A guide to challenging extractive applications near you
This guide draws on 18 years of organisational knowledge fighting opencast coal mine applications. This was always shoulder-to-shoulder with local communities trying to preserve their local environment, way of life, and often motivated by the looming threat of global climate chaos.
Coal Action Network has existed since 2008. It started out as a few committed activists, with a founder working many unpaid hours, living in their van, and staying in the communities we worked in. This guide is thanks to their dedication. At the start, we were opposing about 40 live applications for new opencast coal mines and extensions. Now there are none.
We have witnessed first-hand the power of committed local campaigns successfully stop applications despite the deep pockets of developers and a planning system tilted in their favour.
The threat of opencast coal mines in the UK is hopefully over – but many of the tactics we learned along the way can be used for most extractive planning applications, from a tungsten mine to a quarry. We offer this guide to any group navigating the planning system to oppose an extractive development in their community.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world: indeed,
it’s the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead
This guide focuses on action through the planning system, but Direct Action can be taken instead of, or alongside, action through the planning system. Any tactic where people take action to directly bring about the outcome they want, rather than trying to persuade institutions (courts, politicians, regulators) to act in their favour. This can be legal or illegal action, and accountable or unaccountable. An example of legal (at the time of writing) and accountable direct action would be ‘slow walking’ HGVs driving to or away from the site to develop it. This action involves walking slowly in front of the HGV, thereby delaying it – wear a high visibility jacket and do this carefully to maintain personal safety. Coal Action Network has historically supported direct action to oppose opencast coal mining. There are many guides on taking direct action on the internet, we recommend Seeds for Change’s guide.
This guide tries to help communities oppose extractive applications, such as quarries, via the planning system. It draws on CAN's experience since 2008 of standing alongside communities to face down opencast coal mine applications, often successfully.. If you live in one of these geographies, it’s worth double-checking the planning process where you are. This guide draws on Coal Action Network’s experience of supporting local communities to oppose opencast coal mining since 2008. Much of this experience is applicable to communities opposing any large development in their area, particularly extractive industries such as quarrying.
A local campaign group is just a group of people coming together in an area to campaign on a shared issue. After the issue passes, the group can stop meeting – or can go on to campaign on other issues that might matter to the group. Below is a summary of advice for forming and maintaining your local campaign group – but there is lots of advice on the internet. We recommend this guide.
Organising together as a group will:
There are various ways to go about kicking off a campaign group such as:
The first meeting is high-stakes, you can lose people or win a committed core of the group. Here are some tips for a great first meeting of the new group:
Top tip: tea and biscuits make every meeting better!
How you divide up the work will partly depend on how much there is to do and what capacities and strengths members of the group have. It may be sensible to group tasks as:
A significant planning application can take 6 months to 5 years to be decided. This uncertainty and length of time can make it challenging to maintain momentum in the group. Consider:
At some point you will likely need some financial resources to fund things like:
Depending on the application you are opposing, and whether legal advice is needed, you could require from £50 to over £100,000 (see Getting legal advice), so your fundraising activities will vary greatly depending on your funding requirements. There are guides to fundraising online – we like the Resource Centre’s guide, and their advice on taking card payments. Options for fundraising can include:
It is common for developers to carry out pre-application engagement with the Local Planning Authority and public consultation to test the waters before submitting a full application form, at which point significant changes are harder and more expensive to make. Sometimes a developer at this stage is also trying to determine if a development is worth pursuing and has little invested. So there is an opportunity here to persuade a developer not to take a proposal further – but be aware sometimes a developer will file an application years after this initial pre-application phase.
To dissuade a developer taking an application further, you want to convince the developer that they are unlikely to gain planning permission or it will take a long time with strong local resistance – uncertain delays are likely to cost the developer more and make b`udgeting difficult. You can do this by:
The Local Planning Authority may not list a proposal on its planning portal until a formal application has been made by the developer. So, if you hear of a development proposal:
Once an application has been received by a Local Planning Authority, it will be uploaded to the Local Planning Authority’s online planning portal which is normally a section within the council’s website. It can take a few days for the application to appear on the online planning portal. Not all online planning portals are the same, but most have a ‘key word’ search function, you can try to find the application this way. If that does not locate the application, email the planning department for the application’s planning reference or a link to it in the online planning portal – you can usually find an email address for the planning department in the planning area of the council’s website. A planning reference often looks something like P/25/0037, is unique, and can be used to find the application in the online planning portal.
Top tip: bookmark the planning application page as you will want to check this page frequently for any new information/progress on the application.
Sometimes application forms are very brief and just fulfil formalities without much detail. This detail will come later in the EIA, or sometimes supplementary documents from the developer such as a planning outline or a survey. However, there is usually some useful information:
If the application requires an EIA, the Local Planning Authority is required to give a 28-day public consultation some time after the EIA is made available (generally on the online planning portal – it could instead be made available for viewing in paper-based form at the council offices but we haven’t known this to happen for years). If the application does not require an EIA, the Local Planning Authority is only required to give a 14-day public consultation (or 21 days if it is not published in a newspaper). If you can convince the Local Planning Authority to extend the public consultation (see below), or repeat it, it can be useful as it will delay the application which would likely weaken the developer’s business case for the development and may eventually contribute to the developer pulling out. In very rare instances, the Local Planning Authority may determine a planning application before the consultation ends.
Public consultation (EIA and non-EIA)
Your objection to the planning application
Send in your own objection during public consultation. You can draft it before the consultation begins so you can get it in early, but also so you have as much time as possible to encourage others to object within the public consultation period. Objections can be sent in after the consultation period, but Planning Officers are not obligated to consider those – though still worth submitting as they often do get considered in our experience. Coal Action Network has a sample consultation response.
Other people’s objection to the planning application
A planning application must be in the ‘public interest’ to be granted planning permission. The more people who write in to object to the planning application, the more likely it will be that the Local Planning Authority will decide it is not in the public interest. The greater the impact of the proposed development on the person objecting, the more weight that objection is generally given. That usually means residents living closest to the development, or along roads leading to the site that may see increased HGV traffic. Therefore, it is good to focus your energy on these people writing objections to the Local Planning Authority, and including their address in emails/letters.
Encourage people to object to a planning application by:
Check the Planning Committee meeting agendas to see if the development you oppose is due to be considered in the next meeting (usually monthly). The agendas are usually published online about a week before the meeting. If you can’t find it on the Council’s website, email the Planning Officer and ask where you can find the agenda, and when agendas are generally published online.
Congratulations! You successfully fended off an extractive development in your area… but it might not be over – sorry. The developer may now choose to do one of three things:
If the developer thinks there will also be vocal local opposition to an appeal or an amended application, they may decide it is less likely to be successful or they don’t need that headache – and move on. Therefore, it is good to celebrate a refusal loudly to let the developer know you’ve still got energy for the fight, and underscore in your press release that any similar applications in the future will also be fought against by the local community.
This can be gutting, particularly given all the evenings spent poring over planning jargon and days of whipping up local opposition to the application. The planning system is tilted in favour of big developers and the impacts on your quality of life and nature unfortunately take a back seat, even if not officially. Cash-strapped Local Planning Authorities also sometimes approve planning applications just to avoid big developers’ costly appeals against refusals, which can run over £100,000.
But all may not yet be lost. Whether decision was made by the Local Planning Authority, a Planning Inspector, or by a Minister, if they failed to consider some factor that was material to planning – or failed to give that factor sufficient weight – when making the decision to grant the application planning permission, you may be able to quash (negate) the planning permission with a judicial review challenge, forcing the Local Planning Authority to reconsider the application.
Ordinarily planning applications are decided by the Local Planning Authority (by either the Planning Officer or the planning committee). However, occasionally a planning application for a significant development will have impacts beyond its immediate surroundings or create widespread controversy. In these cases (look up all the grounds), if the government thinks that the Local Planning Authority cannot give these factors due consideration, it may choose to call in the application to be decided by the Government. If an application is determined the Local Planning Authority, it cannot subsequently be called-in. However, an application is often not called in until the Planning Officer’s report is published – so there is a small, nail-biting window of time in which you’ll find out if the application will be called in.
Be aware that very few planning applications are called in – only 198 planning applications were called in between 2010-2023, that’s 1 in every 23,000. Of the 43 planning applications called in 2019-2023, 60% were subsequently granted permission – a successful call-in doesn’t mean an application will get rejected.
How to get a planning application called in
England -
Wales -
Scotland -
Northern Ireland -
Process of a called-in application
Judicial reviews can be daunting… but can also be a successful last-ditch effort to stop an extractive project near you. Judicial reviews recently prevented oil drilling in Surrey and a huge underground coal mine in West Cumbria.
Getting legal advice from solicitors that specialise in planning and environmental law has a number of benefits.
However, solicitors’ costs can rapidly spiral and planning applications have been successfully opposed by local campaign groups without involving solicitors. Solicitors ostensibly charge by the hour – sometimes in 12-minute increments! So, keep communications with the solicitors focused and concise, and if there is something you can do e.g. finding contact details for planning councillors, it’ll be cheaper if you do it for the solicitors. Agree your budget and deliverables with the solicitors from the outset so that everyone is clear what the expectations are. We use Richard Buxton Solicitors, who specialise in environmental and planning law. They also have a great deal of experience helping oppose extractive projects. However, there may be legal campaign groups who will take on the case pro-bono (for free) such as Good Law Project, Lawyers for Nature, and the Environmental Law Foundation.
Depending upon what stage you involve solicitors, they can have a less or greater impact – generally the later the stage, the more worthwhile it is to involve solicitors.
CAN was one of 109 respondents to the UK Government’s consultation on ‘Growing the market for low carbon industrial products: policy framework’. This consultation was to contribute to the UK Government’s announced plans to work with industry to establish green public procurement guidance, product classifications (formerly voluntary product standards), and develop an embodied emissions reporting framework (EERF), alongside the announcement of a UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by 2027. When implementing these low carbon product market policies, the UK Government has said it “will account for factors beyond embodied carbon, such as product longevity, performance, and the ability to repair, reuse, repurpose, or recycle”. The UK Government admitted that “market inefficiencies and limited awareness among buyers continue to hinder demand for low carbon products. For example, there is currently no single agreed methodology for measuring the embodied carbon of industrial products, and multiple definitions of ‘low carbon’ create confusion”. What follows is a summary of what we and other consultees responded with, along with a short analysis of the UK Government’s decisions following the consultation.
We asked the UK Government to introduce mandatory embodied carbon reporting for the construction sector, such as the EU are introducing. This would support the UK’s cement sectors investments in expanding low-carbon cement production and capitalise on the expected demand from the EU, helping safeguard the UK’s cement sector’s future. The advantages of mandatory rather than voluntary reporting include a creating a level playing field, standardised reporting methodology (which would aid benchmarking and clarity), and that it would give the construction sector a clear signal the UK Government treats embodied carbon as a serious climate priority, thereby encouraging firms to embed low-carbon choices early in the design process and contribute to the UK’s Net Zero agenda. Strategic policy is needed as the construction and the built environment is responsible for at least 25% of UK emissions. This is why UK industry is also calling on the Government to introduce mandatory reporting standards.
It is disappointing that the UK Government has decided to proceed with a voluntary embodied emissions reporting framework (EERF), and only committed to further consultation on making the EERF mandatory at a later stage. Reasons for proceeding on a voluntary basis may include that it avoids the need to agree the EERF with devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The UK Government also claims an initially voluntary introduction of EERF aims to encourage the immediate reporting of embodied emissions data and improve product comparisons, while minimising risks such as potential unintended consequences and costs to taxpayers and producers. The risk and unintended consequences are not explained. With this phased approach, producers able to meet reporting requirements could provide embodied emissions data as soon as available, while others would have time to prepare for the possibility of mandatory reporting in the future. It is not clear what incentive the voluntary approach gives to ‘first movers’ to take on the additional burden of EERF. We predict low industry uptake and very limited effectiveness in leveraging industrial decarbonisation markets.
The UK Government proposes guidance on the method of embodied emissions reporting as the first phase of the EERF, while also developing an IT system to simplify and reduce the costs of reporting, ensuring the embodied emissions data is more accessible and easier to compare. We are supportive of this, in principle, but believe the voluntary nature of the guidance means various methods to calculate embodied emissions will continue to be used and that, therefore, comparability will be constrained by limited uptake of voluntary reporting. We maintain that this range of methods will become embedded in the industry, which will create resistance to later measures by the Government to make one reporting method the mandatory one.
We are pleased to see the UK Government recommend the existing European standard EN 15804 for embodied lifecycle carbon reporting, which would ease trade with the rest of Europe and reduce duplication of competing standards.
In cement works, alternative fuels are increasingly used to replace traditional fossil fuels such as gas, oil, and coal burned to generate the 1,450c needed to generate clinker, a key part of cement. Alternative fuels are generally from waste products that would otherwise end up in landfill, but when burned sometimes generate more CO2 than traditional fossil fuels. This can disincentivise cement works switching to alternative fuels, even though it diverts waste products from landfill and reduces the localised environmental harms associated with fossil fuel extraction. The UK Government has rightly decided that embodied emissions reporting for products, including cement, should be gross CO2e emissions, but that producers can optionally also include net CO2e which deducts emissions from burning alternative, waste-derived fuels. In this way, producers can promote the benefits of making their products using alternative fuels, whilst also providing a transparent account of the gross emissions involved.
Along with other consultees, CAN called on the UK Government to develop a definition of low carbon steel, cement, and concrete for the UK industry. This should be coupled with a clear banding system such as A-G scale of low to high carbon industrial products. This would help construction companies compare, for example, cement products to more easily select lower-carbon products with the confidence of a Government-endorsed standard.
Unfortunately, the UK Government has ignored the consultation majority by stating that it will not introduce a single cross-sector standard, instead relying on the existing patchwork of classifications by industry and international organisations. This was apparently prompted by some industry responders claiming a comparable rating system could obscure nuances. Furthermore, the Government inexplicably will not develop any carbon footprint classification for cement products, which are responsible for 9% of the UK’s emissions.
This response shows a disappointing adherence to consultees’ feedback, as well as a distinct lack of ambition towards supporting low-carbon markets within key carbon-intensive industries. Relying on the existing patchwork of standards will prevent carbon comparison between construction projects, reducing incentives for companies to select lower-carbon products. This is because existing standards vary in how they classify low carbon products and encourage organisations to set procurement commitments e.g. SteelZero, ConcreteZero, the First Movers Coalition, and the Construction Leadership Council (CLC). In 2023, gross construction new work output totalled £139 billion, with the private sector share over 2.5x the size of the public sector.
Along with other consultees, CAN agreed with the UK Government that green public procurement can create the confidence of demand for low-carbon products that can incentivise industry to invest in decarbonisation technologies. Overall responders focused emphasised the need for both practical and clear guidance on how to go about procurement low-carbon products, as many in procurement teams lack the technical expertise to scrutinise the range of industry product classifications.
Rather than inventing an entirely new framework from scratch, the Government decided that new procurement guidance will directly endorse and integrate existing, industry-led standard models for material classification (such as the Low Emission Steel Standard (LESS) for steel, and benchmarks from the Lower Carbon Concrete Group for concrete). We are concerned that these material classifications for industry, by industry, and may therefore not have the same rigour as a classification designed by a government body – its more industry self-regulation that we’ve seen fail before. Furthermore, these industry standards will be embedded in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) Construction Products Regulation, which sets whether a construction product can legally be sold or used on a UK building site. Given the overriding consultation response requesting clarity for non-technical staff, we are concerned that the decision to rely on the multiple existing industry classification would require training on multiple classification standards and that these are primarily made for technical construction consultants rather than public procurement staff.
We applaud the UK Government for its commitment to meeting level 3 of the Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI) Green Procurement Pledge, which it signed at COP28. This means the government will require the public procurement of low-carbon cement, concrete, and steel in public construction projects starting from 2030 onwards.
We support the UK Government’s effort to ensure inter-departmental alignment, otherwise known as the right hand talking to the left hand. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is mandating that these procurement rules directly complement the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Construction Products Regulation reforms and the upcoming Steel Strategy, ensuring public sector buyers have a single, unified standard for what constitutes a compliant "low-carbon" purchase
Encouraging multiple approaches to decarbonisation, particularly in combination where compatible, is likely to drive the rapid and deep decarbonisation of industry being sought by the UK Government. However, not all pathways are equal and it is counter-productive not to encourage those most effective at reducing environmental harms. To do so would also create inconsistency between criterion 1 point 3 and 4. Technologies that drive greater efficiencies, using fewer materials through product design and waste reduction should be rewarded over abatement technologies such as carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS).
The UK Government has stuck to encouraging a broad range of decarbonisation approaches, including energy efficiency, resource efficiency, renewable energy, fuel switching, and CCUS, without favouring any specific production pathway. We hope that the high energy inputs and embodied emissions required to operate some decarbonisation technologies such as CCUS, is calculated into any corresponding reduction in site emissions. We also trust that the Government will be more nuanced than their statement suggests in supporting a hierarchy of abatement approaches and technologies that favours those that are proven, lowest impact, and reduce resource consumption.
Carmarthenshire County Council has rejected Bryn Bach Coal Ltd’s second attempt to expand and extend the currently dormant Glan Lash opencast coal mine, amidst hundreds of hand-written and online objections from residents in the county (see below for a small selection). The decision reflects a clear, strategic commitment to climate leadership, rare habitat protection, and safeguarding the health of surrounding communities. There are no live applications for new coal mines, and only two active coal mines remain in the UK – a large, underground coal mine in Aberpergwm, Glynneath and a small underground coal mine called Ayle Colliery in Northumberland. There is further a proposal (pre-application stage) to mine the Bedwas coal tips of waste coal.
The proposed expansion was the mining company’s second application following unanimous rejection by Councillors of the company’s first application in September 2023. The second application reduced the amount of coal to be mined from 95,000 tonnes to 85,000 over 5.4 years, with a slightly smaller area to be excavated. However, the latest application remained incompatible with Wales’ coal and protected habitats policies. Rejecting this application has prevented the release of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2 and methane, as well as exhaust emissions from years of heavy machinery. The would-be commercial buyers of this coal – as listed by the mining company – sell anthracite coal to burn on the international market, and undermining the mining company’s claims that coal mined at Glan Lash would not be burned. Selling Glan Lash coal on the international market would fuel dependence abroad on the world’s number one dirtiest fossil fuel, whilst the UK itself transitions to greener, cleaner industry and air quality.
Beyond emissions, an independent ecologist’s report outlines in stark terms how the mine expansion would have destroyed a further 2.5 hectares of woodland, including sections of listed ancient woodland, as well as over 400 metres of precious hedgerow habitat. It also would have delayed the excavated area’s restoration (which planning permission originally required to be delivered in 2019) by a further 5.4 years. The mining company originally committed to start restoring the site in 2018, but delayed this with successive attempts to extend mining instead. These delays have coincided with the deterioration of protected habitats on the site such as those supporting the threatened Marsh Fritillary butterflies, whose numbers have plummeted across the UK by 64% since just 2005. This refusal paves the way to finally require the company to return the land for the benefit of nature and local communities.
With the closest homes just 30 metres from the edge of the opencast site, the application was also clearly incompatible with the 500-metre minimum buffer zone required by Welsh Government policy to protect surrounding communities from excessive noise, dust, and air pollution and disturbance.
Carmarthenshire Planning Authority’s decision reflects alignment with the Welsh Government’s positions on coal, climate, and nature recovery, the UK Government’s commitment to prevent new coal mining licences, and the international movement to phase out coal.
Earlier this month, the King’s Speech marked a major milestone for our campaign for the introduction of legislation which will ban new coal mines. The Government formally announced the Energy Independence Bill, and with it a commitment to ‘Implement the manifesto commitment to end new coal licenses’. This is a breakthrough that Coal Action Network has specifically been working towards for over two years and is a significant step forward, but our work is far from finished.
The Bill, as currently framed, does not categorically include a ban on coal extraction from coal tips, despite significant support for its inclusion. Our legal advice shows clearly why clarification is needed with amendments to the Coal Industry Act and how to amend the Act with the upcoming legislation. Strengthening the Bill to include a full prohibition remains our top priority as it moves through Parliament.
Following the King’s Speech, both Houses began several days of debates on the Government’s programme. Across the Commons and the Lords, MPs and Peers have not only welcomed the commitment to end new coal licences but have also highlighted the need for the legislation to go further by specifically addressing coal tip extraction. Their interventions show a growing cross‑party understanding that a credible coal phase‑out must cover all forms of extraction.
We are grateful to the following Parliamentarians for highlighting coal tips in their speeches:
"I welcome the commitment to ending new coal licences in the coal licences Bill. While Wales’s coalfield communities can rightly be proud of their heritage, it is vital that we now protect them from the environmental and social harms of further extraction. That is essential for those living near the Bersham colliery spoil tip in Rhostyllen, in my constituency. Given that private companies are now seeking to mine coal tips, which would inflict the same issues on communities, this type of extraction should also be prohibited."
"The King’s Speech includes the new coal licensing ban, which is welcome. However, as I have raised before in Parliament, the proposed ban in its current form does not guarantee the prevention of commercial extraction of coal from coal tips in Wales. The Government should bring measures forward to close this loophole so that companies can never profit from the more than 2,500 tips, containing millions of tonnes of coal between them."
"Long-lasting bitterness arose when profits from coal were rarely used to Wales’s benefit, yet we were left to clear up the mess and live with dangerous tips. Please will the energy independence Bill ensure that the full costs of removing or securing remaining coal tips are not lumbered on to the Welsh Government, nor left to private companies to work residual coal in a largely unregulated way?"
During their party conference, Plaid Cymru announced plans for their first hundred days of Government, should they win the Welsh election. Having now formed the Government, we hope to work with them and other Members of the Senedd to achieve some of those priorities. This is the last of three posts outlining opportunities which could help them to do that. Focussed on industrial emissions; Wales could be a world leader in emissions standards which creates a much cleaner, forward looking domestic industry which will be in high demand now and for decades to come.
By continuing to use coal in sectors where it can be more challenging to replace it, like cement production, risks just offshoring the mining – and the pollution – abroad. Alongside the new electric arc furnace for steel production at Port Talbot, a low-carbon cement sector would create a heavy industry in Wales ready for a Net-Zero economy. This would also open up export markets for Welsh industry to meet the growing demand for green steel and cement in the EU, driven by the incoming mandatory lifecycle carbon reporting for buildings and green standards.
Meanwhile, Wales’s mining legacy means large amounts of abandoned mine methane are leaking from coal seams long after mining has finished. Rapidly reducing these leaks is vital for a stable climate, especially since former Welsh mines produce an estimated 49% of the UK’s abandoned mine methane.
The Government’s industrial strategy must support Wales’ two cement works to switch coal for alternative fuels and use different ingredients for cement clinker to reduce the energy needed to make cement. Negotiating this with stakeholders early on will be key to leading the way in industrial decarbonisation.
The EU has already set rules to mitigate methane leaks by 2030; Wales should adopt similar rules to stop the leakage here.
These recommendations would help the new Government in the following areas of Plaid Cymru's first 100 days commitments:
Published 14. 05. 2026
Deep (AKA underground) coal mines have a long history in the UK dating back some 400 years. On the other hand, opencast coal mines only became common between 1940 and 60, becoming the dominant mining method in the UK as deep coal mining entered rapid decline. Opencast coal mining techniques were largely imported from the USA (Hansard, 1950) together with the heavy machinery they required. In 1942, the UK Government established the Directorate of Opencast Coal Production under the Ministry of Works to exploit coal seams near the surface (National Archives, n.d.) that were too shallow or fragmented for deep-mining techniques (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). The UK Government encouragement of opencast coal mining was partly the result of a need to boost coal production and a wartime shortage of labour to do it (British Geological Survey). Opencast coal mining was cheaper and used less labour - it also did not require the specialised skills that deep coal mines do. Although opencast coal mining was introduced as an emergency wartime measure, it persisted due to its economic viability compared with deep coal mining. Yet, despite this transition from deep to opencast coal mining, as of 2026, deep coal mines have outlived opencast coal mines as the only active mines remaining in the UK - namely, Aberpergwm in South Wales and the relatively small Ayle Colliery in Northumberland.
The Opencast Coal Act 1958 provided the first comprehensive legal framework for the industry, regulating land acquisition and restoration requirements as the practice moved from emergency status to a long-term economic strategy. However, today we see that this legislation and subsequent legislation was not strong enough to secure restoration of the sprawling opencast coal mines.
We worked with media outlet, Nation.Cymru, to ask where the main political parties in Wales stands on restoration issues ahead of the Welsh election on 07th May 2026. This is a key issue for many people, but particularly those who live near under-restored opencast coal mine sites. These sites need Welsh Government support to bring them more in line with the quality that was promised to local residents. It's also vital that Wales learns lessons from its scarred landscape. We hope that these political parties remember these pre-election commitments when it comes to determine the called-in Ffos-y-fran ex-opencast restoration planning application. Reform was the only party not to respond - but this is a summary of what the other political parties of Wales had to say:
(see the Nation.Cymru article for the full account)
Industry Accountability: Strengthening "polluter pays" laws to ensure companies that profited from heavy industry are legally responsible for land restoration.
National Remediation: Implementing a nationwide strategy to monitor and restore every coal tip, while demanding Westminster fund the clean-up of pre-devolution hazards.
Community Planning: Reforming land-use planning to balance development with nature restoration and better public access to green spaces.
Justice First: Mandating that polluters pay for all prevention and repair, ensuring environmental damage is never subsidized by the public.
Ecological Regeneration: Focusing on long-term ecological repair of mining sites rather than short-term safety fixes to deliver environmental justice.
Fundamental Access: Treating high-quality nature access as a fundamental right, prioritizing new green spaces in communities historically affected by industry.
Pollution Reform: Introducing a new Clean Water Bill and a dedicated watchdog to crack down on water pollution.
Tip Safety: Establishing a "Disused Tips Authority" in Merthyr Tydfil to secure 400+ sites and exploring solar energy or mine-water heating on reclaimed land.
Green Renewal: Expanding on the 4,000+ green spaces already created by launching an urban rewilding taskforce.
Aggressive Enforcement: Taking tough action on sewage and industrial dumping, ensuring big companies—not local taxpayers—foot the bill for clean-ups.
Green Opportunity: Moving past "empty nostalgia" by transforming former coal sites into hubs for green industry, housing, and skilled work.
Land Reclamation: Partnering with councils to turn derelict land into parks, tree-filled areas, and safe walking or cycling routes.
New Oversight: Scrapping Natural Resources Wales and replacing it with a new independent regulator to enforce environmental rules.
Conservation Funding: Establishing a £20m "Wildlife Wales Fund" to support conservation efforts and community green spaces.
Economic Focus: Prioritizing economic transformation in coalfield areas while protecting heritage and improving site safety.
As part of our Politics Unspun series we are unpacking politicians' public comments on coal to challenge any misleading or incorrect messages.
Todays' focus is on comments made in a BBC interview during the Senedd election campaign about coal mining in Wales. During the interview, Reform UK candidate in Afan Ogwr Rhondda, Ben Hodge-McKenna, made some statements about coal mining which we would like to address as part of this series.
Mr Hodge-McKenna claimed that reopening Welsh coal mines could help meet the UK’s energy needs. However, the UK no longer operates any coal‑fired power stations and the country’s energy strategy is now centred on renewables, storage, and electrification. Coal has not been a major part of the UK energy mix for almost a decade and Welsh coal cannot substitute for modern low‑carbon energy systems. Reopening mines would not contribute to UK energy security.
"It doesn't make sense for us to be sabotaging our economic policy and sacrificing jobs in Wales when you have other countries around the world that are ramping up,"
Reopening mines now would not recreate the large, long‑term workforces of the past. Modern mining is highly mechanised, and any jobs created would be limited and short‑lived, particularly due to the decreasing demand for coal in the UK. Aside from this though, the UK Government will soon legislate a prohibition of new coal mining licences, making new mining activities impossible approve in Wales or anywhere in the UK.
In contrast, Wales’s growing renewable energy sector offers larger, more stable employment opportunities which offer long term jobs in an expanding industry to workers today and in years to come.
Mr Hodge-McKenna said he understood the concerns about climate change, but the emissions that are produced in Wales on a global scale "are absolutely minuscule" meaning any changes would have "virtually no impact".
Regardless of other countries ramping up their coal production, it is in our own economic interest to pursue a clean energy future. All countries could, and some do, avoid taking action because of larger current or historic emissions being produced by another country. Wales can only control its own coal production and be the example to other countries as to how to transition in a just way which benefits workers, communities and the climate.
"I don't think anybody's talking about sort of going back to the 70s or 80s and reopening mines in the conditions that they were previously. But if there are commercial opportunities to enjoy the natural resources that we have then we shouldn't be automatically closed off to any options without at least giving them a fair consideration,"
While safety standards in coal mining have improved, this does not address the core issue: coal is the highest‑emitting fossil fuel. The UK’s climate commitments require rapid reductions in emissions, and new coal extraction would run counter to those goals. Additionally, Wales still faces safety risks from legacy coal infrastructure, such as abandoned opencast sites and unstable tips which require ongoing management.
Improved safety conditions in mining do not change the environmental and climate impacts associated with burning coal.
Coal Action Network is proud to present our 2026 manifesto for Wales. With the Senedd elections taking place in May this year, Wales stands at a decisive moment. For over a century, coal has shaped Welsh landscapes, communities, and politics. Now Wales has the opportunity to shape something very different: a future defined not by extraction, but by restoration, innovation, and justice.
Our recommendations are:
We urge all parties to prioritise a bolder, brighter Wales, by adopting these recommendations.
Download a copy in Welsh or English by clicking on either of the images above.
As part of our Politics Unspun series we are unpacking politicians' public comments on coal to challenge any misleading or incorrect messages.
Todays' focus is on comments made during a Westminster Hall debate in December about the oil refining sector. During the debate, Lee Anderson MP made some statements about coal use and extraction which we would like to address as part of this series.
In summary, Mr Anderson’s views in this debate appear to cling to the positives of the coal mining industry without accepting its negatives. These views do not accept contemporary scientific, economic or legal realities and do not consider either the worsening impacts of climate change if the world does not transition from coal, or the vast opportunities that a just transition offers society.
"I worked in the coal mines in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and the whole industry was decimated by the Conservative Government at the time… What the Government did not realise at the time is that when they got rid of a coalmine—each coalmine had a football team, a rugby team, a cricket team, a community club, a miners’ welfare, a brass band and a bandstand in the local welfare grounds—it destroyed whole communities, and those communities will never come back. They will never be the same again."
We absolutely agree with Mr Anderson’s initial statement; the destruction of Britain’s coal communities in the 1980s was profound, lasting, and traumatic. The way the Thatcher Government closed the mines is now taught internationally as a case study in how not to transition from coal; a warning about what happens when governments shut down an industry without planning for new jobs, new skills, or new economic purpose.
This is why we are surprised that he now forgives Thatcher’s economic policies which directly led to the closure of the pits in such a destructive way. The 1980s mine closures were not inevitable, they were damaging political choices – choices which he now appears to support.
While we want to see the end of coal mining in the UK and elsewhere, we campaign for just transitions which benefit workers and communities. The answer is not to just reopen the pits, but to replace those jobs in industries which aide our transition to clean energy.
"It is all well and good saying to somebody, “It’s okay, you can make windmills or solar panels,” or, “We’ll retrain you in green energy,” but they do not want that. This lot do not understand that there are still men and women in this country who want to get up in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft. I have been one of those working men who gets up in the morning at 5 o’clock and goes and does a dirty, horrible, dangerous job. I know what it is like to come home, after doing a horrible shift on a horrible job. I know what the people in these communities feel like."
Communities deserve better than being told their only future is their past. Mr Anderson paints a picture of working‑class pride rooted in dangerous, exhausting labour. But why should workers be condemned to work in ‘dirty, horrible, dangerous jobs’? Pride does not require danger and we should expect more than that now that we have alternatives. Community does not require coal dust and dignity does not require repeating the mistakes of the 1980s.
He seems to suggest that the electricians, welders, engineers and other workers who are installing solar farms and wind turbines do not ‘do a proper day’s graft’. A real pro‑worker position would be to invest in tomorrow’s industries in former coal regions, guaranteeing secure well‑paid jobs for years to come which support community institutions directly AND protect workers from dangerous conditions.
The lesson of the 1980s is not that we should cling to coal. It is that when transitions are done badly, communities suffer—and when they are done well, communities thrive. Mr Anderson is right to honour the miners. But honouring them means fighting for the future of those communities, not chaining them to their past.
"I have heard colleagues talk about “net stupid zero” in the past. We think the targets should be scrapped; we are not against trying different sources of energy to fuel our nation. We are saying we should have a sensible transition. China has got it right: it is burning coal. China is opening coal mines and using coal-fired power stations."
Mr Anderson appears to be contradicting himself within two sentences. ‘We should have a sensible transition’ but ‘China has got it right: it is burning coal’. A ‘sensible’, or just, transition is not what happened in the 1980s, but reopening coal mines and coal power stations now, when the UK has already transitioned from them, would be counter intuitive.
Our view is that China should also be transitioning from coal use and extraction. But pointing to China’s coal use is a way of excusing inaction at home. The Chinese Government should do more to decrease coal use in China. Lee Anderson is a Member of the UK Parliament though and should be helping his community to benefit from the energy transition we are in the midst of.
