Coalmine go-ahead accused of hypocrisy, court hears

The mine is being proposed for the former Marchon chemical works on the outskirts of Whitehaven

A decision to grant planning permission for a new coal mine "smacked of hypocrisy", the High Court has been told.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) and South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) are bringing legal action over a government decision in 2022 to grant planning permission for the site near Whitehaven in Cumbria.

The government had been due to defend the claim, but on 11 July 2024, FoE said it had withdrawn its defence.

However, the developer, West Cumbria Mining (WCM), is still defending the challenge and it told the High Court on Tuesday that the legal claim should be refused.

Supporters of the mine claim it will create much-needed jobs

West Cumbria Mining wants to build the UK’s first deep coal mine in over 30 years.

The mine would produce metallurgical coal, also called coking coal, for use by the steel industry.

The company claims it would create 500 highly-skilled jobs with up to 1,500 more in the supply chain.

But lawyers for the environmental campaigners are arguing that the original decision to approve the mine was flawed.

On the first day of the three-day hearing in London, Paul Brown KC for FoE, said in written submissions that there was "no significant need" for the coal, which would be used in steel-making, given statements from British Steel and Tata over their moves to electric arc furnaces.

Mr Brown added that "the decision smacked of hypocrisy and undermined the UK's international reputation".

Estelle Dehon KC, for SLACC, added: "The Secretary of State failed to grapple with the adverse international signal sent by the UK if it granted permission for a new coal mine, and the effect of encouraging other countries to permit new fossil fuel developments increasing global greenhouse gas emissions."

'Poorly disguised attacks'

James Strachan KC, for WCM, said the arguments in the legal challenge were "poorly disguised attacks on the planning judgments".

He said: "SLACC's allegation that the inspector and secretary of state discounted or ignored the international impact of granting permission is simply not credible and flies in the face of the decision."

The barrister said there was a "fundamental difference between fuel coal and coking coal" with the planned "net zero" mine due to extract the latter, also known as metallurgical coal.

The hearing is scheduled for two days but a verdict is not expected for several months.