Caerphilly councillors have rejected plans for an opencast mine in the Rhymney Valley, despite the threat of potential legal action by the developer.
Developer Miller Argent threatened to sue to Caerphilly County Borough Council if its planning committee stood by a decision to vote against the proposed Nant Llesg mine between Fochriw and Rhymney.
On June 24, councillors went against planning officers and called for reasons to object to the mine and today, August 5, they ratified the decision, despite their own officials urging them to accept the proposals.
The planned mine would have seen six million tonnes of coal mined over at least 14 years on a 478 hectare site, offering up to 239 jobs.
But a campaign led by residents, environmentalists and climate change activists urged councillors to say no on grounds of visual impact.
At a packed meeting, where protesters filed into the chamber and foyer of the council offices, the planning committee voted unanimously to reject the plan.
As the vote was declared cheers went up in the public gallery, with cries of “well done” aimed at councillors, while jubilant protesters sang the Welsh national anthem.
The committee’s chair, Cllr David Carter, supported a call by Cllr Gaynor Oliver to reject the proposal.
He said: “The visual impact affects the whole community from the children who are going to school to the elderly and sick.
“The people of the Northern Rhymney Valley are being asked to pay to big a price for this development.”
Speaking after the decision Twyn Carno councillor Carl Cuss said: “It’s fantastic and what I expected.
“We saw at the last meeting councillors were adamant they wanted to refuse it.”
Terry Evans, chair of United Valleys Action Group said: “It’s absolutely brilliant. They didn’t bend and didn’t crack in in the face of financial pressure from that company.
“They withstood the pressure from the company and from their own officers. But it’s councillors not officer that make a decision.”
Prior to the meeting protesters gathered outside the council offices, with speakers opposing the mine on grounds of dust, environmental impact, sustainable jobs, the lasting impact after the mine is spent and climate change.
Plaid Cymru AM Bethan Jenkins, who is also chair of Wales Against Opencast Mining, said: “This is the last thing we want for our communities, I hope that Caerphilly Council have the backbone to reject this application.
“We don’t want jobs for the sake of jobs we want jobs that are sustainable for the future of Wales.”
Marianne Owens of the Public and Civil Services Union National Executive, and climate change committee, said that jobs “should not come at the cost of our communities’ health”.
She said: “PCS are calling for an end to fossil fuels and call for a million green jobs to combat cuts and austerity.”
Friends of the Earth Cymru Director, Gareth Clubb, called on the Welsh Government to make Wales the first country to cease extracting fossil fuels by putting a moratorium on fracking and opencast mining.
Prior to the meeting the managing director of Miller Argent, Neil Brown, wrote to councillors to urge them to pass the plans or face paying the company’s costs for the application and a foreseeable appeal.
Campaigners said the letter amounted to “threats and intimidation”.
Mr Brown wrote: “We reiterate that in the event of refusal and appeal the substantial costs would be in no one’s interest.
“Your officers have highlighted the potential for a substantial award of costs against the council.
“Miller Argent would seek to recover costs from the council.
“Please ask yourself what services could be provided by the council with that money?”
But, Friends of the Earth said they would support the council should they face legal action.
Craig Bennet, CEO of Friends of the Earth, said: “The council has made a decision on the side of people and the environment.
“We will not walk away from councils that make brave, sensible, science-based, decisions when they could face legal battles.”
Mr Clubb added: “If the company decide to appeal we’ll be side by side with the council all the way.”
A statement from Miller Argent read: “We are hugely disappointed that the Caerphilly County Borough Council’s planning committee decided today to go against the advice of their professional officers and refuse the application for the Nant Llesg surface mine.
“This project would have brought up to 239 highly paid jobs and considerable investment to the Rhymney Valley, as well as millions of pounds worth of additional benefits to the local community.
“The benefit fund alone represents up to £1,000 for each local household.
“Taken together, these would have transformed the economic future of the area for the better.
“We will now assess the implications of this decision and consider the options available to us.”
Cllr Ken James, Caerphilly County Borough Council’s Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning said: “Today’s outcome signals the conclusion of one of the most complex and in-depth planning applications that our planning committee has ever had to consider.
“As those in support of and those objecting to the proposal will be aware, this has been an extremely lengthy and detailed process, and I fully understand and appreciate the strength of feeling by all interested parties.
“Ultimately, our planning committee had to make a judgement, and voted to reject the proposal on the grounds of visual impact.
“I would reiterate however, that this decision was taken following a thorough, lengthy and in-depth planning process.”
Good one, That shows who`s in charge, and it ain`t officers.
I never thought I would say it of a Labour Council but, Well Done for Common sense and for `representation of the People`. I know Plaid supports this decision too.
I know look forward to councillors opposing officer’s plans to build yet more houses in the Caerffili basin…
I find it all very hypocritical that people who constantly vilify the late Maragaret Thatcher for closing the pits and destroying Welsh communities will protest against the opening of a mine creating a few hundred well paid jobs, no doubt if it wasn’t in their back yard they wouldn’t have given protesting against it a second thought, and I dare say the tree hugging brigade travelled half way across the country in their fossil fuel burning cars to attend the meeting.
I have no truck with the ‘climate change’ people and believe that coal should be an important part of our energy supply. There is a big difference, though, between a deep mine and an opencast site in terms of impact on the environment. I don’t live anywhere near this proposed site and have no view either way but people living nearby have certainly made their view clear.
As for Margaret Thatcher she deliberately destroyed an industry, not just the mines but the engineering and scientific support from private companies that went with it. If we wanted to sink new deep mines, which we should do in places like Margam, we would probably have to contract the Chinese to do it, as with ‘our’ nuclear industry.
Putting aside what is the protests are about, the eco-warriors in their carbon-producing, environment-destroying cars – some probably drive around in Range Rovers- are laughable. They do not care about the environment. If they did, they would not drive or fly to every small protest around the country, and they would not chop down trees to make big signs using fresh paper all of the time (the whiteness of the paper shows it is not recycled paper). However, I congratulate them on their skills when it comes to indoctrinating minors; just look how many under-10’s are in that photograph.
On the issue of the mine, the industry is dirty, noisy, smelly, inefficient, and dangerous, Thatcher was right to close down the mines (although the proceeding Labour PM closed down more), and the council are right to reject plans to build any type of mine. Why do people not understand it is cheaper to import coal from China where the workers are paid 90p per hour, health and safety is almost non-existent, and output is high because workers are punished if production targets are not met.
I guess Britain’s coal industry could be profitable if we forced people to work for 90p per hour, whipped them when they do not meet unachievable targets, had no free healthcare for any injuries, did not provide them with gas masks, did not provide them with safety clothing, and did not enforce gas level monitoring. How many of the unemployed would sign up to work there?
Energy is a strategic resource and we need to produce as much as we require in case of political disagreement or war. It is very easy to obtain all our coal from China, even easier to have all our IT needs met by Chinese. We can also have China produce all our warships and aircraft, all our motor vehicles. The Chinese can also provide all our insurance and banking services, that would put an end to over large bonuses.
This seems like paradise, none of us need to work, it can all be done more cheaply in China; but then the Chinese decide they are going to switch off the tap…
Personally I would like to see the return of a high tech British mining industry. Coal can be burned in situ for electrical generation purposes. The feed water turned to steam and piped to the surface to turn turbines. Open cast is not really suitable in Britain where just about any site is close to where people live.
The difference between coal and warships is that it may not be cheaper, and there is the issue of security with plans falling into the wrong hands. However, coal should only be used as a back up energy supply (keep pits standing but not operating). There is more energy to be had in tidal power off the coast of Scotland, nuclear power stations (but I am uneasy with that idea), and even harnessing energy from the fault lines under water.
I agree that tidal energy is the way forward, also share your uneasiness with nuclear power. The problem is that sucessive governments have allowed the possibility of tidal power, such as the Severn barrage, to go unused.
As this is ‘where we are’ and we face the very real prospect of power cuts we need to use what is available. To not use our coal reserves does not make any sense. Coal must form a large portion of our energy needs. Coal also provides us with coke for steel making and also can provide gas and oil should foreign producers decide to stop supplying us.
The industrial heartlands of Britain including the South Wales Coal fields were closed down, prematurely, because the workers wouldn’t accept low wages, high targets, and double standard health and safety that their fathers and grandfathers had fought for. Successive governments during the 70’s and 80’s discovered they actually needed to ‘listen’ – standards of living were on the up and workers finally felt they had some say in the way their lives could be lived – but ultimately it was a battle we lost.
Thatcherism, monetarism call it what you will. Since that time we may have more material things …. but increasingly communities, workers, ordinary people’s rights have once more become secondary to the politicians will to impose what they want to do, the way they want to do it, and at the behest of the money markets, the bankers and that top percentage who control the purse strings of the world.
But just once in a while people get together to say NO – communities unite in a common purpose and those elected to represent them, they stand up with their communities just like they did in Caerphilly cbc. It makes me proud to live here, it makes me proud to say I come from Rhymney.
You are not looking at the bigger picture. I agree, the workers were unwilling to accept targets, pay cuts, and lower health and safety standards, but workers in the rest of the world were more than happy to accept these targets.
At the moment it costs £42 to buy a tonne of coal from China (that includes shipping costs, and mining costs). It costs more than £42 to dig a tonne of coal out from the UK coalfields. Why would anyone pay more for the same amount? Industry today, and indeed in forty years ago, had competition not just in the UK, but in the rest of the world. The UK is better off chasing high-technology industries and being a global leader in financial services (over 70% of the world’s money passes through the UK each year).
Thatcher was a pioneer. she saw the coal industry which was always losing money could not be propped up by the taxpayers. Her implementation was not ideal, I will give you that, but the theory and vision behind what she wanted (a Britain that specialises in finance, technology, and services) was, and still is, sound.
If you do not accept this, let us do an experiment. Name a developed country which has a booming, underground coal mining industry?
I agree with Richard Williams, on some of his points, regarding need for a more efficient and cleaner use of coal, but not on tidal power, because although we are told, that like the wind, it is free, for some reason it costs more to buy than coal, nuclear, oil or gas. The Caerphilly County Borough is one one of the poorest in Britain, which is odd, considering all the mineral wealth that poured out of the ground for two hundred years. That is why I am glad the Council, made its decision on the Nant Llesg site. Yes, it might produce some well paid jobs for a number of years, but how many would be filled by local people?. We would have been left with a huge hole in the ground, that based on past experience, would not be reinstated, they would just leave the hole. I’ve worked in Engineering for over 45 years, and my first job wasbin Rhymney, in Hymac, a company which provided highly skilled, highly paid jobs in the design and construction of hydraulic excavators, that’s the kind of employment we need, not short term jobs, digging holes in the hillsides.