q41. How could guidance on writing plans be improved?
Q42. What should be changed in your view?
Q43. Please give details/explanation.
Q44. What do you think could be improved or simplified?
Q45. [If applicable] how has publicity process of the draft plan been handled by the
group?
Q46. Please explain.
e. Independent Examination
111
Q47. How did the process go?
Q47b. Have you experienced any delays or problems with the examination?
Q48. If YES Why? / Source of the problem?
Q49. In your view are the requirements to pass independent examination (the regs)
proportionate to the ambitions of your Neighbourhood Plan?
Q50. What do you think could be improved or simplified?
Q51. Please give details/explanation.
f. Neighbourhood Planning - Overall
Q52. How did the process go?
Q52b. What has gone well in the process so far? Please explain.
Q53. Has the process been more burdensome than you expected?
Q54. Please explain.
Q55. What might be done to make NP more attractive to communities? (tick as many as
apply).
•
Better explanation of the process
•
Better explanation of variation (& possible simplicity) between NDPs
•
More face-to-face support
•
More shared learning/peer support
•
Fast process
•
Other (please specify).
Q56. Has Neighbourhood Planning proved to be what your group expected?
Q57. Please Explain.
Q58. How has your group found the task of preparing accompanying documents that
must be prepared and submitted: Basic condition statement / Statement of community
consultation.
Q59. What, if any, other changes could be made to improve or simplify Neighbourhood
Planning?
Q60. Do you feel that the Neighbourhood Planning process is proportionate to your aims?
Q60b. Please explain.
112
a. Consultants
Q61. IF paid consultants have been used - what has their main contribution been?
Q62. How useful would you say they have been?
•
‘Essential’
• ‘Helpful but not essential’
• ‘Little impact’
• ‘Unhelpful’




‘Don’t know’
• ‘Too early to say’
• Other (please specify)



•
Q63. What else, if anything, will the paid consultants be doing for you (if known)? Please
specify.
Q64. Why couldn’t the Neighbourhood Planning group do this itself?
b. Local Council (Local planning Authority)
Q65. How supportive has the Local Council generally been so far?
Q66. If very or somewhat supportive please explain what / who has been positive?
[i.e. Planning officers, Cllrs, others]
Q67. IF less supportive / no support - how could they improve their support?
c. Government
Q68. Are there any particular problems with the NP process and rules regulations that
should be addressed?
Q69. If YES, What specifically?
Q70. Would templates for stages or plans for NP assist? In what way? What exactly would
you like?
Q71. What skills and knowledge are there in the group relevant to NP? See below:
• Town Planning
• Community engagement


113
•
•
•
•
•
•
Design / Architecture
IT
Project Management
Marketing
General Management
Other (please specify)






Q72. What skills or knowledge do you feel your team is missing? (Please specify)
Q73. Have you been able to access missing skills / knowledge from elsewhere?
Q74. If YES, Please explain how / where / who from.
Q75. Does your volunteer group have capacity to pursue multiple tasks or stages of NP in
parallel?
Q76. Please explain.
Q77. What other information or support has been most useful the group?
•
•
•
•
•
NP Websites
Printed guides on NP
Face to face advice on NP
Support from another NP group
Other





Q78. Please expand on the above (e.g. what is most useful?).
Q79. What: i. aspect and ii. type of information and support needs improvement?
• Aspect (i.e. topic)
• Type (i.e. form / medium)
Q80. Has the group reflected on other planning and related tools as a means to achieve
similar or part of your Neighbourhood Planning aims?
•
•
•
•
•
Supplementary Planning Document
‘Article 4’ Direction
Area Action Plan
Parish Plan
Other (YES)




 please specify …
114
[Whether NP groups are aware of other rights specifically Neighbourhood Development
Orders, Community Right to Build Orders]
Q81. Have you / your group heard of NDO?
Q82. Have you / your group heard of CRtBO?
Q83. Is NDO or CRtB already part of your neighbourhood planning project?
Q84. Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs) allow Parishes/Forums to give
automatic planning permission for specific kinds of development within a specified area.
Do you think this might be useful to you?
Q85. Please explain.
Q86. Community Right to Build (CRtB) allows some Parishes/Forums to grant permission
for specific development schemes (usually housing). Are you eligible? Do you think this
might be useful to you? Eligible / Useful
Q87. Please explain.
Q88. What aspects of the NDP process could be: Clarified? / Speeded up?
Q89. Why?
Q90. What aspects of the NDO process could be: Clarified? / Speeded up?
Q91. Why?
Q92. What aspects of the CRtB process could be: Clarified? / Speeded up?
Q93. Why?
Q94. Have there been other unexpected consequences that have stemmed from
starting/developing a Neighbourhood Development Order?
Q95. Have there been other unexpected consequences that have stemmed from
starting/developing a Community Right to Build Order?
Q96. Have there been other consequences which have resulted from starting to develop
a Neighbourhood Development Plan / NDO/CRtB?
Q97. Do you have any suggestions about how to ease the burden on NP groups that has
not been covered?
Q98. What additional comments if any do you have you about engaging in Neighbourhood
Planning?
Q99. In the briefing note we asked if you could provide an estimate of amount / costs.
Please explain.
115
Q100. Would you be willing to be called again to confirm / clarify any information within
the next few weeks?
116