The aim of consulting about a project is to involve interested parties and individuals at an early stage, so that they can contribute their ideas, skills and experience during planning and implementation of the project. Underlying this aim is the belief that people who have been consulted and have taken part in a consensus will give support to the project during its implementation and beyond. Consultation should also draw in people with different skills and interests, so that the project may develop in ways which it would not have done without their involvement.
It is impossible to set a formula for successful consultation, as every area or project will have different factors affecting it. A procedure that works for one project may not necessarily be effective for another, even if superficially similar. However, successful projects seem to find their way through a combination of informal talk and practical action, which builds confidence for the future.
Note the following:
- Planning a large meeting in a hall or community centre may not be the best approach initially. Even if well attended, some people may be unwilling to speak out. The meeting may get monopolised by a few views, and consensus is difficult to reach. Unless the issue is very controversial, or a lot of people perceive that some of their rights or amenities are going to be infringed, turnout is likely to be low.
- Meeting groups on their own ground is often a good approach (see Gomm’s Wood example below). This may involve going to community centres, pubs or other places where people gather, or asking for some time to be allotted during a regular meeting when the matter can be discussed. An informal approach has the disadvantage that some people who may want to contribute will be missed out.
- Questionnaire surveys posted through doors do not usually generate a high response, even if linked to prize draws or other incentives. They do have the advantage of being a means of publicity, and avoid the criticism that ‘no-one asked me’. Questionnaires need careful structuring if the questions are not to be loaded, and there may be problems of excluding views of ethnic groups unless appropriate language editions are made available. Pictorial techniques can be used on survey forms so that language is not a barrier. Questionnaires are best used in combination with the personal approach, by knocking on doors in the vicinity of the project and talking to residents, with the questionnaire as a starting point.
- Many successful projects have been started by individuals with very little consultation. Usually the individuals do not have a ‘grand plan’, but they simply want to achieve a straightforward, practical result, such as clearing refuse from a site, or opening up an overgrown footpath. These may then lead on to projects and skills that they may not even have known about, let alone thought they could themselves achieve. The example of Woodscape illustrates this well, but there are many other examples in conservation, and countless ones in every area of life. Practical action itself often generates interest and support, though it may also arouse antagonism. Many people do not enjoy meetings and discussion, but would rather do something practical, and feel empowered and enthused by seeing practical results.
- Consultation takes time, and for any project, it is not possible to consult everybody all the time. As with any group or organisation, some responsibilities for decision making have to be taken by the committee or project officer. Consultation can be at different levels, from open meetings and questionnaires, down to discussions within a working group or committee.
- Wide or over-long consultation can make a project appear overwhelming, and beyond the reach of individuals or community action. Local people may feel discouraged, and perceive the project as only achievable by experts and consultants.
- Wide consultation can also bring in too many groups or individuals for efficient project management. There may be a particular problem of professional rivalry when agencies or individuals with similar remits are chasing similar types of work, and wanting credit for any achievement. Rivalry may rear its head through wording of publicity, placement of logos on a leaflet, or allocation of funding. Circumstances vary with time, project and personality, and there is no formula to follow which guarantees success.
- Like any other partnerships or teams, the successful ones seem to be those where all members have particular advice, skills, staffing or funding to offer which keeps the team interdependent.
- There are examples where people who attend consultation meetings because they feel their rights are being infringed, or in some other way to complain, turn out be strong supporters of the project once they become involved. Lack of consultation may permanently antagonise these critics.
Gomm’s Wood, High Wycombe
Gomm’s Wood is a 15 hectare woodland near High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. TCV together with Wycombe District Council and Southern Electric chose the site as a demonstration woodland. The woodland had suffered badly from fly-tipping and dumping of burnt-out cars, and work started on clearing rubbish, footpath improvements, coppicing, tree planting and hedgelaying. Local schoolchildren were involved in several of the projects. After two years of work, it was decided to carry out a consultation exercise with local residents to find out their views of the work to date, how Gomm’s Wood should develop in the future, and to encourage community involvement. From the onset of work in Gomm’s Wood, the approach to encouraging participation was of ‘doing something to get a response’, and then using that response as a springboard to further action.
Consultation took the form of questionnaires and an open forum, arranged to follow immediately after the local community association autumn bazaar, to which TCV contributed various activities. Two weeks before the bazaar, 10,000 questionnaires with publicity for the event were distributed through the local free newspaper. Completed questionnaires were entered in a free draw. The return rate of 0.2% was poor, although some useful comments were made. No new participants attended the open forum. In order to gain some more local views, TCV staff went the following week for a drink at the local community centre bar. After an initially frosty reception, an extremely interesting evening was spent chatting informally with people at the bar about Gomm’s Wood. Residents who had not returned the questionnaire nor would have thought to attend a meeting, and who at first professed little interest in the wood, then opened up to talk at length about its past, present and future. In this case, meeting people informally on their own ground provided by far the most valuable responses.
Planning for real
‘Planning for real’ is an approach which involves the community in the planning process. It does away with the jargon of planning, and avoids the confrontational approach of a normal public meeting. The technique is based on using a model of the area, normally to the scale of about 1:200. At this scale, people can easily recognise their own homes, roads, pathways and other features. The model can be made in sections as necessary, so that it is easy to set up in different venues where people gather. The model encourages discussion as people cluster around it, and cut-outs or stickers are provided so that people can mark features they would like to retain, change and so on. These can be colour-coded in different categories, so that the value people place on different aspects such as nature conservation or play facilities can easily be seen, as well as preferred locations for various features. Compromise and consensus become easier, partly because participants are focusing on the model, and not on each other. Suggestions placed on the board become anonymous, and people can change their minds by moving pieces about without losing face. A consensus can be reached, in which everyone can take credit. If the model itself is made by various people from different interest groups, the actual process of making the model can be a means of consultation, and of identifying skills and interests.
Consensus building
Consensus building is another approach to environmental planning. It has similarities to planning for real, in that it involves those people who will be affected by the proposal at the beginning of the consultation process. Everyone starts from the same point, with solutions emerging during the process, rather than being drafted at the start by experts. Consensus building uses a range of interactive techniques and methods in a structured way. The first meeting of all interested parties/individuals would start with a general introduction to the proposal/problem/site, followed by group ‘brainstorming’ sessions, at which ideas are contributed by members of the group. These are simply noted on a board or large sheet of paper without discussion or comment. The groups then come together to share each other ’s ideas and discuss them further. From this a range of possible solutions is developed. With good attendance and an effective chair, such meetings are enjoyable and stimulating, with everyone able to contribute ideas in a positive, constructive atmosphere.
The diagrams below illustrate the difference between the traditional consultative approach, and the consensus building approach. For further details see Baines, John (1995). For further reading on consultation see Wilcox, David (1994).
