Spatial Development Strategies: smashing the glass prison of community consultation
2 March 2026 | Pearce Branigan
“I’m in a glass case of emotion”, Ron Burgundy, as played by Will Ferrell in ‘Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy’ (2004).
This quote best describes the atmosphere around one of the earliest planning applications I supported early in my career. Many moons and a pandemic later, it still resonates with me and has informed my approach to delivering planning consents ever since.
We were at action stations to secure supporters. Having been brought on to the project at the 11th hour, four weeks out from the planning committee date, off I was sent to go door knock around a Home Counties’ commuter belt town.
That it rained every day we were out hitting the doorsteps was unhelpful.
That the sole area of focus was the site’s immediate surroundings was, in hindsight, completely unavoidable and unnecessary.
For our rain-soaked troubles, we secured a grand total of 18 new supporters – barely 20 per cent of the total opposing comments listed on the planning portal. When the application reached committee a month later, it was dead on arrival. The first speaker – the committee deputy chair – hastily moved a motion to refuse.
Despite receiving an officer’s recommendation to approve, as well going over and above policy requirements, the committee voted unanimously to refuse. The timing was also unfortunate: the committee session was the last before local elections, with the council governing with a majority of one. The site’s ward in question was a marginal. All of this undoubtedly focused minds towards a predetermined outcome. But there was also a greater issue at play.
A scheme which would have benefitted those living many miles away had been decided by a pool of people based less than half a mile from the site. The project team, like many before and since, had needlessly trapped itself in a glass case of emotion.
How local is local?
Planning authorities will accept comments from anyone, ideally within the boundary of the planning authority. Representations are not graded based on proximity to a site – a resident of the authority objecting to a scheme that lives 10 metres from a site is not counted on the planning file as being worth more than a resident who lives 1 mile away. Both vote in local elections. The same should be true for supporters as well, yet time and again I have seen planning applications where a premium is placed on locality, despite there being no policy requirement for this.
When considering the strength of feeling towards a planning application, the macro benefits are largely felt uniformly, be that the delivery of clean energy infrastructure or new homes. The degree of improvement to a person’s daily life will be felt consistently regardless of proximity. The perceived inconveniences or micro issues are felt more acutely the closer to a site a person is located, which tend to obscure benefits for those living within a certain geography. It is therefore imperative that as great an emphasis – if not the greatest part of the focus for finding advocates for major applications – be focused across the strategic geography of a planning authority area, rather than the minimum boundary used for consultation.
A shift in focus, a shift in approach
The publication of the Devolution White Paper in December 2024 marked a return to a more strategic approach to development, developing the role of combined authorities as the regional bodies for overseeing Spatial Development Strategies (SDS).
Earlier in February, MHCLG launched its consultation on the proposed SDS boundaries for those existing combined authorities, those fast-tracked local authorities under the Devolution Priority Programme and those as-yet-unallocated local authorities across the West Midlands and South West of England. Secondary legislation is set to be introduced before the 2026 Summer Recess, prescribing the role of strategic planning boards (SPB). These will facilitate work among existing planning authorities on the preparation of SDSs, ahead of their amalgamation into combined authority areas. The consultation runs until Thursday 26 March and can be responded to here.
Undoubtedly the biggest announcement came on 16 February that 30 previously delayed elections will now go ahead across England. This has been received by local government leaders with a mixture of frustration and exasperation, with implications over the timetable and geography that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) will be delivered. The Leader of Norfolk County Council, Councillor Kay Mason Billig, even suggesting that “devolution and LGR are off” as a result of “election hokey-cokey” by the Government.
However scathing the criticism of the Government’s volte face on the local elections, the December 2024 White Paper is clear that LGR will happen. Ideally, this will be done at the behest of local authorities and led by them. If not willingly, then it will be delivered centrally, at the designation of the Secretary of State.
With a strategic approach to planning once more back in vogue, it is also time for developers to take on a similar strategic approach to their pre-app engagement and – critically – find advocates for the proposals far beyond the immediate boundaries of a site.
This philosophy has underpinned my approach to client projects over my career. I am proud to say it is shared by my colleagues across our expert team at Quatro PR.
From our work across different industries, to the application of our engagement framework – Quatro Amplify – we have seen how taking a strategic approach can lead to securing a depth of ‘noisy supporters’, who are ready to champion an application. The vocal minority are both small in number and smaller in the geography they represent. When the benefits of a project are strategic in scale, so too should the scope for supporter generation.