So much has been written and talked about the British reluctance to build or renew our creaking infrastructure …
There are many theories why it takes us longer to decide, and longer to build essential transport or energy projects, and Government efforts have centred around streamlining the ‘consent’ process. One theme has been to limit the extent of consultation before applications for consent are made; another is to make it harder to challenge decisions in the Courts.
But the underlying problem may be one of trust. A fear that big business and big Government will steamroller unpopular projects against the wishes of politicians, Councils or communities – and that consultation and engagement processes are a sham. Similarly, that once approved, the contractors will move in and bulldoze their way to completion regardless of the views of local people or interested parties.
Not always, of course. But the fear is there, and that’s why politicians are cautious about proposing big infrastructure schemes and developers tie themselves in knots trying to meet every regulatory hoop and hurdle. It has led to consultative practices that fulfil the letter of the law but fail to convince communities that they have been heard. And decisions which are seldom accepted with good grace. Affected people look to the future with dread. They wonder – will anyone care?
It need not be so bleak. Even if the pre-decision period is fraught and contested, the nation needs construction and implementation to be efficient and smooth. It should also be fair. The case for better community dialogue is overwhelming. Even if neglected before consent is secured, the moment the go-ahead is given – even as contractors are appointed, someone needs to pick up the ‘baton of care’ and start a professional process of dialogue.
There is always a danger that in the immediate aftermath of decisions to proceed, there is a period of quiet: when nothing apparently happens. It is a time when rumours, misinformation and mistrust can cause damage. Someone representing the overall project needs to take charge even though key phasing and funding decisions are yet to be taken. It is not enough to set up a Facebook page and appoint a public relations firm to tell everyone how wonderful it will all be.
Major projects inevitably cause disruption and dislocation. But when, for how long, how and who is impacted are important details that can affect local residents and a wide range of other interests. There will always be a range of potential mitigations, and now we have community benefit schemes with significant funding, there are issues of accountability that warrant effective community education and guidance.
Opening up trusted channels of communication ought to be a priority for responsive local authorities or development bodies responsible for the IMPLEMENTATION phase. It should not be a cosmetic exercise, but a form of reaching out to families, individuals and businesses whose lives may well be inconvenienced by the project.
I’m sure that, over the years, construction firms and developers have tried to assuage some of these fears, and there have been genuine attempts to engage citizens. But it seems not to have worked well enough to dissipate the air of cynicism and mistrust that we find in too many places. It may be that disgruntled communities make more headlines and that social media provides such a powerful a platform for dissent. It may also be that the process of dialogue has not been good enough.
My friends at Publiq refer to community dialogue as a structured and deliberate exchange of information, concerns, and ideas between an organisation and the local residents influenced by its decisions. Its mobile application platform provides an easy way for anyone to engage with the those responsible for the project without straying from natural language. All the data structuring is hidden away so that the essential learning about the issues that matter to local people is done by the system. What has become known as ‘sentiment analysis’ is important but its basic purpose remains that of informing an organisation where to invest in mitigating adverse impacts.
If we are to become more comfortable with a society that builds and rebuilds regularly to meet an ever-changing world, we need to accept change with less anxiety. This can only happen if we consult communities as assiduously during IMPLEMENTATION as in the previous phases of planning and decision-making. This means training more community liaison staff and equipping them with tools that are specially designed to offer local people and businesses a direct and confidential link to those running big projects.
It does not just apply to mega-investments like the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects or NSIPs. Medium-sized housing developments , road schemes and renewable energy generation in sensitive landscapes are also likely to stimulate controversy; the size of the project is not always the decisive factor.
Maybe what matters most is whether affected localities feel they have been respected and treated with fairness and understanding. The metrics for achieving this are more of an art than a science, and modern leadership is about balancing the efficient achievement of business objectives with better treatment of those who are affected. Those who manage this balancing act will experience fewer challenges – political, media or legal, avoid delays and unexpected costs – and enhance their reputation.
They will also pave the way for others to embark upon the infrastructure investment that the country badly needs.