The second meeting of the Planning expert panel took place on 27 March. The group discussed the three key topics identified at previous meetings: social value, community engagement in planning, and the planning policy agenda. 

The meeting started with a presentation on social value from Emma Carroll, from the GLA Environment Team. Emma presented the London Sustainable Development Commission and their last report on social value: ‘Delivering Social Value through Development and Regeneration: An Approach for London’. The London Sustainable Development Commission was set up in 2002 by the Mayor with the purpose of supporting London to be an exemplary sustainable world city. 

The report has not attempted to create a new definition for social value but imbeds a better understanding of it. It shares a series of six recommendations to the Mayor of London, London Councils and other partnerships.

The emphasis is often on the measurement of the social value we want to create but do we have a way to assess lost social value? It is important to develop an understanding of inherent social value before change is introduced. If social value is to be consistently delivered in London it needs to be encapsulated in the London Plan. The current London Plan focuses on good growth, but this is not necessarily understood by communities as social value.  

Jonny Popper summarised the discussion in four key points and recommendations: 

Then, the group tackled the Community Engagement in Planning question. It remains a huge challenge to get communities to engage in the planning system. There is an obvious link between the need to engage more thoroughly with communities in plan-making (not just projects) and the need for digitization in the planning system. 

One option is to make community engagement a material consideration – the first draft of the NPPF almost went as far. There is no current legal requirement for pre-application consultation unless the proposal is for infrastructure development. 

Community engagement has been very top-down to date and failed to engage the vast majority of people. There are more engaging tools such as, for example, City Limits (a PS5 game) which might get people interested in plan-making. There is no silver bullet, however; planners/plan-makers/developers need to go to where people are. Engagement requires legwork. 

The panel debated whether a legal footing was required to formalise a greater extent of community engagement. Should the Mayor set out clearly what is expected?  The only guidance specifying levels of community engagement - and making an impact in practice - is the Mayor’s Good Practice Guide for Estate Regeneration. This could be the foundation for a wider approach.  

Community engagement could be tied in with social value outcomes. It could be an opportunity to push S106. There should be less emphasis on documenting community engagement on paper; new technologies, e.g. video/Tik Tok should be encouraged. Commonplace is, for example, expanding its engagement tools with a voice-enabled function. 

The meeting was wrapped up with a discussion on the last major topic: The Planning Policy Agenda. Three key points were discussed by the group: