A mining developer has threatened to sue Caerphilly Council should councillors refuse to grant permission for an opencast coal mine between Rhymney and Fochriw today.
Developers Miller Argent have submitted an application to mine six million tonnes of coal over at least 14 years on the Nant Llesg site, but councillors unanimously opposed the plans on June 24.
Planning officers had proposed giving planning permission, but councillors on the planning committee passionately sided with residents and campaigners to call for a new vote on denying permission.
That vote will take place today, August 5, but the managing director of Miller Argent, Neil Brown, has written to councillors to urge them to pass 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?”
The letter was sent to all councillors on the planning committee, the leader of the council Cllr Keith Reynolds and several senior bosses, all of who are implementing £12m worth of cuts this financial year.
As of December 2013 Miller Argent had a turnover of almost £22m and a net worth of almost £12m.
Chris Austin, Secretary of the United Valleys Action Group said: “It’s threats and intimidation and what really concerns me is that they’re trying to buck the democratic system.
“The councillors are there to represent the views of the community and should be allowed to speak freely without the threat of legal action.”
Twyn Carno councillor Carl Cuss, who spoke against the plans at the last meeting, said: “The determination of the application will be down to the planning committee and despite the costs or threats by Miller Argent, clearly it should be about decent planning grounds, but also people affected by it.
“Hopefully tonight the views of the community will be heard.”
Friends of the Earth planning campaigner Naomi Luhde-Thompson said: “Caerphilly councillors have a huge opportunity to put themselves on the right side of history today by turning down this massively destructive opencast coal mine and leaving climate-changing fossil fuels in the ground.
“Independent legal advice makes it clear that there are solid grounds for saying no to this highly controversial project.
“The Nant Llesg opencast coal mine would have a hugely negative visual impact, damage the local environment and contribute to climate change – councillors must reject it.”
Mr Brown denied the letter was threatening when questioned by Caerphilly Observer.
He said: “The Nant Llesg scheme will create hundreds of well paid jobs and contribute millions of pounds in benefits to the Rhymney Valley that desperately needs them.
“Anyone familiar with the planning process, as the recipients of the letters are, will know that an appeal will cost both parties substantial amounts of money.
“Given, after a very detailed examination, that the officers of the council have previously recommended that the Nant Llesg scheme be granted planning permission, it is our duty to point out the implications of any appeal to the members of the planning committee and to the risk of the potential award of costs as acknowledged by the council’s officers themselves.”
Any costs incurred by councillors sticking to their decision would be a drop in the ocean compared to what the tax payer has already spent on the senior officers pay scandal. All councillors know this and I don’t think they will worry about being bullied by Miller Argent.
It is very refreshing to observe the elected members doing what they elected to do ,and all power to them for doing so.
Officers of the council `simply` advise the elected members, it is members, and in all cases only them, who make decisions, if members decide that other submissions before them offering alternaive advice and evidence to that of officers, and, they decide to accept that alternative submission, that is entirely a matter for them, and if this private company who appears to be Blackmailing members with a threat of expensive legal action if the decision goes against them, think they have a right to interfere with the democratic processes then their application should be disqualified.
We elect Councillors to make decisions, that is what they do, they generally make these decisions in the interest of the people who elect them, and if they were to submit to threats and intimidation by feeling they had to make decisions as a result of feeling intimidated by anyone, then those who issue the threats should be investigated by the Police. I am not effected by this development I am therefore `Neutral` in repect to what the Council decide, but the method and process by which members arrive at the decisions they make is a matter for me and every other residents of the Borough. This Contractor should be told to `back off` by the council, and the Council may well like to put off a decision for a proper and meaningful reflection of the actions of this Company in respect to their application.
I can’t say I agree with anything you wrote there Trefor, for it was the same Councillors that granted permission in the first place, if it was not for the protests the planning permission would have gone ahead, Really speaking the public should have been consolidated as soon as the Initial planning permission was issued to Caerphilly council from Miller Argent and not after the Council Granted Approval…..
I think you are correct, and I think it means we actualy agree.
First, the point you make about the Council taking notice of what resident had protested about, I agree with. It is good to see elected members listening to residents
The application would have been published when first made by the company, the residents had the opportunity to protest and make their point at that stage, it seems you say they did not do that, but, the fact is the people they elected appear to have listened to them when they did protest, better late than never. It now remains to be seen if the elected members agree with the evidence placed before them by the residents experts, or, the facts put before them by the Company.
The one issue you are totally wrong about is the Threats and Intimidation by the Company, are you really saying you disagree with my point that elected members should NEVER be subjected to such threats? are you saying this sort of behaviour is acceptable, if you or I did such a thing we would soon be shown the door, and so should it be. in my view.
Personal Threats from what I understand have not been made however The Threat of Legal action to Caerphilly council has, so therefore its not a personal threat, its a Threat for compensation if the Councillors decide to say no…Be Careful how you read such information when it is released by a council owned paper, if the Company has no right to sue then they wouldn’t state it in their interview, The full story as usual is not printed here.
Just for clarity we are not a council-owned newspaper. We are a fully independent newspaper and website published by Caerphilly Media Ltd. This is a private company whose sole shareholder is myself.
Many thanks
Richard Gurner
Editor & Publisher
Quite correct Richard, a very silly notion that my favourite locl newspaper is owned by the council, Lord forbid. By the way the correct grammer is “I am the sole shareholder” the printed “whose sole shareholder is myself” does not make any sense.
Neither Does ‘my favourite locl newspaper’ Cllr Williams…..Thanks for clearing that up Richard….
Oops Typo!
You are now not making sense, the Caerphilly Observer is independent and I dont think for one minute it is in their interest to misreport or misrepresent anything. That being the case no-one has a right to issue threats in respect to the making of democratic decisions by elected representatives on the council. There is a democratic process to follow and big business have to follow those rules and regulation like everyone else. I would think that if anyone made a threat which is designed to influence the Council decision makers it is a matter for the Police.
A nothing story really, anybody who has their planning application turned down has the right to appeal, and having sat through a planning committee meeting I was astonished at the utter rubbish that councillors come out with, one even admitted to the whole room that he couldn’t care less who much an appeal cost the council he would always vote with his heart not with his head – I nearly fell off my chair. A councillor should vote on the basis of facts, not personal bias.
And in the interest of the residents they represent.
I agree, Paul. It gets worse though. Some councillors do not bother voting because they live on the same estate as a development, or, and this is the silliest one, because they have already made their mind up; talk about using the declaration of interest nonsense as a way to wriggle out of conducting duties.
Keep it honest boys,
“the planning committee voted unanimously to reject the plan” This does mean every Councillor VOTED, Correct?
Not at all! Unanimous means that every councillor who voted, voted the same way. If there are twenty councillors, but at a vote eighteen voted yes, two did not bother to vote, that is still a unanimous vote.
You are wrong Dean, and you know it of course, a recorded vote means just that, recorded, as `unanimous` means, Unanimous, all voted for the motion, otherwise, using your twisted logic on this issue, a vote, for instance of say, six against, would also be unanimous, i.e. six all voted against. and if seven abstained, then that would also be unanimous, i.e. all seven voted the same way.
Keep it honest boys,
“the planning committee voted unanimously to reject the plan” This does mean every Councillor VOTED, is that Correct?