Re: Is a website inter-active Proposals Map necessary? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Can't give you definitive answer on legal requirements - no doubt others can. I think the guidance and regs have always been a bit sketchy on this issue. As far as I can recall the requirement for an interactive online proposals map stemmed from old PDG criteria, now superseded, itself informed by PARSOL standards. I think as long as the PDF map clearly depicts what you are proposing, and is manageable enough to view and download without choking users' bandwidth, then I don't see a problem. You can go for the bells and whistles when you reach adoption. Given the current financial climate we're all in your approach seems sensible. That's what we're planning to do anyway. Also like your idea of print on demand for hard copy. That's something we're exploring. Avoids the traditional large print run then having to store boxes of unused maps for years. PS Since the Planning Portal's recent decision to abandon hosting interactive proposals maps we have reverted to a PDF version of our Adopted UDP maps on our website. No complaints so far.

Before I hit the wrong button again.... I would like to make a plea for keeping an interactive map, and making it properly interactive. If there's one way in LPA's continually fall down as we move deeper into the 21st century, it's the widespread inability to grasp the potential of the web as an integral part of the service being delivered - not just an adjunct, or it's done because it's a requirement. Making a key document like a proposals map only available as a pdf is a backward step - it might save money in the short term but it limits the service that's provided and (I strongly believe) fails to explore how the service can reach more people more efficiently than ever before. In terms of addressing the localism agenda and efficiently engaging with communities, an interactive map is essential. On a practical level, most of the proposals maps I get hold of in pdf form are unwieldy large files. This is a big dis-benefit to the millions of people - especially in rural areas - who still have to put up with slow broadband and will be doing for years to come. This is worse for those plans which are in sections - sod's law dictates that the site you wanted to check is on another sheet or an inset map. It's also highly impractical for some people to have to download a map rather than just view it on line. These large pdf plans are also unwieldy when it comes to zooming in and out to see a useful level of detail. Indeed, they are often based on 1:10000 mapping, which is practically useless when someone needs to see if their property is just in or out of a retail area, for example. Another common problem I find is the cumbersome zooming in and out that has to be done to flick between the key stuck in one corner of the plan and the site of interest in the other corner. The best interactive map I've seen is Leicester City Council's (cut and paste this link into your browser - http://citystreatz.leicester.gov.uk/leicester_internet/CityStreatz%20web%20page.htm ). It's not perfect, but it provides many layers of information that can be turned on or off and is an invaluable tool for planning consultants like me. In terms of how much it costs LCC to maintain it, I'm sure it's less than the cost of responding to requests for information from me and others if they didn't. Such an interactive map is also instantly updatable. I can't understand why manually updating and re-issuing a pdf is preferable, especially against the risk that lost of people will have an old copy that they're not going to know is out of date. This is in fact one of the key benefits of an interactive map - people are only ever looking at an up to date copy. I think proper interactive mapping should be a pre-requisite of any planning service, if that service is to be considered, information-transparent, community-friendly, and relevant to the 21st century. If your going to discount it on the grounds of cost then I'm afraid your priorities are wrong. There - I've said it.

I would note that the interactive maps tend to be easier for the public to use. In terms of cost, given the amount of GIS software in the average council, you should be able to host the interactive maps on an existing facility, and if you are working on creating and updating the maps, it really shouldn't take more than a few seconds to save a copy into the GIS server, and have instantly updated online public information. The original request to have interactive maps for LDF came in with the Pendleton crtiteria, and was subsequently part of the PDG assesment. However, personally, I am currently unaware of it being directly incorporated into any regulation.

Don't disagree with anything Andrew and Ian have said - of course it's preferable to have an interactive proposals map, if you can afford it or have sufficient in-house GIS expertise. Neither of which are givens. Was commenting from the perspective of a manager faced with a reducing budget for the LDF and the need to prioritise spend on essentials.

We are in the same position as yourself Andy. In an ideal world we wouldn't be considering abandoning our interactive proposal map. However, I'm advised that we don't have sufficient resources and expertise within out IT team to support an in-house solution as suggested by Ian. The GIS side of things is not a problem but getting it onto the website is due to the licensing fees and resources required.

oh dear - wrong button again!! - another blank post thanks for your replies gents. I was worried there might be some offence taken by my slightly exasperated tone. I fully appreciate what you're saying about investment costs at times like this. One of the problems with this of course is the large range of LPA sizes, which makes it more cost-effective for some to invest in GIS and IT generally. The Government is encouraging cross-boundary resource tie-ups of course, to make efficiency savings, but I do appreciate that neighbouring LPA's working together is subject to the vagaries of local political and bureaucratic fiefdoms. In principal, though, I see nothing wrong with pooled GIS resources and plenty of benefits, not least the possibility of seeing neighbouring LPA proposals maps side by side. This does suggest that the Planning Portal has missed the trick by dumping proposals maps - I can only presume the most cost-effective solution would be for all maps to be uploaded to a nationally maintained GIS local plan database, rather than have 400-odd for England alone. The localism agenda might, at first glance, seem contrary to such an aim. However, I'd like to think that householders, businesses, parish councils and other organisations would actually like the chance to compare their lot with other areas, for many reasons. It might also tie in with the possibilities presented by Google and Bing maps of presenting local plan info on them as part of consultation exercises, and for the public to respond on such maps (eg. suggesting where they think housing should go).

As a cost reduction consideration, you could look at "Shared Services", get together and have a shared GIS/IT platform for the LDF. However, what the government (and consultants pushing this) fail to mention, is there are liscensing implications to doiing this. However, If say all the LPA's in a county got together an had a conversation with the relevant vendors, an agreement should be possible. (gently mentioning that if they can't somebody else will) Doing shared services without the liscense sought out first is likely to get you prevented with a large bill.

Have a look at Open source mapping. No costs other than time to set up; (Yes - there may be a steep learrning curve!) but there is a growing community of users out there in local gov. who are keen to drive down costs and improve services for the Customer. Have a look at Barrow BC as an example and I am sure there are many others. Don't just say no because of lack of funds, say Yes We Can! Let's find a way to do this! Shared Services! Also consider shared services, a growing number of providers are looking at new ways of working to keep their market share alive in a declining economy. Hosting Solutions! Hosting all your mapping for you as a district, county, unitary; updating as necessary and delivering to your desktop, web gis, mobile users; come on - the future is still out there waiting for the energy and vision to bring it here today. e.g Getmapping Integrated GIS as one of many. No I am not on commission.

Hi Colin, Some really interesting comments around the use of mapping and totally agree that having some form of mapping does help make the service interactive. We work and provide local plan and proposal maps working in partnership with Microsoft and use the Bing platform which is an excellent customer friendly offering. We also offer engagement and social media platforms on there too. Our planning applications site is http://www.horsham.gov.uk/Interactive_Maps.aspx What we find is that customers want something clear and simple to use and a map form like Google and Bing. As a District Councillor myself I would be looking for these types of maps on council websites and any business because its what we know and understand as local residents. Whilst I think a PDF in some ways gives an overview being able to collaborate and use mapping to engage for less than you think.. certainly one proposals map under 5k. Of course this is a business comment of what we do however I am real believer in using Google and Bing maps for giving a customer an overview. Of course it could link to a detailed PDF.