Controlled Consulting

It is well understood by organisations setting about conducting a consultation with the public, that they really must keep everything under close control. There are ways of making it as difficult as possible for consultees who might introduce undesirable elements into the process - such as taking the discussions into areas where the managers don't want to go. Nobody these days would dream of starting with a blank sheet even though this is the fairest and most honest way of conducting a consultation - it would hand over the power to direct the process just where the organisers want it to go. As I say this is well understood. Those of us who are veterans of past consultations can remember the different form that these have taken. And the professional faciltators who run these sessions may be aware of many models with varying advantages but they are paid by those who wish for a certain desired result. Some consultations I've been involved with have been more obviously controlled and restricted than others. One or two can even claim to have been good and fair. There have even been those that start with a more or less blank sheet and take their direction from the responses. That may now be a rare phenomenon.

The Icarus Consultation on Blacka in 2006 was an interesting example of the genre. Aspects of it were good, others very disturbing. The best thing about it was that it started with the people attending giving their own views without constraint and went on from there.

I've noticed that more recent consultations have learned a lesson from this. They don't like giving the people too much freedom; it's not good for their own agenda. For example at the Blacka consultation the conservationists obviously thought they
would have no trouble manipulating things towards their preferred agenda but were badly caught out when they discovered that we had a credible and wholly coherent alternative to their own plans. We didn't know it at the time but the conservationists had already signed agreements and received funds on the basis of their own agenda. This was so stressful for them that one of their number actually threw a tantrum and made offensive remarks which I personally found very embarrassing. For a public official employed by Natural England to do this was not what I expected. Another officer employed by Peak National Park became similarly upset saying "Didn't we realise that people had worked very hard at these plans ?" It had not occurred to her that hard work does not guarantee good results though it may feel like that at the time. It was doubtless hard work to build concentration camps but I don't want to pursue an analogy with barbed wire.

Neither do I wish to show sympathy with these people. They just don't deserve it. Their true colours were exposed later on when they made disgraceful accusations amounting to defamation which I would like to hope will trouble their consciences for many years.

Anyway the MasterPlanning Race has now got a website up and running with a timetable of their campaign to enforce their will upon the local hillsides. I reproduce Stage 2 below of the timetable. The elements have been very carefully chosen so that it all looks proper. But look carefully and say just where there is any element of discussion or exchange of views before the MASTER PLAN is produced. Did you spot it? No, nor me. We all know of course that any discussion after the Draft Master Plan is most unlikely to lead to significant changes. Once a glossy brochure is launched the public is deemed to be suitably cowed. Now that was one feature of the 2006 Icarus sessions. Things could be taken away from the management's preferred agenda. Here it's most unlikely. In fact I would say improbable.


Stage 2 – Develop a draft masterplan with stakeholder input (Timescale: Jan-June 2012)

•Engage with stakeholders to ascertain their views and aspirations for the SMP area through 3-4 workshops in Sheffield and the North Derbyshire area
•Compile and analyse the information gathered, and provide a feedback session on the stakeholder input collated to check the key information and aspirations have been properly gathered
•Take the outcomes of the above forward to inform the production of an initial draft masterplan
•Produce the draft masterplan proposal and associated maps for wider community consultation