The UK has wasted billions of pounds of public and private money through failed infrastructure projects such as HS2, the high-speed rail line, over the last decade. Research by one of us (Daniel) in the UK and France suggests there is a better way.

The planning and infrastructure bill currently being debated in the House of Lords shows how the government’s approach fails. The bill has been criticised for pitting the environment against economic growth. Less well reported is that it will get rid of a cornerstone of our democracy.

The bill removes the duty of developers of big infrastructure projects to consult with citizens, local communities and local authorities before the formal planning process.

There has been a democratic deficit in infrastructure planning since the UK Planning Act 2008 established a separate planning process for large infrastructure projects deemed “nationally significant”. The need for these is established in national policy statements – with the Department for Transport producing such statements for road and rail projects, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero doing the same for wind and nuclear projects.

This process was meant to be both faster and fairer for the public by improving accountability and participation – but the emphasis was always on speed.

In fact, despite the widespread belief among policymakers that planning slows down the delivery of infrastructure, the evidence shows factors outside planning are the biggest sources of delay. Problems that beset projects such as HS2 have little to do with planning. Rather, “megaprojects” almost always take longer, cost more and deliver less than promised.

Rail freight infrastructure is a crucial part of the UK transport network. PrasitRodphan/Shutterstock

The new planning and infrastructure bill will not make the process of developing nationally significant projects fairer. Those communities and people affected will still only get to make their case in writing and in public hearings. Just as before, time to speak is often limited to 15 minutes, making it hard for communities to have their voices heard.

And the overall process may not be any faster under the new bill, as greater speed in the planning stages often simply passes on problems to the construction phase.

Deliberation means better decisions

When citizens deliberate in public forums with experts and planners, they can help make well-reasoned, long-term decisions. When communities and experts work together, infrastructure can be co-designed.

This is why we are among a group of planning academics who recently called for an amendment to the bill, to establish an expert body to support innovative democratic participation in infrastructure planning.

There are precedents. Canada’s 1977 Berger inquiry into a proposed gas pipeline along the Mackenzie Valley (land subject to claims by Aboriginal organisations) became a benchmark for public deliberation in infrastructure planning.

Justice Berger’s approach saw experts and citizens testify on equal terms. The inquiry went to the communities that were affected. It travelled over 17,000 miles across Canada’s northwest, hearing testimony from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in eight different languages.

The use of public deliberation has increased considerably since then. A 2020 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed that infrastructure and urban planning are the top policy areas where deliberative forums are used.

Following conflicts over high-speed rail lines in the 1990s, the French government found it was more efficient and quicker to bring people into discussions right at the start of the planning process. They pioneered deliberative discussion for all [large infrastructure projects] that now require early, non-binding scrutiny from an independent agency with expertise in organising democratic deliberation.

The previous UK government’s Innovation in Democracy programme tested the use of deliberative assemblies in local government – and showed how these can be designed around the full geographical impact of national infrastructure. This is important because the consequences often go beyond the local authority boundaries through which representative democracy is organised.

Despite huge challenges like the transition to renewable energy or mitigating climate change that new infrastructure has to deal with, trust in planning is often low, mirroring a general decline in faith in politics. Deliberative democracy can restore trust between citizens and politicians and address the problems of climate change.

Infrastructure decisions are technically complex. New, large-scale infrastructure is disruptive, expensive and rarely aligns with electoral time frames. Yet the costs and consequences of poor decisions are with us for a long time. Rather than a delay, planning in this way is time well spent.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.