Infrastructure planning: will the public ever really be heard?

Dr Amanda Crompton
01 October 2015

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

HS2

Sustainability

Latest research into the public engagement process seen on the proposed HS2 rail link suggests efforts to “formalise the informal” could be the next significant step in boosting community engagement. Dr Amanda Crompton explains.

Public participation in policy decisions has undoubtedly changed in recent years, and in many ways the change has been for the better. Perhaps the most fundamental and promising shift of all has been that voices from outside the policymaking community increasingly have at least some chance of being heard rather than patronised, resolutely ignored or, worst of all, never sought in the first place. 

Yet the system is still far from perfect. Formal or “top-down” mechanisms continue to serve as a starting point – occasionally effectively, often not – but how they interact with or are complemented by informal or “bottom-up” alternatives is to this day something of a lottery. My latest research, examining the proposed HS2 rail link, suggests efforts to “formalise the informal” could well constitute the next significant step.

"Maybe the basic lesson is that the public’s expectations have to be met from the outset. It is obvious that perceptions of disenfranchisement are still the trigger for everything that follows."

Historically, the arena of transport infrastructure planning has been especially instructive in highlighting the enduring disconnect between those who implement policy and those whose lives stand to be affected by it. Remember, for example, the 1973 public inquiry into the projected routing of the M25 through Epping Forest, which saw the formal take the informal for a ride; or the events of three years later, when, with prototypical anti-roads campaigner John Tyme leading the fight against the M3’s passage through Twyford Down, the informal set out to defy the formal in a clash that bordered on all-out war. 

Compared to these episodes and many more since, the HS2 saga might seem a model of serene inclusiveness. On closer inspection, though, it raises the same old questions about how the public reacts to formal consultation opportunities and, in turn, how these reactions are incorporated – if at all – into the overall policymaking process.

The first theme to emerge from my research was the sheer frustration that the official consultation engendered. Members of the public criticised the quality of the information provided by HS2 Ltd and the “restrictive” and “tokenistic” nature of a questionnaire that ostensibly invited their input. As ever, it was disenchantment with the top-down approach that sparked the bottom-up response.

Perceptions of a “sham” and a “foregone conclusion” duly led to a more organic form of public participation. Communities up and down the proposed line set about confronting the issue on their own terms. Action groups were established. Whereas the official consultation solicited individual opinions, arguably fostering a potentially unsympathetic “Not in my back yard” attitude, the counterattack gradually focused more on shared interests and the business case against HS2.

"As HS2 may yet illustrate, there is much firmer hope for meaningful interaction and much less inclination towards tub-thumping and knee-jerk gainsaying."

As this collective challenge gathered momentum, two discrete philosophies developed. One camp concentrated on high-level engagement with HS2 Ltd, drawing on the contributions of railway consultants and similar experts, while the other specialised in raising awareness of the fight through the media and other outreach strategies. The first, roughly classified as “evidence-based”, put forward alternatives; the second, loosely described as “campaigners”, aimed to stop HS2 altogether. Together they brought, in the words of one interviewee, “clout and coherence”.

Of course, the degree to which the public ultimately shapes the project may not become apparent for years. But we can certainly see how the formal/informal dynamic shifted; how what began as a supposedly national exercise provoked a local response that in due course assumed its own national aspect; how the reactive metamorphosed into the proactive; and how both the articulate and the angry came to be distinct voices of the cause.

Maybe the basic lesson is that the public’s expectations have to be met from the outset. It is obvious that perceptions of disenfranchisement are still the trigger for everything that follows.

And yet the key difference nowadays is that there is much more scope for any backlash to have positive implications. The power of the internet and social networking encourages coordinated and constructive action and guards against accusations of nimbyism. Voices of protest become both organised and informed. Banner-waving gives way to business cases. Rage cedes to reason. Dialogue is both desired and eminently achievable.

In these circumstances, as HS2 may yet illustrate, there is much firmer hope for meaningful interaction and much less inclination towards tub-thumping and knee-jerk gainsaying. Above all, there is more to say and, by extension, a greater need to listen. It remains for the policymaking community to recognise as much and make it happen.

Dr Amanda Crompton is an Associate Professor of Public Policy and Management at Nottingham University Business School.