A coal company is threatening to sue one of the most deprived boroughs in Wales for “substantial” costs if councillors refuse permission for a giant opencast coal mine.

In June, councillors on Caerphilly county borough council’s planning committee unanimously rejected a recommendation by their planning officers to allow Miller Argent to exploit 6m tonnes of coal at Nant Llesg, near Rhymney, but deferred a final decision until Wednesday.

The company’s application has prompted rallies and a petition by 7,000 people against the mine.

Miller Argent has written to councillors warning them that it intends to recover all the costs it has incurred so far in its application, as well as the costs of any appeal it might make should councillors refuse its application. It is understood that these costs could amount to more than £100,000.

“We reiterate that in the event of a refusal and appeal, the substantial costs would be in no one’s interest,” the letter says. “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.”

Parts of the borough of Caerphilly are classified as the most deprived in Wales, with high unemployment and social problems. Earlier this year the council made £12m worth of cuts, including raising the price of meals for the elderly and infirm, limiting library opening times, turning off street lights and raising the cost of sports facilities.

The Nant Llesg mine, which would cover 478 hectares (1,200 acres) and operate for at least 14 years, is within a few hundred yards of Britain’s largest existing opencast mine at Ffos-y-fran. The 6m tonnes of coal to be extracted would be the equivalent of nearly four years’ worth of total Welsh carbon emissions.

The company has argued that the mine would bring 240 jobs paying up to £30,000 a year each. “This application needs to be seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transition the local economy to one based upon high skills and high wages,” Miller Argent said.

But local people are not convinced about the number of jobs promised, say the environment would be seriously blighted and that the new jobs might be outweighed by the probable loss of green jobs. According to legal advice, councillors are free to reject the mine on grounds of visual impact, local ecology and climate change.

Earlier this year the Welsh assembly voted unanimously for a moratorium on all opencast coal mining in the country, becoming the first parliament in the world to do so. But it was a non-binding vote and the Welsh government has so far ignored it.



“I am fully aware of the concerns. I was born and brought up here and the local community is against the mine. Despite the threats by Miller Argent over costs we represent the people here,” said councillor Carl Cuss.

“If the Welsh government wants a low-carbon economy they must stop opencast mining. If they allowed it they would be contradicting themselves,” he said.

A spokesman for Miller Argent declined to say how much the company’s costs might be if the application were refused. “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,” he said.

“Anyone familiar with the planning process,’’ the spokesman added, “will know that an appeal will cost both parties substantial amounts of money. It is our duty to point out the implications of any appeal to the members of the planning committee and the risk of the potential award of costs as acknowledged by the council’s officers themselves.”

Alyson Austin of the local campaigning organisation United Valleys Action Group said: “The Nant Llesg opencast mine proposal is not wanted and not needed. Local communities have campaigned against this destructive development for years.’’

Naomi Luhde-Thompson, planning adviser at Friends of the Earth, said: “Caerphilly councillors have a huge opportunity to put themselves on the right side of history on 5 August 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.’’