Regeneration projects take years. And negotiating local and national political environments is part of the job. Those environments can change suddenly and unexpectedly, as anyone involved in place-making knows. In the current political environment, any organisation trying to deliver major development schemes, will need to be flexible, resilient and open to political leadership change, as well as new governance regimes and structures.
That’s why involving the community from the beginning is so important. A project that has community backing can survive a change of political leadership. It has a constituency of support that outlasts any individual administration. Whereas a project that lacks community buy-in is vulnerable to every political shift: a new council leader with different priorities, a mayoral election, a change in national policy direction, a planning appeal by a well-organised residents’ group. The more contested a project is, the more exposed it becomes to political disruption.
In the current environment, community consent isn’t just good practice. It’s political insurance. |
The devolution context
Devolution is could create new political structures, and initially at least, new political uncertainty. Projects that span the transition between old and new governance arrangements will need community support to tide them over the institutional disruption.
Combined authorities and metro mayors already face this challenge. The Liverpool City Region, Greater Manchester, West Midlands and others are managing long-term regeneration programmes across political cycles. The authorities that have invested in genuine community engagement, building public understanding of and support for what they’re trying to achieve, are better placed to maintain momentum when political winds shift.
The planning reform context
The government’s planning reforms are designed to accelerate housing delivery. More homes, built faster, in more places. It’s desperately needed: we have to resolve the housing crisis so young people can actually afford a home to live in, so there are less homeless on the streets. And there are many places around the country that need positive regeneration, turning forgotten, neglected spaces into vibrant communal environments. But building (or rebuilding) those places still needs community buy-in. Communities that feel steamrolled will start to object, appeal, and delay. It’s so obvious, when you analyse the experience of so many developments: the fastest route through the planning system and towards the end result, is almost always the one that has community support built in from the beginning, not bolted as a tick-box exercise.
Effective community engagement during pre-application, feasibility and design phases doesn’t just improve outcomes for the people who will use the spaces. It de-risks the project for developers and local authorities, reduces the likelihood of costly delays, and creates a track record of genuine consultation that strengthens planning applications and supports approval.
In an uncertain political environment, the projects most likely to get built are those that communities have been genuinely involved in shaping. That’s not an argument for the PR teams to use. That’s one for the finance guys too.