Planning Portal Forum
URL
CASE STUDY OWNER
Planning Portal/Communities and Local Government (CLG)
LESSONS LEARNT
Strengths
- The online consultation had a clarity of purpose and a defined user base;
- The forum provided a dedicated ‘safe space’ to discuss policy in open, transparent terms;
- Moderators were responsive to user input;
- Background information was made available in a resources section;
- The rate of registrations was high;
- The rate of posts retained a consistency.
Potential for improvement
- The participation rate was low when compared to stated user interest;
- The community had limited time to coalesce and build momentum;
- The forum used a pre-moderation strategy, which slowed the dialogue amongst a known stakeholder group;
- The exercise would have benefited from involvement of policy leads who had the knowledge to be able to respond on specifics about policy (in support of moderators);
- A greater range of means by which users could respond to consultation would have accommodated different levels of expertise and tastes.
OVERVIEW
The Planning Portal is the UK government’s online planning and regulation resource. Oversight is provided by Communities and Local Government.
POLICY PURPOSE
The Planning Portal recently developed a specific product (the 1APP, National Standard Planning Application Form) and invited local planning authorities (LPAs) to take part in a consultation about its implementation.
The forum was set up to feed into the consultation about IAPP. Its specific objectives were to:
- Identify and share best practice solutions for e-planning in local authorities;
- Inform Planning Portal product development and service improvement;
- Support and encourage take-up of LPA e-planning services;
- Allow LPAs to follow up courses and events with peers and Planning Portal representatives.
MODEL
Online deliberative forum.
The forum was established for a core stakeholder base – the 410 local planning authorities in England and Wales. Those wishing to read or contribute to the forum required a gov.uk email address to register.
The forum was pre-moderated by Planning Portal staff. Representatives from the consultation team logged-in to promote deliberation and respond to queries.
A number of discrete themes were opened up for discussion and feedback. Some were broad; others more detailed:
- National Register Feasibility study;
- Take-up;
- LPA forum events 2007;
- Storing PDFs in Idox document management systems;
- IAPP, The National Standard Planning Application Form;
- Adobe measurement tool;
- [Open] Suggestions.
DURATION
The forum ran from January 16 to May 14, 2007.
PUBLICITY
The forum was advertised to all members of planning departments in local government via email and newsletters.
OTHER METHODS
People wishing to submit comments about 1APP or any other subject discussed in the forum could do so by email, letter, phone or by arranging a meeting.
USER PROFILES
426 registrants: 53% were male, 47% female.
Despite the fact that around 95% of forum registrants said that they were regular internet users (with 67% of them accessing it from home), only 32% had been involved in any previous online consultations (65% had not; 3% did not say).
Some participants said they had been involved in political activity offline:
Participants demonstrated a high level of efficacy – only 18% indicated that they did not believe they could have any influence over the way the country was run.
USAGE TRENDS
82 posts were made overall – 15 by the policy team.
Nearly all of the forum’s registrations occurred in its first month, tailing-off in the second. Throughout the three months of the forum’s evaluation, it attracted a significant proportion of repeat visits: the post-count remained stable (and low) during our evaluation period.
USER FEEDBACK
Many respondents to our evaluation survey (n=26) said that their involvement in the website was motivated by the desire to influence policy by sharing knowledge. Others hoped that the forum would lead to improvements in services and e-planning. There was an expectation of a regular, detailed dialogue within the forum.
Participant evaluations are represented as percentages below:
Having used the forum, users were unambiguously positive about online forms of engagement and thought forums are a good way of communicating. The majority said that they would participate in online deliberations in future (only 32% of the forum’s registrants had done so previously). Over 70% said that they would recommend online consultations to others, but qualified this by suggesting that they were only useful and feasible for expert stakeholders.
While over 40% of respondents felt that the forum had fulfilled its remit, even more were uncertain that it had. Participants were ambivalent about the usefulness of government consultations generally, with over 60% being unsure that they served any real policy function. Respondents were also divided over whether they had learnt anything new about the policy area through their involvement in the Planning Portal forum.
The ability to see what other people were saying to government appealed to forum users, although respondents were split on the question of whether they had learnt from one another. We asked participants about the dynamics of the forum: the majority (almost 60%) thought that the deliberation was led by stakeholder participants.
While users noted that the consultation team submitted posts frequently to provide information and answers to queries, some respondents to our feedback survey were disappointed with the depth of interaction between participants and moderators. Ultimately, users reported reading the forum more than participating in it:
DETAILED FEEDBACK
The Planning Portal forum differed from most of the other Digital Dialogues case studies because it restricted participation to a specific group of stakeholders (and was not open to public viewing). It demonstrated that online platforms can attract stakeholders who already have established routes by which they can engage with government. It can facilitate their interaction with one another and it can provide a useful tool for dissemination of documents and information updates.
While it is true that this case study has shown potential, it has also demonstrated some of the obstacles to establishing a cohesive, purposeful online community. Registrations were high (particularly given the size of the pool of potential participants), but participation was low. Evaluation of this exercise makes a few suggestions of why this might be.
Stakeholders expect a high level of discussion and require involvement and dialogue with specific members of the policy team during consultation – not only those who are moderating a discussion forum. While the look, feel and tone may be less formal, it is essential that the depth of online processes is comparable with that of offline consultation methods stakeholders are accustomed to. It is also worth considering the value of post- over pre-moderation where a named, experienced stakeholder group are the sole users of the forum. This would demonstrate trust, openness and ensure deliberation built a natural momentum.
Limited time to participate could also discourage participation; however, because there is no fixed date for a meeting, there is a sense with online consultations that there is no urgency to get involved. Therefore, more incentives to contribute on an active basis are required. Using multi-modal platforms (incorporating webchats and polls) and email updates from the site could focus the attention of users and motivate those who prefer one-to-one, rather than group interaction.
An advantage of online engagement in this context is that registrants can be informed of changes to planning applications (for example) before they are introduced. User profiles could be created and used to encourage exchange of practice. Such advantages should be actively marketed to participants.
Ultimately, to establish and motivate a stakeholder group, particularly via an innovative method, takes time, careful evaluation and the conversion of evaluation feedback into tangible actions. In this instance, the forum was only just picking up pace when it was wound down and closed.
FOLLOW UP
Following the close of the forum and consultation, the Planning Portal is analysing responses. A report will be published in 2007.
