From Energy Industry Times – September 2011
Consultation outside the box
As UK project developers assess the opportunities for developing wind and other low carbon energy projects, PPS Group’s Head of Energy Leander Clarke details the ins and outs of securing permissions and the importance of community consultation.
The UK’s Electricity Market Reform process is seeking to attract substantial investment in low carbon generating technologies such as renewables and nuclear. However, one of the biggest challenges that many of these projects will face is gaining planning consent – an area that requires careful consultation.
The days of tick box consultation processes are behind us. With the introduction of the localism agenda and the formalisation of planning for major infrastructure projects through the rigorous and process driven IPC/MIPU, planning consent is, and will continue to be, intrinsically linked to consultation best practice.
For something so vital to the success of the planning process it is also one of the easiest (and normally the most consistent) process to get wrong; even with the greatest intention and rigorous application of tried and tested consultation methodology, developers can and continue to fail.
Whilst good consultation can’t guarantee consent, poor consultation can almost certainly guarantee failure. The following are some common mistakes made even when following established consultation methodology.
Who are you consulting?
The most common mistake is for developers and those instructed to support consultation to assume they know who their audience is without thoroughly doing their homework. This might be obvious in terms of statutory consultees but when it comes to the community it is not always clear who that is.
Communities can be defined in many ways depending on the scale, type and location of the proposed energy infrastructure project and the types of developments existing or already proposed within an area. In the case of an onshore wind farm, community can be defined as those bordering the proposed site, or it can be the visual impact zone.
The community might also include a community of interest; if the proposed site borders a key tourist destination for instance, main roads or transport links or other area of perceived importance; community might also be defined as anyone with a vested interest in the land being proposed for development for instance local farmers or where it might border common land.
For an offshore wind farm development the community will inevitably involve local sea users such as fisherman or surfers as well as those with view of the site, the connection route and power station.
How each of these communities will receive proposals depends on many factors tied in to the political, economical, social, historical and environmental connections with a site. These factors must be identified alongside the communities and stakeholders a developer actually wishes to consult with.
Finally, community might also include neighbouring areas where impacts are perceived in terms of environmental impact or where a local community or council area feels that there has been overdevelopment . Take for instance a region that has seen proposals for a multitude of energy infrastructure projects over a short period of time. Whilst each project individually might only impact visually on a small part of the region, for instance a neighbouring town, taken collectively the region may feel it is shouldering disproportionate impacts compared to other places in the UK. This must be accounted for in any future consultation work.
Identifying early on who your community might be, their motivations and drivers and importantly the expectations they might have of you as a developer is key to ensuring your consultation hits the mark and not a brick wall of opposition.
For developers where many sites are being considered, site risk analysis can provide an excellent and cost effective method of identifying areas of high receptiveness to development proposals and those that would provide more of a challenge even with consultation best practice. Site risk analysis can identify other recent development proposals and the success/failure of these; any vociferous opposition groups and their motivations; local political and business appetites for development and finally the motivations of the communities involved in the site; all of which can determine a strategy for consultation before pen is put to paper.
Who holds the power?
The next opportunity for consultation to flounder is failing to adequately explain the parameters of the consultation and the level of influence actually held by the communities and stakeholders being consulted. In many cases, energy infrastructure projects provide little room for negotiation in terms of both site and technologies involved in for instance nuclear new build projects. Some developers therefore take a ‘decide, announce, defend’ approach to consultation presenting communities with what feels like a fait accompli. Whilst in the past this might have done no more damage than to provide ammunition for the local objection group, localism has changed this with even the smallest of communities expecting some influence over an infrastructure or land use project that they perceive will affect their day-to-day life.
That is not to say that developers should hand power to consultees to make decisions beyond their level of understanding and experience of the project or technology. Often however, communities have a level of knowledge and understanding of the site that can actually improve the project being proposed – remember, it’s their community..
If consultees feel they are genuinely being asked to participate and influence, and understand the nature of that influence, even at the smallest level such as how a community benefits package might be managed, in our experience a community is more likely to engage with a developer and consultation begins from a more positive stand-point.
Listening not telling
Most developers understand the importance of being able to demonstrate that they have listened to consultee concerns. In fact the IPC requires extensive evidence that this has taken place. This evidence is usually presented as a log of concerns and the (often stock) responses from the developer to show that these concerns have been ‘listened too’. A community helpline is cited as a tool enabling consultees to really be listened to, as are public exhibitions and town hall meetings. However the perception of being listened to is far harder to engender than merely evidencing that you have provided a forum for, and responded to consultee feedback.
If you have been thorough with your stakeholder and community mapping and have adequately set the parameters for consultation it is very easy to plan how you will respond to common and expected concerns and issues, with stock responses and consultation materials that contain the answers your preparation has identified as being needed. This is a valid form of consultation and will perhaps satisfy a majority of those being consulted. However, do not let this planned approach prevent you from really listening to those with unexpected or unique concerns or requests; responses that do not adequately deal with the matter being raised and feel as if they have come from a stock of prepared answers will only reinforce a communities perception that the consultation is a done deal and they are not really being listened to.
Community hotlines work well when those answering the phones actually listen properly l to the person who has taken the time to call. Offering an individual response to the concerns raised will pay dividends in terms of developer trust and perception. This will inevitably require a call back or a letter sent but in the spirit of really listening, the right response, even if delayed, is better than a knee-jerk response based on what you think is being said.
Misunderstanding expectations
One of the biggest benefits of getting all of the above right is that you are more likely to meet or manage the expectations of your consultees and therefore garner trust and support (or at least ambivalence) to your proposed development.
These expectations might, as I have previously suggested, be a simple case of the level of influence a community actually has over a proposal but might also include an expectation of benefits on offer, timescales in which a development will operate and the associated infrastructure required and the impact of these plans. A nuclear power station for instance is likely to provide long-term employment opportunities; an onshore wind farm is not. However, if the community is expecting employment benefits for a substantial onshore wind development then failure to manage expectations from the start will only fuel the fire of opposition. In this case the answer might be providing a community benefits package that includes training to help local people into sustainable employment or simply explaining what other benefits the site offers beyond employment. This should be done before employment opportunities becomes a perceived truth, fuelled by misunderstandings. [I wouldn’t criticise the press, and that could be read as criticism]
However understanding and matching, or at least managing the expectations of your consultees is just one part of the expectation equation. Developers must also consider what they are expecting from consultees – NIMBY-style opposition or a genuine exchange of ideas and opinions?
Consultation has to be a two-way dialogue about a proposed development. Developers should always prepare for views and opinions that do not match their own. This does not mean that consultees are merely demonstrating a ‘NIMBY’ attitude or are being difficult, and by making that assumption developers will base responses on the idea that a community is misguided or uneducated rather than welcoming the participation of those being consulted.
Good consultation for the right result
Good consultation – properly conducted is now a prerequisite for helping ensure that developments get a fair hearing, and in due course, a planning consent. There are any number of concerns that can be raised about a development and in order to get the right decision taken for the right reasons, time spent on good consultation is time well spent. There are many tried and tested method than can – and should be used, but more important is to ensure that you try to answer the genuine concerns of affected residents and communities. Most people care passionately about where they live, and they want to know that your development will bring benefits and improvements, but certainly not make things materially worse. Listen hard and work hard to answer any concerns as quickly and fully as possible.
Good consultation well carried out is your best defence from a development falling at the hurdle of public opinion. Play your cards right and rather than your proposals being fought and refused, you will give yourself the best chances of seeing your development given consent and being built.
With the methodology in place the only aspect left to decide is the format and delivery of your consultation. We have touched upon tried and tested methods such as community hotlines and public exhibitions and these, along with community newsletters and leaflets are cited as best practice. However, with all of the insight gained from understanding your consultees, setting the parameters of consultation, listening and managing expectations – developers and those supporting the consultation process are in an excellent position to try new and less tired methods of consultation that match the way your consultees expect to be, wish to be and are most comfortable with being engaged. This is the point at which you can be creative using all the information you have gathered thus far – from social media through to conversations at the local pub; get this final piece of the jigsaw in place and you have ensured that your consultation at least will not stand in the way of development.
Tags: "PPS PR" "PPS Group" "Localism Bill" "Community Consultation" "Energy Industry Times"
Written by lclarke