The Planning Officer’s Report lends much weight to Bryn Bach Coal Ltd’s (BBCL) claim that most of the coal will be sent to non-burn end-use. BBCL has increased the proportion of coal it claims will go to non-burn end-use in successive versions of its application, without justification for these shifting proportions. The reality is that market conditions and the highest price would determine to which industry the coal would be sold. BBCL could at any time sell the mining rights to another company, as occurs at many coal mining sites, and that new company might choose to sell to other industries or export the coal as the Whitehaven proposal intends to. According to the BEIS Conversion Factors 2022, industrial application of the 94,900 tonnes of coal could total up to 229,000 tonnes of CO2.
Fugitive methane (a potent climate change accelerant) is released from directly from coal mines. Methane that escapes from coal mines globally must fall 11% each year until 2030 to meet IEA’s Net Zero 2030 Roadmap and avoid climate chaos. For each year of the proposed extension, researchers at Global Energy Monitor estimate 108 tonnes of methane will be released into the atmosphere at Glan Lash – totalling some 659 tonnes of methane. Increasing rather than decreasing this globally significant source of methane emissions breaches the IEA’s Net Zero 2030 Roadmap and does not conform to a globally responsible Wales.
The Planning Officer’s Report correctly identifies the shortcomings of the proposed replacement habitats, not least that new plantings are not commensurate with established habitats and the ecosystems they support, but the report stops short of pointing out that the habitats are unique and are not interchangeable and the criticisms of bio-diversity offsets. By way of crude analogy; someone who’s always lived in Carmarthen would not consider it the same if they had their house destroyed in Carmarthen but told they could move into another house in Merthyr Tydfil. We also highlight the Report’s reference to CCC’s independent ecologist’s point that equivalent biodiversity support from a newly planted woodland habitat (assuming it flourishes) will never catch up to that of the destroyed 2.48 Ha woodland habitat, had it not been destroyed – and that it would take 137 years to achieve what is currently supported. We question what the species of animals currently living in the existing habitat are to do for over a century in the intervening period. In a time of widespread habitat pressure, there isn’t clear evidence that animal life can be supported by neighbouring habitats to return later. Local populations, once wiped out, may never return. Growing climate change stresses on ecosystems necessitates established and robust habitats, existing biodiversity cannot wait 137 years for an established habitat. We do welcome the Planning Ecology Department’s determination that permitting this mine would be incompatible with both the Welsh Government and Carmarthenshire County Council declarations of a Climate and a Nature Emergency, as well as their respective responsibilities under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
Over 600 letters from Carmarthenshire residents have been sent to the Council in opposition to the opencast coal mine application and a demonstration is planned outside the Council building on the day of the decision meeting to show local support for a greener, kinder future.
The Planning Officer’s Report refers to the company’s claim that the washery and coal mine would employ 11 staff (3 new jobs) for the duration of the proposed extraction and the restoration period following cessation. We want to emphasise that 8 of those jobs, as well as the indirect jobs, are not dependent on the proposed coal mine extension but rather on the washery which has been operating without Glan Lash coal for years. So just 3 new, time-limited, jobs in a declining industry are at stake, and these would be required to restore the site for a period anyway. Jobs planting trees over jobs ripping them up.
Published: 13/09/2023
FIRST... Coal mining ban proposed by House of Lords
With a margin of 3 votes (197 for vs 194 against) in the House of Lords on 17th April 2023, Lord Teverson amended the Energy Bill to include a new clause on the 'prohibition of new coal mines' (a ban on the Coal Authority licencing any new coal mining in the UK). This wouldn't stop any coal mines already licenced, and would only apply 6 months after the bill had been passed - but it would cut off the pipeline of new coal mine applications. Just one Conservative Lord voted for this amendment - Lord Deben, Chairman of the UK's independent Committee on Climate Change.
Lord Teverson referred to the Whitehaven coal mine, approved in December 2022, when proposing the amendment, saying "If that happens once, it can happen again - that is why this amendment is so important," he said. He had previously believed a ban was not necessary because it was "totally and absolutely obvious" that building a new coal mine "would be a really stupid thing for a country to do".
THEN... Coal mining ban stripped out by UK Government
Back in the House of Commons, the UK Government Ministers stripped out the amendment banning new coal mines at the Committee-stage, before the revised Energy Bill could be debated and voted on in the House of Commons. MP Caroline Lucas said the Government's approach was "well and truly stuck in the last century...after endlessly repeating the importance of no new coal at COP26, its words have proved to be meaningless". Shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband had said Labour would back the ban.
Opposing the amendment, minister Lord Callanan said the government was committed to phasing out coal but argued that an outright ban could cause a "severe weakening of our security of supply".
NOW... Coal mining ban re-proposed by MPs Chris Skidmore & Wera Hobhouse
In the report stage, Conservative MP Chris Skidmore and Libdem MP Wera Hobhouse have attempted to re-introduce the coal mine ban by tabling similar wording as Lord Teverson's amendment to be put back into the Energy Bill (clause N2). MP Chris Skidmore also seeks to strengthen the UK Government's earler commitment to phase out coal being used to generate energy by tabling another clause (N3) - a prohibition of energy production from coal by 1 January 2025. This would change put the UK Government's policy commitment into legally-binding legislation, making it much harder for this or successive Governments to back-track on that commitment.
Amongst other important ammendments, the wording of the two amendments your MP needs to support are:
NC2 Tabled by: Chris Skidmore & Wera Hobhouse
To move the following Clause—“Prohibition of new coal mines
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit the opening of new coal mines and the licensing of new coal mines by the Coal Authority or its successors.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
NC3 Tabled by: Chris Skidmore
To move the following Clause—“Prohibition of energy production from coal
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the UK to cease energy production from coal from 1 January 2025.
(2) Regulations under this section may amend primary legislation (including this Act).”
The report stage for the Energy Bill is currently scheduled for Tue 5th September 2023, the day after the House of Commons returns from summer recess, at which point MPs will debate the various amendments tabled to the Energy Bill. The amendment will almost certainly be debated, however there’s no guarantee that it will be pushed to a vote – this depends on a range of different factors, including MPs’ priorities and whether the amendment is selected by the Speaker for a vote.
THE ASK: write to your MP, asking them to speak in favour of amendment NC2 and NC3 during the debate, and to vote for it, if it is "pushed to a division".
We are now able to reveal correspondence between Welsh Minister for Climate Change, MS Julie James, and then UK Government Minister Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth
and Climate Change, MP Greg Hands. In a letter dated 07 January 2022, Minister Greg Hands states:
"I do agree that the Coal Authority’s statutory duty to promote an economically viable coal industry, as set out in the Coal Industry Act 1994, is at odds with our climate leadership ambitions and policies on coal so we are looking at measures to review that duty. I understand our officials have agreed to meet to share our thinking on a future licencing regime that reflects our different administrations net zero and climate change goals."
The amendment(s) proposed by MP Chris Skidmore (and Wera Hobhouse) would achieve what Greg Hands admits is necessary to meet the Government's climate commitments. So why did the UK Government remove Lord Teverson's amendment to achieve the same? What has the UK Goverment done to change the "future licencing regime"?
Welsh Labour Minister for Climate Change in the Welsh Government Julie James wrote to then Secretary of State Department of Business, Energy & industrial Strategy Kwasi Kwarteng in the UK Government on 26 October 2021, stating:
"...we consider the statutory duty of the Coal Authority to develop and maintain a viable coal extraction industry must be removed if we are to achieve our policy ambitions." adding "I seek to understand how the [Coal Industry] Act will be amended to reflect the need for the Coal Authority to consider climate policy in its decisions". Julie James is looking for reform rather than dissolving the Coal Authority, saying "....the Coal Authority has an important role to play in rapidly winding down remaining mining operations and delivering long-term environmental protection. In doing so, the Coal Authority has an important role in ensuring those communities affected by the legacy of coal mining receive a just transition."
Welsh Labour clearly indicate the need to reform the Coal Authority in a way that would stop new coal mine applications being licenced and support existing operations winding down, with a just transition for workers involved.
The need for law change: This year, Coal Action Network took the Coal Authority to the Cardiff Courts in a judicial review challenging the Coal Authority's insistence that it cannot consider matters such as climate change in determining whether to award a coal mining licence. The judge agreed with the Coal Authority, which confirms that legislative reform of the Coal Authority is needed to bring its licencing function in line with climate commitments - such as that proposed in amendment NC2 to the Energy Bill.
Time's running out: Since senior UK and Welsh Government Ministers admitted the need to cut off the pipeline of new coal mining applications, both the UK and the planet experienced its hottest ever days (2022 & 2023), June 2023 was the UK's hottest ever, and July 2023 was confirmed the hottest month worldwide since records began, and this year the world has been rocked by wild-fires, flooding, and storms. So the sense of urgency to ban coal mining and use has become even stronger.
Security of supply concerns: Alongside increasing this escalating urgency, TATA Port Talbot steelworks announcing it will imminently transition to recycling steel or else face closure, and British Steel reporting it will close its coke ovens. A credible home insulation plan would remove any energy security issues for keeping warm this - and future - winters, rather than spending more of my tax money propping up dirty coal power stations again. These are the only significant consumers of coal remaining in the UK so there is no energy security case to be made for continuing to mine coal in the UK.
On 15th and 16th March, Coal Action Network took the Welsh Government and Coal Authority (UK regulator of coal mining) to the Cardiff Court in a judicial review over their respective handling of the Aberpergwm application to extend workings by up to 42 million tonnes of coal and until 2039.
On the 19th of May, The Hon. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE decided in favour of the Welsh Government and Coal Authority, but granted us permission to appeal the decision about the Welsh Government less than 2 weeks later, on 31st May. Our court hearing for the appeal will be 06th February at the Cardiff Court!
The grounds for this appeal are:
Respected senior Barristers, James Maurici KC, and Barrister Toby Fisher have today released a blistering open letter of legal advice that reveals for the first time that the company operating the UK’s largest opencast coal mine, Ffos-y-fran, in South Wales is doing so “unilaterally and unlawfully” without the approval of “any democratically elected bodies or persons”, yet the approach of political representatives in Wales so far means “there will be no consequence for that unauthorised and unconstrained activity”. This approach, the Barristers argue, may even be unlawful. The letter further warns this may fail to prevent “future operators from acting in the same way”.
View in original PDF or read below.
IN THE MATTER OF FFOS-Y-FRAN COAL MINE
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
OPINION
For correct paragraph numbering, please refer to the PDF.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
We are asked by Coal Action Network for our opinion on the ongoing situation at Ffos-y-Fran coal mine, Merthyr Tydfil (‘the Site’). In particular, we are asked for our opinion on the past and future exercise of statutory enforcement powers by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (‘the Council’) and the Welsh Ministers.
THE FACTS
“If coal mining operations continue on site, this would result in a breach of the planning conditions and may be subject to enforcement action. At this stage because a planning application has been submitted, which seeks to amend to the current permission and enable operations to continue on site, it would not normally be expedient to take enforcement action until that application has been determined…”
In conclusion, the Authority is of the opinion that the proposed development, either alone or in combination, is unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The extension of 9 months to complete the development previously approved will extend the impacts of the development. However, these impacts have previously been assessed as being at an acceptable level subject to mitigation and limitations provided by planning conditions. There is no proposed change to the method of working and therefore no environmental impacts are envisaged over and above those experienced as part of the 2005 planning permission. As such, the likely effect of the development is unlikely to be significant enough to warrant an EIA.
The First Screening Opinion did not address the climate change impacts of, or greenhouse gas emissions attributable to, the proposed extended life of the development.
“The extension of extraction operations until 31 March 2024 and a delay in the completion of final restoration until 30 June 2026 in order to complete the development previously approved will extend the impacts of the development. However, these impacts have previously been assessed as being at an acceptable level subject to mitigation and limitations provided by planning conditions. There is no proposed change to the method of working and therefore no environmental impacts are envisaged over and above those experienced as part of the 2005 planning permission. As such, the likely effect of the development is unlikely to be significant enough to warrant an EIA.”
The Second Screening Opinion did not address the climate change impacts of the proposed extended life of the development.
THE LEGAL CONTEXT
Wellbeing of Future Generations
Planning permission and EIA
Enforcement powers
“(a) carrying out development without the required planning permission; or
(b) failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted…”.
“(1) The local planning authority may issue a notice (in this Act referred to as an “enforcement notice”) where it appears to them
(a) that there has been a breach of planning control; and
(b) that it is expedient to issue the notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and any other material considerations.”
“(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient that an enforcement notice should be issued in respect of any land, he may issue such a notice.
(2)The Secretary of State shall not issue such a notice without consulting the local planning authority.
(3)An enforcement notice issued by the Secretary of State shall have the same effect as a notice issued by the local planning authority.”
“[s]trictly, and in contrast to s.172, there are no express tests of it having to appear to the Secretary of State that there has been a breach of planning control and having to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations. However, there is no good reason to infer that the Secretary of State could lawfully issue an enforcement notice without first applying these tests. They are of course very likely to arise in consultation with the local planning authority in any event.”
“if the Act made clear that compensation will not in any circumstances be payable for a use or operation which is in breach of planning control, there would be less concern at the risks of a notice failing on a technicality, and the use of stop notices in appropriate cases would be encouraged”: para 9.5.”
Relevant case law
Discretion over enforcement
“25. Where a developer is acting in breach of planning control, the statutory scheme assigns the primary responsibility for deciding whether to take enforcement steps – and, if so, what steps should be taken and when – to the relevant local authority. The statutory language used makes it clear that the authority’s discretion in relation to matters of enforcement – if, what and when – is wide. That is particularly the case in respect of enforcement notices, the power to issue a notice arising only “where it appears to them… that it is expedient to issue the notice”. That is language denoting an especially wide margin of discretion. Any enforcement decision is only challengeable on public law grounds. Because of the wide margin of discretion afforded to authorities, where the assertion is that the decision made is unreasonable or disproportionate, the court will be particularly cautious about intervening. Intervention is likely to be rare. However, circumstances may make it appropriate. In Ardagh Glass, because the four-year period for enforcement was imminently to expire, a failure on the part of the planning authority to take prompt enforcement steps would have meant that the development would achieve immunity. In that case, the court ordered immediate enforcement action to be taken.”
“So, even though the authority may be satisfied that a breach of planning control has occurred, they may consider it not expedient to issue an enforcement notice because on balance the use causes no planning harm at all, or is beneficial, or may cause insufficient harm to justify the taking of any enforcement action. Alternatively, the authority's conclusions on expediency may determine the nature and extent of any enforcement action they decide to take.”
“[30] Maguire J referred to paragraph [22] of Ardagh Glass Ltd as being in point in the present cases. There was an Enforcement Notice already in existence, the issue was whether a Stop Notice had to be served and there was also an appeal against the Enforcement Notice. It was stated that Sullivan LJ plainly viewed his conclusion on the point as not inconsistent with EU law and Maguire J stated that he was inclined to follow that view.
[31] Maguire J rejected the proposed distinction of the decision in Ardagh Glass Ltd based on the possibility of rectifying the damage in Ardagh by requiring the building to be removed if planning permission was not granted, whereas in the present case it was not possible to return extracted sand.
[32] This Court is of the opinion that there is a distinction to be made between Ardagh Glass Ltd and the present case and that it bears on the application of the principles to be applied. In Ardagh Glass Ltd it was found that the issue of an Enforcement Notice was sufficient to ensure the removal of the unauthorised development if retrospective planning permission was not granted. While the workings might continue in the meantime, it was recognised that ultimately, if necessary, the unauthorised development, in the form of the factory structure, could be removed. However the present case is different in character. There is no such structure to be removed in the event that planning permission is ultimately refused. The unauthorised development is the excavation which cannot be reinstated. Of course, as in Ardagh Glass Ltd, there will also be the ongoing operations at the site but the focus is on the structure rather than the workings. In the present case the issue of the Enforcement Notice will not be sufficient to ensure the removal of the unauthorised development in the form of the excavation between now and the refusal of planning permission. The material extracted is irreplaceable. Therefore the basis on which no Stop Notice was issued in Ardagh Glass Ltd does not apply in the present case.”
THE POLICY CONTEXT
Development Management Policy
“Where an LPA considers that an unauthorised development is causing unacceptable harm to public amenity, and there is little likelihood of the matter being resolved through negotiations or voluntarily, they should take vigorous enforcement action to remedy the breach urgently, or prevent further serious harm to public amenity.”
“An effective development management system requires proportionate and timely enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but also to prevent development that would undermine the delivery of development plan objectives.
The Welsh Government enforcement review concluded, whilst the system is fundamentally sound, it can struggle to secure prompt, meaningful action against breaches of planning control. The system can also be confusing and frustrating for complainants, particularly as informed offenders can intentionally delay enforcement action by exploiting loopholes in the existing process…
Section 3.6 of Planning Policy Wales is clear; enforcement action needs to be effective and timely. This means that Local Planning Authorities should look at all means available to them to achieve the desired result. In all cases there should be dialogue with the owner or occupier of land, which could result in an accommodation which means enforcement action is unnecessary.
…Section 14.2 of the Development Management Manual… deals with how this policy should be implemented. Paragraph 14.2.5 is particularly useful in that it explains how the dialogue with the owner or occupier is one aspect of dealing with an enforcement case but it should not be a source of delay or indecision.”
Coal policy in Wales
“The opening of new coal mines or the extension of existing coaling operations in Wales would add to the global supply of coal having a significant effect on Wales’ and the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets as well as international efforts to limit the impact of climate change. Therefore, Welsh Ministers do not intend to authorise new Coal Authority mining operation licences or variations to existing licences. Coal licences may be needed in wholly exceptional circumstances and each application will be decided on its own merits, but the presumption will always be against coal extraction.
Whilst coal will continue to be used in some industrial processes and non-energy uses in the short to medium term, adding to the global supply of coal will prolong our dependency on coal and make achieving our decarbonisation targets increasingly difficult. For this reason, there is no clear case for expanding the supply of coal from within the UK. In the context of the climate emergency, and in accordance with our Low Carbon Delivery Plan, our challenge to the industries reliant on coal is to work with the Welsh Government to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and make a positive contribution to decarbonisation.
Planning Policy Wales (PPW 11) already provides a strong presumption against coaling, with the exception of wholly exceptional circumstances, and Local Planning Authorities are required to consider this policy in the decisions they make.”
“5.10.14 Proposals for opencast, deep-mine development or colliery spoil disposal should not be permitted. Should, in wholly exceptional circumstances, proposals be put forward they would clearly need to demonstrate why they are needed in the context of climate change emissions reductions targets and for reasons of national energy security.”
ANALYSIS
The unauthorised development is likely to be EIA development
The Council’s failure to consider enforcement action prior to its decision on planning permission was arguably unlawful
Notwithstanding this knowledge, the Council adopted the inflexible position that – because a planning application was pending for the activity – it would first consider whether it would grant planning permission before considering enforcement. It identified 26 April 2023 as the date on which the Planning Application would be considered and determined that enforcement action would only be considered after that date. We consider that approach was arguably unlawful because it amounted to the fettering of a statutory discretion and/or because it was irrational in the circumstances.
The Council’s failure to serve a stop notice is arguably unlawful
“the unauthorised development is the excavation which cannot be reinstated… the issue of the Enforcement Notice will not be sufficient to ensure the removal of the unauthorised development in the form of the excavation between now and the refusal of planning permission. The material extracted is irreplaceable.”
The Welsh Ministers failure to consider issuing an enforcement notice before the Council took its own decision was arguably unlawful
“[a] lawful positive decision to the effect that it would not be expedient for the purposes of section 172 to issue an enforcement notice would eventually lead to the development in breach becoming lawful with the passage of time but of itself would not stop the permission lapsing. A lawful positive decision by a local authority cannot without more preclude the exercise by the Secretary of State of his default powers under section 182”.
The Welsh Ministers must urgently consult with the Council and consider, independently, whether to serve a stop notice.
NEXT STEPS
21 June 2023
JAMES MAURICI KC
Landmark Chambers
TOBY FISHER
Matrix Chambers
[1] For the references and calculations behind these figures, see fns 7 – 11 below.
[2] See R. (Holding & Barnes Plc) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] 2 A.C. 29569 per Lord Hoffmann at [69] “[i]n a democratic country, decisions as to what the general interest requires are made by democratically elected bodies or persons accountable to them … sometimes one cannot formulate general rules and the question of what the general interest requires has to be determined on a case by case basis. Town and country planning or road construction, in which every decision is in some respects different, are archetypal examples. In such cases Parliament may delegate the decision-making power to local democratically elected bodies or to ministers of the Crown responsible to Parliament. In that way the democratic principle is preserved.”
[3] Application P/22/0237
[4] See https://shorturl.at/pAN19.
[5] If the Council had concluded that “wholly exceptional circumstances” had been made out, it might reasonably have been expected to require the mitigation of the climate change effects of the extension by, for example, requiring the developer to offset its emissions.
[6] Robert Carnwath QC, Enforcing Planning Control, HMSO February 1989.
[7] MSWL reported its 2021 emissions as 930,533 tonnes CO2e, excluding methane emissions. (2021 Annual Accounts p 4, Companies House) Coal Authority quarterly reports indicate that total production in 2021 was 602,128; operational (non-methane) emissions were thus reported to be 1.55 tonnes CO2e per tonne of coal mined. Assuming a rate of 1.5 tonnes CO2e per tonne of coal for the 500,000 tonnes coal estimated to be mined during an 18-month period leads to an estimate of approximately 750,000 tonnes CO2e. Methane emissions from the Ffos-y-fran mine has been estimated to be 2,077 tonnes over a 9-month extension by Global Energy Monitor using methodology from Kholod et al, 256 Journal of Cleaner Production (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120489. This equates to 4,154 tonnes over 18 months. Using a conservative estimate of 30 for the global warming potential of methane to convert to carbon dioxide equivalent (see https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-and-climate-change) this equates to a further 124,620 tonnes CO2e. Or, in all, roughly 870,000 tonnes CO2e.
[8] The 2023 BEIS conversion factor for industrial coal is used (this being a conservative assumption, as the domestic coal conversion factor would produce a higher figure). 500,000 tonnes of coal x 2.39648 BEIS figure for tonnes of CO2e = 1.198 million tonnes CO2 equivalent.
[9] 2023 BEIS conversion factor for Petrol is 2.35 Kg CO2e per Litre. 851M Litres x 2.35 = 2 billion Kg or 2 Million tonnes.
[10] Per capita annual GHG emissions in Wales are 8.6 tonnes CO2e per person. See https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-local-authority-and-regional-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics-2005-to-2020, statistical summary (30 June 2022). Over an 18-month period this equates to 12.9 tonnes CO2e per person in Wales (8.6x1.5). 2 million/12.9 = 155,000.
[11] See the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) Guide: Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance, Second Edition, February 2022.
[12] Section 183(3) of the 1990 Act provides that a stop notice may not be served where the related enforcement notice has taken effect. However, where an appeal against the enforcement notice is made (which must be done before the enforcement notice takes effect), section 175(4) suspends the effect of the enforcement notice until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn. Accordingly, if there is an appeal against the EN, the Council may serve a stop notice at any time during the currency of the enforcement appeal. For reasons we have explained, however, we consider that a stop notice should be served urgently without waiting for an appeal to be made.
[13] We have considered whether the Council might judge that permitting the continued operation in breach of planning control might be desirable to enable the operator to make profits to plug a shortfall in its available capital for site restoration. We consider this would be an irrelevant consideration in the context of a decision on expediency.
Groups have taken action since the government approved a new coal mine, proposed for Whitehaven, Cumbria, on the 8th December 2022—including:
The insurance industry found itself in the spotlight last week as a Global Week of Action blossomed across the world beginning February 27th. In a wave of protests, both online and in the streets, swept through the doors of insurance giants, demanding accountability over their support for polluters and decisive action on climate change. In the UK many of these actions called on insurance companies to refuse to insure the proposed West Cumbria coal mine and East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). More details here. Yet another leading insurance company, Probitas, has ruled out insuring the proposed West Cumbria coal mine.
People hailing from Cumbria to London, and everywhere in between, descended on the Mines and Money Conference in London across two days (28th-29th Nov 2023). We demanded that investors stop pouring cash into the mining sector, and instead invest in our collective future. Together with Fossil Free London and other groups, we greeted investors with flyers highlighting risks to investments in mining that mining companies want to hide—such as successful grassroots resistance to mining projects around the world.
On Friday 27th October, visitors and residents travelling in Cumbria were met by a powerful message of opposition to the proposed new coal mine at Whitehaven. Large banners were hung at major roads across the county, declaring this is “No Time for a Coal Mine”. The banners were hung at the M6 junction at Penrith, on the A66 at Keswick and Cockermouth, on bridges over the Staveley by-pass and the A591 at Kendal, at Garsdale Head and at Whitehaven itself.
Meanwhile, posters emblazoned with “No Time for a Coal Mine” appeared all around Kendal and Penrith. On Saturday 28th October, the Cumbrian Canaries made an outing at the Winter Droving festival in Penrith, raising the alarm about the proposed coal mine and handing out around 800 leaflets to the revellers.
October's Speakers' Corner hosted Prof. Julia Steinberger, an IPCC 6th Assessment Report author who said that demand reduction is needed to reduce the worst impacts of climate change, and that we already have the technology to ensure this can happen while ensuring a comfortable life. There were 5 other brilliant speakers.
The event was planned to mark the first day of the legal challenge against the Government's approval of the mine proposal, but the hearing has been postponed until after a linked case, which will decide whether the end use emissions need to be considered when giving planning consent. This would mean that the emissions from consuming coal from this site in steelworks would need to be counted, not just those released from mining. Further Speaker's corner events took place in November and December.
On the 18th October, hundreds of protesters occupied the plush City of London offices of ten Lloyd’s of London insurers demanding they rule out insuring the proposed West Cumbria coal mine and the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Earlier that day the protesters marched waving banners saying “Don’t Insure EACOP” and “Don’t Insure West Cumbria Mine” to three high profile buildings including the “Walkie Talkie” where in a coordinated swoop, activists are causing disruption in the office foyers of Ascot, Talbot, Chaucer, Markel, Allied World, CNA Hardy, Tokio Marine Kiln, Sirius International and Lancashire Syndicates. The activists staged a sit-in. More details here.
On the 15th September, the Global day of action against fossil fuel finance, kicked off demonstrations at the offices of Lloyd of London Insurance companies kicking off the campaign to ensure West Cumbria Mining Ltd don't get insurance for the proposed coal mine. Demonstrations took place in places including London, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, York, Wrexham, Croydon and Cardiff.
At September's Speakers' Corner event the demonstrators heard from Sarah Finch, Weald Action Group, about the proposal to extract oil in Surrey - which she is challenging in the Supreme Court.
Michael Gove referenced the High Court decision on the case of Horse Hill in Surrey, and used that case to justify excluding the greenhouse gas emissions that would arise from burning the coal from the mine. Sarah's court case questions how end use emissions can be ignored in projects like oil or coal extraction. The Horse Hill decision is awaited and will likely influence the outcome of the legal challenges against the Whitehaven proposal and therefore whether the mine goes ahead.
At the end of August 2023 Earth First! squatted the site of the proposed Whitehaven coal mine and held a week long gathering packed with inspiring discussions, delicious food, wonderful workshops, lots of sock wrestling and some spectacular sunsets! It was a week of radical ecological existence, bursting with love and burning with revolutionary spirit. Their message was
As thousands of visitors travelled into Cumbria for the busy August bank holiday they were met with a powerful statement: 25 large banners opposing the proposed new coal mine near Whitehaven with the words ‘NO TIME for a COAL MINE’ on all the roads into Cumbria.
Leafleting also happened in Carlisle, Keswick, Kirkby Lonsdale and Penrith with a good reception.
Not Coal, Not Dole, speakers' corner on the 22nd July Just Transition and Climate Jobs saw people come to the proposed site from across the North. Speakers included: Willie Black from Scot E3 and Unite the Union; Joseph Healey, Left Unity and Unite the Union, Gail Bradbrook founder of Extinction Rebellion whose father was a coal miner and Clara Paillard Former President of PCS union Culture group compared.
30th June speakers' corner where those there heard four very informative and inspirational speakers - all of whom underlined the extreme recklessness of even considering building a new coal mine; and pointed out how what west Cumbria - and especially its young people - needed, and could have, was many more good, long-term, green jobs that didn't wreck the climate and, instead, would help build a better & more sustainable future for the local community.
Chris Packham joined Friends of the Earth, Extinction Rebellion and others at the first ‘Speaker’s Corner’ event outside the gates of the proposed site in May 2023. This is now a regular event.
South Lakes Action on Climate Change and Friends of the Earth are running legal challenges against the Government’s December 2022 approval of the coal mine. Both organisations assert that the decision to grant planning permission for the coal mine was unlawful, as the Secretary of State did not properly consider the climate impacts of this mine. A judge will decide if there is a case to answer, and, if so, will hear that case in a three day trial 24th to 26th October.
Extinction Rebellion North Lakes and others at the ‘Big One’ protests in London in April protested outside Javelin Commodities, because the company has agreed to sell any coal extracted from the site to steelmakers, predominantly outside of the UK. During 4 days of protests there were numerous banners and placards from various groups against the proposal in Cumbria.
In February 2023, vicars and other Christians protested outside the Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle offices of Ward Hadaway, lawyers for West Cumbria Mining Ltd, and the London headquarters of Javelin Global Commodities, who intend to sell coal for West Cumbria Mining Ltd. Christian Climate Action are calling on both companies to “cut the ties” with the proposed new coal mine in Cumbria. The protesters held banners with the message ‘Coal is killing humanity’ and delivered letters asking the organisations to end their involvement with West Cumbria Mining, the company behind the coal mine.
In mid-January Extinction Rebellion protested dressed as canaries outside of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that approved the application, lighting smoke bombs and spreading out a fake oil slick.
Just before Christmas (2022) a gang of Santas delivered sacks of faux coal to Michael Gove for being a very naughty boy at his Department of Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities in an action by Coal Action Network and Lush cosmetics. The Santas held signs reading “Christmas coal for climate criminal Gove” after Gove’s approval of the coal mine application.
A wide range of groups and individuals protested at the proposed coal mine site outside Whitehaven in December 2022 during the week following the Government’s approval of work at the site. There were speeches and a commitment to ensure that this coal stays in the ground.
XR North Lakes gathered in Penrith on December 9th following the Government’s approval of the mine scheme.
In 2022, we launched a Judicial Review as one of the last chances to stop Aberpergwm deep coal mine extension in South Wales, and keep up to 42 million tonnes of coal in the ground. Many of you donated generously to make that legal challenge possible, and our legal team worked tirelessly to deliver a razor-sharp case. However, on 19th May 2023, the Judicial Review decision upheld the mine to continuing to operate until 2039 to the tune of over 100 million tonnes of CO2.
This judgement comes fewer than two months after the IPCC released a report sounding the ‘final warning’ of irreversible and catastrophic climate change. Although ultimately the judge’s decision upholds the Aberpergwm coal mine in the midst of our climate crisis, the judgment agrees with our legal team on a number of crucial points, creating some optimism around a possible appeal. An appeal is no light undertaking in time and funding… but we need to throw everything we’ve got at stopping this when literally everything is on the line with climate-trashing projects like Aberpergwm coal mine. We’d definitely need your help via a new appeal crowd funder if our expert legal team advise us this is the way to go. If you’re able to chip in to pay for our current legal advice, our judicial review CrowdJustice crowdfunding page is still open.
In 2021, the International Energy Agency set out a pathway to reach net-zero by 2050, in which for both energy generation and the steel industry, “[n]o new coal mines or extensions of existing ones are needed…existing sources of production are sufficient to cover demand through to 2050” (p103). In addition, Port Talbot Steelworks and British Steel steelworks are negotiating with the UK Government to cut coal out of their steel manufacturing. There is no need-case for the Aberpergwm coal mine, whereas the need-case to keep all coal in the ground is a liveable planet.
Progress is uneven and marked by setbacks like this, but we’ve won against 23 coal mines in the UK—there's 4 more to go, and to finally close the door to any new coal mines. We hope you’re with us until the end. Subscribe to our mailing list to keep updated on our campaigns and get involved.
Find out more about the campaign against the Aberpergwm coal mine, as well as our campaigns against three other coal mine applications in the UK.
After 20 years of campaigning, last night (26/04/23) Merthyr Tydfil residents, Coal Action Network, Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Green Party, XR and other environmental campaigners finally collectively stopped Ffos-y-fran opencast coal with the Council’s refusal of permission to extend its climate chaos until 2024! This is an important step forward for the environmental movement across the UK.
Local people have suffered 16 years of dust, noise and a changing landscape, as 400 hectares of land got destroyed and 11 million tonnes of coal removed. The Welsh Government permitted what became the UK’s largest opencast coal mine to start in 2005 and, together with the local council, allowed it to keep mining after planning permission ran out in September 2022. An extension application to keep extracting coal until March 2024 was unanimously rejected by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council on the 26th April.
At the planning hearing, the Council’s Planning Officers recommended that the application be refused, as it does not comply with Welsh law on coal mining.
Over 1,400 letters of objection written by Coal Action Network’s supporters were highlighted in the planning hearing, showing the large national and international demand to keep all coal in the ground. This highlights that Councils are being watched when they decide fossil fuel project permissions and should make them more accountable.
Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd, the coal mining company, claimed that it was under no legal commitment to contribute to the restoration fund—which the council disagrees with; it failed to provide details of what proportion of coal used at Port Talbot came from Ffos-y-fran; it failed to pay dues to the council whilst mining without permission since Sept 2022. There is only a £15 million deposit in the restoration fund, when between £75m and £125m is required to put back the site
In the hearing, elected Councillors voiced serious concerns about the potential shortfall of at least £60 million to deliver the restoration long-promised to local residents, and the lack of enforcement action by the Council when the mining company simply kept mining after planning permission expired. They both need to be addressed urgently. We’ll be fighting for justice alongside local residents until it is delivered.
Over the years there has been wide and varied resistance to Ffos-y-fran opencast coal mine. A non-exhaustive list includes:
In January 2017, the United Nations special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Baskut Tuncak visited Merthyr Tydfil. At the time he said, “The first observation that came to mind was how incredibly close this community is to a massive open pit coalmine...I heard allegations of very high rates of childhood asthma and cancer clusters within the community. But despite those allegations I didn't hear any evidence of a strong intervention by the government to investigate or any strong reaction by the companies concerned to investigate themselves.". In the resulting report it said, “the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee found that the UK was in breach of its obligations to ensure access to justice by in essence excluding the public from court procedures by prohibitively expensive cost requirements.”
In the planning hearing, the issue of the mine workers’ jobs was raised, but the Council made clear that the coal company should have been preparing workers for the end of coal mining on the site, as has been expected since 2011, and highlighted that workers were still required to restore the site in the coming years. Coal Action Network and others call on the company, with support from the Welsh Government to ensure a truly just transition for workers which could include them being invited onto the current Universal Basic Income pilot.
We are relieved that the Council saw sense and put an end to this climate trashing coal mine. There is work to be done to ensure the best possible restoration of the site, bringing the area back into public use. The Welsh Government and Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council need to take urgent enforcement action to stop coaling and ensure that the restoration is paid for, in full by the mining company.
Published: 27. 04. 2023
Click the image or here for the full report
Countless communities across the UK were - and still are - being sold a lie by their Local Planning Authorities and mining companies.
This report combines field and desk-based research to reveal the continuing failure of Local Planning Authorities to honour promises made to local communities about how, and when, nearby opencast coal mines would be restored. The research finds that mining companies have consistently evaded restoration costs, and continue to hold Local Planning Authorities to ransom in funding even the bare minimum restoration which would otherwise bankrupt County Councils who would be lumbered with a financial liability amounting to tens of millions. Field research indicates that event those sites which Local Planning Authorities have confirmed by email to be fully restored contains uncovered and leaking storage tanks of industrial chemicals, abandoned warehouses, concrete platforms, and no-go zones sectioned off with barbed wire. COP26 broke new ground, with claims the UK would 'move beyond coal' - but we risk leaving behind communities that cannot ‘move beyond coal’ as they continue to live with the localised impacts of a natural environment ravaged by up to 80 years of opencast coal mining. It is in this context, that we provide an update to some of the findings within the 2014 report on the state of coal mine restoration in South Wales, commissioned by the Welsh Government.
We hope this research will spark renewed calls for the vital restoration work still required, ensure plans for the restoration of coal tips is accompanied by restoration of voids, and sound a warning against consideration given to new or extended coal mining in South Wales and beyond.
This webinar draws on the recently launched report, ‘Coal Mine Restoration in South Wales’, revealing the injustices and broken promises surrounding the restoration of 7 opencast coal mines in South Wales. It serves as a stark warning for any future coal mine proposals.
The webinar will offer a whistle-stop overview of the desk-based and primary research findings, with key analysis and recommendations. You'll see photo evidence that's been exclusively shared with us of the current state these former coal mines are in.
This webinar was first run in December 2022
Time: 11am-12'noon (1 hour)
Date: Tuesday 14th February 2023
Eligibility: this webinar is intended for staff at relevant councils in South Wales
Registration required: contact us for details.
The research finds that mining companies have consistently evaded millions in restoration costs, and Local Planning Authorities struggle to keep promises made to local communities impacted by unrestored or poorly restored coal mines. Field research indicates that even those sites which Local Planning Authorities claimed to be fully restored contain uncovered and leaking storage tanks of industrial chemicals, abandoned warehouses, concrete platforms, and no-go zones sectioned off with barbed wire.
The ‘Coal Mine Restoration in South Wales’ report updates a 2014 Welsh Government report, ‘Research into the failure to restore opencast coal sites in south Wales’ on the state of restoration across Wales, which flagged these sites as liabilities for being left unrestored or poorly restored.
We sometimes hear from people that they are worried coal may be a necessary evil to keep us warm this winter. But the worst effects of this energy crisis was, and to some extent is, avoidable. Low-hanging fruit include home insulation, community-owned renewable energy generation, and an effective windfall tax on profiteering energy companies. These measures can be rapidly deployed, and we’ve seen from Covid what the Government can achieve big changes when there is political will to. Coal is not, and for the sake of our future, cannot be, the answer to how keep warm this winter. That is why half the demands of the Warm This Winter campaign centre around renewable energy and excluding fossil fuels as the way we will access affordable energy this winter and in future years.
The Warm This Winter campaign’s 3rd demand is access to cheaper energy—“Clean, renewable energy is now nine times cheaper than gas and can be brought online quickly”. Subsidy-free solar, in particular, has been demonstrated as cheaper than its fossil fuel alternatives. Prices have fallen dramatically for renewable energy since introduction – whereas fossil fuels continue to rely on huge Government subsidies, infrastructure, and underwriting of risk.
The 4th demand of the Warm This Winter campaign is to cut out fossil fuels as “it keeps us locked into an unaffordable energy for far longer than necessary”. The UK Government sells our natural resources to companies that extract it and sell it back to us at unaffordable prices to generate huge profits for themselves—never more so than in 2022.
The energy crisis has created a swing in vocal public support for coal mining since the energy crisis, and with it, political support for coal mine applications has grown in the highest echelons of Government. The Government has sent mixed signals recently on whether it will approve or reject the Whitehaven coal mine application, which has now been delayed by a further month to before the 9th December 2022.
It is particularly clear that the Government is using the energy crisis as an excuse to abandon its climate commitments wholesale since it’s citing the energy crisis for renewing its support for coal mine applications… that have nothing to do with power generation. All the current coal mine applications are to mine coal for industry—not power generation.
The Government will hand over £420 million in tax money to profiteering energy companies to keep old coal power stations, like West Burton, and coal units, like Drax, chugging along this winter. These power stations and units were scheduled for closure in 2022, but now these dirty, dusty relics will be stoked with thousands of tonnes of imported coal, paid for with our taxes. In fact this move is expected to generate so much pollution that the Government has instructed the Environment Agency to ignore its responsibility to enforce pollution limits when it comes to coal fired energy production this winter. People living locally to these power stations will pay the price in potentially dangerously poor air quality, but we will all pay the price in our taxes and in our future compromised by the climate change a reliance on coal fuels.
Rolling out home insulation tackles the energy crisis and bills not just this year, but for many years to come—and the impact is immediate. It would also help the Government get back on track with its climate commitments as housing is responsible for 19% of the UK’s carbon emissions. This should be a top priority for Government in tackling the cost-of-living crisis and energy crisis together this winter.
In 2012, the UK insulated 2.3 million loft or cavity walls. But a shift in Government policy saw uptake drop by 90%. This Government decision to cut support for home insulation after 2012 has cost taxpayers, like me and you, £1 billion in energy bills this year. If the Government had maintained the same level of support, nearly 50% of UK homes could have been insulated by now. A more recent scheme by the UK Government collapsed, and was blasted by the Audit Office for being “botched”. This would have significantly reduced the energy crisis this winter, along with our bills. Households living in homes with poor efficiency ratings will pay around £1000 more this winter.
The British public overwhelmingly support the rollout of renewables, with 78% supporting solar power, 75% offshore wind, and 70% onshore wind. Unlike non-renewable sources of power like nuclear power stations, renewable energy infrastructure can be rapidly scaled up and brought online. With clear public support, the Government could rapidly accelerate renewable energy roll-out that isn’t vulnerable to shifts in geopolitics and global supply chains.
Because renewable energy is modular—one wind turbine or one solar panel can be bought and set up, or 1000s—its more affordable for communities buy their own equipment and become power generators, with the profits returning to those communities rather than disappearing into the pockets of big business. The Government acknowledges the value of community-owned renewable energy, but isn’t doing enough to encourage it. Instead, the Government dropped the Social Investment Tax Relief for community energy and has failed to provide the financial guarantees it provides to other energy projects like nuclear power stations. If the UK faced this winter with a resilient network of renewable energy zones, our dependence on gas and fossil fuels would have been much lower, and energy prices would be more insulated from Russian sanctions, geopolitics, and global demand and supply shifts.
The Government imposed a windfall tax in May 2022 as a one-off tax on the record profits made by energy companies that are due to lifted Covid restrictions and supply concerns around Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, BBC reported: “BP reported its biggest quarterly profit for 14 years, making £6.9bn in the three months to June. Shell recorded even higher second quarter profits of £9bn and made £8.2bn in the following three months. The majority of the April to June takings won't be hit by the government's windfall tax, as it only applies from 26 May”. The Guardian reported “Shell has paid zero windfall tax in the UK despite making record global profits of nearly $30bn (£26bn) so far this year”. Yet the Government has resisted pressure to tax these record profits and redistribute to cushion energy prices, so less of the UK have to choose between food and heating this winter.
