Coal Action Network has been campaigning for a ban on new coal mining for years, and met with numerous MPs in the lead-up to the 2024 UK General Election. Together with our supporters, we celebrate this clear win for us and for all the communities that won't now suffer noise, dust, and traffic pollution from nearby coal mining. As the first G7 country to ban coal mining, it also sets an example to other G7 countries to follow.
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". We thinks it's great that the UK Government is following through on its historic manifesto pledge to rule out new coal mining throughout the UK. Following on the coattails of the UK’s exit from coal-fired power generation, this commitment bolsters the UK’s international reputation in leaving behind the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel. We hope to work with the UK Government to ensure no loopholes are carried into the final wording, and to leverage similar commitments in other G20 countries
Türkçe için bu web sayfasına bakın.
The small city of Ereğli nestles between tree covered mountains and Turkey’s Black Sea coast. The city is dominated by the Erdemir steelworks. It is one of three blast furnace steelworks in Turkey, using coal to produce steel. Erdemir is a mighty presence in the lives and lungs of the people living nearby.
Local people’s homes sit in an amphitheatre surrounding the vast steelworks, which sends plumes of steam into the air every few minutes that shimmers and obscures apartment blocks across the bay. Investigators from Coal Action Network travelled to Turkey to speak with people currently affected by Turkish coal burning facilities, like the Erdemir steelworks, when it looked possible that a new coal mine would open in Cumbria and supply coal to Turkey, perpetuating the local populations’ air pollution issues. For more information on why Coal Action Network visited Turkey and links to UK coal mining, see this page.
Turkey uses imported coal in its steelworks and power stations, as well as mining domestically.
Turkey is the 8th biggest steel producer globally. In 2023, it produced a massive 33.7 million tonnes of steel and consumed 21.1 million tonnes of scrap metal, according to World Steel Association. 27 of the 30 steelworks in the country produced steel by melting down scrap metal produced in Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF), producing 72% of the country’s steel output. There are three blast furnaces that use coal, converted into coke, in the steel making process, and many of the EAFs use coal to provide heat. This coal is largely imported. Russia supplies 73% of Turkey’s coal imports, and Colombia the bulk of the remainder.
EAFs consume large amounts of electricity. In Turkey, much of this electricity comes from coal through the power grid. One Turkish EAF has its own coal power station. Coal power supplied 35% of Turkey’s electricity in 2022. Turkey both imports and exports large quantities of steel (18 million tonnes and 12.7 million tonnes respectively, in 2023). More than 20 of the EAF steel facilities currently use coal to melt scrap metal. Steel is the country’s third largest export sector.
Turkey is one of the top five importers of Russian coal. Many countries, including the UK, EU member states and USA stopped buying Russian coal, as part of sanctions following the country’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Vaibhav Raghunandan, from Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) says, “Turkeyʼs increased reliance on Russian coal (and indeed other fossil fuels) is effectively tying it down to an increasingly volatile supplier who controls their market. The Russian coal sector is a huge source of revenue for the Kremlin and the Energy Ministry had set targets of attaining 25% of the global coal market by 2035. Taxes from coal constitute a significant part of the Federal Budget. Since the invasion, Turkey — A NATO country — has paid EUR 8.2 bn for Russian coal, which effectively finances Russiaʼs invasion of Ukraine.”
Since the invasion Turkey has increased its market share of Russian coal, Turkey’s imports constitute 13% of Russiaʼs total coal exports. In the first three quarters of 2024, Turkey has imported 15.7 million tonnes of Russian coal, making up 49% of Turkey’s total coal imports (valued at EUR 1.66 billion). This is an 82% increase when compared to the same period in the year prior to the invasion.
Additionally, the Russian coal mining industry causes cultural genocide, environmental destruction and air pollution issues, detailed in Coal Action Network and Fern’s report, Slow Death in Siberia.
According to the World Health Organization, air pollution is the largest environmental threat to people’s health across the globe, including in Turkey. There are four main health harming pollutants released in coal consumption from steelworks and power stations: Sulphur dioxide (SO2); particulate matter – PM10 and the smaller PM2.5; nitrogen oxides (NOX) and mercury.
Breathing SO2, which is produced on combustion of high sulphur coal, increases the risk of health conditions – including stroke, heart disease, asthma, lung cancer and death. It is classified as very toxic when inhaled. Even a single exposure to a high concentration can cause a long-lasting condition like asthma. SO2 emissions rose by 14% in Turkey in 2019, one of the few countries in which emissions increased in that year. Coal-based energy production remains the major source of SO2 emissions in Turkey.
Local people in Ereğli, the city surrounding the Erdemir blast furnace steelworks, told Coal Action Network that university studies into their health are normally suppressed by government. However, in a study looking at the incidence of multiple sclerosis (MS) in populations in Ereğli compared to Devrek, which is a rural and clean city located 40 km away from Ereğli, “indicate a more than double MS prevalence rate in the area home to an iron and steel factory [Ereğli] when compared to the rural city [Devrek]. This supports the hypothesis that air pollution may be a possible etiological [Pertaining to, or inquiring into, causes] factor in MS.” Local people take no persuading that the air is contaminated by the steelworks and damaging their health.
Çetin Yılmaz, leader of Black Sea, Ereğli and Alaplı Environmental Volunteers, brought together 15 concerned citizens from Erdemir to talk with Coal Action Network about the impacts they face in the town surrounding the steelworks. They bemoan the scientific studies which show links between the steelworks and the diminishing health of the local population, but which are suppressed by the Government.
Çetin says, “The company [Eren Energy] has caused cancer in many people, it does not recognize the right of their employees to unionize in its facilities; it has fired workers who want to be unionized; it has made Çatalagzı into a breathless state; it has filled fish breeding grounds with ash; it burns 2 million tons of imported coal every year and caused the greatest damage to humans and nature in our region.”
A worker, who has worked at the Erdemir steelworks for 18 years, explained how he got throat cancer, which could be heard affecting his voice when we met him. Local people think 50% of the population’s health is affected by the steelworks. A teacher present recalled how in each of his classes around 10 children will have breathing issues, caused by the poor quality air.
The local political representative told Coal Action Network, “Most people here work in mines or in the steel plant, everyone knows that the air pollution causes cancer and breathing difficulties. The workers aren’t in a position to do anything about it as they have to earn money and would lose their employment, as well as their health.”
OYAK, the company which owns Erdemir and İsdemir blast furnaces, says it will use seven different methods to decarbonise. Its so called Net Zero Roadmap reads more like a list of potential options to reduce emissions and does nothing to resemble an actual plan.
Air pollution and health problems at İsdemir are likely to mimic those at Erdemir. Turkey’s CO2 intensity for the blast furnace steel production exceeds the comparable emissions for steel produced in Europe, the USA, and South Korea.
There have been persistent shortcomings in compliance with environmental, public, and occupational health regulations across the steel production value chain in Turkey.
Sitting at the eastern edge of Europe, Turkey is expected to surpass Germany as Europe's largest coal-fired electricity generator in 2024. Turkey is still opening new coal power stations, such as Hunutlu Thermal Power Plant opened in 2022. Turkey has 34 coal fired power stations, 10 use hard coal and the remainder use lignite, a less energy dense, poorer quality coal that is burnt close to its source. Two of the blast furnaces using coal also have coal power stations providing their electric.
Turkey’s electricity consumption has tripled in the last two decades, which has been underpinned by rapid growth in coal and gas generation.
As well as Ereğli, Coal Action Network visited three coal fired power stations near Muslu, called ZETES III and IV and Çatalağzı. All of the sites are within the district of Zonguldak.
Zonguldak was the only non-metropolitan district included in Turkey-wide weekend curfews for covid-19 reduction measures in 2020. This was due to pre-existing high rates of chronic respiratory diseases caused by poor air quality. According to local officials, it’s estimated that as much as 60% of the population displays some degree of respiratory symptoms, with mortality rates almost doubling between 2010 and 2020. The low air quality is caused by elevated levels of PM2.5 and SO2 pollutants from steelworks, coal mines and hard coal power plants.
The health costs from coal power generation in Turkey alone, are 26.07 - 53.60 billion Turkish Lire (2.86 - 5.88 billion €), which is equivalent to 13 - 27% of Turkey’s annual health expenditure.
Where Turkey significantly deviates from the rest of the EU in relation to steelworks and power stations is in the compliance and enforcement of air quality standards. As a report by Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) shows, “While EU member states are legally required to report emissions at plant level to a publicly accessible database [...] Turkey does not share power plant or sectoral emission data. Instead, it reports merged data for electricity generation and the heating sector” This obscures the data. Furthermore, Turkey has not signed other important technical agreements to limit, and cooperate on, other pollutants. This includes three protocols on sulphur emissions (The 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, the 1994 Oslo Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, and the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level ozone.). As HEAL states, “The lack of transparency prevents a rational and informed debate about improving air quality and health in the country.” Local people and ecosystems are left to deal with the consequences.
In the last 20 years, Turkey’s power plants that have been privatised and many do not use filter technology for SOx. They are the major contributor to Turkey’s increasing SOx pollution.
Everyone who spoke to Coal Action Network is worried about the air quality impacts of Turkey’s coal consuming plants. A resident living near three coal power stations on the Black Sea, near Zonguldak, says, “people believe that in some periods the air pollution filters on the plants are not working properly. Habitually, we have 250 days in a year the pollution is higher than the government’s acceptable standards.”
The consistent narrative from the residents overlooking either the steelworks or the coal power stations was one of poor air quality, resulting in higher rates of respiratory illness, cancers of various sorts, and death of plants and vegetation leading to an inability of local people to grow food.
In 2021, Turkey imported 36 million tonnes of coal for its power stations and steelworks, as well as using its domestically mined coal, which is mainly lignite, not used in steel-making. Turkish Coal Enterprises emphasises that the most significant increase in coal imports will come from the demand for electricity generation, and estimates that this trend will continue. Although President Erdoğan says the country will decarbonise by 2053 there is no meaningful road map to bring the blast furnaces into relevant carbon reduction strategies.
Barış Eceçelik from Ekosfer states, “Turkey is one of the few countries in Europe that has not set a date for the phase-out of coal. Last year, for the first time in the history of Turkey, imported coal became the leading energy source in electricity generation. Turkey has significant potential for renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, and biomass. However, the lack of a serious climate target and measures against coal usage has led to air pollution and a high level of energy dependence. It must be acknowledged that imported coal is not a solution to the issues of climate change nor air pollution.”
The pollution issues around the coal power stations do not just affect air quality. They also have a large impact on the Black Sea. The water around the power station is reported to be 4o warmer than elsewhere, as it is used in the power stations cooling processes and then returned warmed to the sea. Local people report seeing a sheen on the water from the heavy metals and other toxins which are released from the power stations. Burning coal high in sulphur increases sulphur dioxide which produces acid rain, and acidifies lakes and streams. Black Sea fishermen say that the power stations are damaging fish spawning grounds and reducing their catch. Food which is sold to Istanbul and Ankara.
Coal is a contested subject in Turkey. While people living close to existing coal facilities want the secure jobs, there are protests against new power stations and a proposed lignite power station was cancelled in 2013, following protests. Mining accidents are fairly common, with 301 killed in just one accident in Soma in 2014.
In the high up mountain village of Kokurdan (official name: Körpeoğlu) a coal ash and waste dump billows clouds of dust onto the dense trees surrounding the settling pool. Ash from the ZETES power stations and the dirt from the air filters are settled in a vast open dump. Although Coal Action Network visited immediately after heavy rain had washed the dust off the vegetation, homes and roads, the waste from ZETES coal power stations normally accumulates in the lungs, homes and crops of these people.
Villagers approached Coal Action Network to ask why we would want to visit their area when the coal facilities cause such contamination. “I hate being from here because of the pollution. When the weather is dry the dust covers everything.” one woman told Coal Action Network, whilst passing on the street in Kokurdan. In this village they are not convinced the damage is worth it because of the jobs. Local people say nothing good about the coal power plants, they just talked about the damaging health effects, adding liver cancer and stomach cancer to the list of illnesses caused by the coal power stations.
The most basic air pollution controls are not being implemented – lorries carrying coal are not even covered to prevent dust spreading along its route, a measure that long ago became standard in the UK. Public roads also run underneath the conveyor belts of ZETES power stations.
Monitors for fine dust particles known as PM10 are apparently not operational around the steelworks. PM2.5, is finer particulate matter that can penetrate the lungs and even enter the bloodstream and cause chronic diseases such as asthma, heart attack and bronchitis. PM2.5 is not monitored at all around Ereğli.
Coal Action Network’s visit to four coal facilities on the Black Sea showed that the human and environmental costs of burning coal are high. The issues of health, local environment and climate change are not being sufficiently addressed, but there is demand for improvement within Turkish communities living close to coal facilities.
The mining company, Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd, is trying to do the residents of Merthyr Tydfil out of tens of millions of pounds worth of restoration at Ffos-y-fran opencast coal mine by massively reducing the restoration it agreed to carry out at the end of 16 years of coal mining. To understand the lasting impacts this would have, and why we must resist it, we've made a guide on the community impacts of two other 'zombie' restorations in South Wales where the same happened.
Former opencast coal mining sites like East Pit, Margam Parc Slip, Nant Helen, and Selar are all recent examples of 'zombie restorations' carried out on budgets often amounting to 10% of what the promised restoration would have cost - sometimes even less. Ffos-y-fran looks set to join that list. Restorations are so-called because they are meant to return natural life to the area after coal mining has finished, often with promises of even more natural habitat and life than there was before. But just like zombies, these restorations is that they can appear fairly normal if you don't look too closely and you didn't know what it looked like before (depending on the movie!)... but there's little natural life in these areas after coal mining.
Often planning permission is granted for coal mining on the basis that the area will be restored with even better natural habitats and public amenity (access, facilities etc.) than before. Surrounding communities pay the price for the promised restoration with years of noise, dust, and disruption to their daily lives. When that restoration is inevitably denied by profiteering mining companies, communities report:
The UK was one of the first countries in the world to mine coal so industrially. Many of those coal mines were abandoned, not all of which are even mapped - though over two thousand recorded waste dumps (coal tips) in South Wales alone hints at the scale. Opencast coal mining left particularly visible scars on the landscape so the voids left over were meant to be filled in after the coal was extracted. When applying for coal mining permission, coal mining companies would sign contracts binding them to pay glowing nature reserves to be established after the coal was extracted. But most of the time, these companies siphon off the profits and declare bankruptcy, or find legal loopholes, to dodge their responsibilities to restore the mess they created.
Fortunately, Councils usually require that a small amount is paid to them by the coal mining company either at the start of a coal mine or as it progresses. But this is often around just 10% of the cost of restoring an opencast coal mine. So when the coal mining companies wriggle out of their contractual duty to clean up the mess they created, the Councils are often forced to then pay these same companies these small amounts of money to do basic works to make the site at least safer and less of an eye-sore for the communities living around it - but at 10%, that money doesn't go far, and can't erase the injustice of broken promises to those communities who also paid in years of coal mining, noise, dust, and disruption. Read our flagship report tracking restoration an seven recent sites across South Wales.
To restore the site of a sprawling opencast coal mine can cost over £100 million. The original Ffos-y-fran restoration scheme is estimated to cost £75-125 million. Merthyr Tydfil Council got £15 million from the coal mining company, Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd in 2019, after taking the company to court. Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd is now refusing to fund the restoration it agreed to, despite posting record profits and selling an extra c640,000 tonnes of coal than it was permitted to.
Despite the injustice of it, the Merthyr Tydfil Council's £15 million will theoretically go further if it's paid to Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd to carry out a zombie restoration compared to a new company, as Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd already has its machinery and employees on site from when it was coal mining. The same happened when Celtic Energy Ltd refused to fund the restoration of four coal mines it operated in South Wales, stealing £millions from local communities and paying their Directors huge bonuses that year. Each Council paid Celtic Energy Ltd even more money to carry out zombie restorations at each site, leaving a legacy of bitterness in local communities that's alive today.
Zombie restorations typically cut corners in the following areas:
The scientific consensus is that we need to decarbonise heavy industry. Steelworks are amongst the worst carbon emitters. Both of the UK steelworks using coal have agreed to convert to electric arc furnaces, a process which sadly requires far fewer steelworkers. When Port Talbot stopped its coal consuming blast furnaces at the end of September there was a poor deal for the workers. British Steel and the government must do better for the workers at Scunthorpe’s steelworks, expected to turn off the blast furnaces by the end of the year.
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.
Read the full article, in the Canary Magazine from this link
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.
The Coal Authority use a narrow (and outdated) check list to approve full coal mining licenses.
The Recommendation report from the Coal Authority for this application rejects the application for a full mining license for failing to satisfy both condition 2 and 3, of the above list.
The Coal Authority was unable to verify West Cumbria Mining Ltd's claims of low subsidence risk as West Cumbria Mining Ltd refused to give its modelling parameters to the Coal Authority, citing confidentiality.
Concurrently, the Coal Authority was not satisfied that West Cumbria Mining Ltd is able to finance the project and discharge liabilities especially now that the planning permission has been overturned.
Additionally, the deadline has passed for West Cumbria Mining Ltd to appeal the decision made by the Judge, Mr Justice Holgate, overturning the planning permission granted by the Conservative Government in December 2022. Friends of the Earth’s legal team has had confirmation that no appeal was received before the deadline, meaning an appeal won’t go ahead.
Next steps are still awaited from Angela Raynor, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on how the government will proceed, but the chances of this mine ever happening are increasing very slim.
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. Check out the company's application and public responses so far.
According to UK Government industrial coal conversion factors, even the reduced Glan Lash coal mine extension could emit over 270,000 tonnes of CO2 from the use of the coal, a further c18,000 tonnes of CO2e in fugitive methane gas from the mine itself, and an uncalculated amount in emissions from years of heavy machinery excavating many thousands of tonnes of coal, soil, and rock, then returning it again.
The CO2e of the methane and coal use alone is roughly the same as driving from the northern most point in Scotland down through the UK to Lands End in Cornwall… 887 THOUSAND times, or dumping 1 in 5 of Welsh households’ recycling for a year into landfill. Bryn Bach Coal Ltd would need to grow 4.8 million tree seedlings for 10 years just to sequester these estimated emissions, which – needless to say – it does not intend to do. Instead, 2.5 hectares of trees will be destroyed, at least some of which is listed ancient woodland. Whatever the company purports about the quality of its coal or who it would sell the coal to, this coal mine extension in a climate crisis is clearly inexcusable, and sends the wrong message nationally, and internationally. The site was originally supposed to be restored before 2018 but extension applications delayed that and resulted in the decline of nationally and internationally protected habitats, and irreversible loss of nature prevented from returning to restored habitats. It’s time to finally return this land to the nature that was uprooted from it over a decade ago, and avoid the mistakes of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council’s policy of appeasement towards Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd and the Ffos-y-fran opencast coal mine. Beyond the greenwash, this small opencast coal mine proposal contributes neither to the rich heritage of Wales, nor to its green and bright future.
Coal mining has long been a part of Welsh heritage but it would be wrong to suggest that a small 11-person private coal mine has any potential to make a positive contribution to the culture of the area… as over 600 letters from Carmarthenshire residents opposing the mine extension in 2023 indicates. As one South Wales resident said “Coal is our heritage, but it cannot be our future”.
The Glan Lash opencast coal mine was originally granted planning permission in 2012 on the condition that it would be restored by 2018. But an extension was approved by the Council in 2018 to mine until 2019, on the condition that the site would be fully restored by March 2020. But Bryn Bach Coal Ltd tried again to extend its coal mine in 2019, claiming it can’t honour its promise to restore the site until it gets a decision as it’d waste resources to dig up the earth it’d just filled in. Well, it’s application was rejected in 2023…and, over a year later, still no restoration.
Instead, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd is trying again to extend the coal mine, claiming “Due to the compact nature of the mine site only a limited area of progressive restoration will be possible before the completion of coaling.”. The extension would delay restoration yet again, this time by over 5 years. That’s 12 years of delays since restoration was originally promised to be completed by. And history indicates it’s likely Bryn Bach Coal Ltd would apply for yet another extension after this one – will the site ever be restored?
This clearly flies in the face of Wales’ MTAN 2 policy “As a part of any application for extension, the operator is encouraged to demonstrate that this does not delay progressive reclamation of the principal part of the existing site.”. It’s long overdue that Bryn Bach Coal Ltd makes good on its promise to the local community in Ammanford, as well as to the nature it destroyed and displaced in 2012, that it restores the site without further delay and to the agreed standard.
Our understanding is that of the 11 full-time jobs engaged in the coal washery and proposed coal mine extension, only 3 of those jobs would be new jobs. Eight of those jobs, as well as 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, in reality just 3 new, time-limited, jobs in a declining industry are supported by the proposed Glan Lash extension – which cannot be considered to make any material ‘positive contribution to the prosperity of Wales’.
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd claims some of the closest residents live some 440 metres east from the centre of the Glanlash Extension Revised site. This is misleading – the closest residents live just 200 metres from the edge of the proposed extension’s void, with hundreds of tonnes of overburden dumped by large machinery within 180 metres of their back gardens. Wales’ MTAN2 policy is clear: “coal working will generally not be acceptable within 500 metres (m) of settlements”.
The closest residents to the existing site appear to live just 30 metres from its boundary, further jeopardising restoration works. MTAN2 policy requires “Strong evidence of the necessity for remediation, including the evaluation of options, is required to justify working within 200 m of a settlement, and the social and environmental impacts on the affected settlement must be carefully weighed.”.
The Marsh Fritillary butterfly is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and its habitat is protected under the EU Habitats Directive. The butterfly is also a UK & Wales Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Butterfly Species. The proposed destruction of the Marsh Fritillary butterfly habitat to the north of the existing void at Glan Lash was one of the main reasons for rejecting the application to extend the coal mine in 2023. Despite the clear value and urgency given to this species and its habitat, the environmental impact assessment indicates that “During the seven years since the 2017 Marsh Fritillary site condition survey the habitat has received no management and has continued to deteriorate” (p74) under the ownership of Bryn Bach Coal Ltd. Restoration of this site was originally promised to be completed by 2017, but delays due to mining extensions have resulted in this deterioration. It would seem none of the “progressive restoration” described by Bryn Bach Coal Ltd has touched the most ecologically vital part of the site, and throws into question the company’s ecological stewardship and commitment to restoring the site to a high standard.
It could be read that the Bryn Bach Coal Ltd goes on to use the decline it’s overseen of this vital habitat as a bargaining chip to leverage approval of its new extension proposal that excludes this habitat from destruction, with its environmental impact assessment recommending “The early granting of planning permission for the mine extension would allow an early start to the proposed habitat restoration and management scheme which is becoming increasing urgent as time passes.” (p74). The urgency is of Bryn Bach Coal Ltd own negligence, and there is nothing preventing the company from addressing that urgency now. Indeed, its failure to do so until now, there is no reason to disbelieve the company’s claim that “The habitat will…subsequently be managed to maintain the habitat in good condition for the duration of the mining operation” (p6, Green Infrastructure Statement).
Trees can host nesting birds and protected bat-life, as well as be ecologically important in their own right. Therefore a thorough tree-by-tree assessment is needed – but despite proposing to destroy 80% of a woodland, the environmental impact assessment for the proposal admits the a woodland survey is incomplete: “It was not possible to gain access to measure all trees due to bramble or scrub growth around their bases… no bat-roost use of the central scrub woodland was found but it must be noted that direct-observation of these trees during the surveys was restricted by the impossibility of accessing the woodland” (p48, p50, p57).
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd claims the remaining 20% of woodland along the edge of the void will have its roots area fenced off, but this won’t protect the trees, or their roots, from the reduced availability of water resulting from the void excavated nearby.
Hedges are considered to have huge habitat value, providing essential wildlife corridors, and, as such, are protected by law in the UK. Bryn Bach Coal Ltd proposes ripping up over 440 metres of this critical wildlife habitat, admitting “all hedgerows within the application site qualify as Important Hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations 1996”. The company claims the hedgerows mechanically ripped out will be “subject to special treatment to permit their re-use during site restoration and, as far as possible” – but with no details of what that treatment is, and just how far that is possible, these claims are met with scepticism.
There is growing awareness, concern, and action around fugitive methane emissions from active and abandoned opencast and deep coal mines around the world. The methane is release from the act of mining, not from the use of the coal later. There is very little mitigation possible against fugitive methane emissions from opencast coal mining. Bryn Bach Coal Ltd, also fail to detail any mitigation measures for emissions from its site operations such as heavy machinery.
‘Monitoring’ or ‘measurement’ does not amount to mitigation, and it would be misleading to list that activity under any heading of mitigation.
There are shortcomings in the proposed replacement habitats, not least that new plantings are not equal to the established habitats and the mature ecosystems those habitats support. Last year, when Bryn Bach Coal Ltd applied to extend Glan Lash opencast coal mine, the Council’s independent ecologist also pointed out that equivalent biodiversity support from a newly planted woodland habitat (assuming it flourishes) will never catch up to that of the destroyed 2.52 Ha woodland habitat, had it not been destroyed – and that it would take 137 years to support for the existing ancient woodland currently supports. That’s because, habitats are living, evolving, and interdependent ecologies that gain richness as they mature. Simply a larger area does not necessarily equate to more habitat for the wildlife it is intended to support.
The idea of ‘replacing’ a habitat, often not even on the same site – but rather a site some distance away and across two roads – ignores that habitats are unique and are not interchangeable and criticisms of bio-diversity offsets. By way of crude analogy; someone who’s always lived in Ammanford would think much is lost if they were forced out of their home and community, told they must never return, and were moved into a flat in Aberystwyth instead.
One of the more fanciful claims within Bryn Bach Coal Ltd’s environmental impact assessment is that the wildlife, like the nationally protected dormice, would be disturbed by mining activity, get out of harm’s way, then navigate half a kilometre around the opencast coal mine, to the Tirydail coal tip restoration area…despite the fact that on page 59 of the same assessment, the report admits that dormice only travel up to a maximum of 250 metres from their nests.
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd claims “…the survey evidence and the records of casual observations indicate that there is no intensive or regular Badger activity within the application site boundary.” (p10, Green Infrastructure Statement) and “No signs of Badger were found during the surveys although the drier land is likely to occasionally be used by foraging animals.” (p4, Ecological Impact Assessment).
Yet, on a single visit in late 2022, a photographer captured fresh badger prints in mud along the very edge of the void at the Glan Lash site, and shared the photo with Coal Action Network at the time. Unless this was an incredible coincidence, it suggests there is regular badger activity into the very centre of the applicant site boundary, and that surveying has been inadequate.
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd claims multiple places that “The loss of the Site’s ecology is temporary” – but there is nothing temporary about the destruction of ancient woodland, hedgerows, and the lives that depend on these habitats. The company’s own environmental impact assessment only claims some of a select few protected species would translocated into an unfamiliar habitat with unknown survival outcomes. This idea of the nature, and lives within it, that will be killed by this extension is somehow ‘temporary’ because at some later point a new habitat will be installed which may host nature in the future is a peculiar fiction.
In 2023, the planning officer claimed that the negative visual impacts of the extension’s operational phase would be mitigated as they are ‘temporary and relatively short term’. Firstly, a period of 6 years may for many not be considered short-term. Secondly, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd could apply again for a further extension when this planning permission has expired, just as the company is doing now. Unless a further extension is ruled out in a binding way, relying solely on the timespan of this extension risks approving an overall period of coal mining that is unlikely to have been approved originally due to the timespan of impacts. The total timeline of mining impacts should therefore be considered, past and future together—rather than each time extension in isolation, or else decision making risks being based on incrementality rather than material planning considerations, balancing the total cost with the total benefit of the application.
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd claims that the coal is “premium” anthracite coal at every opportunity. But ‘premium’ isn’t an industry grade of coal, and the company doesn’t provide any independent mineral analysis to back up that claim. Furthermore, claims of quality often relate to the carbon content of the coal, with higher-carbon coal being considered higher quality. It does not mean that it is in any way environmentally better — in fact, higher carbon coal such as anthracite emits even more CO2 when burned.
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd goes on to purport that none of the coal excavated from Glan Lash would be burned, which is when the majority of CO2 is released. The company originally claimed 50% would be burned, then 25%, and now 0%...is it just saying what the Council wants to hear whilst knowing that planning permission in the UK cannot control who the company sells the coal to, or if it is burned? Once it has planning permission, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd can sell Glan Lash coal to whoever pays the highest price. Even if sufficient non-burn markets do exist for all of the coal mined from an extension to Glan Lash, it must be assumed that in the absence of any restrictions, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd will sell the coal to whichever market pays the highest price for it. Which market that will be in the future cannot be accurately predicted, so the prudence requires that the Council cannot accept the company’s claim that the coal from the Glan Lash extension will not be burned. Where Glan Lash coal is finally used may also be impossible to trace as the coal processing plant opposite the coal mine also processes coal from other coal mines in Wales and beyond.
This creates a problem for approving the application in light of the Finch Vs Surrey Council High Court judgement earlier this year, which found that when deciding a fossil fuel project, a Council must consider the downstream use of that fuel. This recent judgement also bears on the Planning Officer’s 2023 view that run-of-mill coal will be processed in the washery rather than the coal mine void, and is therefore excluded from consideration of the extension application (despite the fact that the washery is adjacent to the coal mine) so dust generated from processing the coal becomes relevant to MTAN2 paragraph 151.
Where non-energy generating industries continue to rely on coal, it is critical that these industries transition to alternatives as the UK’s decarbonisation progress begins to dangerously veer off the necessary trajectory to avoid catastrophic climate change. Feeding an abundance of readily available coal and maintaining the security of supply disincentives companies to invest in research and infrastructure to cut coal out of their processes, instead ‘locking in’ companies’ continued reliance. There are already known anthracite coal alternatives to water filtration such as sand, gravel, pumice stone, iron, aluminium, and manganese. Although some of these alternatives would also have serious localised environmental consequences, not all would – and none would cause the fugitive methane (a potent climate change accelerant) release, which is possibly the most significant difference between using anthracite coal or its alternatives.
To mine coal in the UK, a company requires both a full coal licence issued by the Coal Authority, and full planning permission granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Following an FOI request to the Coal Authority, we found out that the current licence to mine coal at Glan Lash appears to have been issued in 2019, and expire on 10th August 2025. Given the UK Government’s public and uncaveated commitment not to issue any new licences for coal mining, and that Welsh Ministers would subsequently need to approve it if it was issued, it can be assumed that mining at Glan Lash must permanently cease by the date of its current licence, which is incompatible with the 5.4 years of coal mining it’s proposing.
The 2023 planning officer’s report for the original extension proposal at Glan Lash claimed “the proposal would help to ensure that any coal being used from the site will have been won in a way that is conscious of health and safety regulations and worker conditions”. This statement relies on 3 unspoken and unevidenced assumptions:
Each of these assumptions would need to be investigated and evidenced before it is reasserted for the new Glan Lash coal mine extension application by the Planning Officer.
Pat Carr is a resident of Dipton, County Durham, he worked, alongside many members of his family at Consett Steelworks, before it was closed down. In 1980 the Nationalised British Steel Corporation sought to prioritise coastal steelworks that could more easily import iron ore and export finished products, which was the end of the inland steelworks.
Below is the transcription of an interview of Pat Carr, with his son Liam by Clara Paillard (Tipping Point) and Anne Harris (Coal Action Network).
Coal Action Network was interested to find out what was successful about the redundancy package for workers being let go as Consett steelworks closed and what lessons can be learnt for a truly Just Transition of current high carbon industries, such as Scunthorpe steelworks, making redundancies or closing due to the climate crisis. We are worried that the workers at Scunthorpe will suffer the same poor deal of workers at Port Talbot, as both blast furnace steelworks are converting to produce steel using electric arc furnaces rather than blast furnaces using coal.
(Transcription of the interview, edited lightly for clarity. To listen to the recording click here.)
Question: Can you give us an introduction?
“I worked in the steelworks for 11 years. In the steelworks, as a steelworks operative you start as a labourer and then you filled in for all the different jobs on a day by day basis, until you picked a line that you wanted to go into. So you could be on the furnaces or... or boiler cleaning, so there are lots of different lines of labouring type work. And I was on the furnace line… I was the senior labourer there. Therefore you got the first job choice for each day. The system was that you had a lieu day, each worker was on a 40 hour week, therefore it was a constant shift system... Each job had to be filled on that rota. Each day you checked who was in and who was on sick, checked all the cards, saw where the vacancies were, the different roles in the steelworks and then you filled them in down the line, so each of the labourers did that. So, that’s what I did for 11 years, but mostly on the furnaces, the O2 furnaces.”
“... Yeah, you change shifts every two days. So you might be on night shift Monday, Tuesday, and then you might go back to 2pm -10pm Wednesday, Thursday, then you’d be 6 o’clock in the morning until 2 in the afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Then you get your two days off. So you change shifts constantly."
Question: You must have been a young man when you started, how old were you?
"20 years old."
Question: Am I right to say that at the time it was still the British Steel Corporation? It was still a nationalised company?
"Yeah, the British Steel Corporation, yeah. That was the organisation yes."
Question: When you started at 20 did you think that was going to be a job you’d be in for a long time? Or was 11 years quite good innings?
“I just needed a job, so I just took it at that age. I’d previously been a student and it hadn’t worked out. Thought I might want to go into teaching but I decided I didn’t want to, so that didn’t work out. So, I ended up in the steel works at that age… I was made was made redundant once during that time, the steelworks has always been a strange industry of peaks and troughs. Lots of people who were started there were taken back on and so was I... There was one time, after a couple years where I was made redundant, but it was only for a 6 week period, then trade picked up again and you’re taken back on and end up in the same place.”
“In our street there was me and my brother. And my father had been a miner but then he ended up in the steelworks as the mines were closing down, but he started after me. My brother he worked elsewhere and then he ended up there, laying train tracks in the steelworks. My cousins down the street, they lived a few doors away from us. and their father worked in the steel works, their mother worked in the steel works. My closest cousin, who was about the same age as me, he started at the same time as me and we went through all the steelworks together for 11 years together. His brothers worked in the steelworks and his sister worked in the steelworks cos she was a nurse and she worked in the medical centre in the steelworks. So that was a whole family virtually, two adults and six siblings. Lots of families. Women worked all over the steelworks.”
Question: Were workers members of a trade union, and if so, which one?
"It was called BISAKTA when it started, British Iron, Steel and Kindred Trades Association. Then it became ISTC. [Iron steel trades confederation.] They just changed the name slightly. Iron Steel Trades Confederation.”
Liam “Did it turn to GMB in the end?”
“No, I’ve no idea what it is now. I don’t know how many steelworkers there are left, probably very few.”
Question: there are still some, a big union representing steelworkers is called Community it is probably one of the decedents of the unions you mentioned.
“It was the ISTC in 1980.”
Questioner: When steelworks were up for complete closure what happened? What was the year that it happened, why did it happen? How did people in the community or workers respond to that decision?
“There had been a miners strike the year before, we were then on strike earlier that year for the early part of that year. We were on strike for 10 weeks or something like that. In the winter of that year and there had been talk of closures all over the place and we were still trying to campaign to keep the Consett steelworks open. But I think it is a wearing down process… our family were all still resolute that they should be kept open. But there were others that were starting to waive and then they started to offer all kinds of incentives to take redundancy payments, enhanced payments, training schemes and all kinds of things, which may have swayed some of them. As far as I recall that took maybe eight months of negotiation, including marches in London and marches in the locale. Eventually the closure was complete in about September that year.”
Question: during that time when they were trying to close the steelworks, were people arguing that there should be a Just Transition and training, or were people just saying that it shouldn’t close at all?
“There were a lot of people campaigning that it shouldn’t close at all, that it was so crucial to the local economy. Although, there was maybe 3,500 people working in the steelworks itself there was probably another 3,500 people that were dependent on that with all the transport links and ancillary works that went on and all the contractors that were brought in to do other tasks. So there was probably almost twice as many were involved but didn’t have a say, because they weren’t directly involved in the steelworks.”
“Just prior to that, the year before they did close Hownsgill steel, they had a big plate mill. It’s a massive complex a steelworks, so you have the iron making and then that moves onto the steelmaking, and that rolls into ingots that can be made into other things. And then some of the steel was sent up to Hownsgill that was just another part of the steelworks, where it was rolled into plate...maybe 40 foot long plates, maybe an inch thick and 6 feet wide, or something like that. So all these plates were rolled there, and the year before there was an argument put that if Hownsgill wasn’t part of the same scheme, if they closed Hownsgill, then the rest of the steelworks could be viable… It was supposed to make us more viable, but as it proved it didn’t matter that much. All that meant was that all those people at Hownsgill didn’t get the same terms and conditions that we came out with, because we had a national negotiation closing the whole steelworks and they never got that. So they went on much inferior terms to the rest of the site than the rest of the steelworks got for want of a year’s grace.”
“The redundancy payments if I can recall were quite generous. Virtually everyone in the steelworks, even if you’d been there a year or two you got 6 months pay and I’m not sure you didn’t get another six months pay a year later. So I think that was part of it. It was quite good for that time and absolutely incredible for this time to get a year’s money. So that was a bit of a sweetener. So that was redundancy payments, or severance pay I think it was called at the time. Cos redundancy payment was a nation scheme and the severance pay was enacted through the union and the steel corporation… then you got your ordinary redundancy was calculated on top of that, you got maybe a week and a half for every year that you worked in the steelworks. So that was an extra payment on top, and if you had another job to go to that sounds OK, it was a pretty good sweetener. An extra year’s money, plus another job on a similar basis, but unfortunately, the vast majority of people didn’t have that other job to go to.”
“For the year afterwards it was a bit of a boom town because of course all this money was swilling around, everybody had more money that they’d ever had, in cold hard cash, but without the prospect of it going on. It meant people were getting new cars, I think a lot of the local garages did very well out of it for instance for a couple years. You could put a deposit down on your house, or start buying your council house that kinda thing. It was a bit of sweetener for some. But that’s fine if you’re 60, you’re old, and you get that, and your pension isn’t too far away. Then it seems to work OK, but if you’re 20, 25 or 30, then you’ve got the whole of your working life ahead of you... If you wanted that role to be out in the steelworks, then that was never going to be the option again.”
“We got severance money, we got our redundancy money and, if you went on a training scheme, any recognised training scheme, you got your normal wages that you got in the steelworks for the time you were in the training scheme, for up to one year. That was another year’s bonus where you could go into virtually any eduction scheme. So that was another boom area… they were putting courses on for everybody to do anything. No matter if you had any prospects in it or you were even interested in it, you were a fool not to go onto it cos it meant that you could get a year’s money which you weren’t having to sign on the dole.”
“The local further education was at Consett Technical College, they started running courses all over the place so that they used Working Men’s social clubs, in any old schools, any old buildings that they could put 10-15 steelworks and the tutor they got the money for that. And the steelworkers got the money for it as well, so they were paid their normal wage, so everybody was into education for one year.”
“I’m guessing the money came through the British Steel Corporation because I haven’t heard of it being done anywhere else, so I’m guessing it came through British Steel Corporation and through the government as well. I think there must have been a government incentive to try as at the time they were trying to shut down all sorts of things. It was the time when Thatcher was just about getting into her stride… It was the same feller who went on to the mining [Liam interrupts with “MacGregor”] MacGregor yeah, I think he was working on closing the steelworks at the same time as he was being groomed to sort out the national coal board at the same time.”
“I went down to, it is Sunderland University now. I was doing data processing, it’s an IT course, computer science, it was a degree course… But my father went, he wasn’t very, he wasn’t a great scholar in his youth and he was barely literate, but he went on a course because it was a free year."
"So you go on a reading and writing course, any course, but I actually did a degree in data processing and ended up in computers, computing...and that’s what I worked in most of the time since then, either computer programming or systems analysis, that kind of work.”
“My brother did much the same, but he went straight into, I’m not sure he did the training but he got a job at the national [….] but on the computer side. My cousin who lived down the street, he came with me on the same course, so we ended up doing the same course. We didn’t do the first year, but we ended up on the same course again… There was some who saw a career opportunity and others who wanted the money regardless. If you were 55, which I think that me father would have been by then probably, he needed the year’s money so he went straight into that, and he did a course just because cos it was a simple way to keep the wolf from the door.”
“There might have been a cut off time of a year” [working at the steelworks to get the money to retrain]
“Literacy courses were just as vital as any higher level courses, they were just as vital to those people… It was an absolute boom time. My father did his course in the working Men’s Club, there wasn’t enough facilities to cater for everyone who wanted to do the courses.”
Question - what was the role of the unions?
“I’m not certain who was doing that negotiation, but I think that that was the sweetener because I’m not sure there was a massive vote and they voted to close that plant in the end. Because it must have been close to it, a 50 : 50 split as to close the place or keep fighting on and possibly loose all of those enhanced conditions. Or whether just to hold up and take the enhanced conditions. I was never quite sure if there was a vote on that and that’s the way it went eventually. There wasn’t a prescribed vote on that. There was never a sheet of paper, I think there would just be a show of hands in a mass meeting.”
“It’s the best one I have heard of, I’m not sure what the pit closures got. It must have been around the same time as pit closures, or in the next four years, but I don’t think they got that same enhancement.”
Question: What could be learnt for current transitions?
“Certainly the education and training certainly helped me massively. I would never have thought of going into it, I always had at the back of my mind that I could have been doing something other than working at the steelworks, but I wouldn’t have jumped ship because the jobs was so good and the money was so good in the steelworks, so you would never leave it on that basis. Having been pushed into it, it wasn’t the most dreadful thing that happened to me. It worked out not too bad."
"There were hickups, it wasn’t all plain sailing so the first job didn’t work out that I got after qualifying... The eduction did work out for me long term, that’s what I needed at that time. We’d just had our 4th child so I needed a job at the end of the education... it had to have a concrete task at the end of it. And actually it… was quite good because the course that I went on, as well doing your 3 years, it was a sandwich course. So I also had one year out in industry, which meant I earned the money for that year. And therefore I got an extra year earning at the same time as the education was going on. So that worked out quite well as well.”
“I did a three year course with a year in industry where you were out and working for the year, so you got the wages as well so you weren’t reliant on… at the time I think I could claim unemployment whilst at college cos the hours were, the attendance hours weren’t massive. So you could still register as unemployed, I’m not sure it was legal or not, but it was the route I took. So I could claim unemployment benefit whilst still attending college.”
What was the situation 5 years on?
“It was definitely boom and bust, after that one of the local politicians said it used to be a BSc town, but now it’s a MSC town, meaning Manpowered Services commission, cos there was a time when if you registered unemployed they sent you on all kinds of retraining courses, which were unusually insignificant but I think that after that first 4- 5 years it definitely took a slump, the local economy. It’s virtually a dormitory town now, everyone travels to work.”
“There are industrial estates.. there were things brought in, probably on grants. Electrac which was supposedly a new form of electricity supply to your home where you could plug in anywhere in any room which sounds quite attractive now...There were some bits and pieces that came in, a little portion of the aerospace industry that came into an industrial estate in Consett, but never with the scale of the steelworks. Maybe a hundred workers would maybe be the size. Some food industries came.”
“They were probably dragged in with government incentives as it was now in a dire state economically and so there were extra incentives to bring those works into the area.”
Question - Was there new industry created locally?
“One or two of my friends went down to Teeside cos there was still a steelworks in Teeside. And they worked down there on the new steelworks down there. But not a lot, I’d guess way less than 1% actually went to Teeside.”
“There was nowhere, if the steel industry is suffering in one area it’s not going to be suffering everywhere. If it’s not going well in Consett it won’t be going well in Teeside either. All they were doing was filling in jobs, vacancies where if they knew that role they could move into that.”
“Actually I did know one lad who went to Mexico to build steelworks. I think British Steel Corporation were being employed to build new steelworks in different areas of the world in the far east and Mexico and they were building that while undercutting themselves. So there were some people who did that, went away. Then there were some people who were working on pulling the steelworks down cos that was a massive project, it was an absolutely gigantic project Project Genesis it’s still going on now, I’m not sure it’s ever going to finish. But the actual pulling down that took at least 5 years and then pulling up all the rail lines and that kind of things, you loose your railways as well. Because that was just there to serve steelworks… it was only goods at that time. The last passenger was prince Charles just after the closure. And they ran a passenger train. King Charles as he is now, I think it was the only passenger train that ran for several years…”
Anne says it makes it hard to go to work if you lose the rail station.
“Luckily, my cousin went the same place and I knew people around the area who were all going down to Sunderland so we used to share journeys down there.”
“It’s hard to extrapolate now as you’ve seen virtually every centre in Great Britain fall prey to all kinds of things… it probably had a boost for about 2 years and then it slowly drifted down and became less and less viable to shop in Consett and the centre its self. And at the same time there was lots of out of centre shopping being brought in... The middle of Consett isn’t too badly served with large shops, you’re still within walking distance of the centre of Consett to a lot of the super markets so but the main streets, the main streets everywhere are struggling. I think the pub trade took a hit, it took a massive boost and then of course, it took a massive hit after 4 or 5 years so instead of being 20 pubs in Consett there is probably 10 now.”
Question - Would you have stayed in the industry if you could?
“Absolutely not.. I enjoyed the work and I enjoyed working at the steelworks and I enjoyed working on the furnaces. There was always a slight niggle at the back of your head that you should be doing something else, but it was good work and good money, so I would never have moved. The first job I got after that I was having a cuppa and the boss came in and said “this is different from what you used to do”. It was my first job in Tyne and Wear and I said, “yeah it is different” and he said “this is far better isn’t it I bet you’re glad you’re doing this”, and I said, “actually I wish I was night shift going to the steelworks,” and that was about four years after I’d finished.”
Question - What messages do you have for current workers in high emissions industries?
“I would hope the allied industries would pick up on that, so you’d hope that the green side of that same industry would pick up some of the slack and maybe that’s where the retraining should be focussed and move onto that side rather than persevere with the one we’ve got.”
Clara says report published by climate orgs working with oil workers and 80% of oil and gas workers would be open to retraining. Anticipating collapse.
“Although there must have been pre-planning that we weren’t involved with, you never saw that… It was as good a deal as I’ve seen anywhere the scheme that we got. I don’t think it is has bettered since and I doubt it has been approached since.”
Clara says we will bring this back the message of what you benefited from at the time to those working on Just Transition in oil and gas industries.
Anne - we're working against 2 coal mines and for decarbonisation of the two major steelworks using coal. The company and the government aren't really giving the workers any kind of transition period. They are sort of blaming activists for steeling jobs, when the coal mine was supposed to close [Ffos-y-fran].
“It was always a bit of an incentive,... when Joanne was on planning at the Council and they were looking for opencast permissions and they used to send workers from Banks to the house and they to say, “what we could do is have more workers here and 10 workers or something.” and I used to think, “yeah, you can have 10 workers, but bleeding heck, it was an absolute drop in the ocean compared with what had been in pit”... It was just a sock for those workers and I think they were being used by the management onto decision makers and local authorities. It was hard to put an argument against them because they had such a vested interest in it. They saw it as you taking their job away. They were different times.”
===Ends===
In May 2023, Coal Action Network wrote to the Climate Change, Energy, and Infrastructure Committee (CCEIC) of the Welsh Senedd, informing the Committee of the ongoing illegal coal mining at Ffos-y-fran in Merthyr Tydfil, and the Council and Welsh Government’s refusal to use their enforcement powers to prevent the daily extraction of over 1,000 tonnes of coal. After being informed of this context, the CCEIC committed to a short committee inquiry on Ffos-y-fran and the broader failure of restoration of former opencast coal mine sites, with oral evidence sessions in April and May 2024, in which Coal Action Network participated. In August 2024, the CCEIC published its report on the handling of Ffos-y-fran and restoration of opencast coal mining sites across South Wales, citing ‘missed opportunities’ and referring to Ffos-y-fran as “symbol of the system's failures”. Both the Welsh Government and Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (MTCBC) responded in September 2024 to the 26 recommendations contained in the CCEIC’s report. A selection of their responses are summarised or quoted below with our analysis following each. This is the brief version, check out our full analysis report with accompanying pictures.
The Welsh Government should commission an independent review to assess the extent of, the funding needed to restore opencast sites to an acceptable level. The independent, review should consider what constitutes an “acceptable level” in consultation with local, authorities and communities.
Welsh Government isn’t liable for funding a programme dealing with open cast mining and land reclamation. Welsh Government has had statutory powers over ‘derelict land’ since April 2006, to protect public safety, create development land and enhance the environmental and social well-being of Wales. In recent years funding for such activity “has been restricted”. The Welsh Government is therefore concerned that assessing the costs to restore open cast sites may create an expectation that Welsh Government will then fund that restoration.
The operator and landowner is responsible for restoration and aftercare of opencast sites. They must also ensure that sufficient finance is set aside to enable them to meet restoration and aftercare obligations.
The Welsh Government repeat this through its response to the CCEIC’s recommendations, yet not once explain who is responsible when the operator and landowner fail to, or claim not to have, set aside sufficient finance to restore the site – which has happened at around 7 sites within the past 10 years in South Wales alone.
The Welsh Government should require local authorities to ensure all Planning Officers’ reports are available online alongside associated planning documents, including revised, restoration plans, where relevant.
We agree that transparency in planning decision making must be achieved, however, insisting on specific web publishing requirements at this time is premature.
The thrust of recommendation 9 is to ensure Planning Officer’s reports are made public, as Planning Officers’ reports summarise in plain English numerous technical planning documents. Public access to this key report would greatly improve transparency. The Welsh Government should urge Councils to make Planning Officers’ reports publicly accessible, where possible.
The Welsh Government should reconsider the proposal from the 2014 report to establish a virtual “Centre of Excellence” for restoration planning, particularly in light of potential coal-tip reclamation proposals, and lead discussions with local government on how to implement this.
Given our existing presumption against coal extraction, we expect “very few schemes being brought forward”. Our primary focus is to ensure that disused tips are safe and to deliver a modernised, fit-for-purpose regulatory regime. After the disused mine and quarry tips Bill is passed The Welsh Government will take “a more detailed strategic approach to mining and industrial legacy in Wales – this will need to include reclamation of disused tips and management of open cast mining.”
Contrary to the Welsh Government’s expectation of “very few schemes”, right now there are two schemes proposing coal extraction in South Wales, and a further application to downgrade the remediation scheme for Ffos-y-fran is expected before the end of this year. All these schemes would benefit from the kind of oversight the CCEIC are proposing with its recommendation for a Centre of Excellence, so action by the Welsh Government is needed now rather than years into the future.
The Welsh Government must engage with the UK Government with the aim of removing the Coal Authority’s statutory duty to maintain and develop an economically viable coal mining industry.
Whereas we would wish for the Coal Authority to remove its statutory duty to maintain and develop an economically viable coal mining industry, this duty has no practical effect in Wales… The Welsh Government is confident that it has in place the necessary policy and processes to ensure the climate emergency and nature emergency are fully reflected in any decision making.
Contrary to the Welsh Government’s confidence, its policies were deemed compatible with an opencast coal mine extension just last year in 2023. Additionally, the Welsh Government Minister for Climate Change Julie James wrote to the UK Government in 2021 stating that: “…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…”, which is at odds with the Welsh Government’s response to the CCEIC’s recommendation, and there hasn’t been relevant Welsh policy evolution in the meantime to explain this new position.
The Welsh Government should review and update the Minerals Technical Advice Note 2 (MTAN2) to ensure it is fit for purpose, particularly in the context of new developments and coal tip remediation.
Minerals Technical Advice Note 2 Coal (MTAN2) contains comprehensive planning guidance which is robust about restoration and aftercare schemes for coal extraction. Along with all other planning policy, MTAN2 is kept under continual review to ensure it is kept up to date, fit for purpose and relevant.
The Welsh Government released MTAN2 in 2009, so it fails to reflect the many relevant policy developments over the past 15 years. The Welsh Government’s refusal to review MTAN2 is also bewildering given the policy has ostensibly failed to secure decent restoration of numerous coal mining sites across South Wales since its implementation. MTAN2 needs to be reviewed in line with the CCEIC’s recommendation.
The Welsh Government should incorporate provisions for the restoration of former opencast sites within the forthcoming Disused Tips (Mines and Quarries) Bill.
“In his Legislative Statement on 9 July 2024, the then First Minister made clear that inclusion of provisions relating to restoration of former opencast sites within the forthcoming Disused Tips (Mines and Quarries) Bill (the Bill) is not feasible at this time.” The Welsh Government cites further delay due to expansion of scope, and affordability as the key reasons for its position.
Coal tips are created by the act of deep coal mining. Overburden mounds are created by the act of opencast coal mining – there is little difference between the two in their risk or cause. The other hazards posed by abandoned and under-restored opencast coal mining sites should also be dealt with in the same legislation, given their shared cause, similar urgency, and methods of resolution (monitoring, landscaping, and earth works).
The Welsh Government must mandate public consultation for all stages of the restoration process, including when revised restoration plans are brought forward.
Public participation is very important at all stages of the planning process and is to be encouraged. The wide range of development types and scales mean planning legislation can only set a minimum standard of consultation…however we expect planning authorities to consult where the public is materially affected by the submitted details.
A restoration plan represents a promise made to nearby communities before they endure what is often years of disruption, noise, and dust during subsequent coal mining. Accordingly, those communities should be meaningfully consulted on proposed changes to that promise, with their feedback given significant weight in shaping associated planning decisions and conditions. We ask if the Welsh Government will issue guidance to Local Planning Authorities to this effect, to act on its acceptance in principle of the CCEIC’s recommendation.
The Welsh Government should advise local authorities to designate a specific officer as a point of contact for the local community, providing a direct communication channel between residents and local authorities on matters relating to sites or similar developments.
MTAN2 recommends the mining company appoints a site liaison officer. Additionally, Local Planning Authorities have a Planning Case Officer before an application is approved, and the enforcement team for after an application is approved.
Within Local Planning Authorities, Case Officers often say they are too busy with their main work to engage more with public enquiries and concerns. Given the potential impact of planning applications on nearby communities, there’s clearly a need to have a dedicated contact point for community input and involvement. We ask if the Welsh Government will issue guidance to Local Planning Authorities to this effect, to act on its acceptance in principle of the CCEIC’s recommendation.
The Welsh Government should advise local authorities to create online portals where residents can access up-to-date information on all stages of the restoration process.
Insisting on specific web publishing requirements at this time is premature. The Welsh Government is working with the Centre for Digital Public Services (CDPS) in exploring how digital solutions can improve the planning system in Wales. It is anticipated that the communication of decisions will form an integral part of that work. This will bring together the variability currently seen across authorities in a managed cost-effective way.
The Welsh Government should expedite online public access to planning documents, and have facilitating public engagement as an explicit aim of this work. The poor design of some planning portals currently create barriers to community members accessing critical information about developments that will potentially impact them. We ask the Welsh Government to centre a public consultation in its design of digitalised planning systems.
The Welsh Government should encourage the use of citizens' assemblies as forums for discussing the future of restoration sites, particularly where restoration failed to meet the original planning permission and compromises need to be made.
National planning guidance already recognises that well established liaison committees help to provide a better understanding of the impacts to be expected from mineral extraction. Many quarries and coal sites have established liaison committees which act as a forum for regular discussion and explanation of current problems. Where regular complaints are received or there is concern about local impacts the local planning authority should request that the operator cooperate in establishing regular meetings of a nominated group.
We agree with the National Planning guidance’s promotion of community liaison committees, but find execution is inconsistent, and in some cases, absent altogether – even where there are serious breaches of planning control and trust. This has left some participating residents we’ve spoken with feeling ignored and apathetic. We ask if the Welsh Government will reconsider the sentiment of the CCEIC’s recommendation, by strengthening the National Planning guidance on community liaison committees.
The Welsh Government must explore stronger enforcement mechanisms to address breaches of planning controls without delay, such as the mining activities that continued at Ffos-y-Fran after the licence expired.
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides a range of effective enforcement options depending on the circumstances. Enforcement is focused on addressing the unacceptable impacts of unauthorised development rather than punishing the developer. Given the complex nature of planning impacts on both the environment and people it is sometimes acceptable to allow unauthorised activities to continue while consideration is given to the best course of action. That is what Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council concluded at Ffos-y-Fran. However, where unacceptable harm is happening, the law does currently provide authorities with powers to stop activities immediately, either through a stop notice or Court injunction.
Ffos-y-fran highlights that enforcement options are only robust to the extent that they can be implemented. For 15 months, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council believed the consequences of using enforcement options available to it were worse than allowing severe, long-term, harmful, and persistent breaches of planning control. This suggests that current enforcement options are not fit for purpose. Therefore we ask if the Welsh Government will reconsider the CCEIC’s recommendation and review existing planning enforcement options for their practical effectiveness in controlling largescale developments?
The Welsh Government should consider the broader implications of the failures at Ffos-y-Fran and implement systemic changes to prevent similar issues in future, including in relation to coal-tip reclamation sites.
Welsh Government coal extraction planning policy is clear that development proposals will only be approved in wholly exceptional circumstances. There will therefore be very few schemes being brought forward. At the present time, our primary focus is to ensure that disused tips are safe and to deliver a modernised, fit-for-purpose regulatory regime.
In the face of the Welsh Government’s expectation of ‘very few schemes’, there are currently two schemes in pre-application consultation (Bedwas Tips and an extension to Glan Lash) proposing coal extraction in South Wales, with remediation dimensions. Ffos-y-fran is a current example of the abject failure of planning control to secure the agreed restoration, even after allowing 15 months of illegal coal mining with an associated 1.6 million tonnes of CO2. Ffos-y-fran is not a lone example, but rather part of a history of planning control failing to deliver the agreed standard of restoration at East Pit, Selar, Margam Parc Slip, and Nant Helen within the past decade alone in South Wales. If the Welsh Government refuses to learn lessons from this egregious breach of its own national policy on coal mining, it calls into question whether the Welsh Government gives the CCEIC’s findings the gravitas they clearly merit. Such a refusal also risks the repeat of mistakes that led to avoidable harm to surrounding communities, the local environment and restoration liability, our shared climate, planning control, trust in the Local Planning Authority, and Wales’s reputation as a climate leader. We ask the Welsh Government to reconsider the relevance and urgency of reviewing the broader implications of the failures at Ffos-y-Fran and implement systemic changes to prevent similar issues in future, in-line with the CCEIC’s recommendation.
In the event that the water cannot be drained from the, voids at the site, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council must ensure that any, water bodies resulting from the restoration at Ffos-y-Fran are safe and provide, benefit to the local community.
Accepting this recommendation with no further comment will not reassure local communities, particularly given the lack of consultation to date, and unsafe conditions documented around the flooded voids at similar sites of Margam/Parc Slip and East Pit former opencast coal mines.
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council must ensure, that the revised restoration plan reflects, as a minimum, the objectives of the, original restoration plan, including: safe public access across the East Merthyr, historic landscape with a new network of trails and footpaths; sustainable, wildlife habitats and biodiverse environmental sites; protection and restoration, of surviving heritage features; and the return of most of the site for traditional, commoners’ use.
Any revised scheme would inevitably differ in that overburden mounds 2 and 3 are, likely to be retained and a body of water will be incorporated into the scheme. The developer has also, indicated that they would wish to retain the motorcross facility.
Allowing the void to flood and letting the site operator leave its colossal coal tips (overburden mounds) above ground amounts to an abandonment of the original restoration objectives promised to local communities. As with MTCBC’s refusal to issue a Stop Notice to prevent the daily illegal mining of over 1,000 tonnes of coal, allowing a noisy motocross to be atop one of those coal tips that operated during this period of unregulated illegal activity, would be seen as another betrayal of local communities to the benefit of the mining company.
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council should fully, involve local residents in the consideration of revised restoration plans for the, Ffos-y-Fran site.
We are disappointed at this glib and non-committal comment and invite MTCBC to properly respond to the CCEIC’s recommendation 24.
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council should publish, the application for the revised restoration plan at Ffos-y-Fran and the planning, officer’s associated reports
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council:
Response: Noted
Our analysis:
We are disappointed at this glib and non-committal comment and invite MTCBC to properly respond to the CCEIC’s recommendation 25.
Smoke filled the sky across the industrial parts of the UK, as coal powered the industrial revolution. First coal brought prosperity and progress, but over decades the smoke stacks have been identified as a major cause of the climate crisis.
Over the last 20 years the UK has changed dramatically, with the closure of Ratcliffe on Soar power station at the end of September 2024, marking the beginning of a coal free era. As recently as 2012, coal provided 40% of the UK’s electricity, with around 40 coal mines extracting 17.1 million tonnes of coal, with an additional 45 million tonnes of coal imported from Russia, Colombia and the USA.
Ratcliffe on Soar, near Nottingham opened in 1967, with a capacity of 2,000 megawatts, enough to power 2 million homes. Since the early 2000s people across the UK have campaigned against coal power stations, coal mines and other coal infrastructure. Coal is the greatest historical cause of climate change and still a major global contributor of green house gas emissions.
In 2015, the UK was the first country to announce it would phase-out coal by 2025. While lauded as a big climate victory the Government’s intention was also to ensure coal didn’t exit the UK’s grid any earlier than 2025. At the time coal still contributed 9% of the UK’s electricity supply.[1]
Ratcliffe power station has seen its fair share of protests demanding closure. One example of direct action took place on the site in 2007, when Spring into Action, saw 11 people locked on to the dumper trucks and the conveyor belts, feeding coal to the power station. This caused major disruption to the plant operation, before they were removed. Back then Ratcliffe was the UK’s 3rd largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK.
One of the group occupying the site said “the threat of climate change is so huge and the government so complacent that the people themselves are now acting in proportionate response to this and targeting the root causes of climate change.”
In a far cry from recent sentencing, in 2009, when 114 people were pre-emptively arrested from a meeting place in Nottingham, they were found to have been intending to occupy Ratcliffe for as long as possible. When activists were sentenced, one judge declared they acted with "the highest possible motives".i They accepted that they were intending to close the power station, but said that the urgency of climate change meant they had to take this action.
Undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, was involved in organising actions against Ratcliffe power station and as such some of the convictions were later overturned.
Three years ago, prior to the Glasgow COP climate summit, the phase-out date was brought forward to 2024. The UK wanted to be seen as a climate leader in phasing-out coal and setting up the Powering Past Coal Alliance with Canada in 2015, but others got there first.
Although the UK was first to announce the end of its coal power sector, Belgium was the first European nation to stop burning coal, ending its use in 2016. Sweden stopped using coal in 2019, bringing forward the planned date by 2 years. Austria stopped using coal in 2020. Neither the Belgium nor Austrian phase-outs were considered to be government driven.i Portugal brought forward its phase-out date twice from a starting point of 2030 to 2021.
The UK Government extended the life of coal power stations after Russia invaded Ukraine. Drax, West Burton and part of Ratcliffe coal power stations were kept from retiring in 2022, in a fear that Russian warmongering would endanger electricity supply. The UK stopped Russian coal imports in response to the war.
In 2017, the UK had sourced 49% of its imported coal from Russia, where coal mining contributed to cultural genocide and laid waste to large areas of the country, decimating rivers, forests and agricultural areas.
Imported coal comes with a high toll for the local populations and campaigners in the UK have been pushing for an end to imports of coal from Russia as well as Colombia, while calling for the end of its mining and use in the UK. Over the years London Mining Network has brought visitors to the UK from international coal affected regions, particularly in Latin America. Meeting these campaigners has been profoundly moving experiences for people living close to proposed coal mines in the UK, as the similarities in their struggles are numerous, and it shows that the campaigns are thinking globally by acting locally and pushing for the end of coal power.
The movement against coal power in the UK has been wide, with people standing up and saying no to opencast coal mines near their homes and joining together to stop 45 planned new opencast coal mines from operating. Significant battles were fought at Lodge House in Derbyshire, in the Pont Valley in Durham and Ffos-y-fran the UK’s largest opencast mine, which was allowed by the Welsh Government to mine coal for an unbelievable 15 months after planning permission ended.
Coal Action Network has worked with communities resisting opencast and later deep coal mining across the UK. From its inception in 2008, it has supported more than 25 communities to stop coal mines and extension from destroying local wildlife, filling local people’s lungs with dust and the industrialisation of the countryside.
Site occupations have been a significant tactic in slowing or stopping coal mines from starting. Coal Action Scotland occupied several sites including Mainshill and later Glentaggart East, both in South Lanarkshire for action camps that disrupted operations on existing opencast sites. Scotland’s last coal power station, Longannet closed in March 2016, and the Scottish Government banned coal mining in 2022, in a protest against the proposed West Cumbria coal mine.
In 2018 the last two opencast coal mines started, both in County Durham, opposition to the one in the Pont Valley a protest camp was set up and featured in the urgent film documentary Finite: the climate of change. This campaign, and others in the North East had brought the local opposition to coal extraction to a head and in 2020 the proposed mines at Druridge Bay, and Dewley Hill were rejected, along with an extension to the Pont Valley opencast. Support for coal had turned a corner.
With the coal-phase out announcement and pressure on opencast coal mines coal companies started saying that their coal was destined for use in the steel industry. The second and third biggest single site emitters of carbon in the UK were Port Talbot steelworks and the steelworks at Scunthorpe. Drax power station has the dubious honour of being the biggest carbon emitter, which although it no longer burning coal, it does burning trees from old growth forests.
In September 2024 the planning permission for the proposed West Cumbria coal mine was revoked and then the license from the Coal Authority was rejected. Communities in Cumbria and beyond fought long and hard to bring about these results which were cemented in court by South Lakes Action on Climate Change and Friends of the Earth.
[1] Digest of UK energy Statistics 2017, page 14
The UK is reaching a major milestone in its transition to clean energy, one that Coal Action Network has campaigned for since its inception in 2008 — the complete phase-out of coal power generation. From October 2024, Ratcliffe power station — the last remaining coal-fired power station in the country — will be permanently shuttered. It is a milestone that should be celebrated, and one that serves as an inspiration to other countries around the world to follow suit.
Coal has been a mainstay of the UK's power grid for over a century, both driven and sustained by British colonialism. At its peak in 1950, coal accounted for 97% of the UK's electricity generation. Since then, concerns over climate change and air pollution contributed to successive UK Governments pushing the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel out of the UK power mix.
Through a combination of policies, renewable technology alternatives, market forces, and public pressure, the UK has steadily reduced its reliance on coal power over the past decade. Measures such as the carbon price floor, restrictions on coal plant emissions, and the rapid growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar have all contributed to coal's decline.
The phasing out of coal power entirely is a major victory for the environment and public health. Coal combustion is a major source of greenhouse gases, as well as harmful air pollutants like fine particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. By eliminating coal from the energy mix, the UK has taken a crucial step in reducing its carbon footprint and improving air quality.
Looking ahead, the challenge now is to ensure that the UK's energy system remains reliable and affordable as it continues to transition towards renewable sources. This will require significant investment in grid infrastructure, energy storage, and flexible generation capacity to balance the intermittency of wind and solar power.
Nevertheless, the end of coal power in the UK is a testament to the countless hours committed by both climate activists and local people who spent countless hours and risked their freedom campaigning to close the coal-fired power stations poisoning the air they breathe and trashing the climate we all rely upon. But the spectre of coal still looms with the UK continuing to mine and export coal abroad - in 2023 alone, UK exports of coal generated around 1.8 million tonnes of CO2. It is reckless and hypocritical to dump the dirtiest of fossil fuels on other countries whilst boasting that the UK itself has moved beyond coal.
Check out our current campaigns against ongoing coal mining operations in the UK.
