Druridge Bay: Sajid Javid refuses coal mine planning permission citing climate concerns
The government has today refused planning permission for the proposed open cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland, citing concerns over landscape and climate impacts from the controversial development.
In a major victory for environmental campaigners, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid today overturned the previous planning permission granted in 2016 by Northumberland County Council, declaring that he disagreed with the planning inspectors’ conclusions and recommendations.
The long-awaited decision had been delayed earlier this month without explanation, but today Javid Tweeted that he had refused the application. He said the decision was based on a consideration of “all evidence and material considerations, inc. potential environmental impacts”.
I’ve made a decision on planning permission for a surface coal mine at Highthorn, Druridge Bay, Northumberland – taking into account all evidence and material considerations, inc. potential environmental impacts, I’ve refused the application – my letter: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/called-in-decision-land-at-highthorn-widdrington-northumberland-ne61-6ee-ref-3158266-23-march-2018 …?
His letter to developer Banks Group provided further details on the rationale for the decision, confirming the primary factors behind the planning permission being refused were concerns about local landscape impacts from the project and the greenhouse gas emissions that would result.
The letter endorses the initial inspectors’ report’s conclusion that the “proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area of moderate/substantial significance”.
It also states that the project would lead to short term greenhouse gas emissions that would have “an adverse effect of substantial significance”, and while this effect would reduce over time “the effects of carbon in the atmosphere would have a cumulative effect in the long term”.
“Given that cumulative effect, and the importance to which the government affords combatting climate change, [the Secretary of State] concludes that overall the scheme would have an adverse effect on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change of very substantial significance, which he gives very considerable weight in the planning balance,” the letter states.
The focus on climate issues represents a major victory for environmental campaigners who had warned approving a new coal mine project would badly undermine the UK’s coal phase out plans and its credibility as a driving force behind the international Powering Past Coal Alliance. Experts said the decision represents the first time a major infrastructure project has been rejected primarily on climate-related grounds.
In response, developer Banks Mining issued a lengthy and angry statement, slamming the government’s decision and linking it to the controversial decision to award the contract for new British passports to a Franco-Dutch firm.
“In the same week that the government decided to support passport manufacturing jobs in France instead of those in North East England, it has now demonstrated that it would prefer to source the coal that is essential for a variety of important industries across the UK, such as steel, house building and concrete production, from Russia or the US, rather than support substantial investment and job creation plans in our region,” said Gavin Styles, managing director at Banks Mining. “This is an absolutely perverse decision which flies in the face of the recommendation for approval given by Mr Woolcock, the Planning Inspector… It has been made for purely political reasons and is totally contrary to the principles of local decision-making that previously appeared so important to Mr Javid.”
He also accused Javid of “flagrantly disregarding” expert planning opinion “from the comfort of his London office without ever having taken the time to even visit the area in question”.
“Furthermore, his decision to notify the world of his judgement via social media 90 minutes before we, as the applicant, had received official notification of it is deeply unprofessional, and shows an utter disregard for the jobs of the hundreds of people that we employ,” he added.
The decision could still be subject to an appeal, which would see the ruling challenged in the High Court. Styles hinted strongly that an appeal was being considered. “We owe it to our highly-skilled and loyal North East workforce, our UK customers and the many local residents, community organisations and businesses that have expressed their support for our Highthorn proposals over the last four years to not just leave things here, and will now carefully review the precise reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision before deciding on the most appropriate next steps to take,” he said.
The letter did offer some succour for Banks Group as Javid appeared to accept its argument that there would be domestic demand for the coal from the site were it to be developed.
“[The Secretary of State] concludes… that the evidence points to a likely need for the amount of coal that the Highthorn site would provide during its operational life in order to ensure a sufficient supply to provide the energy the country needs,” the letter states. “He further agrees that a window currently exists for the use of the Highthorn coal.”
Speaking ahead of the decision, Jeannie Kielty, community relations manager at The Banks Group, had argued the project could result in lower carbon emissions compared to imported coal.
“The government’s own projections state that coal will continue to be an important part of the UK’s energy mix for at least the proposed duration of operations at Highthorn, and substantial amounts are also essential for a wide variety of important UK industrial processes, such as the manufacturing of cement and steel,” she said in an emailed statement last month. “It makes far greater sense to support skilled North East jobs, to deliver regional environmental and conservation enhancements, to avoid the carbon emissions caused by importing the coal supplies that the UK still needs and to provide a secure domestic supply of energy by meeting our continuing need for coal through indigenous reserves, instead of relying on imports of coal and gas from potentially-unstable overseas markets that are thousands of miles away.”
The news follows a decision announced yesterday to re-open an underground coal mine in Wales. The Aberpergwm Colliery near Glynneath closed in 2015, but planning permission was given this week by local councillors to re-open the site after new investors came forward.
Friends of the Earth campaigner Rose Dickinson hailed the Druridge Bay decision as a “significant victory”, both for local residents and the climate.
“This is the first coal mine ever to be rejected in the UK because of climate change impacts – a vindication for everyone who has been calling for fossil fuels to be left in the ground,” she said.
“The science is clear that we need to leave 80 per cent of all proven fossil fuel reserves unburned to avoid dangerous global warming,” she added. “That’s why the government has done the right thing today by rejecting this mine. Now ministers should take the next step by banning all new opencast coal and stop trying to impose fracking on communities.”
Her comments were echoed by Sam Bright, energy lawyer at ClientEarth, congratulated the government for “taking the only thinkable decision and blocking this new coal mine because of its huge future climate impacts”.
“It’s the first time ministers have blocked a project on climate change grounds,” he said. “The tone is set: we expect authorities to take a similar approach from now on when considering fossil fuel developments in the UK.
“Coal is the dirtiest fuel – for the climate and for people’s health. It’s vital that governments around the world follow Westminster’s lead and block new coal projects, to speed the move to a cleaner energy economy.”
No Comment