Back in October, energy secretary Chris Huhne chastised windfarm critics as “curmudgeons”, “faultfinders”, “climate sceptics” and “armchair engineers”. The name-calling didn’t work, and community objection continues to be a major obstacle for the renewables industry. So what strategies should developers use to engage with opponents and hopefully to turn them into supporters?
According to Patrick Devine-Wright, professor in human geography at the University of Exeter and an expert on public engagement with renewable technologies, the first thing to do is stop calling objectors names. “The Nimby label is pejorative, simplistic and inaccurate,” he says. “Instead, consider ‘conditional acceptance’ to be the norm, depending on the kind of project proposed (technology, scale, etc), the actions taken by the developer, the way decisions are taken and the local history of the community.
“Developers should learn the history of the place and what it means to local people, then connect this to their ‘narrative’ of the project. Seek to build long-term relations with local people and build trust by listening, not just disseminating
‘the facts’.”
Simon Neate, chairman of Indigo Planning concurs. “The public is always given plenty of opportunity to engage. And the Localism Act will see the decision-making process further handed down to local communities. There will always be a range of views for and against – the challenge is to reach the silent masses. The reality is that the people who engage tend to be educated people with time on their hands, so developers and planners need to engage with a greater number of people beyond those who are already engaging.
“Opponents of a project will be most likely supported by the media in a way supporters are not. They are also likely to be well off and well connected with lawyers and other professionals who can add weight to their opposition. Supporters will be less empowered to express their views, so any strategy intended to engage with a community should look to empower these people to balance the debate.”
There is, however, often a question mark over the adequacy of public consultation, as Simon Chamberlayne of Pegasus Planning Group explains: “We have witnessed delays to schemes as applicants are requested to withdraw applications in order to undertake more consultation. We have developed four tests to establish the quality of the consultation. These look at the stage at which it took place – was there early engagement and an opportunity to influence and shape development? Was the consultation meaningful or just tokenism? Was it inclusive – what steps were taken to reach out to those affected by the development? Was it balanced and representative – are the comments received ‘representative’ of the area and what steps have been taken to ‘test’ the comments with under-represented groups?
“We expect there to be challenges to decisions based on the adequacy of consultation and therefore currently advise our clients to undertake pre-application consultation in such a way as they can demonstrate that the four tests have been met. We also look to begin the consultation process at as early as possible stage in the life of a development in order that any proposals can be shaped accordingly and solutions can be found.”
The need for early engagement is also stressed by Neate. “Early communication is vital and it can’t be done too soon,” he says. “The communications strategy should be part of the initial project planning. The strategy can include a combination of PR, letter drops, social media, public meetings and exhibitions, as well as engagement with existing groups. Many people feel intimidated by a public meeting but can be reached through existing social groups they belong to and where they feel comfortable.”
Jonathan Davis, director of Granted Consultancy, illustrates how early engagement and working with existing groups can make a difference. “We have recently been working on the Environmental and Renewables Technology Hub on the outskirts of Exeter,” he says. “It’s a very sensitive farming area and highly visible. We held a number of consultation events and invited the local community and environmental groups and explained our aspirations even before we had started the planning process. The local stakeholders have had a very positive input on the project and the consultation process was instrumental in us gaining a BREEAM ‘very good’ rating.”
He advises: “Find people who are already naturally on your side – for example, low carbon groups, sustainable transport and sustainable food groups. These exist in most communities and present a useful first stop for engagement. You are bringing the issue down to the community level and are talking about their town and their resources. This reassures people that they are understood. And most people have an open mind if they feel you have thought things through.”
Davis also believes communities want to see what benefits renewable projects will have for them. “How you sell the project to the community is very important,” he says. “You should offer direct benefits and ideally include the community as part of the process. People can be very suspicious of the motivations behind a project. If they think a project is being forced on them from on high and with no benefit to their community, they will object almost out of principle.”
Ultimately, engagement is nothing if it is not sympathetic, as Devine-Wright explains: “Avoid ‘information deficit’ views of the community. Value local knowledge, not just scientific knowledge, and view local residents as having a stake in their local futures. Acknowledge the validity of emotional responses. Identify key local organisations and support their needs and do this early, before allegations of bribery set in.”
Neate adds that it is crucial to have an understanding of the community in question to gear benefits towards it. “A one-size-fits-all benefit offered across the board to various communities might not be apt or even welcomed,” he cautions.
Matt Davis, head of Environ’s environmental planning practice, agrees. “The best strategies recognise that communities are diverse and that there are multiple audiences,” he says. “It’s important to assess the whole community to ensure that engagement is not dominated by an articulate and active few. Where practical, linking local-scale developments to energy use within the community can help in making a project more acceptable as the community will more clearly see the benefits and impacts.”
Chamberlayne concludes: “Public consultation is no longer a ‘costly extra’ but a ‘basic essential’, and is something which will be given increasing weight by the public and decision makers alike.”
David Mclean is an account manager at Geometry PR.
Sing when you’re winning – Glyndebourne’s turbine victory
Glyndebourne opera house in East Sussex last month officially opened a 900kW, 67-metre tall wind turbine after a long campaign to win planning permission, making it the first and only UK arts organisation to generate renewable energy.
The turbine was first proposed six years ago by Glyndebourne’s executive chairman, Gus Christie, and caused controversy in the nearby communities of Lewes and Ringmer. The application was called in for a public inquiry in July 2008 by then secretary of state Hazel Blears. Planning officers had recommended the scheme be turned down but Lewes District Councillors voted six to four in favour. Naturalist and broadcaster Sir David Attenborough was among supporters of the project who gave evidence at the inquiry, along with students from Ringmer Community College who collected a 140-strong petition supporting the turbine as a “considerable energy source for the future”.
When the inquiry concluded, then secretary of state Hazel Blears gave the turbine a resounding endorsement, stating in her decision letter that “the scheme would constitute the sensitive exploitation of a renewable energy source without significant detriment to the area of outstanding natural beauty”.
Throughout the project the focus of much of the controversy was the turbine’s location on Mill Plain, 400 metres northwest of the opera house – an area of outstanding natural beauty located within the newly designated (in 2009) South Downs
National Park.
Lewes MP Norman Baker supported the project. Opposition groups including the South Downs Joint Committee said the benefits of the turbine were outweighed by the need to preserve the natural beauty of the downs. They welcomed Glyndebourne’s desire to cut carbon emissions but felt the turbine was the wrong scheme in the
wrong place.
But Christie argues: “I strongly believe that the turbine will send out a positive message about our environmental intentions and will go a long way to raising public awareness about carbon emissions. This is one of the main reasons that we applied to site it on Mill Plain. We felt it important that the turbine and opera house were visually linked.”
This year Glyndebourne’s turbine will produce as much power as its its annual summer festival consumes – the first opera festival to do so. Plans are also in place to use the turbine as an educational resource for young people, and Glyndebourne is already working with local schools to communicate the value and benefits of renewable energy.
At the recent opening celebrations, Sir David Attenborough expressed his delight at being involved in the project. He said: “It is a joy to be involved in something which is working with the environment and not against it. This is what makes the turbine beautiful. It is important to have a care for the future generations and that is exactly what this turbine is doing.”
Vicky Kington, media manager, Glyndebourne
This article first appeared in Utility Week’s print edition of 10 February 2012.
Get Utility Week’s expert news and comment – unique and indispensible – direct to your desk. Sign up for a trial subscription here: http://bit.ly/zzxQxx