Why Universal in Bedford may face fewer ‘blockers’? And why others will ….!

This is Blog no 106

Six miles from my home in Bedfordshire, they hope to build a massive theme park.              

The first serious consultation has been launched, and in order to expedite the consent process, Ministers have decided to use a Special Development Order (SDO) procedure. 

This is not a new process and has been used for special projects like the conversion of converting military bases for the accommodation of asylum seekers. But its use here has raised many eyebrows, as is well analysed by Nicola Gooch of Irwin Mitchell. By using this process, UNIVERSAL avoids the protracted timescale of the NSIP procedure, and also by-passes the bureaucracy of the Local Plan and making a conventional application for planning permission. It offers a whole list of advantages for pursuing this route. It is faster; it can provide simultaneous consents to a multiplicity of works; it enables better co-ordination across several administrative boundaries. It then cites benefits of being of nationwide significance, of having relevance to national security and even to have a process more comparable to that used by Disney in Paris!  Some of these sound pretty spurious, but speed is certainly attractive to Ministers anxious to leverage growth by whatever means possible – even a theme park.

If the project was deeply controversial, I suspect that this accelerated process would have been less easy to justify. That’s because one of the disadvantages is that it may limit the scope for public and stakeholder consultation – something the Government is keen to accomplish. So, the use of an SDO may well be more significant than it looks. Could this the future preferred model? An initial “How do you feel about this” exercise before many details emerge – and very limited opportunities to have a say thereafter. Let’s remember that the Prime Minister has made it clear: “this government is on the side of the builders, not the blockers.”

The UNIVERSAL project is popular. Local Councils have been enthusiastic, and the prospect of thousands of jobs, both short and long-term is clearly enticing. There will, however, as always be ‘losers’ and well as ‘winners’; people will lose homes, countryside peace-and-quiet; construction will bring noise, traffic and inevitable disruption. But overall, there is substantial public support. The people of Bedford will not, in this case be NIMBYs.

Elsewhere, the picture is different. Ministers seem convinced that the UK is full of communities plotting to subvert or thwart their plans to build 1.5 million houses and a massive programme of new infrastructure. The new Project pipeline dashboard was launched this week and consists of 780 projects, the vast majority of which have only the barest information, and little to suggest whether there has been any meaningful public engagement on them. Few, however, will have the benign characteristics of the UNIVERSAL project, and the war against NIMBYs can be safely predicted to flare up on many of these.

In fact, in recent years, we have learnt a lot more about the understand the NIMBY phenomenon. Thanks to the seminal work of Professor Patrick Divine-Wright, now of Exter University, we know some of the factors that influence the extent of resistance to various projects. Over fifteen years ago, he identified several important factors that politicians and policy-makers need to keep in mind. They include:

• Local Identity; people have strong attachments to their ‘place’ and are drawn to resist anything that threatens their view of it
• The reputation of the Company or technology that wants to build something, especially if they represent faraway power centres or multinational interests primarily interested in financial gain at the expense of local communities
• Perceived fairness of the process, and whether those affected have been properly heard. NIMBYism flourishes where people feel ignored or excluded from having their views considered.

Calling people ‘NIMBY’s or ‘Blockers’ is also unhelpful. Attempts to restrict consultation inevitably worsens relationships and far from reducing the risks of legal challenges, it almost certainly encourages them. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently before Parliament seeks to minimise the kind of consultation that will take place before the new Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs) are approved, but I predict that Labour MPs and many in the House of Lords may seek to amend these provisions before the Bill becomes law.

Indeed, we have some thoughtful contributions to the debate both in Parliament and in the planning profession. Probably the best is a Report published by Miriam Levin and her team at DEMOS in May and supported by the RTPI. It is called The Mimby Majority and I recommend it to those interested in the subject. Mimby stands for “Maybe in my Backyard”. The DEMOS research shows that 67% of its sample fall into this category and might give proposals a fair hearing. Unsurprisingly, it also found that most people don’t even know 'how to get their voices heard', with over half (52%) of the public in England saying they don’t know how to take part in consultations about developments in their local area.

From this analysis it builds a strong case for embedding ‘early and representative’ public participation in the SDS, and even produces a recommended Public Participation model, which has much to commend it. I have some disagreements on the detail, preferring an open consultation with all stakeholders to the over-reliance on specially selected 24-30 residents to act as a Citizens Panel in the SDS-preparation phase. This aspect is well worth a debate. But overall, this is the kind of new thinking that needs to be adopted if Ministers are to carry the public with them.

The truth is that not all new developments have the sex-appeal of Bedford’s jolly theme park.                         We need sites for prisons, water treatment works, electricity transmission lines, solar farms, nuclear power … and new towns.  One cannot legislate against people’s views and ideas – even if we can outlaw some behaviours. In time, wise politicians learn to govern with the grain of public opinion, and avoid imposing the unpopular or unacceptable on the unconsulted.

The sooner current Ministers absorb this lesson, the better.