Coal mine plans should be ‘permanently shelved’ after court ruling – campaigners

Environmental groups have called for proposals for the UK’s first coal mine for 30 years to be “permanently shelved” after the High Court quashed the decision to grant planning permission for the site.

A judge ruled on Friday that the Government’s decision to give the go-ahead for the development in Whitehaven, Cumbria, was “legally flawed”, following a challenge by Friends of the Earth (FoE) and South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) against the site’s developers, West Cumbria Mining (WCM).

A new decision on planning permission will now be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, FoE said, with climate groups calling for the “ill-conceived” project to be rejected “once and for all”.

“This mine should never have been given permission in the first place. The case against it is overwhelming: it would have huge climate impacts, its coal isn’t needed and it harms the UK’s international reputation on climate.

“Any reconsideration of the planning application can surely only reach one conclusion – and reject this harmful mine once and for all.

“We believe that the writing is on the wall and that WCM should withdraw its application for this climate-wrecking project.”

Duncan Pollard, a trustee at SLACC, said: “West Cumbria Mining has been roundly defeated today and the phasing out of fossil fuels has taken a small step forward.”

He added: “It is now doubly clear that fossil fuel companies cannot ignore the combustion emissions caused by the use of their oil, gas or coal, or rely on simplistic claims that a new coal mine will have zero impact on global emissions.

“We sincerely hope that any re-examination of the coal mine proposal considers all relevant issues and this ill-conceived idea is permanently shelved.”

The decision to grant permission was made by the then housing, communities and local government minister, Michael Gove, in 2022.

It was dubbed as being net zero and would extract what is known as metallurgical coal, which is used in steel-making, with the Government accepting that approximately 15% of the material would be used domestically.

The Government was due to oppose the legal bid at a hearing in July this year but withdrew its defence days before it was due to take place following the general election.

WCM continued to defend the claim, with its lawyers telling the court in London that the mine would have a positive effect and that it would have a “broadly neutral effect on the global release of greenhouse gas”.

But barristers for FoE told the court the planning decision “smacked of hypocrisy” and that there was “no significant need for coal” in the UK.

In a 48-page judgment, Mr Justice Holgate said: “The assumption that the proposed mine would not produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or would be a net-zero mine, is legally flawed.”

He added that giving the green light to the plans “failed to deal” with the fact that “a positive precedent effect of a net-zero mine leading to other similar projects would depend upon further offsetting arrangements; that would be undesirable because offsets are a finite resource”.

A spokesperson for WCM said following the decision: “West Cumbria Mining will consider the implications of the High Court judgment and has no comment to make at this time.”

The Government said last month that it would not oppose legal challenges against the decision to grant licences for the sites, brought jointly by Greenpeace and Uplift.

Tessa Khan, executive director at Uplift, said Friday’s ruling showed that the “favourite line” of fossil fuel companies “doesn’t wash”.

She said: “This is a decision that will make it even harder for oil and gas companies to get away with flimsy, poorly evidenced arguments that justify their projects and their profits.

“The court has made it clear that the favourite line of fossil fuel companies – that if we didn’t produce fossil fuels here, it would simply be produced elsewhere – doesn’t wash.

“It also confirms that any such assertion should be subject to public scrutiny and that the Government cannot just wave through new projects without taking into account the full range of their environmental projects.”