PLMR’s David Madden for Total Politics Magazine
‘Architect says Charles has abused his power’. Listeners to Radio 4’s The Today Programme on 16 June this year may have been interested to hear Lord Rogers of Riverside’s tirade against Prince Charles’s involvement in Qatari Diar’s last minute decision to withdraw its planning application for the £1 billion Chelsea Barracks residential development. The casual listener may well have been tempted to think ‘Oh dear, there goes HRH sticking his oar in again, single-handedly fighting off another of his monstrous carbuncles’.
On first appraisal it’s easy to dismiss this event as something of an amusing oddity (unless you work for RSH & Partners perhaps); after all, it’s not exactly often that the heir to the throne is going to write to the Chief Executive of a development company who happens to be a member of the Qatari Royal Family to put the kybosh on a planning application.
But, without wishing to enter into the argument about the constitutionality or otherwise of the Prince’s actions, this case highlights an interesting, and potentially disturbing, issue: the rise of the ‘celebrity’ objector, or ‘super-NIMBY’ if one will, and the disproportionate impact they can have on the planning process. For the uninitiated a NIMBY is someone who objects to new development close to home – Not In My Back Yard. A quick (and somewhat soul destroying) trawl through the comments submitted by readers of the related Times article on the same day – and this story was picked up by all the broadsheet websites - showed that the vast majority supported the Prince of Wales and welcomed his stand against ‘egotistical’ architects, ‘greedy’ developers and ‘totalitarian’ planning departments. Earlier in the same week Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster Council, had said that the Prince’s involvement had acted as a ‘lightning rod’ for other objectors, enabling more residents to come forward and register their objections.
‘Architect says Charles has abused his power’. Listeners to Radio 4’s The Today Programme on 16 June this year may have been interested to hear Lord Rogers of Riverside’s tirade against Prince Charles’s involvement in Qatari Diar’s last minute decision to withdraw its planning application for the £1 billion Chelsea Barracks residential development. The casual listener may well have been tempted to think ‘Oh dear, there goes HRH sticking his oar in again, single-handedly fighting off another of his monstrous carbuncles’.
On first appraisal it’s easy to dismiss this event as something of an amusing oddity (unless you work for RSH & Partners perhaps); after all, it’s not exactly often that the heir to the throne is going to write to the Chief Executive of a development company who happens to be a member of the Qatari Royal Family to put the kybosh on a planning application.
But, without wishing to enter into the argument about the constitutionality or otherwise of the Prince’s actions, this case highlights an interesting, and potentially disturbing, issue: the rise of the ‘celebrity’ objector, or ‘super-NIMBY’ if one will, and the disproportionate impact they can have on the planning process. For the uninitiated a NIMBY is someone who objects to new development close to home – Not In My Back Yard. A quick (and somewhat soul destroying) trawl through the comments submitted by readers of the related Times article on the same day – and this story was picked up by all the broadsheet websites - showed that the vast majority supported the Prince of Wales and welcomed his stand against ‘egotistical’ architects, ‘greedy’ developers and ‘totalitarian’ planning departments. Earlier in the same week Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster Council, had said that the Prince’s involvement had acted as a ‘lightning rod’ for other objectors, enabling more residents to come forward and register their objections.
In such an atmosphere, even if the application had not been withdrawn, it would have taken a brave Westminster Planning Committee – made up of course from locally elected Councillors, with a duty to consider the views of their constituents - to grant planning permission in the face of such high profile and vocal opposition, particularly when their own Council Leader had appeared to give his tacit support to the objectors and the future Head of State had provided their rallying call.
Of course, not all super-NIMBYs are quite as influential as the Prince of Wales. But Members of Parliament, active Councillors and even locally well known activists in a given community can have a huge impact on the fate of a planning application. It’s an important factor to bear in mind for developers who often will have invested many hundreds of thousands of pounds on their plans even before they are ultimately determined by a dozen people in a public chamber.
So, what are the motivations behind the super-NIMBY? Not all are moved by a distaste for modernist architecture as demonstrated by Prince Charles. Many may simply wish to reflect what they consider to be the views of the people they represent. Across the country MPs are looking to re-engage with their constituents in the wake of the expenses crisis and in the lead up to the next general election, which of course is now no more than a year away and may yet be called sooner. Lending their support to a popular local cause, such as the fight against a planning application, will doubtless be a temptation.
The same motivating factors can apply to local Councillors. Many Councillors will also be facing re-election in 2010 and those representing the three main parties will be looking to counter widespread public mistrust of the political ‘establishment’. A strong local cause to rally around, such as an unpopular planning application, will be music to many local representatives’ ears.
The rise of the super-NIMBY really comes hand in hand with increased local activism against large-scale and/or unpopular development proposals up and down the country. As local communities and activists become more involved in the planning process and also employ increasingly sophisticated campaign techniques, developers, by and large, have failed to effectively engage in debate, leaving the field clear for their opponents. Consequently, those taking the decisions – the local Councillors – often only hear one side of an argument and this cannot help but influence their final judgement.
Councils are, of course, seeking to involve developers in discussions with the community at an earlier stage. Each local authority in England has published a Statement of Community Involvement, which encourages developers to engage with local communities before submitting their plans and to take into account local concerns and aspirations before drawing up their final plans.
Many developers shy away from this process, which is not compulsory (except for major infrastructure plans), either fearing that they will face a barrage of objection, or simply through an unwillingness to invest time and money in a process for which they can see no real benefit. But this attitude is both short-sighted and potentially fatal to their plans. Failure to engage with the local community – and this can include residents, Councillors, community groups and the constituency MP - , simply reinforces the negative and prevalent stereotype of the ‘uncaring developer’ and leaves the ground clear for objectors to say pretty much what they want. Just as importantly, it represents a missed opportunity to promote the positive messages associated with an application – regeneration benefits, sustainability, job creation, infrastructure improvements and financial contributions towards schools and medical services to name just a few.
The real risk that is posed by developers’ failure to engage in community consultation and the wider debate around planning applications is that those making the most noise – and super-NIMBYs can be pretty loud – monopolise the dialogue to the point where it becomes a monologue. In these circumstances the democratically elected representatives who determine an application have no counterpoint by which to judge the case presented by the objectors. Subsequently, these un-filtered and un-countered arguments gain more weight in the minds of those decision takers: potentially resulting in the loss of a perfectly good development scheme, offering strong community benefits, because of the views of a disproportionately vocal minority.
The right to object, on material planning grounds, to a planning application is, of course, a fundamentally good thing. There have undoubtedly been many, many occasions when ill-conceived plans have been successfully opposed. But many cases for objection are based on very subjective grounds – one person’s landmark building is another’s eyesore – and developers, and for that matter supporters of schemes, also have the right and the responsibility to make their voices heard too.
After all, one might never be able to convince Prince Charles of the merits of modernist architecture, but developers who are prepared to communicate at an early stage can reap the benefits of simply taking the time to talk.
David Madden is an Account Director with the health and social care sector specialist political lobbying, media relations, crisis management and planning communications consultancy PLMR. http://www.plmr.co.uk/
