Amy Mount, Senior Policy Adviser at Green Alliance examines the opportunities available to improve public engagement in infrastructure decisions…
The scale of change required to build a green economy has been compared to the Industrial Revolution. A key difference today – aside from the lack of smog and workhouses – is that, during the Industrial Revolution, infrastructure developers didn’t have to bother with environmental impact statements and pre-application consultations to make their case to the government. New projects were railroaded through.
But this isn’t the nineteenth century. It’s not even the twentieth century, when the political franchise was enough of a novelty for elected representatives to be able to claim they had a public mandate to make these decisions. Politicians can no longer hope to convince people of that. We’re in the twenty-first century, and we’re well overdue for a new approach to decision making. This doesn’t have to mean taking decisions out of politicians’ hands, but it does mean building real public engagement into the decision making process. And any engagement expert will tell you we have the tools and technologies to do so.
A new approach to infrastructure decisions
Public engagement is not about eliminating controversy; that’s impossible. But it can build better understanding amongst all parties involved, and more opportunities for identifying ways to compromise.
Engagement needs to happen, not only at the stage when developers are designing specific projects, but when the national and local governments are making plans and strategies. The results can then provide greater clarity for developers, who will find it easier to design more appropriate projects. This should reduce the likelihood of costly delays late in the process, such as appeals, judicial reviews or civil disobedience. A perceived urgent need for new infrastructure is not an excuse to try to compress or limit debate. It’s a case of more haste, less speed.
Our recommendations
We set out three proposals in our report Opening up infrastructure planning, published in February.
Our first recommendation is a more strategic approach to infrastructure planning at the national level. Such an approach would be long term, using an evidence based assessment of needs, considering demand side along with supply side options, and taking into account carbon budgets. A civil society council should advise on this strategy, including a diverse set of interests such as conservation organisations and consumer groups. Members would be able to provide insight into which outcomes are most valued by the people they represent or work with.
Second, we recommend spatial planning at city region or county region level, like Greater Manchester. This is an ideal scale, as it fills the gap between abstract national policies and finer grained local planning. It should be informed by local infrastructure dialogues, with discussions grounded in place so they’re tangible.
Dialogues would cover the outcomes made possible by different types of infrastructure, and the best places to locate it.
The first two recommendations demand an increase in public engagement. To provide that capacity, our third proposal is the creation of an impartial facilitator, which we’ve called Citizen Voice. This would be a source of engagement expertise, available to local authorities to support infrastructure dialogues. It would ensure the involvement of a cross section of society, not just interest groups. And it could facilitate the civil society council at national level, and promote the sharing of lessons learned.
There’s still work to do
We made these proposals before the general election, yet each one remains pertinent. Infrastructure policy is fragmented, cutting across different government departments and upcoming pieces of legislation, such as the Energy Bill, the Wales Bill and the High Speed Rail Bill. In March, the then transport minister John Hayes pledged to convene a ministerial infrastructure task force “as soon as the post-election dust has settled”. But at the time of writing, there are no signs of it, or any other initiatives to make the national approach to infrastructure more strategic.
One of the most promising areas of policy development in England and Wales is the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, currently working its way through Parliament. This framework bill includes provisions for combined authorities to negotiate deals with central government to secure powers over housing, transport and planning. It builds momentum for our recommendation to plan at city or county region level.
The public engagement dimension, however, is still missing. There is need for a body, like our proposed Citizen Voice, to provide capacity and expertise at every level: local, combined authority and national.
A sceptical public is good for democracy
Meaningful dialogue is essential, and that involves all sides being prepared to see new perspectives and, if necessary, shift position. It’s important that engagement is not used as a propaganda tool. It is misguided to believe that simply informing or attempting to educate the public will necessarily lead them to agree with you. It will backfire, increasing public mistrust of decision makers. We’ve seen this with the government’s clumsy approach to fracking, now all the more starkly illuminated as the public begins to question the inconsistencies in planning policy when applied to fracking policy, compared to when it is applied to onshore wind.
There’s often talk about how to build the public’s trust in industry and government. But perhaps a wary, sceptical public is a good thing for democracy, and the more pressing need is to build the government’s trust in the public’s ability to understand the country’s problems and participate in designing the solutions.
Amy Mount
Senior Policy Adviser
Green Alliance
Tel: 020 7233 7433
ga@green-alliance.org.uk
www.twitter.com/GreenAllianceUK
