Is the new National Policy Planning Framework just 'tokenistic consultation'?

The NPPF has been 'updated', with mixed results - and a very mixed response:
Futures Forum: The ruinous planning policy MPs don’t want you to know about 
Futures Forum: The new National Policy Planning Framework "is a developers' charter"
Futures Forum: The new National Policy Planning Framework: the response from Devon
Futures Forum: The new National Policy Planning Framework is "closing the viability loophole" 
  
As far as the voice of the civic movement is concerned, it's a process which has much to be desired:

Civic Voice submits draft NPPF consultation response and asks if government is genuinely listening?

Civic Voice submits draft NPPF consultation response and query whether government is taking the consultation seriously: Civic Voice queries whether consultation was tokenistic or a serious approach to solve the nation’s housing crisis

Civic Voice – the authoritative voice of the civic movement – has submitted its final response to the draft National Planning Policy Framework consultation. The response is available here.

Ian Harvey, Executive Director said: “If the report in Planning Magazine over the weekend is true and the Government's Chief Planner did confirm that the Government has received over 27,000 responses to the draft consultation, we believe that this shows the breadth of feeling across the country about the importance of our planning system."

Responding to the draft NPPF, Civic Voice is calling for:

1. Given our membership and reach nationwide, we are concerned by the London-centric nature of the NPPF; a greater level of ambition for economic development to is vital to address the viability challenges in some parts of the country.

2. The draft NPPF says much about the importance of design, however, it is our fear that as drafted, high quality design could be seen as a ‘nice to have’ but ‘easy to ignore’ rather than as an essential dimension of good planning.

3. Civic Voice supports the emphasis on early and meaningful engagement with communities within the draft NPPF and we would welcome working with MCHLG to develop the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance on this.

Harvey added: “We agree with the Government that finding a solution to the housing crisis is essential and we really hope that this was not a tokenistic consultation. We must ask, if the Government does want to publish the final consultation before the end of July, can it realistically be expected to review the thousands of responses comprehensively within a matter of weeks? We look forward to seeing the final document when it is released as it is important that the Government gets this right, because the consequences of getting it wrong will be felt for many years to come.”

Civic Voice President Griff Rhys Jones finished by saying “Whilst the Government wants to see the ‘right homes in the right places’, if it doesn’t get this right, it is very likely to end up with the ‘wrong homes in the wrong places. We hope they listen to the voices of communities across England.”

Civic Voice | News | Civic Voice submits draft NPPF consultation response and asks if government is genuinely listening?

The question East Devon Watch has now raised is whether the latest consultation on central government's planning guidance has not only been 'tokenistic' - but actually promises less real 'consultation' on future planning matters:
Planning consultation – new NPPF weakens public input | East Devon Watch

Back in July, the Consultation Institute was hopeful that there would indeed be proper input in local planning issues:
tCI’s response to the Interim Report of the Raynsford Review on greater community involvement in planning — The Consultation Institute

The Institute is now clearly disappointed: 

The NPPF and consultation or revised Planning policy and consultation

August 17, 2018

In May, the Government (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) held a consultation on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework – the headline planning policy document from which all other planning policy stems.

The Institute responded to the consultation, specifically commenting on the very opaque legislation / guidance surrounding the requirements for consultation in planning and development.

Despite growing concern about public disaffection in the planning system, the guidance contained within the original NPPF was very vague: while developers were encouraged to engage and the benefits are described, there was nothing in law to require developers to consult local people before submitting a planning application.

The revised NPPF has now been published and we were disappointed to see that very little has changed in the requirement to consult.

Engagement is still only ‘encouraged’; one of the few changes being that it has been extended from solely statutory, to both statutory and non-statutory consultees.

However, the list of information requirements that local authorities must make of developers has been reduced from ‘proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposals’ to ‘kept to the minimum needed to make decisions’. To view the exact changes between the two documents, click here.

While the legal requirement for developers to consult remains opaque, the notion that community involvement can benefit planning decisions is unequivocal.

Planning is ultimately about people: whether a local authority-run strategic plan or a private sector-led development proposal, change to the built environment impacts on communities. While it is generally believed that those proposing changes should involve local residents as a courtesy, additionally planners and developers have much to benefit from involving local people.

Consultation provides the opportunity to glean information and ideas from a local community. This might include knowledge of local history and which has the potential to enrich a scheme, otherwise unknown social issues which might have delayed the process, and the needs and aspirations of the community which may be met through the new development. With local input, proposals can be enriched and finely tuned to a specific neighbourhood, creating a unique scheme well suited to its location.

The local community, too, can benefit: community involvement can promote social cohesion, strengthen individual groups within it and create a shared legacy.

Following local dialogue at an early stage and having had proposals either challenged or welcomed, a developer has a greater chance of building local support for a proposed scheme. And a well-run consultation can build a trusting and mutually cooperative relationship between the developer and the community, which can minimise the potential for conflict and thereby remove risk in the process.

While tCI is disappointed by the lack of commitment to consultation in the revised NPPF, we are encouraged that policy might ultimately change following the Raynsford Review, a review of the planning system which has been commissioned by the Town and Country Planning Association and makes community participation a high priority. To view tCI ‘s contribution to the Review’s Interim Report, click here.

The NPPF and consultation or revised Planning policy and consultation — The Consultation Institute

On the other hand, the East Devon Watch blog has been watching out for moves elsewhere to make 'consultation' a little more meaningful: 

CONSULTATION: NEW CASE LAW A GAME-CHANGER

16 AUG 2018

Owl reported all these cases as the happened but it is useful to see them all in one place.

Consultation is going to have to mean consultation!

Four JR judgments in fifteen days with profound implications for public consultations! Almost every current public consultation – or those under preparation might be affected by one or more of these important judgments.

> Kohler v Mayor of London: Misjudging the requirements for response analysis – Judge not impressed:

Mayor loses London police counters case – Yes, it was a poor consultation! — The Consultation Institute

> Buckingham v NHS Corby: Advised they didn’t need to consult – the Judge disagreed.High Court quashes proposed service reconfiguration in Corby

> KE v Bristol City Council: Big cuts in budget consultations needs better, more thorough consultation – Judge decides.

Council ordered to reverse special needs cuts in landmark High Court case | The Independent

> Law Society v Lord Chancellor: Failure to disclose flawed statistical methodology – Judge unsympathetic.
Appeal over criminal legal aid decision 'still on the cards' | News | Law Society Gazette


Consultation: new case law a game-changer | East Devon Watch

.
.
.