Starmer’s ‘streamlining’: An attack on consultation? Or an overdue correction to excessive bureaucracy?

This is Blog no 94.

Nine months into the Government that defines itself by Going for Growth and Ministers are going for broke! In the week that NHS England is scrapped, the Planning & Infrastructure Bill is published. What do they have in common? An attempt to speed-up decision-making and curb what is seen as dither and delay in the system. Both initiatives came alongside a vague plan to reform the civil service … again …!

The mood music has been hostile to consultation for a while – mostly on the big stuff. That’s why housing and infrastructure projects have attracted so much attention. We are now in the age of Build,Build,Build and Bash the Blockers, so it is quite easy to interpret this as an outright attack on consultee rights. But is this quite fair?

Both the previous and current Governments have worried that housing developments and major infrastructure projects become stalled because unrepresentative objectors held sway over decision-makers. In reality, few developments have been stopped. Most have just been delayed – which is why curbing legal challenges was a key objective. In the event, Lord Charles Banner KC did a great job in proposing sensible changes that should help the Courts process without disturbing the essential rights to consultation.

More worrying for some may be the Bill’s provisions about consultations that take place before and when Development Consent Orders (DCOs) are sought. The genesis of this lies two years ago, when the National Infrastructure Commission published a review that identified problems stemming from deficiencies in overall Government policies – and also what it called ‘repetitive and disproportionate consultations.

Taking these in turn, the trouble has frequently been that National Policy Statements (NPSs) have either been out-of-date or unhelpful. Those for Waste water and Hazardous Waste have not been updated for a decade!  And the delay in the NPS for Airports meant that the last time Heathrow tried to build its third runway, it had to argue its case before a Government had even published an NPS. 

The whole idea of the 2008 Planning Act was to separate what we want to build from where to build it. What went wrong is that we never had adequate consultations on the NPSs.  So that when DCO applications emerged, people naturally objected on the grounds that they never had (or took) the opportunity to express their views at the time when the original strategy was considered. They have then gone to Court to argue that the policy had been overtaken by events, new technology or even contradictory legislation – often with justification, The new Bill obliges the (currently 12) NPSs to be updated every five years. Hooray!  The duty to consult on them remains. We just MUST do it better.

As for infrastructure consultations themselves, the idea is that pre-application exercises are more proportionate and that the consultation report that must accompany a DCO application can be leaner by summarising consultee views rather than exhaustively covering virtually every response. Time will tell if these changes make much difference. What is important is that consultation remains an essential part of the process.

Many in the planning profession believe that we have seen elements of ‘gold-plating’ both in consultations and on aspects of environmental assessment. I have sympathy with this view. I recently reviewed a major infrastructure consultation, the pile of documentation for which, in hard copy, was about as tall as I am. The detail was mind-boggling; the design was delightful; the programme of webinars and drop-in-centres seemed comprehensive. And yet?  Did consultees feel adequately engaged?

No. They didn’t. Instead, they felt intimidated by mountains of meaningless techno-speak. We must do better.

The other headline change is to planning committees. Fewer Councillors, but they have to be trained ... by law. Hallelujah!  Austerity and worse has progressively discouraged local authorities from spending any money on Councillor training; democratic services budgets were slashed almost everywhere. Cynics may suggest that this sudden Ministerial conversion to the cause is merely a ruse to persuade Councils to say Yes more often. Maybe.

However, what an opportunity to ensure that elected members understand consultation!  I have always believed that Councillors should take a bigger role in public engagement and consultation, and what we need from them (whether on Planning committees or not) is a better appreciation of best practice, so they can distinguish between the volume of response and the quality of the arguments. Regulations will apparently prescribe what they training will include. Please join me in advocating the inclusion of meaningful consultation training.

But let us look beyond planning. There is a wider picture.

The Prime Minister is not alone in thinking that the apparatus of state needs a re-think.

The increased headcount of the Civil service in recent years is normally attributed to Brexit and to Covid. But others point the finger at the unwieldy structures of Government departments and arms-length bodies, and the thematic complexities of modern political issues – which cut across traditional boundaries. It means that any significant policy change involves sign-off from about six different Government departments and as many other agencies – all with their own key stakeholders. By the time they are all consulted (albeit informally), something important has changed and they have to start all over again.

It is this that Ministers find frustrating and is part of the rationale behind the demise of NHS England (along with the fact that it was conceived by Andrew Lansley, and so is doomed via guilt by association!). And is also why there is a bid to clip the wings of ‘statutory consultees.’ The Government is about to consult (yes, it’s ironic) on whether up to 25 organisations should be required to comment on planning and other proposals and some of the media have enjoyed themselves with a story that Sports England had objected to a housing development because of a row about the speed of a cricket ball that might sail past the boundary and into adjacent gardens. Oh dear!

The symptoms are of decision-makers finding a sclerotic system that clogs-up very easily and provides ample opportunities for anyone with good reasons to object to something, to slow things down and divert debate down irrelevant rabbit-holes

The root cause is often poor engagement and consultation practice.

The solution is not to consult less – but to consult better, to streamline structures and simplify lines of accountability.

The Prime Minister is right.

Rhion H Jones LL.B

For More like this - free of charge: now click here