Community engagement: building better planning decisions together

By Craig Holden, Chair, State Planning Commission

Community engagement is often spoken about as a step in the planning process, but it’s far more than that. For the State Planning Commission, it is central to how we make better, more informed decisions about the future of our places.

In South Australia, community engagement is not optional or ad hoc. It is embedded in our planning system through the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 and guided by the principles of the Community Engagement Charter. The Charter helps guide how important planning policies, strategies and schemes are developed or changed, including state planning policies, regional plans, the Planning and Design Code, design standards and infrastructure delivery schemes.

That statutory foundation is important. It makes clear that engagement is not simply about meeting a process requirement; it is about making better planning decisions by considering the views and aspirations of communities, building trust in the planning process, and helping people better understand how the system works.

The Charter was designed to support a more flexible and meaningful approach than older consultation models, recognising that communities engage in different ways and that good engagement should evolve alongside technology, data and community expectations.

That includes using modern tools where they genuinely help people take part more easily… especially when planning issues are complex or tied to a specific area. But innovation is only valuable when it supports clarity, accessibility and inclusion. The real test is whether people can see what is proposed, understand what it means for them, and participate in a way that is practical and informed.

We know that this is not a simple task. Communities today are more diverse and fragmented than ever, and there is no single channel that reaches everyone. Traditional media such as daily newspapers or free-to-air television no longer reflect how many South Australians get their information, while public meetings often attract only a small number of people who may already be highly engaged. Digital platforms can help extend our reach, but they also come with challenges, with algorithms often favouring more contentious issues rather than nuanced planning discussions.

These realities mean that engagement can’t rely on any one method. Instead, we are continuing to broaden how we connect with people - using a mix of targeted digital engagement, place-based approaches, collaborations with community networks, and tailored communication for different groups - to make it easier for a wider and more representative range of voices to be heard.

The Charter sets a clear expectation: when decisions affect communities, people should have a genuine opportunity to understand them, contribute to them, and help shape them.

A system designed to match impact with engagement

One of the strengths of South Australia’s approach is that engagement is scaled to the level of impact.

Not every planning matter warrants the same level of consultation, but every matter requires the right level of consultation.

For major planning instruments such as regional plans or code amendments, engagement is formal, structured and mandatory. It is supported by publicly available engagement plans, multiple consultation channels, and defined timeframes; often between six and twelve weeks.

For impact assessed developments (those large or complex proposals that may significantly affect the community) consultation extends to formal processes such as Environmental Impact Statements, ensuring the community has the opportunity to review detailed information and make submissions.

At a local level, development applications that may affect surrounding communities are publicly notified, allowing people to understand proposals and have their say (PDF, 103.9 KB) before decisions are made. If you’d like to receive updates about development applications that are open for public notification in a specific area, you can sign up to be notified when new applications are lodged nearby.

Some development, such as minor projects like a new fence or garden shed, or those that are deemed to satisfy the Code, don’t require public notification. You can read more about this category of projects on the PlanSA website.

This tiered approach reflects a simple but important principle: the greater the potential impact, the greater the need for meaningful engagement

Regardless of the scale of the development, you can always access SA’s online planning portal to see what applications have been lodged. The portal is transparent, nation-leading, and available anytime of the day or night.

What the Community Engagement Charter means in practice

The Community Engagement Charter is more than a set of guidelines. It is a mandatory framework that sets out requirements, principles, and ways to measure whether engagement has been effective in practice.

At the heart of the Charter are five principles: engagement should be genuine, inclusive and respectful, fit for purpose, informed and transparent, and subject to review and continuous improvement.

Together, these principles shift engagement away from a one-size-fits-all exercise and toward a more thoughtful model that reflects the scale of a proposal, the people affected, and the type of decisions being made. They also recognise an important reality: not every view can ultimately prevail, but every person should have a fair opportunity to be heard, acknowledged and considered.

This emphasis on inclusion is particularly important. The Charter makes clear that engagement should take into account the needs of different groups within the community, including First Nations people, young people, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with disability or neurodivergence, and businesses, workers and employers. That does not mean applying a checklist approach. It means thinking carefully about who may be affected, what barriers to participation may exist, and how communication and engagement methods can be adapted so that people have a genuine chance to take part.

In practice, that means engagement must be:

• Planned and transparent: with clear engagement plans outlining who will be consulted, how, and when.
• Accessible and inclusive: ensuring participation from diverse groups, including First Nations peoples, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, young people and those living with disability.
• Genuine and informative: providing people with the information they need to contribute meaningfully.
• Accountable: through publicly available engagement reports that show what we heard and how that feedback influenced outcomes.

These principles ensure that engagement adds real value to decision-making.

And the Charter does not stop at setting expectations for how engagement should begin. It also requires attention to what success looks like at the end of the process. Performance outcomes ask whether people had faith and confidence in the process, whether affected and interested people had the opportunity to participate and be heard, whether they understood the proposal and how it may affect them, whether relevant information was accessible, and whether the process itself was reviewed for improvement. This ensures that engagement is evaluated, rather than assumed to be successful simply because consultation occurred.

The role of the State Planning Commission

The State Planning Commission has a critical role in ensuring these principles are upheld.

We are responsible not only for leading key planning processes, but also for ensuring that engagement is undertaken in a way that meets statutory requirements and reflects the intent of the Charter.

For designated planning instruments, engagement must comply with the Charter and relevant practice directions. The Commission also oversees the evaluation of external engagement processes run by project proponents to ensure consistency, transparency and integrity.

That oversight function is significant. Under the Act, entities responsible for preparing or amending designated instruments must prepare and implement community engagement plans that meet the Charter’s requirements. If the Commission thinks a proponent hasn’t followed the rules, it can make them do so, or even run the engagement itself and ask the organisation to pay for it. This helps ensure the quality of engagement and reinforces that meaningful consultation is integral to the legitimacy of planning reform.

It also reinforces the importance of closing the loop with communities. One of the Charter’s clearest expectations is that people should understand what is happening, why it is happening, what they can influence, and how their views were considered when decisions are made. That transparency is essential because communities are far more likely to have confidence in the process when they can see not only that engagement occurred, but that it was honest about the scope of influence and clear about the reasons behind the outcome.

Our role as the Commission goes beyond compliance. It is about building trust in the planning system by showing communities that their input matters and can shape outcomes.

Moving beyond consultation to genuine participation

Planning decisions are often complex and can involve competing interests. Community engagement does not remove that complexity, but it helps us work through it more effectively and make better decisions.

When done well, engagement:

• surfaces local knowledge that might otherwise be missed
• identifies issues early, before they become entrenched
• improves the quality and acceptability of decisions
• builds confidence in the planning system.

We also increasingly see the value of early engagement that happens before any formal consultation begins. While not always required, these engagements can play a critical role in shaping proposals and reducing conflict later.

Another strength of the Charter is its focus on learning. It encourages evaluation to begin early, not as an afterthought once consultation has closed. That means being clear from the outset about what success will look like, what information will be collected, and how feedback on the process itself will be assessed. Measures may include the number and diversity of responses, whether participants understood the proposal and how to take part, whether different perspectives were able to be shared, and whether reporting captured the full spectrum of views. Over time, this gives us better information to improve our engagement with communities across the planning system.

Looking ahead

As our communities grow and change, our approach to engagement needs to keep evolving too.

Digital tools, broader outreach methods, and a stronger focus on inclusion are already helping to expand who participates in planning conversations. But the fundamental principle remains the same: planning works best when it is informed by the people it affects.

The Community Engagement Charter provides a strong foundation for this work, and the Commission is committed to continually strengthening how it is applied in practice.

Ultimately, better engagement leads to better planning, and better outcomes for the communities we serve.