MINORCA OPENCAST PROTEST GROUP
RESEARCH REPORT No 1
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEPHEN LEARY
Summary
This paper explores why, from the adoption of the revised Minerals Planning
Guidance 3 (MPG3) up to October 2009, coal operators have been
increasingly successful at winning appeals for opencast mines in England
and the possible implications this has for future planning applications.
THIS PAPER HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY STEVE LEARY, WHO HAS BEEN THE
CHAIRPERSON OF THE MINORCA OPENCAST PROTEST GROUP (MOPG) SINCE
OCTOBER 2008. HE HAS WRITTEN THIS IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY AND IT
DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF MOPG
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 1
This paper argues that because the Government perceives the need to
sustain a viable coal industry in England as paramount, this is having a
detrimental effect on those communities in large areas of England who live
on or near the shallow coalfields, as their interests are negated in the quest
to maintain a viable domestic coal industry and provide a buffer of energy
reserves in case other sources of energy supply are interrupted. This paper
explores how we have arrived at this position after campaigners had almost
brought a halt to opencast coal mining in the 1990’s.
In 1999 it seemed that a major environmental battle had been won. Those
who had vigorously campaigned against the ravages of opencast coal mining
as detailed in ‘Digging Up Trouble’ (1) could celebrate the publication of a
new revised Mineral Planning Document, MPG3 (2). This stated that there
should be a presumption against opencast coal mining unless a planning
application passed a number of environmental tests, requiring proof of the
safety of an application, or in circumstances where this could not be
achieved, the benefits accruing when the site was restored outweighed the
environmental costs imposed whilst the site was being worked (3). For a
while the coal producers were refused planning permission or backed away
from submitting applications.
Now, with the Secretary Of State for Communities and Local Government
endorsing the Inspectors decision on UK Coal plc’s Huntington Lane
application in October 2009, we have reached the point where, over the last
four years (since Long Moor was approved in 2005) three other applications,
all in England and all had been opposed by the relevant Local Authority, have
been granted on Appeal, making, with Huntington Lane, five in all. We have
also seen Local Authorities not defending their planning decisions and
thereby granting planning permissions and saving themselves the cost of a
Public Inquiry.(5) Those locally opposing opencast mining applications still
have MPG3, but the “presumption against” directive seems to carry less
weight.
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 2
The route to dilution can, it is argued, be traced. It starts in the Cabinet
Office, goes via the Departments of State responsible for Local Government,
is ingested and moulded by the Coal Forum and injected into the 2007
Energy White Paper. In addition a reiterative Public Inquiry process is
underway whereby each new successful planning application effectively sets
a precedent for the one that follows as case law is built up by successful
applications. Each success seems to chip a bit more off MPG3’s revised
safeguards. As each new development in the policy process occurs,
applicants successfully incorporate these into their applications. This is how
in 1999 MPG3 makes a series of clear statements about the sourcing of coal
not being an issue for the planning system to the indication of the Inspector
at the Huntington Lane Inquiry that the need for coal was to be one of the
key considerations.
The wake-up call for the Government that it had a real energy supply issue
looming came with the Cabinet Office PIU Energy Policy Review in 2001. This,
in the Key Themes and Points in the Submission Document by Professor John
H Cheshire contained the following statement about the state of the UK Coal
Industry
“Further deep mine closures, and falling opencast output, could reduce UK
coal production below 15 Mt/yr. by 2005 and some 10 Mt/yr. in 2010-20. If
the UK coal industry falls below a certain size (perhaps its current size) it
could be unsustainable.” (6)
It is this paper’s contention that the Government has been reducing the
significance of the “presumption against” opencast coal mining directive and
working instead to sustain a viable, private, profitable coal mining industry,
including deep and surface mine operations.
The first sign of this was the publication of another planning guidance
document MPS2, ‘Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of
Minerals Extraction in England’, in 2005. This document set out a quality
assurance methodology, which if followed, would increase the chances of a
successful mineral extraction application. On first reading it is rather like a
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 3
“A Dummy’s Guide to How to Get your Application (including those for
opencast mines) Accepted”. Long Moor came soon after.
The second stage in this process of dilution came from the setting up of the
Coal Forum by BERR in 2006 after another energy supply scare the previous
winter. This is where the real issue of collusion comes to the fore. This body,
made up of Coal Producers, Generating Companies, Unions, Rail Companies,
the Coal Authority and the Government (all the stakeholders in the UK Coal
Industry) was set up to explore how to maintain a viable sustainable
domestic coal industry in an era of severe international competition over coal
supply. The Forum’s answer to what was a sustainable UK coal industry was
one which produced 20m tonnes annually from deep and surface mines.
Although the Government has never officially set a target for UK coal
production, it has never voiced disagreement with this target set by the Coal
Forum.
The context was set by a Minister at the first meeting
“The Minister made it clear that he saw coal-fired generation as part of the
future UK energy mix. In the immediate past coal had made a large
contribution to electricity generation: last winter when there had been very
high utilisation of coal-fired power stations in the face of shortages of other
fuels. For the Government there was a need to take account not only of
carbon reductions but also security of supply. As North Sea oil and gas
outputs began to decline and older nuclear power stations were
decommissioned, we needed to be very careful about dependence on
imports – including the prospect of the potential reliance on imported coal.
The Minister hoped that the Coal Forum, by bringing together both sides of
the industry and other important groups, could begin to tackle these
issues”.(7)
Of course, if the Government and the industry worked together on finding a
solution to this problem of maintaining a viable deep mine /surface mine
coal industry it would save the need to consider other forms of state
intervention which could maintain the industry, such as a public subsidy or
even re-nationalisation. Is then the solution to the conundrum to be found in
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 4
officially sanctioned discrete changes in planning policies for surface mine
applications which shift the balance back in favour of the coal producers?
Since then, in the style of classic ‘pressure group’ politics, the Coal Forum
has become the mouth piece of the domestic coal industry – a constant
lobby vehicle for the promotion of a sectional interest.
By its 10th meeting the minutes of the Coal Forum reported that
“In the subsequent discussion members were pleased to note the Minister’s
favourable comments regarding the potential for deep mining but they said
that they were pro-coal in general and most were concerned that there
should not be a return to an argument over deep versus surface mining.
Members agreed in reality the surface mining sector remains key to the long
term role an indigenous coal industry in the UK and represented a
substantial proportion of the 20mt/pa which this national asset could
provide towards security of supply. Members did however note that with
regard to planning issues this was a matter for DCLG, and the Scottish and
Welsh Governments, not DECC and there was a clear approach in place to
seeking planning approvals despite the “presumption against”, which equally
applied to deep mining, and that recent experience was encouraging in
demonstrating the acceptability of surface mining in meeting continuing
environmental standards.” (8)
In this way the industry demonstrated its confidence in having discovered
how to use the planning system to overcome the constraints set out in the
revised 1999 MPG3.This degree of confidence may have reflected the
influence that the coal lobby had had on the Energy Review White Paper
2007, when Lord Truscott observed that
“ the Coal Forum had been established to improve communication between
Government and those involved in coal related industries, and had played an
important role in influencing Government. He said he was aware of the
discontent surrounding the lack of a robust statement regarding coal in the
White Paper but he said the views of the Forum had been taken into
consideration. Lord Truscott noted that Paragraph 4.31 of the White Paper
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 5
states the Government believes that there is a value in maintaining access to
reserves of coal and he felt that this was a positive message that could be
referred to in any planning application” (9)
For those trying to oppose opencast mining applications this prophecy has
come to haunt us. Here a Minister shines a green light on how to
successfully apply for an opencast mine. It is precisely this paragraph that
has featured so significantly in the Planning Inspectors Report on Huntington
Lane (10) and the subsequent comments of the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government (11). Therefore the ‘need for coal’
arguments are now being deployed effectively by applicants to overcome the
constraining arguments in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 which were put into MPG3
in 1999 to insulate the planning system to some degree, from the very same
‘need for coal’ arguments. This is how creeping planning decisions have
diluted the revised MPG3.
Central to this process of collusion and dilution has been the economic
reality that, in the first decade of this century, deep mines in England do not
pay. Those people in Leicestershire who are opposing the Minorca
application, which is currently before Leicestershire County Council, are
experiencing a new version of the ‘need for coal’ argument as put forward by
UK Coal plc, the only major deep mine producer operating in England. In
support of its Minorca Surface Mine Application the company argues
“Surface and deep mine coal are considered by UK Coal (plc) to be
complementary activities, and different sources of production are mutually
supportive. MPG3 (revised) states that “........opencast is generally more
flexible than deep mined coal....it can reduce the overall cost of companies
with both opencast and deep-mine interests.”Surface coal and deep mining
are further supportive due to the required blending of different grades of
coal from different sources as required by power generators. MPG3 (revised)
states “..........generators regard a coal feed with an average chlorine content
above a certain level as presenting an unacceptable risk to their boilers...”
Paragraph 3 continues “.....few deep mines produce coal with a chlorine
content which would appear to meet the needs of generators with little or no
need for blending”. As such, there is an interdependence of employment at
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 6
opencast sites and collieries, and this is one of the factors which determined
the Company’s overall production and marketing strategies”(12)
The Minorca Opencast Protest Group’s Response Document objecting to the
planning application observes
“... UK Coal (plc) puts forwards an argument that asks the communities
surrounding the Minorca site to become stakeholders in their coal extracting
enterprise. Despite the fact that MPG3 makes the sourcing of coal supplies a
matter for generating companies alone (see the discussion on paragraph 2
above) UK Coal suggests that these communities become part of UK Coal’s
Business Plan and accept the need to subsidise the overall cost of the coal
that UK Coal (plc) produces from its deep mines by allowing it to develop
new, cheaper surface mines. They want these communities to share the
commercial risks that this company faces. This is an important issue for UK
Coal (plc), a company that lost £82 million in the first half of 2009. In
addition its deep mines have only been profitable for one calendar year since
2000. UK Coal (plc) is the only coal producer in England who treats opencast
coal and deep mine coal as ‘mutually supportive’. Other producers in
England only produce surface coal. (13)
This means that local communities in the UK who live next to UK Coal (plc)
surface mines are being asked to bear the social costs (especially the
reduction in the value of private property) associated with opencast coal
production in order to subsides UK Coal’s deep mine coal production. Why
should these communities, including those surrounding the Minorca site in
this case, be thought of as willing to contribute to the profitability of a
private company? The idea is absurd. As MPG3 paragraph 3 states
“nor does it see a role for the (planning) system in influencing the operation
of the market in coal”.
By making this ‘mutually supportive’ claim UK Coal (plc) is asking
Leicestershire County Council to influence the operation of the market in
coal. As this is the case, this ‘mutually supportive’ argument of UK Coal’s
should be disregarded and not considered as a material consideration”. (14)
This then is where planning policy creep has led opencast coal operators:
they are in a position where they feel bold enough to suggest such a
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 7
justification as a material consideration in a planning application. Why
should such communities effectively be asked to pay a public subsidy which
maintains a viable privately owned coal industry in England? What more
evidence do we want that a degree of collusion exists between coal
operators and the Government to the detriment of local communities?
Perhaps the answer to the latter, if more evidence is needed, is the way this
Government is resisting calls for the introduction of 500 metre buffer zones
around opencast sites as enjoyed by those living in Scotland and Wales. (15).
The conclusion for MOPG drawn from this analysis is twofold. Firstly, that
without another review of MPG3 that restates more explicitly policy
safeguards that protect local communities from the consequences of
successful opencast mining applications, such as the introduction of a 500
metre buffer zone, more English communities are in danger of finding
themselves confronted by an opencast mining application because of the
importance attached to ‘need for coal’ arguments. Secondly, urgent attention
should be given to considering how to combat and contest the “need for
coal” arguments that have been so successfully utilised in recent opencast
coal mining applications and which form part of UK Coal’s arguments
supporting their Minorca application in any further submission MOPG makes
to Leicestershire County Council.
© Stephen Leary
Notes
1) Chapter 8, *Digging up Trouble The Environmental Protest and
Opencast Coal Mining”, H Beyon et al, Rivers Oram Press, 2000.
2) “Minerals Planning Guidance 3: Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil
Disposal”,1999. To see MPG3 go to:
http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/environment/planning/community_ser
vices_planning/planning_general/links.htm
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 8
3) Paragraph 8 MPG3
4) Page 9, Key Themes and Points in the Submission Document, Professor
John H Cheshire, Cabinet Office, 2001. To see, go to:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/
sumkeypoints.pdf
5) As reported by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. The
other sites are: Delhi Extension (Northumberland), Shotton,
Northumberland and Lodge House (Derbyshire) see:
http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/630
6) For example, the Potland Burn site in Northumberland, as reported in
The Journal news story “ Bid to rework Butterwell Opencast Site”
17/1/2009,see:,
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todaysnews/2009/01/17/bid-to-rework-opencast-site-61634-22712550/
7) Minutes of the 1st meeting of the Coal Forum 14/11/06
8) Minutes of the 10th meeting of the Coal Forum 23/10/08
9) Minutes of the 5th meeting of the Coal Forum 14/6/07. All minutes of
Coal Forum meetings can be found on:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/
/whatwedo/energy/sources/coal/forum/meetings/page37296.html
10) Huntigton Lane Public Inquiry Report para 72 where UK Coal cite this
paragraph in evidence and this claim is discussed and supported by
the Inspector in paragraphs 483-488 and further concluding
comments in paras 578 -580. To see go to:
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 9
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningcallins/pdf/1352082.pdf
11) Letter confirming the Inspector’s Report on the Huntington Lane public
Inquiry para 16. To see it, go to:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningcallins/pdf/1352073.pdf
12) Additional Information, J39 Leicestershire County Council, by Wardell
Armstrong on behalf of UK Coal; July 2009. To see it, go to:
http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/environment/planning/community_ser
vices_planning/planning_applications/eplanning_searchform/eplannin
g_resultpage/eplanning_detailpage.htm?appno=2009/C088/07&map
=f
It is at the bottom of the list and filed under Environmental
Statement - NL08024 - Minorca Socio Economic Impact.
13) Since this was written it has been drawn to the notice of MOPG that
earlier this year UK Coal sold the Maltby Colliery in Yorkshire to
Hargreves Services. This is the only deep mine Hargreves owns and
they have no surface/opencast mines.
14) Response to Application by UK Coal Mining Limited, the Former
Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay Surface Mine, Minorca Opencast
Protest Group P 34, September 2009. To see it, go to:
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/minorcaprotest.html
15) Two Parliamentary questions have been put to Ministers on this issue,
one in the House of Lords by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Donner
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 10
(26/3/07) and in the House of Commons more recently (9/2/09) by
David Wright MP. The reply on both occasions indicated that no change
in policy was currently being considered. To see it, go to:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/7
0326w0005.htm
and
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm0
90901/text/90901w0018.htm
This is the first of a series of research report MOPG will be
producing on the ‘Need for Coal’ argument.
Copies of this paper are available on:
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/minorcaprotest.html or http://mopg.co.uk/
Steve Leary can be contacted about this research paper on:
steveatmopg@googlemail.com
COAL, COLLUSION AND COMMUNITIES
STEVE LEARY
OCTOBER 2009
Page 11