Stakeholder and community engagement is often treated as a compliance step. In reality, within NSW planning approvals it functions as a risk-management and decision-support tool.
The most common engagement failure is not doing too little or too much – it is starting at the wrong time.
When engagement begins after key decisions are locked in, it tends to generate objections, delay and rework. When it begins too early or without purpose, it can create unnecessary complexity and unrealistic expectations.
This article explains when the engagement process should start, how timing differs by project type, and how engagement can be aligned with approvals to support clearer, more defensible outcomes.
What engagement is meant to achieve in planning approvals
In the NSW planning context, engagement is not about achieving consensus or avoiding opposition. Its role is to:
- Identify social and community impacts early
- Test assumptions before they harden into design decisions
- Surface issues likely to affect assessment, conditions or management plans
- Provide evidence that impacts have been considered and addressed
- Reduce the likelihood of late-stage objections and contested outcomes
When engagement is timed correctly, it improves assessment clarity for decision-makers and reduces uncertainty for proponents
The short answer
The right time to start the engagement process is when:
- the project narrative is clear enough to explain, and
- there is still genuine flexibility to respond to what is heard.
For most development proposals, this occurs during concept design and before pre-lodgement, not after lodgement and not during early feasibility when outcomes are still speculative.
Why engagement timing matters more than volume
Engagement is most effective when it is decision-relevant.
Poorly timed engagement often leads to:
- feedback that cannot be acted on
- escalation of concerns into formal objections
- requests for further engagement late in the assessment process
- erosion of trust between proponents, councils and communities
Well-timed engagement helps:
- shape mitigation measures that can be conditioned
- define the correct social locality
- align expectations about what can and cannot change
In practice, most engagement problems are timing problems, not effort problems.
A practical engagement timing model
Engagement should evolve alongside the project. The stages below reflect a best-practice planning-aligned approach.
Stage 1 – Feasibility and site due diligence
Purpose: Strategic risk identification (not public engagement)
At this stage, engagement is internal and strategic. The focus is to:
- identify likely social receptors
- flag potential sensitivities or local issues
- assess whether engagement or social impact assessment is likely to be proportionate
This stage often informs:
- site acquisition decisions
- early risk profiling
- scope and program planning
What to avoid:
Engaging the wider community before feasibility is tested or outcomes are understood.
Stage 2 – Concept design (the critical window)
Purpose: Targeted, issue-focused engagement
This is typically the best time to start engagement.
At this point:
- the proposal is defined enough to explain clearly
- design, layout and staging are still flexible
- feedback can meaningfully influence outcomes
Engagement at this stage may involve:
- adjoining landowners or residents
- key stakeholders (schools, community facilities, service providers)
- targeted briefings rather than broad consultation
The objective is not agreement – it is risk identification and design refinement.
Stage 3 – Pre-lodgement
Purpose: Evidence and traceability
Pre-lodgement engagement should:
- confirm key issues raised earlier
- demonstrate how feedback informed design or mitigation
- close off known social risks before formal assessment
This is where engagement transitions from consultation to assessment evidence.
Stage 4 – Lodgement and assessment
Purpose: Responsive engagement only
Once an application is lodged, engagement should be:
- targeted
- proportionate
- responsive to assessment issues or submissions
Broad engagement should not commence for the first time at this stage, as it commonly results in objections and extended assessment timeframes.
Stage 5 – Post-consent and delivery
Purpose: Follow-through and accountability
Where ongoing impacts exist, engagement continues through:
- construction and staging communication
- implementation of consent conditions
- monitoring and reporting commitments
This is often formalised through management plans and governance arrangements.
How engagement timing differs by project type
Smaller, low-impact development
- Engagement may be minimal or unnecessary
- Timing is less critical
- Over-engagement can introduce avoidable risk
Subdivisions and medium-scale development
- Engagement typically begins at concept design
- Focus is on neighbours, access, staging and amenity
- Correct timing materially improves assessment efficiency
Complex or sensitive projects
- Early, structured engagement is essential
- Engagement and social impact assessment often run in parallel
- Poor timing almost always leads to rework or delay
Engagement and Social Impact Assessment – how they align
Engagement and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) are related but distinct:
- Engagement identifies issues, concerns and expectations
- SIA analyses those issues, assesses significance and defines mitigation
Starting engagement too late often forces SIA to become reactive.
Starting at the right time allows SIA to be structured, proportionate and defensible.
This alignment is increasingly expected across NSW planning pathways and is reflected in guidance published via the NSW Planning Portal.
Common timing mistakes (and their consequences)
- Engaging after lodgement → objections, RFIs, delays
- Engaging before feasibility → confusion and inflated expectations
- Engaging without a clear scope → weak evidence
- Treating engagement as a one-off event → credibility issues
Most engagement failures are caused by misalignment with decision-making, not lack of effort.
FAQs
When should stakeholder and community engagement start?
Engagement should start once the project concept is clear enough to explain and while there is still flexibility to respond. For most projects, this is during concept design and before pre-lodgement.
Is early engagement always better?
No. Engagement that starts before feasibility or without a clear purpose can increase risk rather than reduce it. Timing should reflect the scale and sensitivity of likely impacts.
Can late engagement delay approvals?
Yes. Engagement that begins after lodgement often results in objections, requests for additional information or additional conditions, extending assessment timeframes.
Practical takeaway
If engagement starts too late, it becomes defensive.
If it starts too early, it becomes unfocused.
The right time is when engagement can inform decisions, not just explain them.
Advisory next step
If your project is approaching concept design or pre-lodgement, a short scoping discussion can clarify:
- whether engagement is proportionate
- who should be engaged (and who does not need to be)
- how engagement should align with social impact assessment and approvals
Getting the timing right is often the difference between a smooth assessment and an avoidable cycle of rework.
