Bad vs Good Engagement in the Built Environment

Communication and engagement sit at the heart of successful, well-thought-out planning and development and let's be honest, none of us would want to be left in the dark ourselves when it comes to a development project in our area. When done well, engagement builds trust with the community, helps to shape projects through meaningful involvement, and ensures a development reflects genuine local needs. On the other hand, if done badly, it fuels opposition and resentment, often resulting in projects that fail both the community and even the developers.  

Bad engagement can be superficial. You can often tell when it has been rushed, or when it's treated as a simple box-ticking exercise. It typically involves presenting near-final plans with minimal opportunity for community involvement or input. This can leave local people feeling their views will not be listened to, and that the consultation is little more than a mirage. Timing is absolutely key when it comes to effective engagement.  

Take one example where a well-loved small business area was proposed to be refurbished by the owner. This resulted in the businesses having to be removed to allow the work to take place. The problem was not so much the plan to revamp the spaces, it was the way in which it was communicated at a late stage and the fact that the active local community was not given the chance to help shape the space. Ultimately it led to the applicant facing vocal opposition and protest. They had failed to appreciate the strength and importance of local identity.  

Bad engagement often stems from seeing local people as obstacles rather than partners. It is based on one-way communication, jargon that most people wouldn't understand, and consultations launched too late to meaningfully influence the vision or proposal. 

What does good engagement look like? 

From my own experience working in the built environment, not only on projects I've personally been involved in, but also those I've admired from afar, good engagement starts early. It uses accessible language and multiple formats, such as drop-ins, workshops, online forums, and targeted outreach. The aim is to reach far and wide to gather and amplify diverse voices in the community, not just the loudest. Crucially, it also feeds back, showing people how their input has influenced the plans. 

A personal favourite example is the King's Cross development. As one of Europe’s largest regeneration projects the pressure was on to get it right. The project included years of engagement with local groups. Community liaison panels helped steer aspects such as public spaces, affordable housing, and cultural venues. The hugely popular Granary Square fountains, for instance, were directly shaped by feedback on making spaces more family friendly. 

Another example is the Future Wolverhampton City Centre programme, where the council and developers have hosted interactive workshops and design sessions to reimagine key public spaces. By involving local businesses, students, and community organisations early on, they are building shared ownership of the city's future. 

We should also remember that age is not a barrier to engagement. My colleague Charlotte Hunter and I recently ran a session with some of the most engaged primary school children at a school in Hounslow for the regeneration of the Treaty Centre in Hounslow town centre. The ideas these children – ranging from year 1 to year 6 – gave us and the concerns they highlighted about what they see as issues facing the community helped us feel that the future is in good hands. Whilst a suggestion for a chocolate fountain may be difficult to deliver, their ideas for litter picking parties and creating pedestrian-only family-friendly spaces showed us even at that young age they think of spaces a living places for their community.   

Good engagement is not just about managing objections or appeasing angry residents if done correctly, it results in better places and stronger involvement. It uncovers local priorities, protects valued assets, and can encourage ideas that might otherwise be overlooked.  

In the UK's built environment, the difference between bad and good engagement is stark. As we face pressing needs for new homes, infrastructure, and climate adaptation, meaningful community involvement is not an optional extra it is essential to delivering places where people genuinely want to live, work, and thrive.