Public Consultation Plan Template (Questions, Audiences, Analysis)
Consultation plan: scope, numbered questions, audiences and channels, accessibility, timeline, response analysis, publication, UK, EU and US practice
How to use: Use it when a public body consults on a policy or regulatory proposal while it can still change. Fill the questions and audiences together, and agree the analysis method before opening. The main pitfall is treating responses as votes or a representative survey instead of evidence.
Preview
Public Consultation Plan: [Proposal title]
A plan for consulting the public and stakeholders on a policy or regulatory proposal: the purpose, the questions, who to reach and how, accessibility, timing, how responses will be analysed and how the result will be published. The structure is neutral, with dated national practice as examples: the UK Consultation Principles (2018), Chapter 7 "Stakeholder consultation" of the European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox (December 2025 edition), and US notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553. Replace every
[bracketed]value and every row marked Example. Whether you have a legal duty to consult, and how, depends on your law: check the current official texts and ask your lawyers. This is not legal advice.
Plan control
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plan ID | [CONS-2026-001] |
| Proposal | [Title and link] |
| Owner | [@policy-lead] |
| Approvers | [@senior-official], [@legal], [@communications] |
| Legal duty to consult | [Yes, under (law) / No / Unclear, advice requested] |
| Opens / closes | YYYY-MM-DD / YYYY-MM-DD |
| Response published by | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
1. Purpose and scope
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| What we want to learn | [Evidence, views, costs, alternatives] |
| What is open to change | [Options, design details, timing] |
| What is not open to change | [Fixed elements and why] |
| Decision the consultation informs | [Decision and date] |
| Supporting documents | [Impact assessment, draft text, evidence] |
Example: the department wants evidence on the cost of uploading inspection records and on whether owners of five or fewer lifts should be exempt. The decision to create a register is open; the 12-month inspection interval is set by other law and is not.
2. Questions
| ID | Question | Type | Audience | Analysis use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 (Example) | Do you agree that lift inspection records should be uploaded to a national register? | Agree scale and free text | All | Support and reasons |
| Q2 (Example) | How long would it take you to upload one inspection record? | Number | Owners, inspectors | Cost assumption in the impact assessment |
| Q3 (Example) | Should owners of five or fewer lifts be exempt for the first three years? | Yes, no, unsure and free text | Owners | Small business option |
| Q4 (Example) | What support would help you comply? | Free text | Owners | Implementation design |
| Q5 | [Question] | [Type] | [Audience] | [Use] |
3. Audiences and channels
| Audience | Why they matter | How we reach them | Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Group] | [Interest] | [Channel] | [Online form / Meeting / Interviews / Workshop] |
| Building owners with few lifts (Example) | Most affected by cost per lift | Letters via the business register, trade associations | Short online form, phone line |
| Lift users with disabilities (Example) | Most affected by lift failures | Disabled people's organisations | Accessible events, easy read version |
| Lift inspectors (Example) | Upload records in practice | Professional body | Workshop |
4. Accessibility and inclusion
- Formats: [accessible HTML, easy read, large print, other languages, sign language video].
- Ways to respond: [online, email, post, phone, events].
- Timing: [avoid holiday periods or extend; allow more time for small organisations and charities].
- Data protection: [privacy notice; how names and organisations are published; link to the DPIA].
5. Timeline
| Milestone | Date |
|---|---|
| Plan and documents approved | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Consultation opens | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Events and workshops | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD |
| Consultation closes | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Analysis complete | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Government response published | YYYY-MM-DD |
Example: 10 weeks, extended from 8 because the period includes a national holiday and trade associations asked for time to survey their members.
6. Response analysis
| Step | Method |
|---|---|
| Intake and deduplication | [Log, flag campaign responses] |
| Coding of free text | [Codebook, double-coding of n% sample] |
| Counting closed questions | [By respondent type; campaign responses reported separately] |
| Weighting | [None: responses are evidence, not votes] |
| Using evidence | [Each relevant point is checked against the impact assessment] |
| Quality check | [Second analyst review] |
7. Publication and feedback
| Item | Plan |
|---|---|
| Where the response is published | [Same page as the consultation] |
| Contents | [Number of responses, summary per question, changes made, reasons for not changing] |
| Deadline | [Date and rule] |
| Feedback to participants | [Email, events] |
8. National practice examples
| Jurisdiction | Source and date | Key points (paraphrased) |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Consultation Principles, Cabinet Office, updated 2018-03-19 | 11 principles: clear and concise, purposeful, informative, part of wider engagement, proportionate length, targeted, suited to the groups consulted, agreed before publication, open to scrutiny, response published within 12 weeks or an explanation given, generally not during election periods; no legal force in itself |
| European Union | Better Regulation Toolbox, December 2025 edition, Chapter 7 | Tool #51 consulting stakeholders, #52 consultation strategy, #53 conducting activities, #54 analysing data, #55 publication, data protection and transparency register |
| United States (federal rulemaking) | 5 U.S.C. 553 | General notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, opportunity to submit written data, views or arguments, a concise statement of basis and purpose with the final rule, and in general at least 30 days before a substantive rule takes effect |
References
| Reference | Date | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Consultation Principles: guidance, Cabinet Office | 2018 | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance |
| Better Regulation Toolbox, European Commission | December 2025 | https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en |
| 5 U.S.C. 553, Rule making | Current | https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section553 |
Standard and licence note
Based on the UK Consultation Principles (2018), the European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox (December 2025 edition, Chapter 7) and 5 U.S.C. 553, all official public sources, paraphrased in original wording. Duties to consult also come from specific statutes and case law; check the current official texts and take legal advice for your proposal. This is not legal advice.
Template licence: MIT.
Related templates
Public Procurement Tender Template (Award Criteria, Standstill)
Tender pack: threshold check, tender notice, participation conditions, award criteria and scoring, minimum periods, assessment record, standstill
Public SectorFOI Request Log Template (Clock, Exemptions, Reviews)
FOI log: clock rules (UK FOIA, US FOIA, EU 1049/2001), requests with computed due dates, exemptions and reasoning, reviews, performance
Public SectorGrant Programme Guidelines Template (Eligibility, Scoring, 2 CFR 200)
Grant call rules: eligibility tests, eligible costs, indirect costs (MTDC example), scoring rubric, due diligence, reporting, closeout, US and UK annexes