Case study - factory extension
Situation: Our client wished to build a waste ash processing plant on the site of their privately owned and operated coal-fired power station.
The proposed plant was designed to operate on green principles, taking vast tonnages of (previously) waste material (a by-product from the power station) and manufacturing a re-saleable product for use in the construction and road-building industries.
Background: Our client had operated on 2 large adjacent sites for more than 20 years.
These sites provided several hundreds of jobs in an unemployment blackspot. For that reason, our client was (reluctantly) welcomed and subsequently tolerated by the local community.
However – irrespective of the clients ongoing investment in (and adherence to) environmentally-sound working practices, there was still much local opposition to their presence.
When the plans for the new waste processing plant were announced, local opinion was firmly against the proposals. A well-organised campaign was created by local community leaders to fight the plans.
Our role: We were tasked with putting in place a programme to help our client turn around the negative, hostile response by the community.
It was agreed at the outset that a ‘good result’ would see the community accepting the proposal. It was not considered realistic to expect to turn public opinion actively in favour of the plan.
Timetable: Spring 2001 – Spring 2002
What we did: We produced an analysis of the local communities that would potentially be affected by our clients’ plans. Further, we determined the degrees by which each community might variously be affected.
This analysis identified three distinct groups:
1) The large community to the south of the proposed site
2) A smaller community to the north of the site
3) A smaller-still community closest to the proposed development.
We created and staged a series of public exhibitions for each community. Senior client representatives were on hand at each to discuss the proposal informally with members of the public and answer questions and concerns raised by the communities concerned. (All client personnel participating were fully briefed by our team in advance)
We issued personal invitations – hand-delivered to every home – to attend these exhibitions.
Additionally, representatives of the community likely to be most significantly affected were invited to visit the site itself and meet senior management. (This particular group were very well organised – and vocal – in their condemnation of our clients’ plans. The main issues were seen as noise, impact on the local roads network and air-borne pollution).
As a follow-on to the round of exhibitions and meetings, we wrote and produced a special edition of our clients’ magazine. This spelled out the proposal in detail – and answered the questions put by local people at the public events during the consultation period. This magazine was hand-delivered to more than 5,000 homes in the ‘affected’ areas.
We provided full and frank briefings to the local media, and arranged facilities visits for them – including arranging for the regional independent TV company to film extensively on site.
We attended public protest meetings in order to gauge public opinion and we reported our findings to the client after each event.
Outcome: The initial plans submitted by our client were rejected. Amendments were made to further address local, regulatory and operational concerns, the revised plans re-submitted and eventually planning permission was obtained.
As predicted at the outset, the granting of planning permission was met by a reserved, reluctant acceptance by the local communities.
This acceptance was achieved through a process of clear and transparent communication – and real dialogue that patently did not pay mere lip-service to the process. Technical issues were dealt with in plain English; and questions – no matter how awkward or difficult – were never ducked.
The ash-processing plant is now operational.
Client: Large international aluminium producer
Situation: Our client wished to build a waste ash processing plant on the site of their privately owned and operated coal-fired power station.
The proposed plant was designed to operate on green principles, taking vast tonnages of (previously) waste material (a by-product from the power station) and manufacturing a re-saleable product for use in the construction and road-building industries.
Background: Our client had operated on 2 large adjacent sites for more than 20 years.
These sites provided several hundreds of jobs in an unemployment blackspot. For that reason, our client was (reluctantly) welcomed and subsequently tolerated by the local community.
However – irrespective of the clients ongoing investment in (and adherence to) environmentally-sound working practices, there was still much local opposition to their presence.
When the plans for the new waste processing plant were announced, local opinion was firmly against the proposals. A well-organised campaign was created by local community leaders to fight the plans.
Our role: We were tasked with putting in place a programme to help our client turn around the negative, hostile response by the community.
It was agreed at the outset that a ‘good result’ would see the community accepting the proposal. It was not considered realistic to expect to turn public opinion actively in favour of the plan.
Timetable: Spring 2001 – Spring 2002
What we did: We produced an analysis of the local communities that would potentially be affected by our clients’ plans. Further, we determined the degrees by which each community might variously be affected.
This analysis identified three distinct groups:
1) The large community to the south of the proposed site
2) A smaller community to the north of the site
3) A smaller-still community closest to the proposed development.
We created and staged a series of public exhibitions for each community. Senior client representatives were on hand at each to discuss the proposal informally with members of the public and answer questions and concerns raised by the communities concerned. (All client personnel participating were fully briefed by our team in advance)
We issued personal invitations – hand-delivered to every home – to attend these exhibitions.
Additionally, representatives of the community likely to be most significantly affected were invited to visit the site itself and meet senior management. (This particular group were very well organised – and vocal – in their condemnation of our clients’ plans. The main issues were seen as noise, impact on the local roads network and air-borne pollution).
As a follow-on to the round of exhibitions and meetings, we wrote and produced a special edition of our clients’ magazine. This spelled out the proposal in detail – and answered the questions put by local people at the public events during the consultation period. This magazine was hand-delivered to more than 5,000 homes in the ‘affected’ areas.
We provided full and frank briefings to the local media, and arranged facilities visits for them – including arranging for the regional independent TV company to film extensively on site.
We attended public protest meetings in order to gauge public opinion and we reported our findings to the client after each event.
Outcome: The initial plans submitted by our client were rejected. Amendments were made to further address local, regulatory and operational concerns, the revised plans re-submitted and eventually planning permission was obtained.
As predicted at the outset, the granting of planning permission was met by a reserved, reluctant acceptance by the local communities.
This acceptance was achieved through a process of clear and transparent communication – and real dialogue that patently did not pay mere lip-service to the process. Technical issues were dealt with in plain English; and questions – no matter how awkward or difficult – were never ducked.
The ash-processing plant is now operational.