The summer’s high-profile protests at Balcombe have illustrated that groups and individuals object to proposed developments for a wide variety of different reasons. Some objectors have common causes, others form temporary allegiances and others have little or nothing in agreement at all.
At Balcombe it became evident that there was little in common between locals opposing Cuadrilla’s oil drilling programme and the activists who descended on the village from places far and wide. In fact, under usual circumstances, it is probable that each would happily go out of their way to avoid the other. Many of the villagers objecting to Cuadrilla’s scheme would undoubtedly also protest against any local windfarm proposal, a technology that would be supported by many of the flying pickets camped out at Balcombe.
Many locally based protesters have rarely, if ever, been involved actively in climate change and energy-related demonstrations before. To such individuals, a proposed energy development is perceived as a threat to their way of life and property, which stands way above any other issue.
Nevertheless local protesters learn quickly enough that they need more substantial reasons to oppose a development earmarked for their backyard. The internet and social media sites enable newly established self-appointed local guardians to get in touch with more established groups located elsewhere about how to delay or halt a development proposal.
Dependent on the type of development proposed, objections that might be raised as part of a campaign to stop the proposal might include adverse visual impact, proximity to housing and listed buildings, public safety, public health, air quality, noise and additional traffic and road congestion. Possible detrimental effects to local wildlife may be raised and arguments will be put forward that the development proposal contravenes long-established local planning policies as well as the precepts of the recently introduced Localism Act.
Local objectors in an urban environment will state that the location is unsuitable and the proposed development should be built in the countryside where there is less effect on people. Those living in the countryside will say that proposed developments should be built in towns where most of the energy is consumed.
Traditionally formed to fight proposals for onshore windfarms, local objection groups now routinely spring up to oppose other energy technology proposals, including new coal, gas, nuclear, biomass and energy-from-waste projects. It is a trend set to continue because the UK continues to need more generation, small and large.
The second form of opposition group comprises activists spread about the country who object to particular types of energy development on principle. Examples of such groups include Frack Off, No Dash for Gas and Biofuelwatch.
Passionate about their chosen causes and campaigning at a more sustained and national level, the tactics of activist groups include targeting particular developments and companies in their efforts to draw wider attention to specific issues such as the burning of fossil fuels and waste to generate electricity.
In addition to the recent demonstrations at Balcombe, the coal-fired Drax and Kingsnorth power stations were targets of climate change activists in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Protesters occupied EDF’s West Burton power station in 2012 and activists have held sit-ins at the offices of energy companies, most notably British Gas and Cairn Energy.
Recent changes to planning legislation and guidance have placed a far greater emphasis on stakeholder consultation. Companies proposing new schemes – in the energy sector and elsewhere – now face rigorous expectations to consult with the local community and other groups and individuals that might be affected by a development.
For the largest proposals, classified as nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) and which come under the auspices of the Planning Inspectorate rather than local authority planning regimes, the level of consultation expected is defined by guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government, updated in January this year. The guidance also stresses the importance of early consultation by developers. Those developers ignoring the advice should not be too surprised if the proposal is refused by the secretary of state on grounds of inadequate consultation.
Proposals falling under local authority regimes can also be derailed if consultation is deemed inadequate. Introduced as part of the Localism Act 2011, an additional onus has been placed on developers to agree appropriate methods of consultation beforehand with local authority planning officials and to carry them out meaningfully. Failure to do so can result in an otherwise good proposal being refused by the local planning committee. It is an area that will be exploited by objectors protesting against otherwise good schemes.
For many developers, the consultation requirements present a dilemma. How can meaningful community engagement occur when it appears there are a number of objectors, whether living locally or co-ordinated by a national protest group, who are so implacable in their opposition?
Promoters should understand that there is almost always a hierarchy of objectors within protest groups. There is normally a small hardcore made up of those who are most affronted or concerned by a proposed development. As the most active opponents, those protesters organise others, write and distribute leaflets, phone up the media and lobby local politicians directly. They create a lot of noise in general but can be surprisingly few in number.
The most intransigent objectors often refuse to talk with developers but will instead denounce the proposal loudly and vociferously at local council or public meetings. Issues such as traffic, noise, pollution and loss of amenities will be raised, sometimes in emotive terms and often when there is little or no evidence for the claims being made.
Nonetheless it places local politicians on planning committees in quandaries. Faced with an application that has a recommendation from local authority planning officers and few or no objections from technical consultees, politicians feel obliged to consider the perceived views of the electorate, particularly if there is an upcoming election. If there is an impression of massed opposition to a planning application, it is quite likely that the scheme will be voted down.
It is relatively simple for ardent objectors to gain the support of others in the area for short periods by causing enough wider concern in the local community. The claims being made about a particular development proposal may be inaccurate and even untruthful, but that is not important – it can be easy to persuade others to oppose something that suddenly seems frightening. Positioning themselves as champions of the downtrodden electorate, it is an easy task for a few objectors to whip up concern outside schools, in shopping precincts and
local pubs.
Such circumstances can create difficult situations for developers and some choose to disengage from the community at this point or even walk away from a project altogether. While the second scenario is a clear victory for opponents, the first sets the scene for a similar outcome. Promoters who disengage from the community leave the way clear for objectors to persuade local politicians that the scheme is both wrong and unpopular and must be voted down, no matter the real rights or wrongs of the issue.
In response, a developer needs to be able to demonstrate to the wider community, local politicians and other key stakeholders that, despite some vehement opposition from a hardcore group, the consultation process is genuine, accommodating and meaningful.
A well-designed and executed consultation process will open up debate and identify key local issues. The majority of people within a community will have no strong views about a proposal at the outset.
There is always a level of local support for a proposed project. It is up to the developer to identify groups and individuals who will back a scheme by talking with the different elements within a local community. Some will support a proposal on principle, others will see spin-off benefits generated for the local area such as jobs, improved road networks or local facilities.
Discussing mutual benefits is a good idea. How can the project enhance the community directly or indirectly? Can a discussion about some of the points that cause most concern lead to alterations that overcome particular worries, build trust and engender support?
If a developer can demonstrate that the proposal will bring economic and social benefits to an area, many will be happy to show support or, at the least, refuse to side with the noisy group of hardcore objectors handing out leaflets outside the local shopping centre.
Developers should ask supporters to speak on their behalf at local meetings and demonstrate that public support exists through letters, emails and phone calls to key councillors and officials.
Having a good proposal is not enough. Developers need to demonstrate that community support for the proposal exists to politicians.