Public engagement and opportunities for 'shared infrastructure' in the UK

Context and significance Although public consultation is enshrined in policy as an expected and desirable part of the planning process, in the last decade this has taken on a changing form. The Planning Act 2008 reduced consultation for nationally-important infrastructure projects (NSIPs) by establishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) as the relevant decision-making body. Subsequently, the Localism Act (2011) was established, which saw the abolishment of the IPC. Although the legislative structure remains broadly similar, final decision-making power reverted to the relevant secretary of state. The Infrastructure Act (2015) changed the consent stream for fracking projects, reversing UK case law by removing the ability of homeowners to object at horizontal drilling underneath their property (Cotton, 2017). In addition to the above pieces of legislation, the main legislative requirement regarding public participation in NSIPs is the Environmental Impact Assessment process, but this applies only if a project is classified in a certain category within EU law. The recent streamlining reduced opportunities for the public to shape projects and engage in non-adversarial dialogue with developers, simultaneously making it easier for developers to carry out projects. This is especially apparent in the example of fracking. There appears to be a gap between policy rhetoric around providing for appropriate public consultation, and opportunities that actually exist for communities and individuals who are affected by NSIPs to engage in the planning process. Causes include complex presentation of the data that is made available to the public, short time windows for public responses to proposals, and limitations in community capacity to engage (including a lack of capacity-building initiatives). What is seen to constitute 'engagement' is influenced by the way 'the public' and local communities are framed/conceptualised by the government and developers. These processes have resulted in democratically-inadequate methods of public consultation. This is problematic because the costs and benefits of NSIPs are not equally divided between places (e.g. large urban hubs vs. small rural communities situated along the planned routes) or people (e.g. socio-economic classes), meaning people are not able to engage in a manner corresponding to the degree to which they are affected. Aim and objectives In their position as developer, contracted by the Government, the consultancy firm Amp is engaged in public consultation for the following four projects. These will provide case studies for the research: - HS2 (high speed national rail network) - Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) in Lancashire - Hydrogen gas supply for household energy consumption in Leeds - Heathrow Airport's third runway The research aims to provide answers to the following questions emerging from the above case studies: 1. To what extent does the nature of public consultation during the planning process affect the distribution of social benefits from, or public engagement with, NSIPs when carried out? NB: explore how policy changes in the last decade have affected this. 2. What constitutes 'community' as defined by the regulations controlling public consultation and does this definition accurately reflect its complex reality? 3. Regarding public perception of the stakeholders who carry out consultation for NSIPs, which actors may enhance or reduce trust in the developer-community relationship? Methodologies An initial systematic literature review will provide context and direction for the research.