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.
The decision to grant planning permission for a controversial coal mine in Cumbria has been quashed by the High Court in a major victory for campaigners.
The judgment follows legal challenges by Friends of the Earth (FoE) and South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) to a decision made in December 2022 to grant planning permission by Michael Gove, the then secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities.
Days after general election, the new government conceded that planning permission had been unlawfully granted and withdrew its defence of the legal challenges.
Powerful
This followed a ruling by the Supreme Court in June in a case bought by resident Sarah Finch against Surrey County Council, which supported Finch’s argument that planning applications for fossil fuel projects must consider the environmental impact of burning the fossil fuels, not just of extracting them.
In making its judgment, the High Court agreed with the campaigners that the climate-changing emissions from burning the coal extracted from the Whitehaven mine – 99 per cent of its emissions – were not properly considered during the planning process.
It dismissed the arguments from West Cumbria Mining (WCM) to the contrary, with the company persisting in defending the court case even though the government had pulled its defence.
The High Court ruling sends a powerful signal about the importance of the Supreme Court ruling for fossil fuel projects, according to FoE.
The environmental organisation said in a statement: “It shows unequivocally that the process for seeking permission for these climate-wrecking projects has fundamentally changed.”
Judge Mr Justice Holgate agreed with FoE that the secretary of state acted unlawfully in accepting WCM’s claim that the mine would be ‘net zero’ and have no impact on the country’s ability to meet the emissions cuts required under the Climate Change Act 2008.
Muddle
The mining company had claimed it would offset the emissions from its mine through purchasing carbon credits from abroad, despite the fact that UK government policy does not allow reliance on international offsets to meet its carbon budgets under the CCA.
WCM had also argued that Whitehaven coal would simply ‘substitute’ for coal that would otherwise be extracted elsewhere in the world, so there would be no net increase in global carbon emissions.
But the judge agreed with FoE and SLACC’s objection to this claim, and concluded that it was “impossible to reconcile the inconsistencies and muddle” in the secretary of state’s reasoning on this issue.
The judge also agreed with both claimants that the secretary of state’s finding that the mine would not have a negative international impact was incorrect in law.
The ruling means that communities secretary Angela Rayner, who is also the deputy prime minister, will now have to reconsider the planning application, taking the full climate impact into account. In doing this, she could call for new evidence or even re-open the planning inquiry.
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.
Harmful
Niall Toru, a senior lawyer at FoE, said: “This mine should never have been given permission in the first place. The case against it is overwhelming.
"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.”
The ruling could have ramifications internationally, as there are cases abroad where challenges are being made against fossil fuel projects on a very similar basis, he added.
Duncan Pollard, a trustee for SLACC said: “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. Central and local government need to concentrate on secure and sustainable jobs for west Cumbria.”
A spokesperson for WCM said: “West Cumbria Mining will consider the implications of the High Court judgment and has no comment to make at this time.”
Over
The judgment also led to renewed calls for the government to refuse planning permission for the Rosebank and Jackdaw offshore oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
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: “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 High Court ruling also showed that the “favourite line” of fossil fuel companies – that if fossil fuels are not produced in the UK, it would simply be produced elsewhere – “doesn’t wash”, and should be subject to public scrutiny.
Caroline Lucas, the former Green Party MP, wrote on X: “Brilliant news - the High Court has ruled against the Whitehaven coal mine!! Huge congrats to all who campaigned against it & to Friends of the Earth and SLACC for bringing the case. The fossil fuel era is over.”
This Author
Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for The Ecologist. She tweets at @Cat_Early76.
