Managing Risk Early

Liam explains how identifying and managing project risks early in the consultation process, and genuinely listening to local concerns, helps reduce objection in the long term.

The licensing and planning system is technical by design. For most people living near a proposed scheme, there is little time or inclination to unpick what an application does, what it does not do, or where the real impacts might fall. That gap is where doubt takes hold. Developers can quickly be seen as distant, process-led and profit-driven, rather than connected to the day-to-day reality of a neighbourhood.

Resistance often starts here. It usually begins with unease rather than formal objection. Questions surface that are less about drawings or conditions and more about trust, precedent and whether familiar problems are likely to return.

On one scheme involving a new hospitality venue, those signals appeared early. The site’s previous operator had left a poor impression locally, and residents’ concerns were shaped by that history. Noise, late-night activity and management were immediate flashpoints. There were also sensitivities around trees, operating hours and how people would enter and leave the building. Although the new proposal differed in substance, that was not clear from the application documents alone.

Early engagement exposed this gap. The approach shifted and the pace slowed. In-person meetings, phone calls, regular emails and site tours created space for detailed, practical conversations. This was not treated as a single stage to be completed. Feedback was taken away, changes were made and those changes were shared back, so engagement felt responsive rather than superficial.

Each concern required attention. Noise was addressed through design changes, including adaptions to the entrance lobby. The use of external terrace doors was negotiated, and a middle ground agreed. Windows were redesigned to better reflect the street’s character and opening hours were adjusted. A proposed tree removal was avoided by reworking the construction approach. Entry and exit arrangements were refined to limit disruption. Individually these changes were modest. Taken together, they showed care and adaptability.

Things don’t always go to plan, and some noise complaints arose. Construction traffic occasionally blocked local routes. Inevitable dust built up on nearby windows, so a full street window clean was organised. These issues were dealt with quickly and directly as they emerged, through conversations, practical fixes and follow-up with those affected.

That consistency mattered. It reinforced the sense that engagement continued beyond the application stage and those early commitments shaped how the site was managed in practice. Trust built gradually as a result.

The venue is now set to open, and many of the same residents who raised early concerns will be there on opening night, celebrating a new local business rather than opposing it.

The lesson was not that concern disappeared, but that it never hardened into opposition. Early unease signalled misalignment that could be corrected. Addressed early and recalibrated in response to feedback, it remained manageable. Ignored, it would likely have resurfaced later and been far harder to resolve.

Resistance rarely arrives without warning. The earliest signals are often quiet but they are also the most informative. Pre-emptive, honest and regular communication makes a difference.