Community review panels have the potential to transform the way we make decisions - but we need to do more and do them better

The National Planning Policy Framework values community engagement, but local authority community review panels are not referred to, unlike industry design review panels. Local authorities are stretched and although they recognise that planning reform will require better community engagement, they do not always have the in-house skills or capacity to set up a dedicated community review panel. Many have other citizens’ assembly type panels already established to focus on key issues such as climate resilience, for example, Camden’s Climate Citizen Panel. 

One challenge for local authority panel members (in common with industry design review panels) is the transient nature of monthly meetings with applications that may only be seen once and never materialise. Frame tackles this through annual reviews with its panels so they can update on schemes reviewed, but it’s not always easy to track their progress. 

Is there a higher drop-out rate of community panel members? Turnover happens organically due to individual commitments but Froud points out that, as with any representative form of politics, this can be positive in maintaining fresh-thinking and preventing a panel from becoming too institutionalised. Sometimes design review panels and community review panels see a scheme at the same time, and this can strengthen feedback if both panels independently say the same thing. More crossover between community review panels and design review panels would be beneficial, for example, having a community panel member sit on an industry panel as a representative, and vice versa. 

Local authority panels are undoubtedly most meaningful at a plan-forming or policy­-shaping stage, when members can contribute their lived experience to defining a vision for a place, rather than the more-reactive role of being presented with monthly applications to review. There are many examples of this, such as the work of Kingston Citizens’ Panel (set up by Design South East). Local authorities, particularly outside London, are increasingly favouring this approach rather than committing to a formal, monthly panel structure.

Another type of constructive community review panel has emerged which is more like a working group. This panel consults on the same scheme over a period of months or even years: Two developer-led examples are TOWN and LandsecU+I’s Ideas Exchange and The Earls Court Development Company’s Public Realm Inclusivity Panel. 

The process and influence differs between the local authority-nm community review panel model and the community working group panels. In the community review panels, members have an advisory role where their views inform decision-makers (designers, developers, local councillors), whereas the individuals within community working-group panels can themselves be decision-shapers as a core part of a specific project. 

Much could be learned from some of the promising developer-led project-based community panels. These groups run continuously over a long period, operating as a critical friend to the project. The developers behind them realise that if you don’t engage with a representative community panel, you risk voices being weighted towards the most vociferous in the communities - the same people every time; or those representing other people, but rarely individuals as themselves offering their own personal experience of the area. 

For their 47-hectare Hartree development site in Cambridge, TOWN and LandsecU+I set up their Ideas Exchange panel using a model led by the Sortition Foundation, an organisation that promotes the use of citizen assemblies. They randomly selected 6,000 households in Cambridge and invited them to join the panel. The 120 individuals who responded were asked to provide basic information (age, sex, gender, ethnicity). Sortition Foundation’s algorithm then compared this selection to the area’s demographic and chose a representative 18 people - a microcosm of North Cambridge. 

TOWN’s head of community partnering, Frances Wright, says: "Instead of it being a one-off moment of engagement with whoever turns up, the approach has enabled us to have an extended conversation with a truly representative group of local residents." Fortunately, TOWN recognises that it doesn’t need a 5,600 - home site for community review panels to be worthwhile. It has a "building group" for its 14-home project in Oundle made up of future residents. 

The Earls Court Development Company’s Public Realm Inclusivity Panel is perhaps the most diverse, with members ranging in age from 14 to over 80, and including people with neurodiverse, disability, low-income and dementia backgrounds. Diversity and dialogue enable a process where individuals share experiences about a place they know from different perspectives.

An 80-year-old panel member who doesn’t normally cross paths with young people describes how working with them on the panel has been "an enforced learning curve". She adds: "I’ve opened myself up. Lo and behold the young people really are interesting and have opinions and characters." 

The Earls Court Development Company sets discussion-preparation homework for panel members, for example asking them to bring in and discuss a photo of a footpath that works well and one that doesn’t. The design team and developers are in the room hearing their voices. But however rewarding they’ve found the process, some members question what effect they will have on the outcome. 

In Earls Court’s case, the end-result remains to be seen, with the planning scheme still evolving. But one common and obvious missed opportunity is not continuing the involvement of community review panels beyond planning. At Thamesmead, the GLA and Peabody will be continuing with their Community Design Collective to oversee construction delivery, value engineering and social value commitments. 

The consensus from anyone involved in a community review panel is to do more and do them better. Don’t let them just become another tier of the planning process, a report to write or a box to tick. Optimise their use at vision-making and plan or policy shaping and improve the exchange between community panels and design review panels. 

Whether local authority-led or not, their involvement should continue beyond the planning application stage, all the way to completion and beyond for initiatives such as climate change, social value, maintenance, or anything else that might benefit from genuine lived-experience feedback. 

Harriet Saddington is a writer and architect with a background degree in architectural history who works with architecture practices and developers with a focus on social impact