Originally published 2 June 2009. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
No-one can claim that our politics is on a go-slow right now! Suddenly, arguments on constitutional, parliamentary or electoral reform that have rumbled for decades are being teed up for action within weeks or months. If you believe Nick Clegg, MPs won’t have their holidays this year unless they take instant decisions on matters of huge importance.
The traditional response of those with experience and wisdom is to eschew the panic, sagely affirming that policy made in a hurry is often regretted at leisure. It is often good advice, and may well have been whispered in Speaker Martin’s ear in recent months. But, as recent weeks have proved, events sometimes acquire a momentum of their own. Twenty-four hour news does the rest! The recent Sunningdale Report (See Topic 135) pleads for more time for policy-making, but realistically, this is unlikely. Maybe the best we can hope for is to use the available time better. So let’s consider the imminent application of the 2008 Planning Act. As issues go, they don’t get any bigger ... or more contentious. This is the legislation that will govern decisions on major infrastructure projects from nuclear power to airports, and the first phase is the forthcoming publication of National Policy Statements (NPSs). These are important, for they will influence huge planning decisions; so important, in fact that Parliament insisted on having its own say, alongside the statutory public consultation. But how does this work exactly? And if you have strong views on one of the twelve NPSs, do you respond to the formal consultation? Or do you lobby your MP?
The Government proposes an overall six-month period for dialogue. Twelve weeks for public consultation – four/six weeks for a Select Committee and up to 40 days for the Select Committee’s Report to be considered in Parliament. When this was debated in the House on May 20th, MPs worried that this timetable was too short, and that community groups lacking the resources of major developers might be at a disadvantage in presenting their case. So would more time make a difference?
Time lets word get around; it gives people the opportunity to think about what’s proposed and decide whether they have a clear view. Maybe they want more information; maybe they wish to contact others to see if they can make common cause. In short, time is pretty important for the conduct of consultation – and ensures that a wide range of voices can be heard.
But in the envisaged NPS process note that the extra time is at the back-end of the process. That’s ok. But how will Select Committees address the right issues unless the formal consultation output has been published and analysed? Typically, with hundreds of submissions to assess, this can take at least a few weeks. Assuming this starts at the closing date of the consultation itself, that leaves little if any time for the Select Committee to consider what’s been said, leaving it to rely solely on evidence it gathers for itself. True, there’s another 40 days, but a backbench amendment to allow a substantive vote at the end of the process failed. So what exactly is there still to influence? Is it not game-over by the time this phase starts?
There is an important point to this analysis – and it matter to planners and non-planners alike.
When timetables for public engagement are set, the end-to-end elapsed period is important, but so is the time allowed for key elements of the process. For some – but not everyone - new technology is speeding up our ability to participate in the dialogue phase, and there may be opportunities to go faster here. But proper consideration of what’s been said is less open to acceleration, and where contentious proposals are developed in health, education or other public services, officials and elected members who think they can hurry the eventual decision-making will be making a big mistake.
In the frenetic atmosphere of MP-baiting, note how much easier it is for everyone to have their say than to create the structures and gather consensus behind real solutions. When it comes to big decisions, make haste slowly. Trigger points
- When planning a consultation, do you pay attention to the overall end-to-end timeline; is there enough ‘thinking time’?
- Do relevant departments in your organisations understand the full public engagement implications of the 2008 Planning Act?
- Join us on June 30th in London to consider the whole issue of National Policy Statements. Local Authorities, Planning specialists, Project sponsors, Developers, Consultants and public bodies who are likely to be statutory consultees will all find Next Generation Infrastructure Projects: Ensuring a broad national dialogue an important opportunity to understand the new consultation arrangements. The event is supported by Bircham Dyson Bell and the National Grid.
This is the 137th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement