A shortened portion of this discussion was first published in The Herald.
To achieve Scotland's and the UK's net zero goals we will need to build many more renewable energy projects, along with all the necessary supporting infrastructure. Yet the planning and consenting of these projects cannot be focused solely on the need to tackle the climate crisis, as critical as that is. Planners also have to take many other factors into account, including the views of people whose lives and communities might be affected.
The planning and consenting stage therefore has very high stakes for all concerned. Many local residents may feel strongly that the project should or should not go ahead, while the developer might already have invested millions of pounds that will be lost if the project does not proceed. And if it does, it is in no-one's long-term interest for the developers and the local community to be at loggerheads.
When the consultation process is based on two-way communication, it can be an opportunity to correct misunderstandings, share new information, and build long-term relationships that are beneficial for all. We invited two experts on this critical stage of the process to discuss how to make it work best for all concerned.
Scott McCallum is a Partner in the Energy Consenting team at Shepherd and Wedderburn. Over the last 20 years, he has advised clients on energy projects across all different technologies – particularly, in recent years, offshore windfarms around the UK. In the course of that work he has encountered many different approaches to community engagement.
Victoria (Tori) McCusker began her career as a planning consultant, working on a wide range of projects including many large mixed-use developments. She then moved into marketing, community engagement and stakeholder engagement, and has advised on many onshore and offshore wind projects. She has worked for Facilitating Change for 15 years, the last four of them as Managing Partner.
A transcript of their discussion, lightly edited for length and style, is below.
Scott McCallum: Your background is interesting, Tori. What are the main differences between a planning-based approach to community engagement and a marketing-led one?
Tori McCusker: I think a purely planning-focused approach can be a bit dry, and less engaging for people. Equally, marketing can be too 'salesy' – engagement, for me, is very much not about selling. But with a marketing head on, you think: what do people actually want to know?
And the answer probably is, for example, that they want to know what the project is going to look like from lots of locations. From their back garden, from their favourite park. We have tools that can show them that: the person can sit at their computer, type in a post code, and see what the view will be from that location. Then they can 'fly through' the project and see – if it's a windfarm, for example – the scale of the turbines, and get a really accurate view of what it's going to look like. Those tools have been quite significant in changing people's perceptions.
Another big thing we also do for most of our projects is setting up a virtual town hall. We have an online interface that feels very much like attending a community event. It's a bit different to just a traditional website: people feel as if they're going into a hall and viewing boards, and it allows people who are unable or unwilling to attend in person to still be able to participate in the process.
Scott: What other engagement methods do you find to be most effective?
Tori: We certainly recommend an iterative approach. We don't have single media channels in the same way that we did in the past. Although actually I think that the legislation doesn't hugely reflect that: you know, adverts in the local paper and things like that. A lot of people don't read these public notices in the papers, so we don't rely on those exclusively because we want as many people to engage as possible.
So we do things like leaflet drops to whole post code areas. It's not a particularly sharp tool, because post code sectors are drawn up in the most bizarre fashion, in my experience. So you end up including a lot of properties that are probably not going to be impacted by the project, and you can end up drawing people's attention to a project that has not really got much relevance to their area. But that's the only way, really, of getting that blanket communication to everyone that is going to be impacted.
We try to steer away from more formal public meetings, where there's very much a 'them and us' energy – you know, a stage and a panel of experts – we don't find that particularly constructive, and often we find that it's the more confident and loudest voices that dominate the discussions. We prefer to try and go to places where people are anyway. So, for example, community events, galas, agricultural shows... and at in-person events we do activities for kids to keep them entertained while the parents are talking to the project team.
One of our key tools is to produce a community engagement plan before we start any of the main activity. We try to keep it as simple as possible. It outlines who we have identified the community to be, how we think that we can engage with them, and what tools we'd like to use – what events and locations we think would be useful to target. We take a draft version out to the Community Councils and other community representatives, and ask them whether our strategy is fit for purpose, and whether they would make any amendments or additions. For example, they might tell you that the local community hall is actually not the best place to go, and, say, the sports centre would be better because it's very well used and people will drop into your community event at the same time as going to drop their kids off at swimming or taking people to scouts.
Timings are another thing. People might tell us to avoid Tuesday nights because no-one's ever available, but Thursdays are usually good. The other thing that we're really keen to do is to engage with seldom-heard groups: people who don't typically participate in these processes. And so we'll consult with the Council around how to access some of those groups. For example, adding an extra hour at the start of an event for people who aren't comfortable in big crowds or who want to have more sensitive discussions. It's about being flexible, and responsive to the community.
Scott: When you say that it's not about selling, does that mean that, in your experience, developers take a long-term view rather than just focusing on meeting the necessary consenting requirements?
Tori: Well, I suppose it's inevitable that the engagement process will be led by the consenting requirements. But most of my clients are very forward-thinking and proactive, and they're interested in long-term relationships with their communities. They're not interested in just doing the bare minimum based on the legislative framework. They're looking to do something much more comprehensive than that, which is great because it means that you really have an opportunity to build tangible, long-lasting and effective relationships with communities.
Scott: I agree, that genuine engagement and effort to build relationships is vital because, of course, there can be really significant upfront investment – you often need to do an awful lot of survey work, for example. You can be talking five years plus before you put a spade in the ground to build your project. From concept, surveys, into your application process... and then you're into discharging consent conditions, which again involves a lot of stakeholder engagement.
With an offshore wind project for example, that's tens of millions of pounds already invested, before the planning stage, and it is all at risk: if you don't get the necessary consents for your project, it finishes there. So inevitably, an early understanding of local views and concerns and laying the foundations for a constructive dialogue over the application, construction and operational phases has to be part of a developer's perspective when it is approaching community engagement.
Designing an energy project is an iterative process. You'll have your overall concept of what you want to do, but you need to really home in on whether that's going to be acceptable from a consenting perspective – and the local knowledge of landowners and the general community is a key part of making that assessment. There are so many different stakeholders that you have to bring together. So I think the earlier you start that process, the more certainty that you can have that the project you end up with is going to be acceptable, is going to get the necessary consents, and that your investment is going to ultimately pay off.
"Part of community engagement is managing expectations."
Tori: When I first started in this role, communities were less well informed in terms of the community engagement process: what their rights were, and what they could and should expect from developers and from projects. It was really difficult to get the timing right: when to engage. Because we always advise clients to engage as early as possible – as you say, Scott, the sooner you start thinking about that the better chance you have of ending up with an acceptable project. And also, trying to fix things after they've been through many design stage iterations is a lot more expensive, and a lot harder.
But the problem historically was often that communities would say, 'You've not really got anything definite to tell us. Why are you coming so soon?' They wanted to know details about the impact that the project was going to have on their property – and on their life. But in actual fact, you know, we didn't have those details. Maybe we'd just started surveys, or maybe we hadn't even started surveys.
So I think the difference between doing community engagement now and, say, 10 or 15 years ago is that communities understand that you are out early for a reason, because they're much better informed and they're more aware of the part they play in the process. Particularly in the areas where there's been a number of renewables projects over a long period of time. In Caithness and Sutherland, for example, they're getting leaflets through their doors every month for another project.
So it's good that the developers want to engage, of course, but there is also an issue with consultation fatigue. Deciding when to start the engagement process is a balance between getting out early enough, having relevant and interesting information, not leaving it so late so that what you're taking is a fait accompli – people really don't want to see that – and not exhausting them by having too much consultation. There are so many factors to consider.
Scott: And, of course, community feedback is just one of a whole set of material considerations that will be reflected on by the planners when they're making their decisions.
Tori: That's something that I think communities find difficult to get their heads around sometimes. Look at the Banniskirk substation in Caithness, for example. There were something like 250 objections, and it's been passed by the local authority. I suspect that people in the community feel quite bad about that, but the reality is that there are a whole number of material considerations that will have affected that decision, and community feedback is only one of those. It's an important part! I'm not belittling it by any stretch of the imagination. But there are other factors that the planners will be considering as well.
Scott: Part of community engagement is managing expectations.
Tori: Absolutely.
Scott: People need to understand the overall framework in which the development sits, what the needs case is, and the balancing exercise that will be carried out at the end of the day. Encouraging them to put in their views, certainly. But also making sure that they understand that even if they object and it doesn't stop the project, the developer will be interested in continuing to discuss things with them, and keeping them informed, and making sure that mitigations are working appropriately.
So I think it's important to know that community engagement is not a tool to only manage objections and then stop at the point that you get consent. It's actually the start of the process, and making sure that you develop a relationship with landowners, with the community, and making sure that your project actually delivers the most for the community as well. That it feeds into jobs and everything else.
Tori: Definitely. And there are those macro-scale issues – jobs, and community benefit, and social economic impacts and suchlike. But I sometimes find that the support or opposition for a project can actually pivot on some really tiny details. I think this is something that developers are becoming more aware of as well. I've experienced examples of this several times in the recent past.
For example, there was one community consultation exercise that we went through for a development (that ultimately didn't go ahead, for a whole bunch of other reasons) where the project hydrologist was at an event, and was having a conversation with this person who was saying that for years and years they'd been having trouble with their private water supply, and they'd tried everything. So he said, 'Well, why don't I pop out in the morning and come and see you?' And maybe we can have a chat about what your issues are, and have a look at it.' And he very quickly identified what the problem was, and it was subsequently rectified at a fairly modest cost, and the local resident was absolutely delighted, saying, 'If these guys hadn't come out here and done this community consultation event, this would never have been resolved.'
These sorts of things are opportunities to really add value within the local community during the consultation process, and to build up a long-term relationship. You're not just there during consenting. If the project gets approved, you're going to be there during construction and then during operation for possibly 25 or 30 years.
The legal framework around renewables projects is a big influence on the community engagement process, isn't it?
Scott McCallum: Yes, and it has changed a lot. And indeed there are also currently consultations to change it quite a bit further. Also, there are big differences between the different consenting regimes.
One of the big changes in England was when they introduced the Development Consent Order regime. There was a big drive to front-load all of the issues involved in these nationally significant infrastructure projects. So there was a very prescribed statutory consultation that had to take place prior to you even making an application. That was trying to make sure that there was consultation and community engagement, and that as many issues were resolved before it went into the application process, because the application process then had a very prescribed timetable: you were supposed to be able to get it all through in a year after you submitted.
That, I think, has in lots of ways worked quite well, and in others less so. The consultation on preliminary environmental information, for example. People tend to do a draft environmental statement early on, which highlights all of the significant effects of the projects that have been identified, and put it out to both stakeholders and local communities so that they can consider their input prior to applying. In some ways that has worked quite well, but it also has meant that developers have become more risk-adverse when they need to make amendments to the project. They might get small amendments and think, 'We may not get accepted when we go to apply here'. The result is that they then throw out a chunk of their pre-application consultation and do it again. That's quite an inefficient, and a very expensive way, to account for small changes and adds to the consultation fatigue you've talked about previously Tori.
So there is now legislation going through to make the consultation for DCOs non-statutory. It will be less prescribed, it will be done more by guidance, and it is hoped then the developers look at changes more holistically and say, 'Does this really necessitate a lot more consultation, or can we do it in a slightly different way?' So the government is trying to introduce a bit more flexibility into the process.
"The different regimes seem to be heading in slightly different directions."
Tori: But that's not what's happening in Scotland, is it?
Scott: No, ironically there's currently consultation in Scotland to introduce legislation into the Electricity Act process which would make consultation a statutory requirement: making it a bit more like the current English system. So they will then require statutory consultation with some element of documentation, like environmental information, that you will then consult on. They've been at pains to point out that they don't want it to be too onerous, so they don't want it to be a full draft environmental statement.
So yes, the different regimes seem to be heading in slightly different directions. But what they've got in common is that there is a need everywhere for a good level of community consultation, and that should always involve in-person events, and a range of other ways of making sure local communities know about the project.
I think that where community engagement works best is where the project team are involved in speaking to communities, and the communities know that these are the actual people who will be delivering.
Tori: Absolutely. And ideally we like to be involved as early as possible, and embedded in the developer's consenting team, rather than being brought in to deliver the statutory engagement activities. If we can support a developer on bids to the Crown Estate, for example, it means we're able to start engaging at a really constructive phase of the project, and work alongside the rest of the consenting team. The environmentalists and the engineers – all the 'ologists'! – and really making sure that the engagement is done in a holistic fashion, so that people are informed at the right time with the right information.
Scott: It's about building up that relationship. And in fact that starts, doesn't it, not just with talking about one particular project, but going into schools and educating young people on the whole subject of clean energy. Really just trying to change attitudes towards energy generally, and the need for energy. So I think an awful of community engagement now is tipping into the political side of things.
Tori: There's a lot of misinformation out there. That makes community engagement a bit harder, because you're not just having to talk about particular projects now, there's also now a need to tackle the fact that some people might say, 'Actually you don't need this project in the first place. Your whole reason for being here is wrong.' It's a big issue, and it applies to renewables projects and to the associated developments that are required as well. Grid upgrades and infrastructure projects around that, for example.
Scott: As an industry I think it's more important now than ever that renewables (and all of us involved in renewables) do a much better job of explaining – not just the environmental needs for renewable energy, but why it's so important for energy security, why it can have such a benefit from a socio-economic perspective and why its not the reason people's electricity bills are increasing. I think we've just lost our way slightly on that front over the last couple of years. And that also makes community engagement much more difficult, particularly at the start, because the sceptics are no longer saying, 'Yes, we accept that this is needed, but we just don't want it here.' Now it's, 'Actually, we're being told we don't need this at all.' So I think it's incumbent on us as a sector to do much better in that regard: getting the message across.
Tori: Yes, I think that that's a fair point. And actually one thing that would help a lot on that front would helping people to understand their own domestic energy prices are calculated. Probably the most common question that we come across in, community events is: how is this going to impact my fuel bills? There's a huge misconception around the role that the developer plays in directly influencing the cost of electricity to people on a domestic scale. So people assume – and it's understandable that they do – that if they're going to be right next to a massive renewable energy installation that their fuel bill should come down. And it's just not as straightforward as that.
Ultimately, renewable energy projects will have the potential to bring electricity prices down. But that doesn't mean that because they live near a wind farm or some other renewables projects that their electricity bill is going to come down. It's very confusing for them when you start to explain about transmission charges, and the wholesale price of energy, and how all these things are calculated. I mean, I find it quite difficult to get my head round it, and I've been working in the sector for a long, long time.
I think that there could definitely be better communication. We are now having those political conversations in a way that we weren't really having to the same extent in the past. But I also think that, connected to that, there is potential to address agendas that span more than one discipline. So going out to schools is obviously about raising awareness of the need for renewable energy and net zero, and those targets, and the just transition etc. But it's also about raising awareness amongst that generation regarding job opportunities, and what skills they might seek to develop to be able to take advantage of those job opportunities in the future. So there's an agenda there around making sure that the training and skills are in place to supply these projects in the years to come.
"What we do is we try to find other common ground with them, so that we can build rapport and trust."
Scott: And, I suppose, there are some objections that you will never be able to overcome, no matter how much data you have or how much education you do?
Tori: Yes. Our role really is in facilitating conversations between the various stakeholders, whether they are community stakeholders or strategic, legal, legislative, whatever. And I think it's important to recognise that the two parties are not always going to agree on everything. If somebody comes into a community engagement event and they really object to the proposal because they just don't like wind turbines, you're not going to convince them that they do like wind turbines. No matter what you say to them and what information you give them, you're not going to change their opinion on that.
So what we do is we try to find other common ground with them, so that we can build rapport and trust and regard for each other. And then it's more feasible to have a conversation: 'What is it about the wind turbines that you don't like? Is there anything about this proposal that we could change that might make them more acceptable to you?' There will always be some people who will say 'No, just go away.' They are often the same people who refuse to fill in the questionnaire or the feedback forms, I think often because they feel disengaged with the process: they feel that it's pointless for them objecting because it's not going to have any impact. But we always say, you know... if you don't document your opinion, then it's almost like it never existed.
Scott: But then sometimes people's objections are based on more... let's say, specific, nuanced issues.
Tori: Yes, maybe they have a perception about, say, the impact on a particular bird species. And so if we're able to go back with data and demonstrate that that species isn't going to be impacted, or that the impact is going to be minimal, or that the mitigation measures are going to more than compensate for any impact, then often those individuals will be reassured by the information that's presented to them. And I have to say, for me the best outcome from a community consultation process is for people to feel that they've really been listened to, and that they've been reassured by the information that's been given back to them. And that often is the case. We frequently have people leaving events saying 'I'm so glad I came. I was really anxious about this beforehand. And I now feel very reassured that it's not going to impact me in the way that I thought it might.'
Scott: I suppose that even after you've given everyone all the information that you can, you'll still see big differences of opinion between people. But as you say, just the fact that people feel that they've been listened to, they've been able to air their opinions, means that going into the objection process everything is more constructive. It's more civil. If we can get to a position where objections are focussed and clearly articulated – that helps the process and means the objector has a better chance of making the case for appropriate mitigations (or understanding why certain concessions can't be made) and the developer has a better chance of a timeous decision and a more constructive relationship with the community moving forward.
Tori: Absolutely. And developers, in my experience, are very, very open to trying to make amendments that they can make to the design of the project, to accommodate concerns or objections that local communities have. So it's not just about being heard, it's about being heard constructively, and the developers will be exploring those options to the best of their abilities.
Scott: I also think that in the consenting process, it's incumbent on the development team to present things in a way that allows objectors to engage. So it's not all or nothing: you don't have to withdraw your objection in order for the developer to come up with mitigations. So the developer is saying to an objector: 'In a world where you maintain your objections and we still get consent, what sort of things would help mitigate your concerns?
Tori: Yes. In fact, that's a similar conversation that we often have around community benefits. And I often say to participants in that situation, you know... I appreciate that you're objecting and that's valid and important, and we want to make sure that we document that. But, basically, don't cut your nose off to spite your face. If this project goes ahead and there's a community benefit fund set up, you want to make sure that that fund is being directed in the way that you think most benefits the local community. So don't disengage from that conversation because you object to the principle of the proposal. Continue to object – that's honoured – but you're not compromising your position by also engaging in a discussion about community benefit.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
