Around 10 years ago, Lichfields advised on a modest eight-dwelling development. It was not a sensitive site and the principle of development had already been established by a previous appeal decision.
The only difference between the appeal scheme and the later proposal was a new, narrow foul water drainage pipe routed through adjacent woodland. A great deal of iterative design work had taken place on the precise route of the pipeline, particularly to respond to detailed tree and ecology surveys.
As the principle of development had already been established, it was decided that community engagement was not necessary for the new proposal. With the benefit of hindsight, this proved to be an unfortunate omission. A number of objections to the pipeline were raised and this small-scale development was called in by the local ward councillor to be determined by the planning committee. A few days before the meeting, the Committee visited the site and at this point it all became clear. An influential member of the community had been reporting to local residents that the development included a 60m diameter pipeline through the woodland: the pipeline in reality would only be 60mm in diameter, however. No wonder the local community was concerned!
Had someone stopped and thought about the reality of this for a moment, they would have realised that a pipeline of 60m was unlikely. This was only a scheme for eight dwellings and the woods were only 85m at their widest - the Channel Tunnels are only 7.6m in diameter. Despite these facts, the rumour mill had started and there had seemed to be no stopping it.
Having now understood the concerns, we explained the proposal and corrected the misinformation, which put the local residents’ minds at rest. Planning permission was granted at the subsequent committee meeting.
Roll on ten years and it is now said that we are living in a post-truth society, with social media playing a significant role in providing fake news. Had our eight-dwelling scheme been submitted today, the local community’s objection, despite being based on false information, could have spread much further afield via social media and misled objectors could have been mobilised in greater numbers.
Mis-information spirals and fears of development proposals are heightened through the creation of community ‘echo-chambers’ (today’s online equivalent of the inaccurate information feeding into the rumour mill). Social media often creates echo chambers of similar views and the challenge is to break these up where their messages are inaccurate.
Hence there are good reasons why applicants should no longer be ignoring social media as part of their planning strategies, as Sarah Watts’s recent blog on
the pros and cons of using social media in consultation and engagement explains.
The key concerns for applicants considering using social media include needing to know:
- how to use social media;
- how to engage with those who post;
- how to monitor content;
- how to be proactive rather than reactive; and
- how to effectively respond to the most challenging posts, reputation management, data quality and the potential overwhelming volume of information.
So what should a developer do?
The starting point is to plan to use social media to its full effect - don’t ignore it just because of perceived potential risks. The focus should be on using social media for the benefits it can bring.
At the very minimum, a good planning strategy will include social media monitoring. Once underway, this ensures an advantage over those ignoring social media entirely. Monitoring enables the identification of project supporters and makes it possible to identify those individuals and groups where consultation and engagement activities may or may not be needed, and any messages strengthened.
And there is more...
An active social media management strategy helps discover, understand and identify the influencers and campaigners in a community. This information can then be used to increase levels of engagement as the scheme designs evolves, to encourage positive discussions during the consultation period, to understand the views of the community, and help with interaction where this is needed. It is much more likely that appropriate responses to the naysayers can be formulated in advance too, if and when that time comes.
Compared with traditional exhibitions and pre-application events, over the past few years there has been a shift in those who are talking about projects and what they are saying. Social media attracts a wider range of people, drawing many of the hitherto silent majority into the conversation. Local communities know their areas better than anyone and are often passionate about their economic and social history, and any changes that are likely to come about from proposed development. If there is inadequate, deficient or inappropriate engagement with local communities, it is not unusual for their objections to be grounded in fear and a lack of understanding of the proposed development, or for there to be perceived deficiencies in the applicant’s understanding of the context of the site.
Monitoring and managing social media as part of consultation and engagement should be undertaken as part of a clear integrated strategy for a development project, rather than being an add–on, or a knee jerk reaction at a late stage in the planning process. Engaging with communities at different stages using a multi-media approach enables wider communities to become involved and empowered – often to the overall benefit of a development proposal. By using a range of tools and techniques, with social media being just one of them, a new group of people can be reached and stronger support for a project can be achieved.
