In a bid to build the ‘Big Society’ that the coalition government has so ardently been pedalling since its entry to power in 2010, the landmark Localism Bill was unveiled in December last year. The bill contains a package of reforms that will see power devolved to local councils and neighbourhoods, establish new rights for communities, revolutionise the planning system and ultimately transform the relationship between central government, local government and individuals.

At the unveiling, Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles claimed: “By getting out of the way and letting councils and communities run their own affairs we can restore civic pride, democratic accountability and economic growth – and build a stronger, fairer Britain. It’s the end of the era of big government: laying the foundations for the Big Society.” But to what extent will councils and communities have their way? And how will the increasingly desperate need for waste infrastructure fare in the face of this new legislation?

Indeed, if we’re going to produce 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020, contentious AD plants will have a critical role to play, and if we’re going to stop sending biowaste to landfill, then we’ll need in the region of three times the number of facilities that currently exist in order to process it all. But with reports that waste facilities take seven years on average to get up and running and that some have taken nearly 15 years just to gain planning permission (although two years is a more typical figure), surely introducing more public opinion into planning procedures – rarely on side in these matters – will only lengthen the process?

“I would agree that this isn’t going to speed up the process”, says James Garland, director of community consultation specialist, Green Issues. “Far from it, there will be more people involved now. I understand that many will have viewed the previous planning policies as being unnecessarily bureaucratic, but the top down approach did at least give developers an idea of what is needed and where it has to go.”

Under the Localism Bill, communities have the power to force a referendum on issues affecting their area, including, of course, planning applications for waste infrastructure. While such referendums are not binding in policy terms, they will, Garland says, hold great sway nonetheless. “If communities are mobilised around an issue, then the power really has gone to the people. Ultimately it will be local authorities giving the go-ahead on planning decisions, and the fact remains that we’re talking about elected members who by definition have to apply for their own jobs every four years. The ones that stick their head above the parapet and go against the general consensus will be the ones who pay the price when election time comes.”

Furthermore, it is ‘expected’ that local authorities will make decisions that complement the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will now replace individual planning policy statements (PPS10 for sustainable waste management), so local authorities will be feeling the pull from both sides – even more so as a second reading of the bill revealed plans to allow ministers to require that local authorities contribute to any fines levied on the UK by the European Union (which could run up to £1 billion, according to the LGA). As Anna Watson from Friends of the Earth comments, the NPPF is still in development: “The NPPF is unlikely to be very detailed so it means we could lose important aspects of PPS10 such as cumulative aspects of waste infrastructure, sequential approaches to waste planning, health as a material consideration, and so on.”

The shape that the NPPF eventually takes, then, will have a tremendous impact on planning decisions at a local level. As Russell Reefer, Policy Consultant at LGA, observes: “The consultation out now will identify what the NPPF should look like. How that’s translated will be a real test of how much weight the government seeks to put into high-level outcomes, versus leaving it to society to determine what’s best for their communities. Certainly, LGA would argue for as much freedom and flexibility in the local planning process as possible.”

Effective public engagement in future planning applications, then, is critical in ensuring the continued development of waste infrastructure. Garland notes that as the referendums are not binding, public consultations “could simply be a tick-box exercise that the council will thank residents for and just put it in a file with other planning documents”, but this would be unwise given the new powers individuals now wield. “Developers will need to really have a look at how they manage their engagement with communities and move away from the simple form-filling that traditionally involves, that sees presenting proposals, asking for views and then proceeding anyway.”

Of course, there is the concern that government is enshrining in statute what local government is already doing. “I think a lot of our argument around the planning engagement issues”, says Reefer, “is that surprise, surprise, local authorities have been doing this for years. Current methods are by no means perfect but there is good practice out there.”

Reefer points to the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) as an example of effective community engagement in action. NLWP comprises seven boroughs working on a system to deal with North London’s waste in the coming 15 years, and has undergone three stages of public consultation to date. NLWP Programme Manager Archie Onslow vehemently believes in the importance of getting the public on side because, as he says: “These are large and often controversial proposals and we need to take people with us as we develop them.” In its consultations thus far, NLWP has undertaken the usual methods of engagement – leaflets, adverts, exhibitions, etc. – as well as a number of more ‘hands-on’ approaches. “We’ve held open workshops where we’d give a presentation about the plan, then field questions to address anything people wanted to raise. We’d then sit the audience down in smaller groups to work through key issues, and would later meet any group or individual that wanted us to follow anything up. It’s vital that everyone feels they’ve been listened to and their comments taken seriously.” Crucially, Onslow notes, the consultants used here were independent from the local authority. This, he says, allowed people to ask questions freely and get more objective (“and less defensive”) answers.

Ultimately, the short- and medium-term will see a period of uncertainty while it becomes clear exactly what the NPPF will look like, but at the heart of it will lie a greater emphasis on clear, positive engagement with local communities. Says Reefer: “Effective mediation undertaken from the outset is always going to be favourable to bullying through and forcing plans down people’s throats. There’s now going to be a lot more power accorded to people and neighbourhoods, and whether that’s a good or bad thing we can’t say at this stage. The important thing is that we make the most of the opportunities it affords.”