Is mineral working an inherently messy land use detrimental to neighbours, or can quarrying be managed in a way which largely keeps adverse effects to tolerable levels? If impact is inevitable, how can this best be addressed? In short, is it the perception which is wrong, or the quarrying, or both? The quarrying industry will need to consider what more it can do to present itself, through the planning system, as 'part of the modern life that people want, not 'apart from' that modern life. This paper suggests how the minerals industry can put its best foot forward, particularly in its communications with the public. Worthwhile though the managed engagement approach is, no-one is claiming it will solve all the problems of public conflicts over mineral working. Creating a long term climate which is significantly more favourable to quarrying is a separate matter. Meanwhile the minerals industry must still ask the public for a social licence to operate'. That is very different from obtaining planning permission on the basis of a technically sound case. If the industry does not get on the right side of the public then it will be mired in opposition and distrust. This will wash off on the industry's social standing, then recruitment, profitability, staff morale and investor confidence. There is no need to take the dead-end route, so go for the socially responsible alternative. That way, just about everybody wins.
展开▼
