Love Thy Neighbour

Richard Kell, group planning and estates manager with Ennstone plc, discusses whether a quarry can ever be a welcome neighbour

Since leaving local government in 1998, I have been actively involved in the planning process for the past three to four years in an entirely different role with my current employer. I believe, however, that the concerns and issues I have witnessed and experienced in this process have remained reasonably predictable and constant with the exception of two or three influencing factors that have recently emerged and which I will address later in the article.

Please note that the views expressed are my own observations of being actively involved in the interface between the minerals industry and the general public and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Community relations

Can a quarry ever be a welcome neighbour? The simple answer to this question is no! However, it is not as straightforward as that. In my view the answer is dependent on an individual’s subjective assessment of a quarry and its neighbours.
On what basis are you an interested or affected party in quarrying activities?

• Are you employed in the minerals industry?
• Are you employed in an industry ancillary to the minerals industry, eg plant and machinery manufacturing, services etc?
• Is your industry dependent on the supply of material or products from the minerals industry, eg road construction, housing, commercial building etc?
• Are you performing a function on behalf of society, eg planning authorities?
• Are you promoting an interest on behalf of society, eg environmental groups, pollution control agencies etc?
• Are you an elected representative of a community, ie parish, district, county councillor or Member of Parliament?
• Are you affected by a quarry?

There are two driving influences that have a major impact on quarrying activities. They are the all too often refusal, but not so much as in the past, of the minerals industry to recognize the public’s concern and fear for the environment and the impact that mineral development has on it, and equally important, the public’s refusal to acknowledge that it is they and their demands that are instrumental in bringing about proposals for mineral extraction.

It must be recognized that mineral development is different from other forms of development. The obvious major difference is that it is dealing with a finite resource and that it must take place where the mineral naturally occurs, hence there is no choice in location. Moreover:

• It is often of long duration — 30+ years.
• It is often transitional in nature throughout its life, ie scale and impact may change.
• Its effects need to be repaired.
• It may require specialist infrastructure to serve the minerals development.
• It is considered a ‘bad neighbour’ use of land.

We have all seen the emergence of the term ‘the environment’ in recent decades within local, regional, national and global contexts. It means so many different things to different people. A commonly held view, which I have heard expressed on many occasions, is that it relates to ‘green issues’. In my view this is too simplistic.

According to the dictionary ‘environment’ means: ‘a surrounding; external conditions influencing development or growth of people, animals or plants; living or working conditions’.

One of the best descriptions I have heard relating to the environment is that: ‘It is a seamless web within which we all eat, work, play and sleep, and the countless actions of those activities which have an effect on each other, and each others lives.’ I find this description more appropriate as it gives a further intent to the phrase ‘the environment’.

Having been involved in the interface between the minerals industry and the general public for well over 40 years, with the substantial majority of those years being at the ‘sharp end’, ie dealing with the public, I can assure you that one needs the patience of Job, the skin of a rhino, the ability to deal with all kinds of concerns, technical or otherwise, especially when dealing with the public face to face against a backcloth of general distrust of you by the public and in many cases their elected representatives.

The reaction of local residents and communities to mineral operations and workings is affected by the quality of the communication between them and the operator both on a personal level and through formal channels. It is also influenced by the image that they have of the operator, including whether they perceive the operator as wanting to be a good neighbour or just to placate them. From comments I have received from local communities throughout my experiences in this field there is a great body of opinion that it is the latter view which is the case. While there are many instances of industry responding to the need for communication through formal channels, eg regular residents’ or liaison committees, dialogue with relevant regulatory bodies, environmental organizations, management committees for restoration proposals etc, there is still a fundamental lack of understanding by industry management of the implications of misinformation and misunderstanding of operations being given by industry employees at all levels on a personal level to persons potentially being affected by quarry site operations or any development proposal. It is therefore important to remind employees engaged in the quarrying industry that they affect the image of a company, a site and its operations by the information they relay to people not engaged in their industry.

While stressing the importance of communication, both through formal channels and on a personal level between a site’s operatives and its neighbours, it is equally important to recognize the current political climate within which we all work. Environmental issues and initiatives are increasingly being promoted and tabled before society by central government. We are all aware of how much information is distributed and made available through the media regarding these issues, initiatives and concerns that invariably have an influence on an individual’s view toward to the industry. As a result there has been a considerable heightening of expectation from the general public that any industry it identifies as being responsible for bringing about any environmental impacts, must address and resolve them. Environmental legislation and policy objectives are therefore continuously being promoted and enacted to meet these expectations.

In recent years the issue of sustainability and its understanding has been a cornerstone of central government ambitions which, in regard to mineral development, embraces the following objectives:

• safeguarding of mineral resources
• ensuring a steady and adequate supply of minerals to meet the needs of society
• prudent use of mineral resources
• minimizing the environmental impacts during mineral extraction and ensuring sites are reclaimed to a high standard and beneficial use.

These policy objectives must be viewed, however, against other key policy messages from central government for social inclusion, transparency, accessibility, accountability, participation and involvement, as promoted and enacted through recent planning changes.

We have all heard of recent statements from central government relating to its desire to promote a stakeholder society and inclusiveness in decision-making. A noble objective without doubt, but to a person like myself who is somewhat old and cynical, unachievable due to one basic factor — human nature (I may be wrong though!).

I remember an old saying: ‘You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time’. We must accept one inescapable fact, on many issues there are bound to be diametrically opposing views incapable of resolution that, in the case of environmental impacts arising from mineral development, are many and varied. Inclusiveness in any decision-making process is unlikely to resolve differing views and is likely to create delay and frustration within that process, especially when a decision is reached contrary to an interested party’s view. Inclusiveness may increase expectations of agreement with an expressed individual view.

Increasing public knowledge and awareness of the environmental, economic and social effects of mineral development means that a local community can exercise considerable influence over decision-making authorities in various ways. The prospect of a new mineral working can promise economic benefits or the opportunity of local redevelopment or regeneration to a community, but it also raises many fears such as damage to the environment or environmental effects, and it is this latter point that affects the very fragile relationship between a quarry site and its neighbours. I would stress the importance of communication on a personal level as well as through formal channels, irrespective of the difficulties encountered in attempting to resolve or placate fears expressed by local residents.

Throughout my experiences in dealing with the general public there have been recurring driving themes influencing their actions which, when faced with development or proposals, they perceive as having a detrimental effect on their lives or interests:

• There is a natural human reaction of opposition to radical change, whether real or perceived. Evolutionary change to one’s circumstances is generally more accepted.
• If faced with a situation that potentially affects a person’s largest life investment – property and its value – opposition to anything that may affect it is warranted.
• The fear of the unknown.
• In addition to these major themes or influences I believe there are many others that have an impact on an individual reaction:
• An individual’s perception of the responsibilities of democratically elected bodies.
• A non-understanding of regulatory regimes and their objectives and powers. Perhaps the most pertinent one within the context of mineral working being the planning regime.
• A distrust of experts and officialdom.
• An active involvement and participation in the promotion of recognized social issues, eg recreation, green issues etc.

As someone who has been employed and engaged within the planning field for many years, I consider it necessary to reflect and remind everyone that the essential objective of the planning system is to regulate development in the public interest not a single person’s interest. It may be that the public interest coincides with individuals’ interests. In addition, the planning system aims to reconcile the needs of development and conservation and secure economic efficiency and amenity in the use of land.

Residents living close to mineral workings may be exposed to a number of environmental effects that give rise to complaints and thereby affect their relationship with a site.

When working in local government I considered that the specific operational problems created by surface mineral workings, based on public complaint, in approximate order of significance, were: traffic, blasting, noise, dust and visual effects. Other matters, such as water, waste, ecology, archaeology, agriculture and forestry, are equally important environmental considerations, but less likely to be the subject of public protest. While these issues have been fairly constant over many years, I have observed in more recent years the emergence of issues relating to human rights and health. With the increasing proliferation of government objectives and studies there is bound to be a heightened awareness of these issues and increased expectation from the general public to achieve a higher quality of life.

The potential for problems to occur varies significantly with the type of mineral working and site-specific factors. Any generalization can only be a guide to the issues to be considered.

Transport

Road traffic is an almost universal source of difficulty and complaint where it is the main means of transport, which I believe it is likely to be for the foreseeable future. Changing employment patterns, customer supply and working requirements, in addition to substantial increases in private car ownership, have all had a major impact on the issue of transport. Alternatives to this form of transport, however much encouraged by policy objectives, may also have difficulties, for example at the distribution end of a sea or rail link or from rail traffic at night.

Where there are significant transport impacts on local communities, measures can be introduced by operators and regulatory bodies specifying conditions under which companies and their sub-contractors’ vehicles should operate — dedicated routing agreements, vehicle washing to avoid detritus on roads, vehicle sheeting to avoid spillage, provision of overnight on-site parking to avoid early morning arrivals and queuing, traffic management to avoid busy or sensitive periods in local communities, such as the start and end of school hours.

Blasting

Where blasting occurs it can be a major concern. The main fear of residents close to a source of blasting is that of structural damage to their property. It is my view that considerable confusion arises in people’s minds over the cause of structural damage. Is it ground vibration or air overpressure? Even though owners are likely to complain less if they are convinced that there is no risk of damage it is quite clear that complaints of disturbance can still be significant. Operators need to accept, therefore, that disturbance is a justifiable cause for complaint, even when there is no risk of damage, and will continue to impact on the relationship between a quarry site and its neighbours. In terms of good practice, the main way of controlling vibration and air overpressure is by good blast design and practice as well as adopting mechanical means of mineral extraction whenever practicable.

Noise

Activities such as blasting, drilling, crushing, operation of fixed or mobile plant and transportation of products all promote complaints relating to noise. Even more so when the times they occur are considered by the general public to be unsocial hours, ie evening, night time, early morning and weekends.

Considerable assessment and research has been undertaken by central government leading to policy advice for regulatory bodies to apply in their functions when dealing with mineral sites.

People complain of early starts; being woken up by lorries arriving at site or machines starting up can be particularly annoying. An alternative to accepting public pressure for later starts would be to consider a transitional dawn period and to define acceptable noise levels and/or activities comparable to the more common evening restrictions. Operators should be more willing to take noise emission levels into account when buying or hiring plant and equipment and when choosing methods of working. An industry-wide data bank, especially for mobile plant, is desirable.

Choosing quiet plant or retrofitting existing plant to make it quieter involves more than making sure that it has an effective exhaust silencer or fitting a better one; reversing alarms are a particular source of nuisance. While many alternative forms of alarm exist, guidance on their acceptability in terms of safety and the balance of their environmental impact is needed. More consideration should be given to the use of temporary/permanent noise screens, particularly around individual houses, rather than the use of mounds. In some cases it may be valuable to use the two together.

Dust

Dust emanating from a site is difficult to measure and is often difficult to control. Most of the control exercised by operators appears to be a matter of trial and error. Many ways of controlling dust have been described in literature but few expand on experience of their use and cost-effectiveness. Dust can be avoided by operational planning, for example by using conveyors rather than dumptrucks, by creating ‘sensitive zones’ at a site within which activities will be limited, and by early planting of vegetation and restoration to minimize exposed surfaces. It can be controlled by enclosure, collection, good housekeeping, watering and by removal from the atmosphere using water sprays and mists. In very dry and windy weather it may be necessary to stop some activities altogether.

Likely exposure to dust arising from mineral extraction has in the past promoted complaints by communities usually based on its nuisance value. In more recent years, however, if residents close to a site or proposed site of mineral extraction believe dust emissions to be damaging to health it heightens their anxiety over health concerns.

Concerns over the likely effects of dust emission should be assessed against the existing and emerging body of scientific and medical evidence. Considerable research has already been undertaken and continues to be done on this particular impact.

There are objectives set out in an air-quality strategy for the UK for pollutants of particular concern for human health together with dates by which they should be achieved. It is my understanding that the objective for PM₁₀ particulates and a study containing an assessment framework for this objective will be relevant to mineral working generally. Therefore, when considering mineral proposals, planning authorities are being encouraged to have regard to the environmental acceptability of likely dust emissions including the cumulative impact at residential properties and on other sensitive uses.

Groundwater and surface water

With the ever-increasing public awareness of health and pollution issues and the anxiety these create in society, it is understandable that there has been considerable attention directed towards any activity that communities or individuals consider to have potential impact on the water regime. Interest may be based on the concern for human health or the protection of flora and fauna and may be promoted through specific interest groups, environmental organizations or individuals living adjacent to a mineral site.

Like some other environmental impacts there is a substantial body of legislation to ensure water courses or groundwater are protected and this is primarily enforced by the Environment Agency.

Landscape and visual intrusion

These impacts are subjects that arouse considerable passion at any proposal stage but form the basis of relatively few complaints during working. Once permission has been granted, residents seem to turn their attention to more tangible day-to-day matters, such as traffic noise, dust and blasting. Nonetheless it remains a significant issue. The planning decision on size and sequence of working usually determines most of the loss of landscape; conditions for planting and screening limit the visual intrusion. Screening and planting can be very successful, although conditions requiring pre-planting or planting are sometimes met by token planting that is ineffective and incongruous or are ignored and not enforced. Progressive restoration is a key element in minimizing operational impact; it should commence as early as possible in the life of the working and preferably be coupled with pre-planting to soften the initial impact.

While restoration has been seen as an important factor with any mineral working a body of opinion now exists that actively promotes and encourages differing end uses. With the expansion of leisure time, industry should actively seek input from its neighbours in establishing an appropriate end use for a quarry site in addition to recognized interests in ecology, agriculture, forestry etc.

As previously mentioned, image is considered important from the local residents point of view. It is therefore critical to take care over site layout, scale, design, colour of processing plant, screening, proximity to neighbours etc. At many sites the design of an entrance will be especially important.

Last but not least, good housekeeping will be vital in maintaining a good appearance. I have identified and commented on just a few of the impacts that I believe affect the relationship between a mineral site and its neighbours but more recent concerns have emerged in the thinking of local residents affected by mineral sites.

Cumulative impact and human rights legislation

The issue of cumulative impacts is one that industry should consider very seriously. For some years planning authorities have had their attention drawn to the identification of various impacts emanating from a mineral site by locally affected residents that individually may not warrant refusal of permission for proposed changes in that site’s life or operation. While each individual impact, such as those outlined previously, may be carefully managed or planned by industry or mitigated by control measures in conditions so as to reduce it to what is considered to be an environmentally acceptable limit, there has been increased attention brought towards the aggregated total of such impacts being environmentally unacceptable. Invariably complaints from local residents that have been inadequately addressed by an operator or left unresolved will lead to a climate for such claims.

In recent times there has been much mention of the term ‘environmental capacity’. What does it mean? One explanation could be that a specific geographical area could be identified as one that supports development sites, which would lead to a disproportionate burden of negative environmental impacts on settlements and their residents located within such areas. These identified sites will include minerals and waste sites and other developments with significant environmental effects. Inevitably, to many residents within these areas, claims will be made that an area has reached its environmental capacity and that any additional proposals should be re-sited on the basis of cumulative impact on the area.

No doubt this issue is being assessed within the context of planning policy formulation and debated in public inquiry situations resulting in the heightened awareness of this issue by the general public and thereby being used in objection to development proposals.

Human rights legislation (Human Rights Act 1998) came into force in the year 2000. Since then increased emphasis has been placed on the human rights of those affected by planning decisions. Included within the legislation is the right to respect for private and family life and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions; to my mind supporting the general term that we hear a lot in today’s climate, ie ‘quality of life’. These rights are qualified, however, by the recognition that the ‘state’ has a right to act in accordance with law and in broad terms in the wider public interest.

I raise the aspect merely within the context of the fragile relationship between a quarry site and its neighbours, and that in my experience it has been used in objections to minerals proposals and as a legal challenge to planning authority decisions.

Conclusion

I have briefly outlined my thoughts on the driving forces and identified impacts that are in the minds of residents affected by mineral operations and thereby affect the relationships between a site and its neighbours.
I conclude this article with two thoughts:

• The Government desires a stakeholder-inclusive society with each individual being involved in decisions that may affect them.
• Are the impacts discussed real or merely perceived by your neighbours?

This article is based on Richard Kell’s presentation to The Institute of Quarrying’s annual conference symposium in October 2005