{"id":518410,"date":"2025-04-23T12:52:22","date_gmt":"2025-04-23T11:52:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/?p=518410"},"modified":"2025-04-23T12:52:22","modified_gmt":"2025-04-23T11:52:22","slug":"misinformation-is-holding-back-britains-ability-to-build-vital-infrastructure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/sections\/long-reads\/opinion\/misinformation-is-holding-back-britains-ability-to-build-vital-infrastructure-23-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Misinformation is holding back Britain\u2019s ability to build vital infrastructure"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mark Owen-Lloyd is director of Photovolt Development Partners<\/span><\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

Bats, newts, fish and other creatures large and small have recently found themselves in the spotlight, carrying the blame for Britain\u2019s slow, expensive process for building infrastructure. Claims of harm against these critters are often driven by statutory nature conservation bodies, now in the crosshairs of government. Undoubtedly, excessive consideration of animal habitats has been a block on development. However, there is another factor that has garnered less attention in the national debate, yet can prove more detrimental. Misinformation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/i>Developers across the UK find themselves spending time, money and resources fighting these exaggerated, often bogus claims\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is well established that proposals to build infrastructure will trigger opposition campaigns comprised of local activists. Whether it be a solar farm, pylons, housing development or reservoir, these campaigns, regardless of location, have a remarkably similar look and feel. Whilst a challenge for developers, they are symbolic of a healthy democracy. No project should be free from challenge by those affected. <\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, the Energy Security and Net Zero select committee recently commented: \u201c<\/i>The ability of the government to make difficult decisions and to change the way in which energy is generated and used in the UK will depend on being able to bring people along with it.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

This burden also falls on developers seeking to deliver that change. <\/span><\/p>\n

However, often these campaigns deploy misinformation and exaggeration, creating significant problems for getting projects off the ground. Mitigation measures are ignored, visual, noise and environmental impacts are frequently overblown and the tone of debate becomes increasingly hyperbolic and based on falsehoods.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, developers across the UK find themselves spending time, money and resources fighting these exaggerated, often bogus claims. And despite demonstrating the falseness of these claims, they often remain a key feature of local debate.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This has a number of damaging effects. First is the extra burden it places on developers. The need to rebut these types of claims is often a reputation critical one, especially for those looking to deliver further projects elsewhere. This leads to project delays and cost overruns.<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, and perhaps more damaging, is the effect these campaigns can have on decision makers. Persistent and loud misinformation campaigns, targeted at groups such as local councillors, can influence the final decisions made by authorities, especially when opposition is largely made up of their constituents. This sees projects often judged on exaggerated and false claims, rather than the \u2018black and white\u2019 factual proposals.<\/span><\/p>\n

Knock-on effects<\/h3>\n

What does this mean for the desire to \u2018get Britain building\u2019? It suggests that despite a clear signal to speed up the process from central government, local authorities remain susceptible to vocal, exaggerated opposition campaigns. These will continue to act as a block on the development of key infrastructure. <\/span><\/p>\n

The need to fight misinformation will also act as a deterrent for developers. The sense that, in addition to the considerable cost of developing projects, they will need to spend time and money combatting misleading and exaggerated opposition claims may see them take their business elsewhere. This is especially the case if local authority decision makers are seen to be susceptible to such campaigns. The benefits of a scheme are ignored, with focus solely on fictitious harms. <\/span><\/p>\n

However, it is not all doom and gloom. Proactive efforts to rebut misinformation, inform local stakeholders and emphasise the facts of a proposal can keep exaggerated opposition campaigns in check. The key facts of your proposal must be put out there in plain language for all to see, especially decision makers. Thankfully, nationally significant infrastructure projects are assessed and decided on fact. However, the majority of smaller projects will be subject to local authority preferences. <\/span><\/p>\n

Without a proactive, organised approach to combatting misinformation around infrastructure projects, bat tunnels or not, Britain\u2019s desire to get building won\u2019t get far.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mark Owen-Lloyd is director of Photovolt Development Partners Bats, newts, fish and other creatures large and small have recently found themselves in the spotlight, carrying the blame for Britain\u2019s slow, expensive process for building infrastructure. Claims of harm against these critters are often driven by statutory nature conservation bodies, now in the crosshairs of government. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":518412,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[567],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n