“Consultation is dead, long live consultation".

“Statutory consultation is being slashed”. 

The government certainly didn’t beat around the bush in its latest announcement on infrastructure planning reform. When it says it has a plan for change to get things built, it clearly intends to put its money where its mouth is.

On first reading, the plan to remove the statutory requirement to consult on NSIPs is incredibly bold and appears to move away from one of the fundamentals we’re all used to under the Planning Act.

But dig a little deeper and it’s already clear that it’s not as simple as that.

Here are some early thoughts on the benefits and challenges I see as part of this latest package of reforms.

The end of consultation. Absolutely not, in fact the government’s own commentary makes it clear that the “NSIP process will continue to be one built on the principle of front-loading engagement” and there will be a strong expectation for developers to consult. Reform looks to be targeted on statutory requirements which, from experience, can be onerous and time consuming such as the need to legally consult all prescribed bodies. In principle this could be helpful – easing the statutory requirements should encourage more thoughtful and focused consultation with those who serve to benefit from, or are most affected by, infrastructure proposals. 

Flexibility and agility. The reforms are clearly focused on speeding up the pre-app process and consultation has a role to play there. The approach to consultation can at times feel quite process driven as developers seek to demonstrate compliance. However, this can be to the detriment of more flexible consultation. With more freedom that could now be easier which would be welcomed by developers and consultees, moving away from ticking boxes to more agile engagement. 

Consultee confidence. A more nuanced and targeted approach to consultation could be beneficial, as well as faster.  Intelligence, sensitivity and careful planning will be needed. Developers that put time into understanding consultees, designing engagement, and evidencing decisions will still be the ones best placed to succeed. Short cuts invariably don’t save time.

Dialling-down documentation. The PEIR for statutory consultation looks set to go, together with a desire from government for fewer technical documents. There are time savings to be made there, no doubt, but that absolutely won’t mean the end of pre-app environmental assessment. Understanding the environmental impacts of a project are so critical to its development, projects will need to find new ways to help consultees understand impacts. Creativity and effective communication can play a role here and I hope we don’t begin to see a different one-size-fits-all take hold. There’s no value in losing the PEIR simply to replace it with a similar document by a different name.

Adequacy anguish. Like it or not, the current pre-app guidance and the requirement for the SoCC at statutory consultation does provide certainty for local authorities and developers, setting the benchmark for adequate consultation. Whether the SoCC is going to be retained is not yet clear, but government will need to be careful to not remove one hurdle but inadvertently create another if it creates a tension between developers and local authorities on what is appropriate consultation.

Guidance is gold. It’s already clear that the changes for statutory consultation are going to be more grey than black and white. There is lots to welcome here, but the last thing we need is projects second guessing, potentially adding time rather than saving it. While not perfect, the current regime does provide a strong framework for development. Government is clear guidance will be coming, but getting that right and giving developers confidence will be absolutely key if the Plan for Change is to deliver on its aims.

Tick tock. Direction of travel is good, but will consultation alone deliver the savings the government foresees? I’m not sure. From my experience, we’re always seeking to move from design freeze to consultation as quickly as possible. Programme is often squeezed, not generous. I’m a supporter of consultation reform, but for complex projects the reasons for a long pre-app stage also include engineering decisions, back checks, land negotiation, and so much more.

All eyes will now continue to be on the wording in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill as it works its way through parliament. In the bid to save time, the wait goes on, at least for now.