Planning Inquiry told Cumbria County Council were Misled on Fresh Water Usage and Impacts of Cumbria Coal Mine

Sellafield Outlying Planning Zone

Memorandum attached to our Evidence to the Public Inquiry. 

5/5/21  Memorandum from Radiation Free Lakeland

Applicant’s name:                                West Cumbria Mining Ltd

Call-in reference:                                  APP/H0900/V/21/3271069

BYERSTEAD FAULT

We would like to make it clear regarding the Byerstead Fault that County Councillors were, as far as we can see, not properly appraised of West Cumbria Mining’s profligate need for fresh water and what the likely impacts of such a huge, ongoing withdrawal of groundwater from the area would be.

We note that the developer’s “Project Description” predicts water usage at 261m3/h. Rather conveniently the water ‘available’( largely from the Byerstead Fault and newly mined voids) is stated as being 262 m3/h.   This is an enormous amount of water and would inevitably impact  groundwater and geology.   This was not discussed at all by councillors who were satisfied with the developer’s assurances that 98 m3/h of the water would be “recycled.”   We believe the councillors have been deliberately misled into believing that 98% of the total water would be recycled.

The water that West Cumbria Mining envisage obtaining due to ingress from the Byerstead Fault is 136m3/h.  This is far higher than the threshold above which an abstraction licence from the Environment Agency is required, and the Officers’ Report for 19 March 2019 notes at para.6.329 that “the removal of water from the mine would require an abstraction licence”.  The Environment Agency have told us there are no applications for abstraction.   There is no indication in Environmental Statement Ch.5 of how water will be obtained if the mines experience lower levels of water ingress than predicted (Public Supply?  Sharing Sellafield’s Supply?).

IMPACTS

Historically “Mine pumping in the Cumbrian Coalfield has abstracted up to about 20% of the reliable yield, dominating the flow pattern, and drawing in sea water to pollute the aquifers. Chemical analyses of mine drainage water reflect the infiltrated sea water, but suggest that normal groundwater is probably a sodium sulphate type with subordinate amounts of chloride. Mine workings in the Northumberland and Durham Coalfield were extensively interconnected and pumping maintained a water table at about 150 m below the ground surface. With the end of mining activity, groundwater levels are rising.”  http://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php/Hydrogeology_and_water_supply,_geology_and_man,_Northern_England

We note that the County Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan states:

1. 16.38  With respect to mineral applications, there is a requirement to establish the relationship that the development has with the water table. If the base of the excavation is near or below the anticipated water table, then there will be a requirement to establish an appropriate monitoring scheme. In some circumstances, the development may be considered unacceptable if it is carried out below the level of the water table.
2. 16.39  The current licensing exemption on dewatering is likely to be removed in 2017, subject to Ministerial approval, after which, dewatering activities will be brought into regulation by the Environment Agency.
   
   
   ENHANCED SEISMICITY DUE TO MINE DEWATERING
   “human activity – like water extraction – can cause the stress to be released quickly, rather than dissipating slowly over time. “It’s not just that you’re advancing an earthquake that would have happened anyway. It’s that you’re creating more or larger earthquakes,”  https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22403-thirst-for-groundwater-caused-fatal-earthquake/#ixzz6tzBoSKIO
   Given the common knowledge that the activities of mining and dewatering can induce seismicity it is puzzling as to why Cumbria County Council have not demanded bullet proof evidence from the regulators that this mine would be safe.  This mine is not just anywhere it is 8km from Selalfield. A recent paper explains that the Sellafield site area is at high risk of liquefaction.   https://pygs.lyellcollection.org/content/62/2/116/tab-figures-data
   The lack of scrutiny on impacts is especially troubling as the County Council has a key role to play in the new regulatory requirements demanded by the Outlying Planning Zone of 50km from Sellafield  “Cumbria County Council has accepted the report at a meeting of the cabinet, which was chaired by Cllr Stewart Young. “It demonstrates the role of the county council in the nuclear industry,” he said. “This new concept of an Outlying Planning Zone is new. The zone is determined by kilometres from the centre of the Sellafield site. It takes you way beyond the boundaries of Copeland, showing that other areas of Cumbria would also be affected by a serious incident. “It includes BAE and the docks at Barrow. So, the implications of an accident are so significant for the whole county. It is a responsibility that sits then with Cumbria County Council as well as Barrow, Copeland and Allerdale. This is an important piece of work.”   https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/18753183.sellafield-nuclear-disaster-spread-across-cumbria—new-map-shows/   https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/533/561/44148123654.pdf
   We reiterate our request to the Planning Inquiry that Water and Nuclear Impacts are not only included but that they are central to the considerations of the Inquiry.  These issues are important (not just to Cumbria) and we feel strongly that they must not be smothered under the blanket of climate concern.
   yours sincerely
   Marianne Bennett (aka Birkby)
   on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland

Recent News Coverage Commits Sin of Omission

Recent news articles show the level of opposition is mounting against the coal mine. However there are worrying omissions in both the news and mainstream NGO coverage.

One of the “Game Over” big issues ignored completely is the fact that the developers licences to explore/exploit the West Cumbrian/Irish Sea/Solway Firth coal resource have lapsed and are due for renewal. People can contact the Dept of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy and ask that the conditional Coal Authority Licences are not renewed. Email enquiries@beis.gov.uk

Another is the fact that Cumbria County Council are yet to issue a final Decision Notice. People can contact the council asking that a Decision Notice is Not Issued. The Development Control and Regulation Committee details can be found here or tweet @CumbriaCC

For the last couple of weeks I have been trying to raise the issue in the national and local press of the Coal Licences having lapsed and being due for renewal.  Despite speaking for hours on the phone to various national reporters I have seen nothing in the printed press about the fact that if the licences are not renewed it would be Game Over for the Cumbrian Coal Mine.

Here is a letter (unpublished ) sent to the press a couple of weeks ago (!).

Please do use it as inspiration to write your own letters to the Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Dept (see below for more info) asking that they do not issue new coal licences over and above the heads of the public and local Cumbrian Councillors.

Many Thanks for all your continuing actions against this diabolic plan.

Marianne and Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole

Dear Editor,

There has been much in the press about the Climate Change Tsar Alok Sharma and the Climate Change Committee “seething” at the refusal of the Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick to call in Cumbria County Council’s approval of the coal mine (which happens to be just five miles from the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site).  This “seething” looks like so much posturing given that both Alok Sharma MP and the Climate Change Committee owe their appointments to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. BEIS gave West Cumbria Mining  conditional licence to drill “exploratory boreholes” (above the heads of local councillors and the public) 8 years ago.  The Developers are now asking for a renewal for their “exploratory” conditional licences  Will BEIS (who appoint the Climate Change Committee and have responsibility for the Coal Authority do the right thing, refuse the conditional licences and call Game Over for the Cumbrian Coal mine?  If not, it is Game Over for any credibility of the UK hosting the Climate Summit COP26 and perhaps more importantly for our immediate safety, Game Over for any pretence of responsibility for the geological integrity of the Irish Sea area surrounding Sellafield.  Write to BEIS and tell them not to issue renewed “conditional” or “unconditional” licences to West Cumbria Mining, people can email them here : enquiries@beis.gov.uk

More info…..

Letter from the Coal Authority (who are a BEIS authority)  to Radiation Free Lakeland

.”This site currently has 3 conditional licences which have been in place since 2013/14. A conditional licence allows coal exploration and would need to be replaced by a full licence in order for coaling to begin. On 18th January 2021 date West Cumbria Mining Ltd applied to extend the end dates of 2 of these conditional licences (UND/0184 & UND/0177). They were due to expire on 24th January 2021 but they will remain in place until the application to extend them has been determined. No exploratory works will be undertaken during this time. The application will take approximately 3 months to determine. If the conditional licences were extended the operator would still need to apply for one or more full coaling licences before coaling can begin. When the conditional licence extension application has been determined the outcome will be posted on our website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coal-mining-licenceapplications.

South Lakeland Action on Climate Change Are Following Our Lead and Pushing Hard for a Judicial Review

Coal Mine Goes Here? Photo by Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole

South Lakeland Action on Climate Change have launched a crowdfund supported by Coal Action Network and Friends of the Earth in order to raise funds to challenge Cumbria County Council’s planning approval. SLACC are focussing on climate legislation. This is brilliant news, not least because it frees up our own campaigning to focus on the more taboo nuclear impacts of this coal mine. We fully support SLACCs proposed challenge and hope it results in success for all of us.

Our own crowdfund can be found here – We continue to work hard to ensure that the nuclear aspects of this mine do not go unchallenged. With the advice of our Lawyers Leigh Day, we are exploring the best way to do this having already delayed the plan with previous legal challenge.

Please do keep sharing our crowdfund to ensure we can continue to oppose the plan – there are many more hurdles for this coal mine to jump and we want to make sure those hurdles are many and sky high. We are painfully aware that more mainstream NGOs are not focussed at all on the terrible nuclear impacts this coal mine would have. It is entirely down to your generous help and support of our Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole campaign that we have kept the coal mine at bay so far.

We are currently urging people to write to Cumbria County Council, an excellent letter has been sent to Cumbria County Council by David Hatton from Silloth – please do use this as inspiration for your own letters.

We have been told by the Council that the Decision Notice (a final approval of the planning permission) may be issued in the next couple of weeks – so the more letters the council get asking that the Decision Notice is not approved the better!

Email The Leader of Cumbria County Council Stewart.Young@cumbria.gov.uk

and Chair of the Development Control Committee Councillor Cook (thank him for voting against the plan!) Geoffrey.Cook@cumbria.gov.uk

To: <Stewart.Young@cumbria.gov.uk>

Dear Councillor Young,

I write to you as a resident, rate payer, and voter in Cumbria.     I ask the County Council not to issue a final decision notice on the above application until a much more thorough risk assesment has been carried out.

I have heard that the County Council considers the risk of disturbing sediment in the sea-bed off St Bees’ Head is acceptable.    I put it to you that any kind of risk of harm to Human Life from Nuclear Activity is totally unacceptable. 

  We have been living with these risks ever since the Nuclear Energy Commission came to Cumbria.    Always denied, of course,   It is time for you the County Council, as our elected representatives, to act for all Cumbrians and the rest of the UK.    You have been putting money before health for far too long.   Listening to the empty promises of help from big business and even the Government, which never materialise in the long run, and the people who live in Cumbria suffer for it.

In this particular case the Government have passed the buck back to you to decide.   So please look to a future which does not rely on money from foreign companies which in the long run will destroy our County as they walk away, leaving us with the mess to clear up.    If this mining project goes ahead and caused any sort of incident involving Sellafield it will not be possible to clear it up.    This County Council will go down in history as the one who allowed it to happen.   

Yours sincerely,

David Hatton

Silloth,

LABOUR OPPOSE THE FIRST DEEP UK COAL MINE IN DECADES

Protest banners are continually removed from the fences of the site – contrast this with that other defunct fossil fuel plan in Lancashire. At least the frackers, Cuadrilla allowed protest banners on their fences!

Following a direct question to Labour HQ from environmental journalist Donnachadh McCarthy,  Labour has stated  :

“Labour is very concerned about the environmental and long-term economic ramifications of approving the UK’s first deep coal mine in forty years. 

 “This project will not help us fight the climate emergency, nor will it provide the long-term job security that Cumbrians deserve as the UK rightly moves towards a green economy.

“We believe this project should be called in by the Government on the grounds of compliance with national net zero commitments. 

“But this underlines why the Government needs to support the transition to a green economy, including greening the steel industry, which would create stable, high-skilled jobs in local communities across the country.”

Local nuclear safety group Radiation Free Lakeland are delighted that Labour has come out against the coal mine plan.  Marianne Birkby founder of Radiation Free Lakeland and the person who took on the legal challenge under the Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole campaign which has seen the plan being kicked into the long grass repeatedly has said “For Labour to come out against the coal mine is a very big deal given the £millions so far spent on public relations alone for political lobbyists from New Century Media to push this plan in the corridors of power.  We assume that the County Council will have to ratify their “minded to approve” decision taken on October 2nd and we hope that councillors will see that this coal mine not only has no justification but is positively dangerous to the health of this county and beyond on both nuclear and climate grounds. If not, if the Council stick with their ‘yes’ vote  there is, given Labour’s opposition and mounting evidence against the development,  an increasing possibility that the Secretary of State will call the Council’s decision in for a public inquiry.”

Donnachadh McCarthy reporting in the Independent – Labour is Opposing the UK’s First Deep Coal Mine..https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/woodhouse-uk-deep-coal-mine-cop26-climate-change-cumbria-carbon-emissions-b1014586.html

Terrifying Nuclear Potential of Cumbrian Coal Mine

Below is the excellent presentation by Sami which will be delivered to the Committee making the decision on the coal mine tomorrow. This weeks news coverage of the consequences of an accident at Sellafield should alert Councillors to the madness of increasing the risks .

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/18752191.sellafield-nuclear-disaster-spread-across-cumbria—new-map-shows/. – this rather underplays the consequences of an accident at Sellafield – the Council should take heed.

Sami Moisha

Presentation for Development Control 

Committee on Oct 2nd  

My name is Sami Moisha, my family are from Cumbria, I currently live in Lancaster.   I wish to object strongly to this proposal in terms of environmental impact as it affects my own safety and health.  The proposal also affects the safety and health of many hundreds of thousands of others through the certainty of accelerating climate change and the terrifying potential for generating a nuclear emergency at Sellafield.

In the terms of the National Policy Planning Framework – I wish to object to this application on environmental grounds affecting public safety on the grounds that – 

 A] It is not environmentally acceptable  – and that none of the planning conditions or obligations can make it so 

and that 

B] There are no community benefits  – that can outweigh the potential for a nuclear emergency at the Sellafield site.

Essentially there are no planning conditions which could ever make this application environmentally acceptable.

• Deep mining under the sea to within 8km of Sellafield [WCM data] poses massive environmental danger via the subsidence which is inevitable  – and more significantly  – the potential for earth tremors damaging the facilities at the nuclear site.  
• The local geology is known to be massively faulted.  The geology that WCM plans to mine is completely connected to the geology underneath Sellafield which houses one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear material in Europe, if not the world.
• Any earth tremor caused by mining or subsidence would have catastrophic effects in terms of a nuclear emergency bringing massive danger to life over a vast area
• Such a nuclear emergency would affect not only the Cumbrian coast, but the entire UK and other nations as well.  Remember Chernobyl – and that effect here in Cumbria.  Have neighbouring nations been consulted on this proposal?
• While no one can predict exactly what potential subsidence or earth tremor may result from the mining operations – it is this very real but unknown potential that is the threat.

• Committee members simply cannot approve this application because they cannot answer for the public safety /community benefit of the hundreds of thousands of people affected by the potential for a radioactive emergency incident.  

• This Committee is thus in the surreal position of having numerous detailed proposals relating to dust, footpaths and tree planting around the WCM site coupled with a complete disregard for a potential major nuclear incident.

This renders the application totally unacceptable on environmental grounds.

The public safety issues for Cumbria/UK and beyond are simply too great for this mine to proceed.

Mining Developer’s Suppliers List Slammed .. —

In the Cumberland Echo today… Mining developers’ suppliers list slammed by protestors Written by John Walsh Wednesday, 09 September 2020 Yucca Mountain – Tunnel Boring Machine. A nuclear safety group has slammed the preferred supplier list of developers hoping to open the first deep coal mine in the UK in decades.Radiation Free Lakeland were behind the […]

Mining Developer’s Suppliers List Slammed .. —

20th August Meeting Cancelled

Just received a notice from Cumbria County Council that the 20th August meeting re the coal mine has been cancelled – more info to follow….

NEW CALL IN REQUEST FROM KEEP CUMBRIAN COAL IN THE HOLE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

Campaign group, Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole has sent in a Call In request to the Secretary of State Robert Jenrick MP.

The World Wide Fund for Nature have already sent in a call in request to the Secretary of State.  KCCH say they agree with the points WWF make but have advised the Secretary of State of ” further overwhelming reasons for this development to be called in”

These reasons include:

1. West Cumbria Mining are asking for conditions to be relaxed in order to facilitate the addition of lower quality middlings coal to the development

( previously middlings coal was to be a “by product” of this “premium” coal mine ).

2. West Cumbria Mining propose mitigating against subsidence by backfilling 25% of the mined area  with cement paste ( the below land area and also close to the Marine Conservation Zone).  However 75% of the proposed void which includes the area beneath the Cumbrian Mud Patch would not be backfilled.  There is potential for marine radiological pollution as a result of the subsidence induced re-suspension of the heavily radioactively contaminated sea bed sediments of the Cumbrian Mud Patch and surrounding sea bed areas.

3.  The Sellafield and Moorside site are at “high risk” of liquefaction (as outlined in a 2018  report by Geologists https://pygs.lyellcollection.org/content/62/2/116/tab-figures-data )  -this would be exacerbated by coal mine induced seismic impacts.

From KCCH’s Call In letter..

The original selling point of this mine was that it would produce “premium quality” coking coal for steel manufacture.   West Cumbria Mining in attempting to address the challenge from Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole regarding “middlings coal” as a “by-product” have made this proposed development even more absurd by adding a new onsite process to render the extracted thermal/middlings coal into coking coal.

The relaxing of conditions necessary to facilitate this inclusion of lower grade coal are applied for in this new amended application and detailed in West Cumbria Mining’s Planning Statement R20 – page 51.

STEEL MANUFACTURE?

Condition 3 – This condition relates to the coal being for use in steel manufacture only.  As this stands it appears that the developers are asking that this condition be removed to refer to authorisation of the “extraction of Metallurgical Coal” – rather than specifying the end use.

QUALITY – ASH AND SULPHUR CONTENT

Condition 76 – This condition relates to the quality of the end product. The quality of the product is to be further reduced from the already generous allowance of 8% Ash content and 1.2% Sulphur content to 9% Ash content and 2% Sulphur content.

AND

A new paper has been written on the radiological impacts of the coal mine.   Tim Deere-Jones is an Independent & non-aligned Marine Pollution Researcher & Consultant whose clients include: WWF, The UK Wildlife Trusts, European Climate Foundation, Greenpeace International, European Coastal Local Authorities and many others.

This comprehensive report concludes that the plan by West Cumbria Mining should be abandoned.

It is concluded that there is a real potential for subsidence to occur as a result of the “mass removal” and the creation of extensive sub-sea void spaces, and it is noted that such subsidence could generate earthquake and liquefaction effects which may extend onshore as far as the Sellafield/Moorside sites.

Full Letter can be read below

Rt Hon. Robert Jenrick MP

Secretary of State

Department for Communities and Local Government 2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

 

1st July, 2020

Dear Secretary of State,

 

APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 4/17/9007 – WEST CUMBRIA MINING

Dear Secretary of State,

You may remember that on 29th October 2019 Tim Farron MP delivered a petition to you in Parliament on behalf of 1,852 people asking that the Secretary of State call in the application by West Cumbria Mining for the first new deep coal mine in decades which was approved by Cumbria County Council in March 2019 and ratified on 19th October 2019.

Now, the Developers have applied for amendments to that original planning application.The Council (whose decision was to be challenged through Judicial Review) are not relying on their original twice approved planning decision but will look at

the amendments as a new application.

We are writing to support the World Wildlife Fund for Nature’s call in of the amended planning application. We agree with the points they make but would like to add further overwhelming reasons for this development to be called in for your consideration.

Previous letters and the petition to you are included for your consideration alongside the new evidence below.

WCM ASK CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL FOR RELAXATION OF CONDITIONS

The original selling point of this mine was that it would produce “premium quality” coking coal for steel manufacture. West Cumbria Mining in attempting to address the challenge from Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole regarding “middlings coal” as a “by-product” have made this proposed development even more absurd by adding a new onsite process to render the extracted thermal/middlings coal into coking coal.

The relaxing of conditions necessary to facilitate this inclusion of lower grade coal are applied for in this new amended application and detailed in West Cumbria Mining’s Planning Statement R20 – page 51.

STEEL MANUFACTURE?

Condition 3 – This condition relates to the coal being for use in steel manufacture only.As this stands it appears that the developers are asking that this condition be removed to refer to authorisation of the “extraction of Metallurgical Coal” – rather than specifying the end use.

QUALITY – ASH AND SULPHUR CONTENT

Condition 76 – This condition relates to the quality of the end product. The quality of the product is to be further reduced from the already generous allowance of 8% Ash content and 1.2% Sulphur content to 9% Ash content and 2% Sulphur content.

This is NOT by industry standard a premium metallurgical coal product. By contrast the Global Platts Metallurgical Specifications 2020 guide for Australian Premium Coking Coal is Sulphur no more than 0.05% while Hard Coking Coal is no more than 0.06% Sulphur content. Which makes the Woodhouse product look positively shoddy. No wonder the developers appear to want the condition erased that the end use should be for steel manufacture only.

3 – The permission hereby granted authorises the Winning and Working of Metallurgical Coal for use in steel manufacture only. Reason: This permission authorises the development for the extraction of Metallurgical Coal. For the avoidance of doubt, Middlings Coal is also produced as a by-product during the processing of Metallurgical Coal.	Reason: This permission authorises the development for the extraction of Metallurgical Coal.	The reason needs to be amended because middlings coal will no longer be produced.

76 – Metallurgical Coal (definition) Coal with particular physical and chemical characteristics that makes it suitable for use in the production of steel and separated from industrial/ Middlings Coal and reject material during processing at the Coal Handling and Processing Plant. For the avoidance of doubt ‘Metallurgical Coal’ shall be defined as having a maximum ash content of 8% and a maximum sulphur content of 1.25%.

Metallurgical Coal (definition) Coal with particular physical and chemical characteristics that makes it suitable for use in the production of steel and separated from reject material during processing at the Coal Handling and Processing Plant. For the avoidance of doubt ‘Metallurgical Coal’ shall be defined as having a maximum ash content of 9% a maximum sulphur content of 2%.

The original maxima as stated do not reflect the product which will be produced by Woodhouse Colliery

Page 51 – WCM Planning Statement R20

CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SELLAFIELD AND THE CUMBRIAN MUD PATCH

Image and Text from : RADIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of POTENTIAL SEABED SUBSIDENCE SEISMICITY & “FAULT RE-ACTIVATION” beneath The CUMBRIAN MUD PATCH: INDUCED BY “MASS REMOVAL”, RAPID EXTRACTION & VOID SPACE CREATION – Briefing Paper by Tim Deere Jones for Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole

A new paper has been written on the radiological impacts of the coal mine. Tim Deere-Jones is an Independent & non-aligned Marine Pollution Researcher & Consultant whose clients include: WWF, The UK Wildlife Trusts, European Climate Foundation, Greenpeace International, European Coastal Local Authorities and many others.

This comprehensive report concludes that the plan by West Cumbria Mining should be abandoned.  The introduction and Major Conclusions are reproduced below…..

“Introduction:This Briefing offers a review of the possible seabed morphological changes and marine pollution implications of the sub-sea coal mining venture proposed by West Cumbria Mining (WCM) at their Woodhouse Colliery site near St Bees Head.

WCM have designated and identified a sub-sea mining zone of the Irish Sea lying to the west of St Bees Head and extending at least 8kms offshore and southwards to within about 8km of the Sellafield site.

The WCM extraction proposals, using continuous mining methods, predict the extraction of approximately 3 million tonnes of coal per year over a 50 year period. This extraction rate will eventually generate a huge subterranean void space of approximately 136 million cubic metres (a volume greater than that of Wastwater Lake).

This briefing considers the impact of the creation of such a sub-sea void space on the possibility of sea bed subsidence in the area of the WCM designated sub-sea mining zone, and the subsequent potential for marine radiological pollution as a result of the subsidence induced re-suspension of the heavily radioactively contaminated sea bed sediments of the Cumbrian Mud Patch and surrounding sea bed areas.

Major Conclusions

It is noted that there is a lack of data about the status of the existing historical galleries and workings of the West Cumbrian Coalfield. It is noted that there is a lack of accurate data about the history and status of any subsidence seismicity in the coalfield.It is noted that the BGS have concluded that the coalfield is heavily faulted and has a long history of subsidence and that it appears that there are no plans to monitor for any subsidence prior to, during the operational phase or in the post operational phase of the Woodhouse Colliery.It is noted that sub-sea monitoring equipment is available and could be deployed in the region in order to monitor for any subsidence effects arising as a result of the proposed Woodhouse Colliery “mass removal” extraction.

It is concluded that there is a real potential for subsidence to occur as a result of the “mass removal” and the creation of extensive sub-sea void spaces, and it is noted that such subsidence could generate earthquake and liquefaction effects which may extend onshore as far as the Sellafield/Moorside sites.

It is concluded that any seabed subsidence in the WCM designated sub-sea mining zone would generate re-suspension of Cumbrian Mud Patch heavily radioactive seabed sediments. It is noted that such an event would generate elevated doses of man-made radioactivity to coastal zone populations and sea users along both the Cumbrian coast and at “downstream” regions further afield.

Given the potential for such a radiological effect and the delivery of increased doses of radioactivity to relevant coastal zone communities, some of which have already been identified by the authorities as Coastal Critical Groups, the Woodhouse Colliery proposal (especially in the absence of any precautionary mandatory subsidence monitoring) is strongly contra-indicated and should be abandoned.”

Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole have been raising awareness about the climate and radiological impacts of this proposed development since 2017. If not now – when will this plan be deemed too dangerous to continue with? Please call in this amended planning application for this deep coal mine development which if allowed to continue on its disastrous trajectory will impact locally, nationally and internationally.

Tomorrow is too late.

Yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby

on behalf of Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole.(a Radiation Free Lakeland campaign)

WWF ASKS FOR ‘CALL IN’ – GREAT NEWS!

Sellafield – spitting distance from the proposed coal mine off St Bees  Head  (where the sheep are)

 

The World Wide Fund for Nature has asked for a “call in” of the planning decision due to be taken by Cumbria County Council.

This is Great News!

We shall also continue our  lobbying of the Secretary of State to intervene and stop  the plan for the first deep coal mine in the UK in decades.

The full “call in” letter from WWF can be read below.  It is very good but there is no reference at all to the close proximity of Sellafield, a burning but neglected issue which we at Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole will continue to flag up.

Rt Hon. Robert Jenrick MP
Secretary of State
Department for Communities and Local Government 2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Dear Secretary of State,

19th June, 2020

APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 4/17/9007 – WEST CUMBRIA MINING

WWF-UK wrote to you in July 2019 to ask you to call in the previous application madeby West Cumbria Mining, which was approved by Cumbria County Council’sDevelopment Control and Regulation Committee; you declined to do so. The county council decided to grant planning permission and local campaigners commenced judicial review proceedings.

Following the grant of permission to proceed with the challenge, the developer filed an amended planning application to develop the coal mine. However, we consider the case for you to call in this application is strong, particularly in light of events occurring since we wrote to you last summer, and some of the information submitted by the developer in support of the amended application.

Caborn criteria
We consider that at least two of the Caborn criteria for call-in are met in this case. The first is that the proposal conflicts with national policy on important matters – in particular policy on mitigating climate change, the presumption against coal extraction in para. 211 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and duties to reduce CO2emissions under the Climate Change Act 2008 and under international law by the Paris Agreement. As we set out in our correspondence of last year, the development is in breach of policy adding to the global coal stock, assumes a long-term reliance on coking coal that is contrary to the trajectory indicated by UK and EU climate policy and legislation (informed by the Paris Agreement) and seeks to put in place new, long-term and environmentally invasive infrastructure.

Second, and again as per our letter last year, the proposal gives rise to national controversy; our previous letter provides evidence of this. Since our last letter, the application has been subject to judicial review proceedings and a wide cross section of groups have spoken out against it, including local campaigners, national NGOs (e.g.

 

Green Alliance, WWF) and independent academics (e.g. Professor Ekin).

You will be aware that the application by Banks Mining for an open-cast coal mine at Highthorn, Northumbria was called in and remains undetermined. So far as administrative law imposes a duty to treat like cases alike, WWF suggests you must give careful consideration to treating Woodhouse Colliery in like manner, calling it in.

Detail
We see nothing in the revised planning application that negates our original three grounds for objecting to the proposed project (set out in more detail in our letter to you of 15th July, 2019). These are set out (in summary) below together with a number of new points in response to the amended application.

• That government is committed to a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050, under the Climate Change Act 2008 – a decision that theCommittee on Climate Change is clear “must be embedded and integratedacross all departments, at all levels of government, and in all major decisionsthat impact on emissions.” The iron and steel industries – the customers for coking coal produced from this proposed mine – are no exception to this.
• The declining need for coal production of this nature over the short-term and over the 50-year proposed lifespan of the project, and the impact on greenhouse gas emissions of extracting it – in short, whether the benefits from the project outweigh its likely environmental impacts. The previous caseconcluded that industry’s need for metallurgical coal outweighed theenvironmental impacts, but with no sound evidence that coal from this proposed colliery would replace, rather than supplement, existing supplies, whether in the UK or in other markets.
• The impact on the rights of children and future generations. A mine would generate significant carbon emissions over the course of the next 50 years and for at least 20 years after the UK is required to meet its net zero greenhouse gas emissions target in 2050. The consequences of those emissions (eg: in terms of their contribution to global heating) and the responsibility to offset them to meet the new 2050 target will fall disproportionately on the young, impacting on their human rights – including Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in a manner which we believe cannot be justified at a time of climate crisis. The mine is also liable to generate significant air quality impacts and it is well established that air pollution disproportionately affects the young because their lungs are still developing1. As set out previously, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child applies here (because the ECHR is in play) and requires decision makers to ensure that the best interests of children are a primary consideration and that the impacts of the decision on children are assessed and taken into account. There is no evidence that such an assessment has been undertaken in relation to the amended application, hence the flaw identified previously remains.New grounds

• Global footprint – the developer has failed to assess the carbon impacts of

use of the coal in steel foundries overseas. WWF considers that the exported

1 https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/risks-to-childrens-lungs/air-pollution

emissions (must be assessed pursuant to the council’s duty to take account ofthe Paris Agreement following important new case law (Friends of the Earth v Secretary of State for Transport). Paris provides a temperature limit which is the shared responsibility of states to achieve. It is therefore unsustainable not to take into account the emissions arising abroad as a result of activities within the UK when the duty to achieve the temperature limits in the Paris Agreement are imposed collectively on all states. Further, WWF argues that thedeveloper’s approach either fails to comply with the EIA Directive or fails to enable the planning authority to take account of material consideration by failing to assess the likely scale of the impact of burning the coal abroad.

• High carbon development – the developer has wrongly categorised thedevelopment as “low carbon” because it has failed to assess the exported emissions as aforesaid. No consideration has been given to the likelihood that coal which may be edged out of use in European steel works by coal produced from the development would be burnt regardless leading to an overall increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. This fact flows both from the laxity of current commitments made by states under the Paris Agreement by way of Nationally Determined Contributions to date2 and the failure of many states (including the UK) to prohibit exported emissions in domestic legislation. Nor can the section 106 agreement proposed by the developer (to assess every 5 years whether the development continues to comply with carbon budgets) remedy the problem because carbon budgets do not build in exported emissions either. Far from being low carbon, the development is arguably high carbon, will add significantly to the emission of greenhouse gases (understood in a broader sense) and therefore conflicts with NPPF para 211. It must be called in.

• Net Zero – the net zero target was adopted before the original planning application was resolved to be granted by the County council. However, there is a suggestion in the amended planning application that this is not for the planning authority to take account of (because the duty in the Climate Change Act fastens on the Secretary of State). WWF is confident that the Secretary of State does not take such a view and he agrees with us that the target is a material consideration for the purposes of section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. . However, to ensure the planning authority does not fall into error, WWF considers the safest route would be for the Secretary of State to call in.

• Carbon plan – no consideration has been given to the fact that government has yet to adopt a carbon plan which sets out how the net-zero target will be met –nor has it yet explained how it will bring itself into compliance with carbon budgets from the mid-2020s onwards. By granting planning permission at this point for such a long-term, high carbon development, the council risks locking in high carbon infrastructure for many decades to come thereby pre-emptingimportant decisions about the UK’s pathway to net-zero which are pre- eminently for ministers to take. A decision to grant would be premature at this stage.
• Equality – the council is subject to a duty in domestic law to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity as between people who have protected characteristics and those who do not (section 149 Equality Act 2010). As set

2 https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/

out above, the development will impact disproportionately on the young yet no Public Sector Equality Duty assessment appears to have been undertaken. Should the failure continue, it leaves the application vulnerable to challenge.

We cannot decarbonise our economy at the speed and depth required to avert catastrophic impacts of climate change by substituting one source of fossil fuels for another.

WWF-UK has modelled an emissions reduction scenario for the UK to 2045 and to 2050 in a report with Vivid Economics, entitled Keeping It Cool3. This demonstrates the degree of decarbonisation needed in each sector, as well as the overall pathway. This makes clear that we will not need metallurgical coal for the next 45-50 years that this mine will be producing it. We do not need a new source of metallurgical coal in the short-term and it is spurious to argue that the emissions from this coal will be slightly lower than existing sources, when to achieve this would (a) add to the existing stock of metallurgical coal in the marketplace overall, (b) do so for far longer than any country can be relying on fossil fuels, and (c) do so in a way that generates new emissions from the construction, running and transport out of the country of the coal produced at the mine. It is clear that the need case in respect of the application is simply not made out.

Keeping global warming to 1.5°C requires that we stop using coal, as soon as possible, both for power generation and industry. Modelling by a group of 20 researchers indicates that keeping to 1.5°C without geoengineering requires the virtually complete elimination of fossil fuel emissions and fossil fuel infrastructure by 2050 and that global coal production must decline by 5886 million tonnes a year in 2015 to only 407 tonnes in 2050 – a reduction of around 93%4.

Given this and given the UK’s avowed global leadership on climate change – not least as holders next year of the presidency of the crucial UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) 26 – allowing new coal production on its own shores would be perverse. Not only does it send a particularly unwelcome signal to the wider world about its commitment to climate action, but it adds to the already daunting scale of decarbonisation that would be required in other sectors in order to make net-zero possible by 2050.

Additionally, it continues to pile the costs of delayed climate action, and of climate impacts, onto children and future generations.

This is most definitely a consideration for national government (owners of the legally- binding target for net-zero by 2050), for local government (who cannot simply abrogate their responsibility for additional emissions from projects such as these on the basis that they are but one small contributor), and for local people (who will bear the costs of growing climate impacts).

3 https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/NetZeroReportART.pdf
4 Teske S. Ed. “Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals, Global and Regional 100% Renewable energy scenarios with Non-energy GHG pathways for +1.5C and +2C” https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978- 3-030-05843-2

We object to this proposal and we believe that you should call it in. Yours,

GARETH REDMOND-KING Head of Climate Change

 

STOP THE COAL MINE IN CUMBRIA -PETITION

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION –  LETS SEND CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL THE MESSAGE 

STOP THE COAL MINE

Nearly 4000 people, including Chris Packham have signed the petition to Stop the Coal Mine in Cumbria – Please keep sharing and signing.  As well as signing the petition – People can STILL WRITE individual letters to Cumbria County Councillors who will be making the decision on this to let them know STOP THE COAL MINE!

The main points to make are that this mine would fly in the face of the Council’s own climate commitments and its own stated commitments to protect the health, safety (this is 8km from Sellafield) and well being of all Cumbrians. Send an email to development.control@cumbria.gov.uk –or if you have time to all the Development Control and Regulation Committee members  quoting the application reference number 4/17/9007 and including your name and address.