Who speaks for development?
The Consult: a means of sharing thoughts and ideas relating on community consultation and engagement in the built environment.
We recently took a project to committee. For a major scheme in London’s Zone One there was remarkably little opposition (hopefully a sign of a job well done) - just nine written objections were submitted. And only one of those had registered to speak on the night of the planning committee.
Under that particular local authority’s rules, only those who wish to make representations in opposition are entitled to speak. If no opposition representations are on the agenda, the applicant doesn’t speak.
Feels odd, doesn’t it? Why does the system for determining the future of places assume that objection is the default position? The process itself is built around opposition - around the rejection of change. The assumption embedded is that development is something to be resisted, and that the role of the committee is to weigh up how much resistance is acceptable. Support, if it exists, is largely silent.
This feels like a fundamental form of disenfranchisement. Change is treated as inherently suspect; continuity as inherently virtuous. And the very mechanisms by which we grant approval or refusal start from a negative position.
At this particular committee, we were fortunate to have an incredible speaker, a local resident, in support of the project. The speaker - who I suspect may be reading this (hello to you) - is a remarkable young person who has been involved in our engagement over the past year. She has been a valued member of the community steering group and has taken part in a programme whereby we trained local women and non-binary individuals to be design researchers. Her contribution was thoughtful, grounded and entirely authentic. We all felt deeply honoured that she was generous enough to give her time and speak to the committee members about the benefits of change and new development.
Back to the matter at hand. So often, at the end of pre-application engagement once we’ve got the Statement of Community Involvement done and dusted, we ask ourselves a familiar question: Who might speak in support of the project at committee? It’s usually a final consideration, almost an afterthought. And so I raise my hands with vulnerability, why do we leave it so late?
Much of engagement on large projects in London - speaking generally - is designed to de-risk. To minimise opposition. To reduce the likelihood of objections being submitted or speakers turning up to committee. Such a low bar we set ourselves. Instead, support should be the primary objective from the outset. Engagement shouldn’t just be about managing dissent; it should be about building genuine relationships. If we were to design programmes and initiatives that get us in front of local people, enable us to work with them over time, and earn enough trust so that they are willing - and able - to speak on behalf of a project - the built environment would be a much better and more inclusive place. More would be inclined to consider speaking, not because they’ve been persuaded at the last minute, but because they’ve been a willing part of the journey. If we were to set ourselves that target - we might stand a chance of achieving much better outcomes.
If we want better development outcomes, we must stop assuming hostility and start designing for advocacy. That requires more openness, more humility, and more time - but it also creates something far more powerful than the absence of objection: it creates a voice.
As ever, thanks for reading.
