Statement and a letter from the Minorca Opencast Protest Group on UK Coal’s Restoration Record, issued on 6/5/10.
UK COAL: AN HONOURABLE COMPANY?
Last week, The Ashby Times, a local Leicestershire newspaper which, unfortunately, does not have a web site, had as its lead story “UK Coal claim concerns are unfounded” after the Minorca Opencast Protest Group (MOPG) had issued a press release which raised questions about the firm’s ability and willingness to restore the Minorca site if planning permission was granted, given the company’s perilous financial position after announcing losses of £129m.
In commenting on MOPG’s claims, Stuart Oliver, UK Coal’s Media Spokesperson is reported as saying
“This company has been producing coal from surface mine sites for well over 30 years. It has honoured all of its restoration commitments and will continue to do so”
Today, (6/5/10), The Ashby Times has published a reply from MOPG in response to this statement.
“Dear Sir,
I hope your readers understand that what I am about to write about UK Coal plc in answer to Stuart Oliver’s comment about UK Coal’s honourable reputation when it comes to restoring sites has to be taken with a pinch of salt, as Mr Oliver, UK Coal’s Media Spokesperson, has already considered me only capable of writing “half truths, lies and make believe” about the company he works for – but more of that anon. In addition, those organisations which support this application such as the Ashby Canal Trust (ACT) and the Ashby Canal Association (ACA) might learn a thing or two about what being honourable means to UK Coal plc.
Stuart wrote that the Company had 30 years experience of restoring opencast sites and that the Company had honoured all its restoration commitments. Stuart, 30 years is a long time. Perhaps he should go down to his local library as anyone in Leicestershire can and ask for a copy of “Digging Up Trouble” and read Chapter Six – “Democracy what Democracy”. This contains the extraordinary story behind the development of Sheffield City Airport, a Short Take Off and Landing Airport which closed in 2008 after operating for less than 10 years. Maybe its short life had much to do with its chequered history.
The airport idea was to be a legacy left over from allowing A F Budge Mining, contractors to the then British Coal Corporation (BCC), to opencast the site. This was planned, in 1990 to be a £100m airport capable of handling 300,000 people a year and employing 1,500 people. In exchange Budge Mining was granted permission to take out 1.1m tonnes of coal and to be paid £60m by BCC for their trouble. Later this was increased to 1.5m tonnes. Some of the finance to build the airport was expected to come from these profits.
Then a reconstruction of the private company owned by Richard Budge occurred. In 1992 RJB Mining was created and the profitable contract for mining the coal was transferred to this company. A F Budge Mining was left with the responsibility of building the airport. However, it seems, this was a company that had many debts and few assets. By the end of 1992 the receivers were called in and A F Budge went bankrupt. RJB Mining however, which later becomes UK Coal plc, seems to go on to take all the profit from this scheme without having to honour any of the conditions which gained the Budge Group the contract to mine the coal in the first place. Under such honourable circumstances was the company that becomes UK Coal plc in 2000 born. Does Stuart remember this or was it before his time with RJB Mining?
Then there is the case of the Forge and Monument open cast site, a much more recent example of UK Coal’s honourable behaviour. Why does Derbyshire County Council have to make the comments which follow about UK Coal plc having to be coerced into honouring its obligations to restore Codnor Castle and the Jessop Monument and Hall in exchange for open casting on the Forge and Monument site? To gain permission for the open casting of the site, RJB Mining / UK Coal plc entered into legal agreements to restore the Codnor Castle and the Jessop Monument. Coal extraction occurred between 2001 and 2004. However
“on the completion of coaling, the Company (UK Coal plc) had to be put under pressure to commence the works and carry them out in full”.
This was because
“…..following the cessation of coaling in May 2004 UK Coal showed no urgency to meet the deadline obligations for carrying out the consolidation works to the Castle or the repair works to the Monument Tower and Hall. Despite pressure from the council and attempts by the Company to reduce its financial liability while still meeting the obligations it took until May 2006, for a meaningful start on the site by UK Coal’s chosen contractor. Repair work on the Tower and Hall should have been completed by May 2005 and consolidation works on the Castle by May 2006
At any time after May 2005, it was open to the Council to take UK Coal Mining Ltd to court for breach of covenants but it was felt that pursuing legal action while the buildings continued to deteriorate was not productive and that keeping up face–to-face pressure on Company personnel at as high a level as possible, would eventually produce the right result.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. If Stuart wants to claim this as an example of UK Coal honouring its commitments to restore this site why should I disagree? He should bear in mind though where I came across this example. This saga isn’t on UK Coal’s own web site (surprise, surprise). It is however notorious in some circles. It’s notorious as it forms part of a training pack to aid decision makers in local government on how to deal with companies who are reluctant to carry out their obligations to restore a mineral site and fulfil the planning conditions attached to it! Some honour indeed. On this one it seems Stuart was kept out of the loop (that is why, maybe, this part of the story is omitted from UK Coal’s own web site). Perhaps Stuart, with this new information, you should have a chance to review your company’s 30 year record of honourable behaviour when it comes to site restoration and complying with the original planning conditions attached to each site.
When Stuart does so he might like to give his reasons why he condemned our recent report on his company “UK Coal: An Alternative Report.” When a reporter from The Bolton News asked him about MOPG’s report, which contained a section on the controversial Cutacre site in Bolton, where honourably UK Coal, once they started extracting the coal, asked to vary the conditions attached to restoring the site to now include a 250 acre industrial site rather than the 50 acre site which was allowed when the company first gained planning consent, said that the report was
“a hotch-potch of half-truths, lies and make-believe”,
but, as the reporter goes on to remark
“although he (Stuart Oliver) was unable to pin point any specific inaccuracies”
This MOPG report also contained a section on UK Coal’s apparent lack of intention to restore the Lounge site in our own area at Ashby de la Zouch, another site which Stuart seems unaware of. However, since the publication of our report Leicestershire County Council, as your paper reported on 26th March this year, is threatening to take UK Coal to court over this issue. Perhaps Stuart’s review of his Company’s record on how honourable the Company has been needs a quick rewrite as it could be required soon at a court hearing.
So can the members of the ACT and the ACA please note. It seems that once this Company gains permission to opencast for coal it is not unknown for it to begin to seek ways in which it can either reduce its obligations to restore the site or ask to vary the conditions attached to the planning permission so that the site can either then be worked more profitably for example, by being granted an extension, or had increased value added to it on its restoration. Given UK Coal’s current perilous financial state, with £129m of losses and debts greater than the company’s market value, what would your reader’s money be on?
Yours sincerely
Steve Leary, Spokesperson, MOPG “
SOURCES USED FOR THIS LETTER
Evidence of ACT and ACA support for the Minorca application
“Stupid idea to dismiss cash”. Letter by Gerald Box, The Ashby Times 9/10/09
“Canal Trust voices Minorca support”, The Ashby Times, 6/11/09
On the Sheffield Short Take off And Landing Airport
“Digging Up Trouble: The Environment Protest and Opencast Coal Mining, H Beynon, A Cox & R Hudson, pgs 158-166, Rivers Oram Press, 2000
“Losses force Sheffield City Airport closure” New Civil Engineer, 8/5/10. See
http://www.nce.co.uk/losses-fo…..51.article
On the Forge and Monument Opencast Site
“Codnor Castle and the Jessop Monument”. Historic Environment Local Management: Information and Training from English Heritage and partners for decision makers in local authorities. Case study 160. No date. See
http://www.helm.org.uk/server/…..eStudy.160
On the Cutacre site, Bolton and UK Coal’s comments on MOPG’s report
“Cutacre acts a warning to all”, The Bolton News, 24/3/10. See:
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk…..ng_to_all/
Forums
