Legal challenges against Whitehaven coal mine approval

In December 2022, the UK government approved a 2.78 million tonne a year coking coal mine proposed for Whitehaven, Cumbria. South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) has started proceedings for a Statutory Review of this decision. At the same time, Friends of the Earth have also filed a legal challenge. This article looks at the grounds for these legal challenges.

While there are at least 11 arguments why the decision is wrong, only the process behind arriving at the decision can be challenged at a Statutory Review, rather than the decision itself.

Below are the 4 grounds that Richard Buxton Solicitors is challenging on behalf of SLACC, followed be the 4 grounds of Friends of the Earth’s case. A public inquiry was held in 2021, run by a Planning Inspector. After it finished, the Planning Inspector wrote up his recommendation to the UK Government in his report. The Secretary of State based his decision to approve the Whitehaven coal mine on this Inspector’s Report.

South Lakes Action on Climate Change legal challenge

Ground 1 – error of law and/ or failure to give understandable reasons concerning substitution.

The Inspector’s report assumes there will be “some degree of substitution” between coal mined abroad, likely from the USA, and coal from Whitehaven. Unless the substitution would be 100%, as in exactly the same amount of coal extracted from Cumbria would be left underground in a permitted mine elsewhere, the mine would still result in increased global emissions. Substitution won't be anywhere near 100%, as the owners of mines elsewhere will simply sell the coal to different steelworks. The Secretary of State decided on an “overall neutral effect on climate change”, despite the increase in emissions.

Ground 2 – error of law in discounting the international impacts of allowing this mine.

Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gave evidence that many other countries will follow suit and approve fossil fuel projects as a result of this decision. A rare letter from Lord Deben from the Climate Change Committee concurred, the decision “gives a negative impression of the UK’s climate priorities in the year of COP26.”

The UK’s international climate reputation was a key reason that the government called in the decision, rather than allowing Cumbria County Council to make it. The Inspector’s report completely fails to deal with both sets of evidence related to this central controversial issue.

Ground 3 – errors of law concerning whether ‘downstream emissions’ caused by the coking coal were indirect significant environment effects of the proposal.

The Inspector concluded that downstream emissions - those resulting in the use of the coking coal, rather than its extraction - “cannot reasonably be regarded as indirect significant effects of the proposed development.” This is incorrect understanding of the law because of the above substitution error – as other coal will not be 100% substituted for mining reduction elsewhere, but also a misunderstanding of the implications of a cited court case (Finch). Without this coal being mined, it wouldn’t be burnt and so there would be significantly fewer downstream emissions.

Ground 4 – unlawful disparity of treatment of the parties and error concerning the approach to the burden of proof.

The Inspector applied different standards to the parties throughout the inquiry. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 217, imposes a high threshold of evidence as to the benefits of a coal mine on the applicant rather than those opposing it. The Inspector seemed to do the opposite, imposing a higher threshold upon testimonies against the coal mine development. This might have influenced how the Government later interpreted the testimonies through the Inspector's report.

Friends of the Earth’s legal challenge

Ground 1: Approach to considering the effect of the development on the UK’s Sixth Carbon Budget.

The impact of the mine on the UK’s Sixth Carbon Budget, which covers the years 2033 to 2037, was a key issue in the Public Inquiry.

The mining company had entered a legal agreement requiring it to buy international carbon offset credits to offset residual emissions from the mine. In the decision letter the Secretary of State concluded that this requirement meant the mine would be net-zero for the purposes of the Sixth Carbon Budget. That conclusion was wrong and unlawful. Such offset credits do not count towards the UK’s carbon budgets.

Ground 2: Approach to considering the international impacts of the decision.

Similar to SLACC’s Ground 2 reasoning.

Ground 3: Approach to ‘substitution’ of WCM coal and the global coal market.

Similar to SLACC’s Ground 1 reasoning.

Ground 4: Earlier court case (Finch) and downstream emissions.

The Secretary of State’s reasoning closely follows the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of R (Finch) v Surrey County Council, both in terms of whether downstream emissions should have been the subject of environmental assessment, and in terms of the case-by-case assessment of their materiality. It is argued that this is a misinterpretation of the judgement, similar to SLACC’s Ground 3.

As both legal challenges base one of their grounds on the R (Finch) v Surrey County Council court case, and which is subject to a Supreme Court decision going to court in June, it is expected that the challenges against the coal mine will be delayed until after the R (Finch) v Surrey County Council court case is heard. Once a single day hearing has happened, a decision will be given as to whether or not the government has to remake the decision on the Whitehaven case.

The full documents can be read on SLACC’s website https://slacc.org.uk/cumbria-coal-mine/

More details on the challenge by Friends of the Earth are available at https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate/legal-challenge-filed-over-cumbrian-coal-mine

Coal tip remediation – not coal tip mining

November 27th 2024

The Welsh Government’s long-awaited Bill is expected to be presented to the Senedd before the end of 2024. The very recent Cwmtillery tip slip will make this Bill a more politically charged issue. It will also raise scrutiny over whether measures in the new Bill mark a sufficient improvement on the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969…

Türkiye’nin Kömür Kullanımına Devam Etmesi

November 19th 2024

Kömür Eylem Ağı (Coal Action Network), 2024 yılında Türkiye kömür endüstrisini araştırdı. Bu makalede, bulgularımız ve Türkiye’deki kömür, hava kirliliği, Rusya savaşı ile karbonsuzlaştırma arasındaki ilişkiler inceleniyor.

e-action to stop this year’s Mines and Monday Conference

November 18th 2024

Last December in London, the CAN team protested with other climate campaigners for two days in freezing temperatures outside one of the world’s biggest events funnelling investment into expanding mining globally. The ‘Mines and Money Conference’ held in London’s Business Design Centre connected investors with projects and companies responsible for human rights abuses, ecocide, and fuelling climate chaos…

UK Government makes it official: coal mining no more

November 15th 2024

The UK Government has laid a Written Ministerial Statement confirming that it will introduce legislation to “restrict the future licensing of new coal mines”, by amending the Coal Industry Act 1994, “when Parliamentary time allows”. The UK Government’s press release is entitled “New coal mining licences will be banned”. Here at Coal Action Network, we thinks it’s great that the UK Government is following…

Turkey’s deadly coal consumption

November 13th 2024

(Türkçe olarak mevcuttur) Coal Action Network investigated the Turkish coal industry in 2024. This article looks at our findings and the links between Turkish coal, air pollution, Russia’s war and decarbonisation.

We have to do better by steelworkers…

October 24th 2024

Former steelworker, Pat Carr, spoke to Anne Harris from Coal Action Network about the financial support offered to workers when the Consett steelworks closed in 1980, and they discussed what can be done better, in workplaces like Scunthorpe steelworks. (Article published in Canary magazine)

Another nail in the coffin for West Cumbria Mining Ltd

October 17th 2024

The proposed West Cumbria Coal mine lost its planning permission in September 2024. Since then its application to get a full coal mining license was refused by the Coal Authority, another nail in the coffin of the proposed coking coal mine.

Glan Lash extension: the second attempt

October 16th 2024

Bryn Bach Coal Ltd is the coal mining company that operates the Glan Lash opencast coal mine, which has been dormant since planning permission expired in 2019. In 2018, it applied for an extension which was unanimously rejected by planning councillors in 2023. Undeterred, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd is trying again! This time with a slightly smaller extension of some 85,000 tonnes rather than 95,000 tonnes…

Consett Steelworks closure – a Just Transition? (An interview)

October 11th 2024

Former steelworker, Pat Carr, speaks to Anne Harris from Coal Action Network about the financial support offered to workers when the Consett steelworks closed in 1980.

12 3 Next Last >