NEWCASTLE: Banks Mining proposals for coal mine at Dewley Hill rejected

City councillors have issued a resounding "no" to the Banks Group’s proposals to turn more than 250 acres of green belt land at Dewley Hill, near Throckley, into a new mining operation.

At a three-hour online hearing on Friday morning, Newcastle City Council’s planning committee voted unanimously, 11-0, to refuse permission for the hugely contentious scheme.

The plans could have seen 800,000 tonnes of coal and 400,000 tonnes of fireclay, for the neighbouring Throckley brickworks, extracted from the green space on the western edge of the city.

But councillors stood by a conclusion from city planners, who advised that the mine would be “inappropriate” for the green belt and “cannot be considered ‘environmentally acceptable’”. 

The refusal is a third blow for Banks’ mining operations in the North East this year, with the firm having earlier lost bids to extend the use of its Bradley mine in County Durham and set up an opencast site near Druridge Bay in Northumberland.

More than 5,000 objections had been lodged against the Dewley Hill plans, plus a petition signed by more than 19,000 people.

Jude Campbell, of the Defend Dewley Hill campaign group, told the committee on Friday that opencast was “the most destructive and noxious form of mining, devastating everything in its path”.

She added: “We know from experience that it takes many years for true recovery and the suggestion that the effects of an open cast here would be short term is beyond deluded. 

“We acknowledge and respect that coal mining is embedded in our community’s heritage but it is not our future.”

Local councillor Linda Wright, a lifelong Throckley resident from a mining family, also urged the committee to reject the scheme – saying she “grew up in the shadow of an open cast mine, lorries trundling along our main road through the village”.

Coun Wright said: “By defending Dewley Hill from this unwanted open cast mine we would leave these green spaces for these new residents to enjoy as well as those of us who have enjoyed it and benefited from it for years. It would be a blight on our landscape and a development too far.”

Jeannie Raine, community relations manager at The Banks Group, argued that the mine would support 200 jobs, invest £75 million in the region, and see 33,000 trees planted when the land is restored.

Backers of the project, which had received more than 1,400 letters of support, repeatedly pointed to the argument that rejecting the mine would simply lead to the UK importing more fossil fuels from overseas.

She said: “We are at the forefront of coming up with solutions to address the climate emergency. But while the UK still needs coal, a better future won’t be achieved by offshoring our climate responsibilities. Your officers accept the UK needs coal from Dewley Hill. 

“And while UK industry continues to need coal, will you support local jobs during these challenging times or will you dismiss them and simply offshore your climate responsibilities by dragging it from the other side of the world with far higher emissions?”

The brickworks also repeated arguments that being denied access to the 10-year supply of fireclay at Dewley Hill would be a “devastating” blow.

John Lambert, of Ibstock Brick, told councillors that fireclay was critical to the Throckley business and that its 47 staff were “extremely disappointed to find out that their jobs are only worthy of being given moderate weight” in the council’s evaluation of the plans.

The Unite union’s national officer for construction, Jerry Swain, also spoke in support of the mine, saying that 200 jobs were “on the line” at the time when the North East economy had been ravaged by Covid-19.

He was forced to deny that there was a conflict in Unite endorsing politicians with green new deal ambitions, like North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll, while supporting a proposed coal mine – telling that committee that while coal is needed in the UK, local workers should benefit from that.

Planning committee member John-Paul Stephenson,  a member of the council’s Labour cabinet, said that approving the mine would be an “insult” to young climate campaigners in the city.

Lib Dem colleague Doreen Huddart added: “I don’t think it ticks all the green boxes it could. I am not sure what it contributes to our efforts to moderate climate change at all.”

While several committee members cited climate change and the council’s commitment to make Newcastle a net zero city by 2030, city planners had actually found that the mine would “not have a material impact” on national or local carbon reduction targets.

Committee chair Hazel Stephenson agreed with officers’ view that the economic benefits of the plans were outweighed by the environmental harm done in the green belt, saying that the “significant harm” had not been adequately addressed by the developers.

While the proposed mining operation would have lasted three and a half years, the council estimated that it would take more than 18 years for the land to be restored.