Boyle & Anor, Re [2006] QLRT 125

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Boyle & Anor [2006] QLRT 125 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 60406 by Brian Charles Boyle and Elizabeth Jean Boyle FILE NO/S: AML150/06 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 26 October 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers MEMBER: Windridge MR ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that the mining lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose and term sought by the applicants. (at [5]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 245, 269(4), 270 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] This is an application by Brian Charles Boyle and Elizabeth Jean Boyle under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over 0.8361ha of land in the Yowah area for opal mining. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Quilpie on 29 August 2005. No objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 19 July 2006. The land applied for is on Lot 9 on Plan CP854480 and located about 1.5 kms south of Yowah township. Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270 [2] I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). I am satisfied the criteria for dispensing with the hearing have been met. The applicants have requested a hearing on the papers before a single member. I therefore dispense -- 1 of 2 -- with the hearing and deal with this matter under the expedited provisions of s. 270(2) of the Act. Section 269(4) criteria [3] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration sworn by the applicant. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicant with the Department of Mines and Energy and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this application. [4] I find:  The provisions of the Act have been complied with. (s. 269(4)(a)).  The purpose for which the lease is sought is appropriate. (s. 269(4)(b)).  The applicants have the necessary plant and infrastructure and there will be an acceptable level of development of the mineral resource. (s. 269(4)(c)).  The surface area sought is an appropriate size and shape. (s. 269(4)(d)).  The term of five years is appropriate. (s. 269(4)(e)).  The applicants have sufficient assets and financial resources to complete the project. (s. 269(4)(f)).  There is no evidence to suggest the past performance of the applicants has not been satisfactory. (s. 269(4)(g)).  The applicants held the appropriate exploration tenures and no other person is disadvantaged. (s. 269(4)(h)).  The proposed mining operation is consistent with sound land management. (s. 269(4)(i)).  There are no adverse environmental impacts that cannot be managed by adherence to the environmental licence. (s. 269(4)(j)).  There is no evidence that the public right or interest will be prejudiced. (s. 269(4)(k)).  There is no known valid reason why the application should be rejected. (s. 269(4)(l)).  The proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. (s. 269(4)(m)). Recommendation [5] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that the mining lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose and term sought by the applicant. -- 2 of 2 --