Today Bank’s Group said that it “formally commenced mining operations at their new Bradley surface mine.” Suggesting that planning permission has been triggered.
Local residents saw that Banks Group started working this morning in Brooms Pond which is a nature conservation value at County level, qualifying as Pond Biodiversity Action Plan. Campaigners have been racing to stop Banks triggering planning permission and Banks Group has been competing to get there before the 3rd June cut off date.
Tracy Gillman, who lives just 300m from the site boundary says, “Campaign to Protect Pont Valley know that there are significant anomalies in Banks’ procedures and processes in its reckless attempts to win coal from Pont Valley before its license runs out on the 3rd June. Today (18/05/17), Bank’s Mining released a statement saying that it has formally commenced the winning and working of minerals at its Bradley site in the Pont Valley, Durham.
The campaign against the opencast can still be won and this area protected. We will continue to take action and hold Banks Group and the relevant authorities to account.
As a local person I am appalled that Banks Group is disregarding our health, ignoring residents concerns about due process, damaging local biodiversity and that it is cutting corners to extract a fossil fuel which would push us over a dangerous two degree raise in global temperatures which has already triggered extreme weather events and international species loss. UK law says we have to reduce our reliance of fossil fuels and invest is sustainable alternatives.
The documents we have studied show that Banks has flouted rules and regulations clearly set out in the conditions of the approval. We do not believe that the commencement of planning has legally been triggered and we will continue our resistance.”
On the same day Durham Miners Association showed their support for the campaign against the opencast. Alan Cummings, Durham Miners Association Secretary says,
“The Durham Miners’ Association has opposed opencast mining for many decades and support the locally lead campaign to protect Pont Valley in Co. Durham.
It damaged deep mining in the past and now threatens to ruin our environment for no perceivable benefit.
Our communities have suffered enough with the decline of the coal industry and they do not need to have more injury added to insult.
There are deep mining projects reopening in various parts of England. So, there is little need to rip up the countryside to get coal.
We are still opposing and taking action against Banks Group’s destructive and divisive plans to destroy the Pont Valley for its own gain.”
Protests and actions continue against the opencast.
Campaign groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and 38 Degrees have challenged the recently appointed Secretary of State for Communities, James Brokenshire, to ‘act urgently to secure this government’s position as a world leader in phasing out coal’, by revoking the permit for an opencast coal mine set to go ahead in the Pont Valley, County Durham within weeks.
The organisations which represent hundreds of thousands of members, argued in a letter to the Secretary of State that allowing the extraction of a further 550,000 tonnes of coal in the UK would be a ‘retrograde step’.
[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.coalaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Open-Letter_-James-Brokenshire-re-Pont-Valley-Opencast-Coal-Mine2.pdf” title=”Open Letter_ James Brokenshire re Pont Valley Opencast Coal Mine(2)”] [pdf-embedder url=”https://www.coalaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Open-Letter-page-2_-James-Brokenshire-re-Pont-Valley-Opencast-Coal-Mine2.pdf” title=”Open Letter page 2_ James Brokenshire re Pont Valley Opencast Coal Mine(2)”]
Local residents block potential opencast coal site risking arrest to protect their community
This morning (15/05/18) two Durham residents living just 300m from the controversial Bradley opencast coal extraction, blocked the gates to the work site for three hours, before being dangerously moved by the police. Banks Group is trying to complete an access road and start extracting coal and the local people are trying to hamper its efforts. If the mine were to go ahead the dust billowing from it would put the health of the community at risk, by increasing asthma rates and other respiratory diseases.
The site has been the focus of intense protest since February, when Banks started to remove an ancient boundary hedge. Delayed by many weeks time is short for both the coal company and those fighting to stop the mine. If Banks do not complete the preparatory works by the 3rd June 2018 then planning permission will lapse and the valley be saved from the ravages of opencasting.
Neither of the residents has taken illegal direct action before, or been arrested but they felt that they have been left with no choice but to physically stop work.
One of the residents, who is part of the Campaign to Protect Pont Valley, ‘Bobbi’ said, “It has taken me a long time and a lot of thought to end up where I am today. I have watched this area, and the community in which I am very much part of, fight this opencast application for my whole life. I have enjoyed the valley from being a very small child, and can’t imagine it not being there for my children one day to enjoy.”
Banks Group announced at the beginning of January 2018 that it intends on working the opencast coal extraction which was given planning permission in June 2015 following two public inquiries.
Local people and those from further away have been trying to delay work and stop the mine by asking the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to revoke planning permission, pressing for police action to stop the wildlife crimes Banks Group are committing and appealing to Durham County Council.
The other person blocking the access road says, “My name is Thomas Davison and I live in Pont Valley only 300 meters away from the contested opencast project. I have the right to defend my house from earth tremors caused by frequent dynamite explosions. I have the right to defend my community from harmful dust pollution. I have the right to defend the wildlife and ecosystems I have grown up with my whole life that would be destroyed. I have the right to defend our global climate against the destructive burning of fossil fuels.”
Both residents feel that they have been pushed to take this form of action because they are not being listened to when other means have been used.
‘Bobbi’ continues, “I live 300m away from the site, this is something I feel incredibly strong about. We have tried all of the ‘correct’ paths. We have written countless letters, had support from council officials, and signed many petitions. Over the last five months we have consistently had the door slammed in our faces, everywhere we have turned. Every step forward feels like it has been followed by two steps back, and the paths that seem so promising seem to have bowed to the power and money in front of them. In my opinion we have no other option but to take Direct Action. I have not taken this decision lightly.”
“Banks Group want you to believe our campaign of over thirty years does not reflect views of local people. Today my neighbor and I are here to show otherwise. We are here on behalf of everyone who has fought for this campaign. I am sure Banks Group will still find some way to dismiss us, ignore us, tell you we are merely illegitimate protestors. I ask you to see us, hear us, join us and stand with us. Only together may we defeat this threat to the Pont Valley, this is not over we can still stop the opencast.” concludes Thomas. 
After three hours the police dangerously picked up and carried both people, still attached to the lock on to the otherside of the road. At this point the two unlocked as they were no longer affecting work on the site. The police carried them without using boards to prevent injury and both people cried out in pain.
The Campaign to Protect Pont Valley continues to fight to stop this ecologically destructive project which would contribute to climate change causing mass extinctions as well as hurting the health and well being of the community it is located within. Want to get involved? Contact info@coalacton.org.uk
The Campaign to Protect Pont Valley is still going strong. Despite their best efforts Banks Group has not finished the preparation which triggers planning permission. Everything is still to play for.
Please come to one of the up coming community demonstrations. On Saturday 5th May the community demonstration was also direct action as no work happened on the site. Direct action doesn’t have to be confrontational, other forms of action can also still have an impact.
Demonstrations are happening opposite Our Lady and Saint Joseph Church, on the A692 between Dipton and Leadgate. DH8 6RS.
Bring a picnic to share, your friends and family and a kite, or make one while you’re there.
Have you musical talent? Let’s belt it out. There will be some songs we can all join in with too.
Hear the skylarks, see the hare, admire the valley and all its residents
We’ve been supporting the Campaign to Protect Pont Valley by trying to get local authorities to step in to stop the wildlife crime occurring – the destruction of Great Crested Newt habitats which is already occurring as preparatory work gets underway.
By now you’ve all seen our lovely picture of Carol the newt that was found on site two days before Banks moved in.
What most people haven’t seen are the documents below which we obtained by a freedom of information request, which show Natural England expressing to Banks Group back in June 2017, that despite the negative result for great crested newts, in their opinion, it is likely that they are still on site…
[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.coalaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Page1-Annotated-Meeting-Summary-Notes-from-Monday-12-June-between-Banks-Group-and-Natural-England_Redacted.pdf” title=”Page1 Annotated Meeting Summary Notes from Monday 12 June between Banks Group and Natural England_Redacted”]
If you’re not sure how Natural England reached this conclusion, take a look at DEFRA’s own report on eDNA surveys (like the one used by Banks Group) explaining how they can draw a ‘false negative’ conclusion in shallow water. Remember this was the third hottest May (2017) since records began.
Natural England go on to recommend relocation options for the newts, more or less discounting the scenario (Option 1) in which newts aren’t there…
[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.coalaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Annotated-page-2-Meeting-Summary-Notes-from-Monday-12-June-between-Banks-Group-and-Natural-England_Redacted.pdf” title=”Annotated page 2 Meeting Summary Notes from Monday 12 June between Banks Group and Natural England_Redacted”]
Over 4000miles from the Kuzbass to Aberthaw power station
Coal production around the world is falling. In the UK we have just seen three full days where no electricity was generated by coal, the longest period since the 1880s. Yet in Russia extraction of coal is increasing. Russia is the main country importing coal to the UK, supplying 49%.
This increase most affects the people living closest to the coalfields. In the Russian Kuzbass region this is the Shor, Teleut and Russian peoples. A new report from the Coal Action Network and Fern, Slow Death in Siberia shows the impact on these people. An additional supplement, Slow Death in Siberia – how the UK is complicit, shows how the UK’s government and utilities are complicit in the destruction.
Slow death in Siberia depicts entire villages being destroyed, mountains of coal ‘waste’ dominating the land and dust permeating everything. The indigenous Shor were dependent on wildlife for their subsistent way of life, sustainable over the generations.
Now vast opencast coal mines push them out of their territories and force them into a reliance on paid work often in the very coal mines which have destroyed their traditional ways of life and continues to damage their health.
Valentina Boriskina by Sally Low.
Larissa Myzhakova, a Shor person living in Chuvashka said, “Everyone is working in the mines. Shor and Russian, we all depend on mining to put food in our mouths, but at the same time they [the mines] are killing us.”
The UK burns more coal from Russia than from any other country, 49% of the coal consumed here.1 This makes the UK the world’s third biggest importer of Kuzbass coal importing 10.87 million tonnes in 2016. Colombia is the second biggest source of the coal imported to the UK.
The paramilitary violence and breathing difficulties caused by coal mining in Colombia has been well documented, but as yet the situation in Russia’s main mining region for export has received little attention. Following the Coal Action Network’s 2016 report, Ditch Coal, Vladimir Slivyak of Russia’s Ecodefense toured the UK speaking of the human and ecological disasters caused by our coal addition.
Late in 2017 I visited the Kuzbass region with Daria Andreeva from Fern, photographer Sally Low and translator Ekaterina S. to see first hand the impacts of coal mining on the indigenous people and the ecosystems they live within. Despite months of research into the situation in the Kuzbass, seeing it from the ground was heart breaking.
Coal contamination in Mrassu River by Coal Action Network
Larissa Myzhakova a native of Chuvashka, “Even three years ago I took my family to the Balshoy Kizas river, but now it has turned black [with coal dust and waste]. There is a lake where we used to swim, now I wouldn’t even touch the water, it is oily and so polluted from the coal which runs off the Kiyzasskiy mine.”
Location of Kuzbass Coal mines and ports
Our party focussed our research on the indigenous Shor village of Chuvashka, but visited enough other communities to see that what Chuvashka experienced was a common theme.
By comparison to UK opencast coal mines these mines are far wider, deeper and destroy more land as they are not backfilled, material which isn’t coal is piled by the mine edges and billows dust over the communities which it lies intentionally close to. The Kuzbass is not densely populated, but companies prefer to mine close to residential areas as it keeps costs down as existing utilities, labour and transport can be exploited.
The landscape in this part of the southern Kuzbass is forested, the taiga comes down to the village boundary and now to the edges of the opencasts. Imposing cedars and majestic silver birch once were king, but the cedar needs clean air and has died near the extractions. The taiga is in decline, its residents have retreated, dust fills the space once occupied by bird song. The river seems dead.
Larissa continues, “My children have decided to leave this place, our native lands, because of the very bad ecological situation. But I will remain here and won’t go anywhere. Why should we have to go to other lands? This is our territory. We are the indigenous people. What tree can survive without roots? If they destroy Chuvashka, what is our reason to live?”
Logging the taiga by D. Andreeva
Coal Action Network’s research shows that the coal mined in the Kuzbass was likely to have been burnt in the UK’s biggest power station Drax; RWE npower’s Aberthaw power station and Uniper’s Ratcliffe on Soar power station in 2017, in other years EDF’s Cottam and West Burton power stations also burnt it.
There is no transparency of coal supply to the UK. Vostock Coal which operates Kiyzassky opencast mine and contaminates Chuvashka ignored requests to confirm whether its coal reaches the UK. 50% of Vostock Coal’s products are exported, to the “foreign markets of Western Europe and Asia- Pacific”. When asked only Aberthaw power station admitted to burning Kuzbass coal, including from CarboOne which exports coal from Balchasky opencast, the largest in the Southern Kuzbass.
The indigenous people living in Chuvashka were keen to speak with us so that people living far from their area, but consuming their coal resources could hear of their plight. Valentina Boriskina, a former school teacher lamented, “The Shors are children of nature, completely in tune with the land. We believe that the forests, rivers, mountains, plants and soil all have souls. But mining has destroyed all of this and so destroyed our culture. It feels like these souls have turned their backs on me.”
Balchasky opencast by Coal Action Network
Russia leads the world in deforestation: between 2001 and 2016 the country lost more forest than any other – during this period it lost 49.51 million hectares of tree cover, followed by Brazil (46.37 million hectares), and Canada (36.01 million hectares). And in the taiga of southern Kuzbass, a major driver of this is coal mining.
The taiga here was a low density forest populated with cedar trees, birches, Siberian pines and larches. Wolverines, foxes, lynx, sable, brown bears, red deer and roe deer all ran wild, and the area was biologically diverse. It had been blessed with wetlands, streams and wide slow-moving rivers which are all being destroyed in the pursuit of coal.
Alexander Myzhakov by Sally Low
Valentina’s neighbour Alexander Myzhakov asks, “Where do we go? There is nowhere to go and so we keep going as before. Even if our livestock can’t live here we will stay and see how we can survive. I hope that the mining will stop, but hope eventually dies.” Alexander’s original village, Kruya was destroyed decades ago by opencast mining, now his current village is threatened with complete destruction following years of encroaching mines and a contaminated ecosystem.
Russia is the world’s third largest coal exporter. Since the bulk of Russia’s coal deposits lie in Kuzbass, the region is the epicentre of the industry’s current expansion. Kuzbass provides 59 per cent of Russia’s total coal output, and in 2017 coal production there rose by 6.2 per cent on the year before. Much of the coal produced in Kuzbass is destined for export with Europe, despite promises of coal phase-outs.
The price paid for this coal is high, several villages, including Kazas less than 3km from Chuvashka, have been destroyed. The community did not consent to leave Kazas, “People wanted to stay as that is where the cemetery is, where our dead lie,” explains Yana Tannagasheva who has since had to flea Europe as the threats and intimidation extended to her children and she has had to seek political asylum. Prior to this round of repression homes were burnt to the ground in Kazas, now surviving family members can only access the graves of their ancestors when the will of the armed guards protecting the opencast allow them to.
Sat in the homes of members of the community committed to slowing the spread of the opencast local people confide to us that they want all the mines to close. Publicly they are more pragmatic and say that they are asking for an end to coal exports out of Russia, as they are desperate for change and willing to risk everything for small improvements. They know Russia can’t possibly consume all of this coal.
“If the mining companies would listen I would tell them that the mines need to be closed down. The owners of the companies need to stop chasing the rouble and protect nature and people, not destroy it all by taking the resources. There is no deficit of coal, but there is a huge deficit of untouched nature, ecology and clean water,” pleads Shor villager Alexander Myzhakov.
Kuzbass Mining by Slava Stepanov
The UK government says that it will phase-out coal in 2025. That’s nearly another eight more years of coal, and unless something changes much of it will be coming from the Kuzbass. Several NGOs contributed to the UK phase-out consultation asking for action on the coal supply chain, but this was not included in the report concluding the consultation. Once again the human and local ecological issues of mining have been ignored in favour of international but no less dramatic climate impacts.
The people of the Kuzbass are not afraid to challenge the mining companies over the violations of their rights and land. They creatively protest in a country which tries to quell any alternative voices. Through Ecodefense’s work they are now networking and have incredibly managed in the last month to stop a new opencast coal mine to the North of Chuvashka. Planning permission had already been granted and the land owners territory was to be removed but lawyers have stopped the mine, giving hope to other communities.
Hannah Mowat, Fern’s campaign coordinator concludes “Destroying forests that billions of humans and creatures depend on is a travesty – but felling them for the coal beneath is even worse, and a double whammy for the climate. The EU has committed to ending deforestation by 2020, and has also committed to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. Yet here is a devastating example where EU consumption is felling forests, as well as their indigenous defenders for one of the dirtiest products on earth – coal”.
“To the people who ultimately consume the electricity produced I’d say use alternative energy sources and modern technology. I understand that energy is needed but there must be other ways than by opencast coal mining. Coal may be needed but the costs of exploiting it are too high and it is destroying people’s means of subsistence,” concludes Alexander Myzhakov.
1HMRC (2018) UK Trade Data 01 January 2017 to 31 December 2017.
La vallée anglaise est menacée par l’ouverture prochaine d’une mine de charbon à ciel ouvert, nocive pour le climat et mettant en danger une espèce protégée de triton.
Mais tout n’est pas perdu: si la route d’accès qui doit être construite jusqu’au 3 juin n’est pas terminée à cette date, la permission d’ouvrir la mine expirera. La compagnie Banks Mining devra alors recommencer toutes les demandes à zéro et s’exposera à un fort risque de refus de la part des autorités.
C’est là que l’on a besoin de vous: le plus d’activistes rejoignent le camp de protestation, le plus d’actions seront lancées pour ralentir la construction de la route, le plus de chance nous avons d’arrêter leur projet destructeur.
Les habitants de la région et les activistes travaillent dur ensemble pour sauver le triton crêté et la magnifique nature de la vallée encore sauvage, ainsi que pour empêcher le rejet dans l’atmosphère de tout le CO2 qu’occasionnerait la combustion du charbon.
À l’heure où le changement climatique créé déjà de terribles sécheresses et des guerres, il est impensable de laisser de nouvelles mines êtres ouvertes.
Alors si le cœur vous en dit, rejoignez le camp de protestation pour sauver Pont Valley.
Tout le monde y est bienvenu, que ce soit pour cuisiner, peindre une banderole, préparer une action ou juste remonter le moral de tout le monde avec quelques histoires drôles en buvant une tasse de thé.
Localisation: Pontop Hall, Dipton, County Durham, DH9 9ED.
Que prendre avec: des habits chauds car la région est très exposée au vent, une tente, un sac de couchage.
Plus d’infos (en anglais) sur la page facebook du camp:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/211602879584065
This is a shared statement from the protectors of the Pont Valley detailing our experiences of the eviction and the dangerous and abusive behaviour we experienced and witnessed from the enforcement officers, police, and Banks Group employees.
The April 19th-20th eviction of Pont Valley Protection Camp was enforced by Banks Group so they can build the infrastructure to extract coal from the Valley. All of our actions have been done in reaction to Banks Groups’ total disregard of local concerns, the protected species that inhabit the Pont Valley, and the global threat of climate change as they aim to carry out their plans. For the past 30 years local people have been legally campaigning against the planned opencast mine. A recent petition signed by over 80,000 people to the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, received no concrete response. Our direct action is the last resort in a long and difficult campaign against opencast mining in the area.
Now we demand action to be taken for the reckless and irresponsible activities, committed by the enforcement officers and police, due to the demands of Banks Group. It is clear that the council and police are only concerned with protecting the profit driven interests of Banks Group over our safety and the protected species of the area.
The enforcement officers were completely unprepared. They lacked the skills and expertise to evict the site. Yet the choice was still taken, by the council, the police, and Banks Group, to do the eviction despite having the ability to leave and return more prepared. This would have ensured the safety of the protectors and the workers. The impetus to do the eviction at such speed, regardless of people’s safety, can only be explained by Banks’ desire to begin work as quickly as possible; meeting the requirements of the planning permission.
The protectors that placed themselves in the tunnels, the lock-ons, the tree and the tripod, understand the standard conduct and protocol taken to safely remove people from such devices. None of this was met. Instead the eviction was committed with such negligence that, for those who self-released, believed it was only through choosing to remove themselves that serious bodily harm was avoided.
Both individuals in the tunnels (T1&2) witnessed breaches of safety, a lack of protocol, and unacceptable behaviour. Despite numerous warnings from the beginning, by supporters and resident legal observers, no checks were carried out to assess the number of people in the tunnels, or the size of the tunnels. The tunnels were of the same design with a vertical shaft roughly two metres deep, with a tunnel in one direction so the protectors could sit with their legs stretched. They were both dug into clay, but because there were no supports, additional weight to the tunnels was extremely dangerous.
The protector in T1 has stated that the enforcement officers never knew nor made any attempts to understand the workings of the tunnel, yet made the assumption that it was only her inside. No efforts were made to access the actual nature of the tunnel. The protector in T2 has stated that the enforcement officers had no experience in dealing with tunnels. “From what they said to each other they had never come across anything like them (the tunnels) and didn’t know how to proceed with them. Despite that, one bailiff attempted to climb into the tunnel without a harness or a torch, even though there was no space to stand except on top of me. After that no attempt was made to inspect the tunnel beyond the downward shaft. So basically they had no idea how deep the tunnels were or where they went”.
Despite the concerns raised by supporters and legal observers, and the failure to access the nature of the tunnels, the police and Banks Group allowed for heavy machinery to be brought dangerously close to the tunnels. Both protectors reported feeling the vibrations from the machinery. T1 moved her legs out of the tunnel due to the fear of it collapsing. T2 has stated that “at one point, one of the bailiffs said that they were going to put a metal sheet over the tunnel to allow machines to pass over me”. This is not a common intimidation tactic but clear ignorance, dangerously risking the lives of T1&2. The protectors in the Tree House (TH) and the tripod (TP) could see how close the vehicles were to the tunnels. From the tree, TH1 has reported seeing a digger standing close to one of the women in the lock on under the tripod (TP). The use of heavy machinery so close to a tunnel, with no understanding of its nature, is negligence. TP also questioned the scaffolders as they began carrying the scaffolding equipment over the tunnel to the tripod. “I asked him if he thought it was dangerous to be carrying scaffolding over the tunnel to which he only shrugged and offered me no concrete answer. It was clear that neither he nor any of those commanding him were aware of any of the implications that such actions would have for the person in the tunnel”.
A failure to take adequate safety measures was also demonstrated in the lack of equipment provided to T1&2. The lack of awareness demonstrated by the police, enforcement officers, and Banks Group placed themselves, as well as the protectors, in danger. Enforcement officers, amongst others, were continually passing over and past the tunnel closest to the tripod. Despite T1 repeatedly asking for cones to be put up around the tunnels edge, it was only when an enforcement officer tripped and nearly fell into the tunnel that any precautions were taken. Neither T1 nor T2 were given safety glasses or protective blankets. This is negligence considering that dirt was constantly falling inside the tunnel; from those walking too close to them, vibrations from the heavy machinery and the removal of the tents with no care given to any of the repercussions of these actions. T1 repeatedly asked for safety glasses and despite being offered some, first by an enforcement officer and then a police officer, was not at any stage provided with them. The failure to provide safety equipment suggests that there simply was none. All protectors in lock on devices on the ground experienced the lack of necessary safety equipment.
The lack of care was also displayed in comments made by the enforcement officers. T2 heard the enforcement officers discussing how tired they were. “One of the first things I heard from a number of bailiffs that left me concerned was that they were all really tired from previous work. One said that he had been awake since 11am the previous day (Wednesday 18th)”. This demonstrates the complete lack of care from the council and Banks Group for their employees as well as the protectors of the Pont Valley.
Unprofessional behaviour was also demonstrated in the continual abuse and threats made to the protectors by the enforcement officers. T2 has said how verbal abuse and threats were made regularly to encourage him to leave the tunnel. These included suggesting to “jump on top of me and break my arm in the lock on and drag me out”; and “hopefully it will rain tonight so he gets drowned out”. T1 heard how the enforcement officers were complaining about how hard it was to get her out and how they wished they could use “waterboarding and napalm” on her and her fellow protectors. She has also stated hearing them laughing about using pressure points and how they have used violent tactics on previous jobs. The enforcement officers “joked and bragged about how one had body surfed with their knee to someone’s throat on another job”. At the end of the day they were discussing what they were going to go home and eat. One said “I’m going to go and eat a curry and then come shit on you in the morning”.
Both protectors in the ground lock ons (GL) also suffered from the failure of the enforcement officers to adhere to safety standard and from abusive language directed at them.
GL1&2 were not given eye protection straight away despite the enforcement officers immediately attempting to break apart the concrete with shovels and hammers. It was only when they started to use power tools on the lock on that eye protection was offered. One officer endangered himself and all those around him by giving GL2 his protective glasses, despite the fact he was operating power tools.
Safety blankets were eventually given after the insistence of the protectors yet these were too small to cover the GLs bodies and were also made of ineffective material. Neither of the women were given ear defenders nor were any of the enforcement officers using such despite bringing out what they described as “the big boy tools” i.e. power tools.
The lack of any protocol was demonstrated in the apparent frustration of the officers in their inability to cut through the lock on. They continually attempted to pull both members of the GL out of the lock on regardless of the two protectors cries of pain and telling the officers they were chained inside the lock on (what they were doing was simply tightening chains around their wrists). One of the protectors in the lock on has stated that;
“They wanted to pressure me to remove my arm from the lock on. They would not believe that the chain was wrapped around my wrist, they just thought I was grabbing onto it so they kept pulling on my arm even though I repeatedly told them, even swearing, that I was not holding onto the chain. They used a certain amount of violence; applying pressure on pressure points to force me to cooperate… They then understood that only by relaxing my arm; the chain could maybe slide off. By this time my hand had swollen because of how much the officers had tightened the chain. They then proceeded by spilling down some water into the lock on despite my protests. This obviously didn’t help free my arm but just made it more uncomfortable for me. At this stage I was no longer able to move my arm as I was in so much pain.”
GL1&2’s lock on tubes were made of sheets of carpet, concrete and metal tubing. Moving them without care or caution could have had serious implications for the protectors chained to them. Yet the enforcement officers acted with cruelty, even laughing when GL2 said that their plans to cut out the bottom of the tube could have cut off her fingers. The most blatant breach of safety regulations was that the enforcement officers removed GL2 by wrapping a chain around the tube and attaching it to a digger, pulling it out with the force of the moving digger. This can only be due to their want to speed up the process as much as possible. None of us have ever even heard of such tactics being used to remove a lock on device. Her details of this event are as followed;
“They then decided to use a digger to accelerate their work and remove me from the lock on. This was really scary and dangerous because using such a big machine would mean that there wasn’t much precision or control in the work. My arm was in a lot of pain and I was just hoping that the metal tube wouldn’t move to quickly as it would break my arm. They used the digger to first remove the other lock on and some concrete. Then they wrapped a chain around the tube and attached the end of the chain to a digger. They then proceeded to pull on the chain to lift the lock on with my arm inside. At this point, the officers had acknowledged that the chain could possibly slip off from the tube and cut through my shoulder with the metal tube falling back and breaking my arm. But they didn’t seem to care enough to stop. As they lifted the tube I also had to slowly move with it in order not to break my arm. The officers had then planned to pull up the tube with my arm in it and drag the whole thing on the digger to the police station and then to the hospital to cut open the tube and free my arm. This whole experience was accompanied by the mocking, bullying and cruelty of the officers watching me cry in pain. They used unnecessary violence and they seemed to want to get their work done as early as possible regardless of whether or not what they were doing was dangerous.”
Not only were these actions a serious danger to the life of GL2 but also to T1 just metres away. The protector in the tree house, TH1, described what they saw;
“At one point the bucket of the digger looked to be about 1 metre away from the person in the lock on under the tripod. It was there for a considerable amount of time. I found out afterwards they were trying to pull the lock on away with the digger while someone was in it. This would have broken her arm. Also this was very close to the tunnel, around 3 metres, and could have caused the tunnel to collapse”.
WB1 also witnessed the events that occurred during the removal of GL1&2;
“I saw lots of physical force used against GL1&2 as they were being cut out. Three men were holding one of the women down at a time, they were screaming in pain and that they were hurting her, and they just kept going and said they could just unclip etc. They kept trying to pull their arms out, even though they told them it would not let their arms out.
They used heavy machinery less than 2 metres away from the tunnel. I saw them wrapping a huge chain around the sleeping dragon lock on and attaching it to a digger, which they then reversed out, pulling the lock on with the woman’s arm still inside. She shouted she needed someone to physically support her because of the position, which after a little while they decided to do. They dragged the lock on over ground with the heavy machinery with her clipped on and one of the construction workers or enforcement men who were positioned directly behind her made movements as if to rape her. I saw she had to use a long stick to loosen the lock on chain to be able to unclip. During this whole thing there were often between 6 – 18 men standing above her using verbal intimidation and belittling. (NB: kill them all.)
When I questioned a bailiff about their duty of care after seeing them be physically violent to another lock on, he said they don’t have a duty of care to us unless we are unconscious or equivalently unable to look after ourselves.”
A lack of professionalism was also demonstrated in the threats and comments made by the enforcement officers. To GL the officers stated they would “cut their arms off” instead of removing them safely. They also demonstrated their unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour in the sexist and abusive comments made to the women. To one they stated she should “go home, shower and shave hers legs”. Another stated to the same woman that “I’d rather not stroke her furry legs”. They also made an implicit sexual reference towards the other woman joking, “Don’t touch her bits or she’ll file a complaint”. To the same woman the enforcement officers touched her breast and lower back without consent.
This reckless and macho behaviour was further demonstrated after GL1&2 had been arrested. T1 overheard the enforcement officers discussing the two women in a “sexual and vile way”. They laughed about the idea of one of the women “being finger banged by their cousin” in which someone else joined in about it being with a “butch dyke”. The enforcement officers continued the conversation with “two in the kitty one in the shitty” and “don’t lose your wrist watch”. T1 commented that “I was so angry I didn’t know what to do. I wanted a legal observer but obviously the police would not allow this”. This behaviour is completely unacceptable and the fact that such carelessness and abuse was allowed to go on unchecked by the police, the council, and Banks Group only serves to demonstrate that all parties enforcing this eviction had no care for the welfare of any individuals involved.
The protectors in the bin lock on (B1&2) also experienced and witnessed dangerous and abusive behaviour from the enforcement officers, and a serious lack of care from the Police Liaison Officers.
After the removal of the tent around WB1&2, the enforcement officers removed their food bucket, placing it out of reach 2 metres away. At the same time they removed WB2’s wellies which were on the ground next to him and took these off site, despite being asked not to do so. They also removed the sleeping bags and roll mats that WB1&2 were lying on, leaving them 1.5 metres away. When WB1 told them they were entitled to welfare, an officer responded “welfare?! What welfare? It’s all over here. Come and get it if you want it!” After about 10 minutes they took the stuff off site. WB1&2 spent the rest of the day and night lying on pallets and got sunburn from having no cover. No safety equipment was provided to either protector in the lock on
The lack of skills to dismantle the defences was evident with the failure of one of the men (an assumed Banks’ employee) to understand what a lock on was. WB1 has stated that when she asked the person who came over to the lock ons with tools to commence work if he has seen a lock on before, he did not know what she meant. When she clarified that she meant the device they were locked on to, he replied “no, I’ve never seen one of these before”. He then proceeded ineffectively to chip away at the concrete with a jackhammer. While they were working on the lock on, inadequate safety equipment was provided. WB2 received glasses for eye protection, and WB1 received a thin plastic blanket.
WB1&2 also experienced similar intimidatory tactics that were inflicted on the other protectors. Later on, other enforcement officers came over to WB and discussed the best way to get into the lock on. They said they should put the wheelie bin full of concrete on its side. WB1 has stated “I said very clearly, that if they do that it will break our arms. They responded we “could just unclip”. They were extremely keen to do this until a bailiff with more power came over and said they couldn’t do that as it would break our wrists.”
The enforcement officers also repeatedly told them they would be charged with crimes that conflicted with information provided by the police. The enforcement officers mocked WB1&2, telling them they had already lost, what they were doing was pointless and that it was not worth it. One claimed to own land with biodiversity and said there was none here and it was a dead zone not worth defending.
The Police Liaison Officers (PLO’s) also failed in their duty of care, and despite claiming to be there to ensure the welfare of the protectors, failed to do so. After around 6 hours of being locked on, male and female PLO’s asked WB1&2 if they needed anything. WB1 asked for their food bucket which was 2 metres away. However, they denied any ability to bring it over to her and walked away, no further help was offered.
After the work was done for the day the enforcement officers put harris fencing around WB1&2. Sometime after dark, maybe 8-9.30pm, the enforcement officers offered WB1&2 bananas, which they placed just under the fence, out of reach of the protectors.
As the enforcement officers had previously taken away all their sleeping bags and mats, WB1&2 had no blankets for several hours into the night. They only received blankets after BBC were filming T1 by the fence and asked if she had what she needed, to which WB1 shouted out they needed blankets. After this, a local person managed to get the enforcement officers to give them some blankets.
The experience of the protectors in the Tree House (TH) contrasts the other protectors since due to the enforcement officers being physically unable to reach the TH a separate specialist team had to be drafted in. The climbing removal team was directly employed by Banks Group yet it was only the team itself, not their employers Banks Group, which ensured that the operation was carried out safely and correctly. In contrast to the actions of the enforcement officers, the team that were employed to remove TH1&2 only emphasized the need for us to voice our grievances with the actions taken by the enforcement officers, Banks Group and the police during the eviction. This was only due to Banks Group being forced to pay for a professional team to come up from Surrey. Both TH1&2 felt they were treated respectfully and that a clear protocol and safety conduct was followed during the removal of the lock on. Although we do not agree with tree climbers who make a living off companies who want to cut down the very trees they climb, the climbing team did not seriously endanger the lives of the protectors through their own actions. This was despite the wishes of Banks Group, who wanted the removal operatives to work faster than they could safely. TH1 witnessed a conversation between removal operatives in the tree and on the ground, “They (i.e. Banks Group) don’t want us to take an hour and a half, more like 10 minutes as they want it done fast”, the reply of the Removal operatives in the tree house was, “It won’t take an hour and a half, but we are doing it safely”.
Throughout the day of the 19th, Lewis Stokes, the community relations manager for Banks Group, attempted to talk the protectors down from the tree. He claimed that he could get reduced sentences for the individuals; even going so far to say that he would have words with the police and they would not receive any charges. Lewis Stokes’ also made the same promises to T2, as well as manipulating the truth to try and convince T2 to unlock. After failing to convince T2 with promises of reduced sentences, Stokes threatened him with the claim that a digger would come to dig the protector out and that he would suffer a higher charge. This forces us to question the relation between Banks Group and the police since no ordinary person would have such powers. It also calls into question what Lewis Stokes’ role actually is considering he has failed in his duties as community relations manager. He has only met with 2 out of the 18 residents of Douglas and Hedley Terrace, the closest residents to the planned mine, and there is little evidence of him reaching any other nearby communities. He has claimed to wish to start a dialogue with the locals yet this dialogue only has one condition; that the mine will go ahead. We have considerable footage of Lewis Stokes attempting to talk the individuals down from the tree. Hence calling in a professional team, and ensuring the safety of the protectors in the tree, can only have been the least desirable response by Banks Group.
During direct action, Legal observers are required to record any events during the actions as well as providing welfare to those in need. In this eviction, their role was completely restricted to the other side of the road, allowing for the aforementioned breaches in safety and abusive behaviour to go on unchecked. Contradictory information was continually fed to them by the police and enforcement officers limiting their abilities to fulfil their legal role. Two of the Resident Legal Observers documented their experiences as follows;
“The Police Liaison Officers (PLO’s) claimed that Durham Constabulary had insisted we, as legal observers, could not cross the road to see to the well-being of protectors and that the PLO had been tasked to ensure health and safety and promised to keep us regularly updated. They didn’t. We kept having to ask – it’s all on my FB live stream. Later I found out from a protector that two PLO’s had actively ignored their requests.
Although the night time shift of police were prepared to turn a blind eye to us possibly throwing supplies over the fence. Their jurisdiction ended at the fence and thereafter it was under the enforcement officers or bailiff’s rules. They, when politely asked, refused to convey chips to the protectors until after a protracted negotiation we managed to get chips and blankets through.
Another local witnessed bailiffs trying to intimidate the protector in the caravan (7) by shining headlights continually into caravan. They stopped after the local requested them not to.”
“Firstly, on both days, the number of Resident Legal Observers (RLO) was insufficient to cover the area of the protest and RLOs were not allowed close enough to protectors to fulfil their role effectively;
Secondly, the enforcement of S35 was not initially explained to those who needed to understand it and reasons given for removal of members of the public exercising their right to protest peacefully, or even observe, appeared to be unwarranted.
Thursday 19th April:
I and another RLO were restricted to coming no closer than the white line in the middle of the (closed) road (A692). Independent press were not allowed closer either; despite corporate media being granted this access. Initially a number of RLOs were allowed to be within the restricted area. I was unable to perform the role of RLO effectively as private bailiffs and police prevented me from locating myself close enough to the protesters to hear what was being said by them and to them. When the number of RLOs allowed on the closed area was decreased to 2, in effect I took on the additional role of Police Liaison, making it all the more difficult to effectively observe what was going on. The size of the area of protest and the number of locations within the area made it impossible for the two RLO to monitor the actions of bailiffs and police and to observe the protesters.
On a number of occasions, I could see that only bailiffs were with the ‘locked-on’ protectors and requested that the Police Liaison Officers went to observe.
Friday 20th April:
Both RLOs and press were moved to the opposite side (south side) of the A692. From this vantage point traffic noise prevented anyone on the south side of the road hearing anything on the north side.
PC 2366 explained people were required to move to the ‘official’ protest site a distance away because they “were not safe” on the pavement. At this point there were 6-7 people. I asked PC 2366 how many protesters she could see; she said “a few”. A BBC reporter also queried the reason for not being allowed closer to the fence on the North side of the road.
7.42: police cordon lining up in front of tree. Inspector (Insp) 708 appears to be in command. G, also an older man, was hitting a drum, making noise on the north side of the road near the tree house. I observed Insp 708 put his hand on G’s back and physically move him. When G protested that he had been pushed Insp 708 vehemently denied having touched G.
A young woman, H appeared to pretend to trip off the curb when a police officer put his hand on her back and pushed her.
9.08: H and male partner, walking along road nearer to A693 junction, issued S35 and told to leave.
9.23: I was chatting to A who was eating a bean wrap. PLO issued A with a S35. BBC reported MD queried why A had been told to leave as she was on the side of the road we had been told to move to.
PLO Caroline again explained about there being too many people. There were 4 members of the public at that time who were not RLO or Press. This included a man, C, in navy, who stood quietly throughout leaning against a fence. No one seemed to notice him.
10.18: L and G, both older men, were issued S35s. They were sitting on a wall on the south side of the A692 chatting quietly.
When S, a woman in her 70s, asked why S35s were being issued PLO, Steve, explained that there was a concern over numbers of protesters. The only member of the public at that point who was not a RLO or press was S.
11.46 PLO Terry explaining that only 2 RLOs were allowed and Press. Some confusion over status of S, who had a press card. PLO Terry talked about risk of anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder. He explained that anyone who considered themselves to be a ‘protester’ needed to move to the ‘official’ protest site, he added, ‘ideally’ protesters need to be in the allocated area. PLO Caroline said, more and more people could come.
A disabled man, L, was questioned about his continuing presence, as he had said he’d only be there for 15 minutes. It appeared that officers were about to issued him a S35 too. L explained he was waiting to meet a DCC Councillor and she’d not yet arrived. He was allowed to stay.
11.59 Specialists arrive and begin sawing branches from tree.”
The PLO’s had visited the camp consistently over the time of its existence. Each time they came and stated to the locals and residents of the camp that they were they for the protection of all. Yet none of them enabled the RLO’s to carry out their observations so that both the enforcement officers and protectors could be held accountable for their actions. The PLO’s failed to provide any assurance to the RLO’s that correct procedure and conduct was being followed. It became clear to all of us, those positioned in the defences, acting as RLO’s or members of the public, that neither the PLO’s nor the police were acting for the safety of all those involved. Had they been they would have stopped the process of eviction as soon as it became clear, which was almost immediately, that safety protocol was not being fulfilled. They would have also taken seriously the concerns of both protectors and supporters that they were ultimately aiding Banks Group in committing a wildlife crime. The police at the site were continually told of the evidence that the protected species of great crested newt had been found on the site. 999 and 101 were also repeatedly told of the crime. Yet no response was given. This only furthers the need for direct action since the law in this case was only acting for the interests of Banks Group. If this was not the case all members of police at the site would have taken the concerns for the protected species as well as the safety of the protectors seriously.
During the eviction of the Pont Valley Protection Camp on 19th and 20th April, the law was abused by the enforcement officers and other workers employed to carry out Banks’ wishes. Dangerous actions, intimidation tactics and verbal and sexist abuse was experienced and witnessed by all the protectors that were defending the site.
Some may argue, as the enforcement officers did time and time again, that we should have just unclipped if we really felt in danger. However, although we chose to remain locked on, we know that the enforcement officers have a duty by law to follow correct safety procedure. We also believe that the abusive language that was directed at us throughout the eviction is unjustifiable in any situation, whether or not we were choosing to lock on.
Although we understand that some will not agree with our tactics, we wish to state that we only took these measures when all other means of protest had been exhausted and ignored by the police, the state, and Banks’ Group. Direct action that breaks the law has been used as a platform throughout history to create meaningful change within society. Now, in the face of the global threat of climate change, the right to a sustainable future for our environment must be won. We believe that it is right to break laws that enable profit driven companies like Banks Group to carry out environmental devastation. The planning for the open cast at Druridge Bay was rejected on the grounds of climate change and we believe the same ruling is needed for Pont Valley. More than this, the campaigners who have been fighting these plans for over the past 30 years deserve to have their voices heard and respected.
Forest, coal and environmental justice activists gathered outside Drax Plc’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) in York today(25/04/18). There was a simultaneous protest in Liverpool, where biomass wood pellets arrive at Peel Port from the southern US before being taken to be burnt at Drax Power Station by train.
Drax is the biggest consumer of coal in the UK. It now also burns wood pellets, which make up 70% of the energy it produces.
Having converted four of its units to biomass since 2009, Drax is now the largest burner of wood for electricity in the world, for which it received £729 million in government subsidies in 2017, paid out of a surcharge on electricity bills. Last year the company announced plans to substantially rebuild its remaining two coal-fired units to run on gas, which will require further subsidies.
Drax burns coal from four countries. The USA, domestically mined coal, Colombia and Russia supply coal in decreasing proportions. The monster power stations hunger for coal is causing huge issues for people living close to the opencast and deep mines which supply the power station and ecological destrcution.
The Campaign to Protect Pont Valley is currently trying to stop a new opencast coal mine opening in Bradley in Durham. The issues faced here are common to communities fighting UK opencast. Problems include dust contamination causing health issues, increased HGV traffic, noise and light pollution and the complete destruction of the land which has deep meaning for local people.
In the Kuzbass region of Russia, the main coal field exporting to the UK coal is causing cultural genocide of the indigenous Shor and Teleut people who are displaced from their land and the wildlife which they live in harmony with is frightened away, rivers are polluted and communities degraded.
Drax and its primary US supplier Enviva have recently come under fire after Channel 4’s Dispatches programme exposed the clearcutting of biodiverse forests to be made into pellets in Virginia.
Duncan Law from Biofuelwatch said, “Burning trees for power emits as much carbon dioxide as coal. Drax is cooking the climate and destroying forests in other countries to feed its power station. The pellet industry destroys the habitat of red wolves, black bears, salamanders and a number of bird species in the southern US. If Drax was serious about producing more sustainable energy, this is the last thing it would be doing.”
Campaigners handed out leaflets to the general public and an Investor Briefing for those attending the AGM explaining why biomass is a poor investment in financial and planetary terms. They were joined by a range of speakers including former Green Party leader Natalie Bennett.
George Grace from Liverpool said: “We are a group of local residents concerned by the continued deforestation being done in the name of progress. Furthermore we object to the subsidy provided by UK government to Drax, which is supposed to be available only to low carbon generators. The burning of wood pellets which are shipped to the UK via Liverpool Freeport before onward rail transportation to Drax Power Station in Selby releases more carbon into the atmosphere than coal. Peel Holdings profit handsomely from this trade and benefit from Drax’s subsidies.”
The protest has been organised by a coalition of local and national groups including Biofuelwatch, Coal Action Network and local anti-fracking, pro-renewable energy and environmental justice campaigners.
Early in the morning of the 19th April bailiffs acting on behalf of Banks Group along with police and Durham Council workers arrived at the Pont Valley Protection Camp. They thought they could clear our camps by lunchtime, but it took three days.
Ten people locked into defences on the field where Banks Group wants to start a coal mine. Four were chained to lock-ons on the surface, one person was up a tripod, two were in tunnels underground, two were in a treehouse and one was in a caravan in a gateway at the far end of the field. The men from the organisations instantly tried to restrict access to the camps both in the field belonging to the farmer and the verge in front of it.
Check out this film about the eviction and the ongoing campaign https://www.facebook.com/protectpontvalley/videos/211360632983321/
The intention of the defences was to take up as much time as possible so that it held up the beginning of operations on the site by Banks Group. Banks have to build an access road before they can start the opencast, if the opencast isn’t started by the 3rd June then planning lapses.
A Great Crested Newt, called Carole, was found on the site at Bradley on the 17th April. This was reported to Natural England, Durham County Ecologist, Amphibian Conservation bodies and Banks Group. This has been reported in the media. Great Crested Newts are a European Protected Species and as such Banks Group requires a license to interfere with their habitat. Banks does not have a license. This could require a translocation programme for the newts.
As the eviction started it became very clear that the bailiffs were behaving in dangerous ways and ignoring the safety advice from those who have lived and created this camp. This included driving large vehicles very close to the tunnels after the police and bailiffs acknowledged that they did not know how many tunnels there were, which direction they went in or how many people there were. The tunnels were unsupported. Ultimately one of the tunnels started to collapse.
The police and bailiffs arrogantly thought that they could evict both camps before 12.30pm. A large funeral of a respected member of the community had longed been planned for 1pm. The fact that Banks Group thought this day was appropriate to evict shows how they hold the people who live in this area in contempt. It had been agreed by UK Coal, who applied for this planning permission, that no blasting would take place during funerals, how could an eviction operation be appropriate?
The first person to be evicted from the camp was in the mid afternoon on Thursday, the last at the end of the day on Friday.
One of the protectors was dragged out of the site by a digger which was attached to a chain that enforcement officers wrapped around the ‘lock on tube’ that was around her arm, while watched over by police officers.
Although the campaigners understood the positions they put themselves in, we were all shocked by what shocked all of them was the lack of safety concerns, unskilled and unprepared enforcement officers, and the abusive behaviour on the part of police and enforcement officers. All events over the course of the eviction were watched over by the police with little to no reaction or intervention.
Three people were removed from defences on Thursday and two more came out of the tunnels voluntarily and were arrested in the early hours of Friday. By the end of the day two other people had been taken from the tree house by specialist climbers and arrested. Several people fled the scene. Eviction teams secured the tunnels on Saturday, taking much of the day, despite the occupants having left. All were released on Friday 20th April.
Durham County Council tore down, On the Verge, the protection camp next to the A692. There has been no court case relating to this camp. The Pont Valley Protection Camp has been speaking with the council about this camp and the council has previously said that there have been no safety concerns and that they would communicate with people at the camp about the legality of the situation. This has not happened. Durham council refused applications to opencast on this site in 1986, 2001 and 2011.
Durham Constabulary refused to record or investigate the wildlife crime which Banks Group are preparing to commit, by disturbing a European Protected Species’ habitat without a Great Crested Newt License. The police force does not have a wildlife crime officer, who would normally be the person leading on cases such as these. The police were heavy handed with the people trying to ensure the welfare of those locked on, independent media, legal observers, concerned local people. On Friday morning they dispersed most interested parties. These actions seem to have been taken to facilitate an extractives company over public safety or ecological legislation.
Pont Valley Protection Camp lives on, join us at Pontop Hall, Dipton, County Durham, DH9 9ED.
