A decision to grant planning permission for a new coal mine in Cumbria 'smacked of hypocrisy', the High Court has been told.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) and South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) are bringing legal action over a 2022 Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government decision to grant planning permission for the site near Whitehaven, which was set to be the first new coal mine in the UK in 30 years.

The department had been due to defend the claim, but on July 11, FoE said the Government had withdrawn its defence.

However, the developer of the planned mine, West Cumbria Mining (WCM), is still defending the challenge and it told the High Court on Tuesday that the legal claim should be refused.

On the first day of the three-day hearing in London, Paul Brown KC, for FoE, said the Government had previously accepted that approximately 15 per cent of the coal would be used domestically.

The barrister said in written submissions there is “no significant need for the coal”, which would be used in steel-making, in the UK given statements from British Steel and Tata over their moves to electric arc furnaces.

Mr Brown later said that in the context of the climate crisis and the UK’s “vocal international advocacy” over the phase-out of coal in energy systems, “the decision smacked of hypocrisy and undermined the UK’s international reputation”.

Estelle Dehon KC, for SLACC, added in written submissions: “The Secretary of State failed to grapple lawfully with the evidence, given by a number of experts in international climate diplomacy of the adverse international signal sent by the UK if it granted permission for a new coal mine, whether purportedly net zero or not, its negative effects on climate change by diminishing the UK’s status and role as a global climate leader and the effect of encouraging other countries to permit new fossil fuel developments increasing global greenhouse gas emissions.”

James Strachan KC, for WCM, said the arguments in the legal challenge are “poorly disguised attacks on the planning judgments made by the inspector and the secretary of state”.

He said in written submissions: “SLACC’s allegation that the inspector and secretary of state discounted or ignored the international impact of granting permission is simply not credible and flies in the face of the decision.”

Mr Strachan continued: “WCM strongly refutes the claimants’ repeated mischaracterisation of the development proposals, the evidence that was presented and the inspector and secretary of state’s lawful appraisal of them.”

The barrister said there was a “fundamental difference between fuel coal and coking coal”, with the planned “net zero” mine due to extract the latter, also known as metallurgical coal.

Mr Strachan later said the development would have a “broadly neutral effect on the global release of greenhouse gas from metallurgical coal used in steel-making”.

The hearing before Mr Justice Holgate is due to conclude on Thursday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.