FOURTH RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT

This document contains the heads of argument filed by Lephalale Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd (LCM) in the High Court of South Africa. LCM responds to a review application by Earthlife Africa seeking to set aside environmental authorisations for a proposed coal mine in Limpopo Province. LCM concedes that its original climate change impact assessment was insufficient and agrees that the related decision should be reviewed and set aside, but opposes all other grounds of review regarding air quality, health impacts, cumulative impacts, and public consultation.

• Lephalale Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd (LCM) concedes that its initial climate change impact assessment was inadequate by current standards and agrees that the decisions granting the environmental authorisation (EA) should be reviewed and set aside on this specific ground.
• LCM proposes a remedy where the Environmental Minister's dismissal of the climate change appeal is set aside and remitted for reconsideration, incorporating an updated climate change assessment compiled by Promethium Carbon dated 5 June 2023.
• LCM argues that the need and desirability of the mine were properly assessed and that the draft spatial development framework cited by Earthlife was not finalized at the time of the EA application, meaning the decision-makers were not obligated to consider it.
• LCM maintains that its air quality assessment complied with the South African National Ambient Air Quality Standards and argues that World Health Organisation guidelines are not legally binding in South Africa.
• LCM asserts that its public consultation process was comprehensive, including site notices, newspaper advertisements in the Mogol Post, and two public meetings at the Mogol Club in Lephalale.
• LCM argues that the failure to specifically address cumulative health impacts from other unrelated coal activities in the Lephalale Municipality does not render the entire EA application defective.
• LCM states that the proposed mine is expected to produce approximately 6 million tonnes of coal per year over a lifespan of at least 35 years and will employ up to 455 people.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2025). FOURTH RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250314_Fourth-Respondents-Heads-of-argument-and-list-of-authorities.exe_.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. FOURTH RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT. 2025. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250314_Fourth-Respondents-Heads-of-argument-and-list-of-authorities.exe_.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=FOURTH RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT |date=14 March 2025 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250314_Fourth-Respondents-Heads-of-argument-and-list-of-authorities.exe_.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2025fourth, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{FOURTH RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2025}, month = mar, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250314_Fourth-Respondents-Heads-of-argument-and-list-of-authorities.exe_.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }