It is not political backing but winning the support of the people ‘on the ground’ who are most affected by a project that is key to its eventual success, writes Beth West
This summer, we have been awash with investigations into HS2: Kate Lamble presented Derailed: The Story of HS2, a 10-part series on Radio 4; Sally Gimson published her book Off the Rails: The Inside Story of HS2; and James Stewart produced his government-commissioned report Major Transport Projects Governance and Assurance Review: The HS2 Experience. All have long lists of reasons why HS2 has faced so many challenges, why costs have escalated and why the programme has been delayed.
Of the issues, politics is always mentioned, but as something negative and needing to be managed: a distraction to the main activity of building a big and important thing. Stewart has referred to the project needing a “political buffer” from national politicians that would allow HS2 Ltd to get on with the job of building.
But, instead of expecting a political buffer or political air cover to come from the top, what if we look at the question of politics in an entirely different way? What if we remember that improving people’s lives is the reason that we are building? Not just to build a grand projet for a politician’s ego, but building something that solves people’s problems.
>> Also read: If I were the chancellor: how to finance infrastructure when there’s not enough money
>> Also read: Let’s harness the power of the incomplete client
>> Also read: No one wants to be a fat dumb client. This is how we avoid it
Having worked at HS2 as well as East West Rail, Thames Tideway Tunnel and Transport for London, I have come to believe that, for major project organisations such as HS2 Ltd, politics is not a distraction from getting the project built, but the main event itself.
Any major infrastructure project in the UK will have a lifespan that outlasts any single parliament and will often spread across three or more parliaments. If major project organisations have to rely on a national political buffer in order to deliver their project, they will need to rebuild this buffer after every general election, resulting in potential reviews that can lead to change, delay and cost increases. HS2 has faced this challenge constantly throughout its lifetime.
In addition to the national challenge, like most democracies, the UK has multiple levels of political accountability. Even if a major project is able to maintain political support at the national level, ignore local politics and local stakeholders at your peril.
Many unhappy constituents make for unhappy local councillors, which eventually make for unhappy national politicians
While MPs and local council leaders are often representing their constituents in the same way through similar policy positions, MPs can be whipped by their parties into supporting major projects, whereas local authorities are under no such obligation. As the politicians who are often much closer to their constituents, they often fight incredibly hard to represent their constituents’ positions, even if it means being in conflict with national politicians. Many unhappy constituents make for unhappy local councillors, which eventually make for unhappy national politicians.
In HS2’s case, the railway was not seen as solving anyone’s problems while, at the same time, having material impact on people’s lives. Due to how UK politics and the planning system are structured, a grand projet is unlikely to withstand first conflict with “the enemy”, as a national political buffer won’t actually work. National politicians – even a prime minister – cannot force their will on unwilling constituents without incurring significant cost and delay, as has proved to be the case on HS2.
However, if major project organisations make it their responsibility to understand local needs and concerns and design a project that people understand will solve known problems – basically putting the politics in the centre of the design – stakeholders could go from people that need to be compensated, managed or “dealt with” to supporters of the project.
In practical terms, this means that the traditional hierarchical approaches and top-down design needs to be thrown on its head, replaced with engagement in the first instance and co-design with stakeholders in the second.
When I was at East West Rail, I said regularly that my personal objective was to make every person along the line of route ask, “when is my railway coming?” Not just every MP, nor every local councillor, but every single person.
I was not so naïve as to think that I would be able to achieve this – there are many individuals who will be personally impacted by the railway as it cuts across this small, densely populated island. For those impacted people, I had a different objective, which was to resolve their personal issues as quickly as possible so that they could move on with their lives and no longer be impacted by the railway.
If people ‘on the ground’ support your project, the rest of the politics becomes easier, getting planning permissions becomes more straightforward and delivery become faster and cheaper
Unfortunately, achieving this was incredibly difficult given the current rules about spending money “in advance of need”. It did not stop me from trying, however, and it did build some goodwill with those impacted.
The reason behind wanting everyone to want East West Rail was because I believe that if people “on the ground” support your project, the rest of the politics becomes easier, getting planning permissions becomes more straightforward and delivery become faster and cheaper.
Major project organisations should recognise that the political buffer does not come top down, from national politicians, but bottom up people from whose lives are impacted by the project. As such, we should recognise their importance and make sure that our major project organisations are structured and led by people who ensure that these critical stakeholders have the impact that they deserve on our infrastructure projects.
The building of the project is not the main event; the people who it is being built for are.
Beth West is on Building’s Funding the Future advisory panel, she is a former commercial director of HS2, head of development at Landsec and chief executive of East West Rail
Building’s Funding the Future campaign seeks to examine fresh ways of attracting and using finance to boost construction projects at a time of constrained public finances.
It will examine options for public-private partnerships that can draw on private capital to pay for large infrastructure projects, schools, prisons, hospitals and housing.
It will also look at existing models for private and public funding and examine how these can be optimised to ensure funding is efficiently spent and leads to more shovels in the ground as Keir Starmer looks to construction to boost flagging economic growth.
Over the next few months we will share learning, consult with industry and collect ideas from readers. This will culminate in a special report to be published at our Building the Future Live Conference in London on 2 October - click here to book your tickets now.
To share your ideas of new funding models, email carl.brown@assemblemediagroup.co.uk. To find the campaign on social media follow #Buildingfundfuture.
No comments yet