Bjelivuk, Re [2006] QLRT 56

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re M. & S. Bjelivuk [2006] QLRT 56 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No 95520 - Application by Milos & Sedina Bjelivuk for mining lease FILE NO: AML95/06 PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease DELIVERED ON: 14 June 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the Papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that the Mining Lease is granted over the entire application area for the purposes and for the term sought by the Applicants . (at [18]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – ILUA - RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 252A, 252C, 269, 270, 650 Native Title Act 1993 s. 24CG(1) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an Application by Milos & Sedina Bjelivuk under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 13.2950 ha area of land at Woodstock, via Chiltern Hills approximately 140kms west of Winton in the Winton Shire for the purpose of mining opal. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Winton mining district on 1 February 2006. No objection to the Application was lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 14 May 2006. The underlying tenure is a pastoral holding. -- 1 of 4 -- [2] The Applicants has requested that the Application be dealt with without an oral hearing. I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). For reasons that follow at paragraph [5], I am satisfied that the provisions of part 7 of the Act have been complied with in respect of the Application. I note that there were no objections to this Application. It appears there is neither reserve nor restricted land in the area applied for. I am, therefore, satisfied that the preconditions to my exercising the discretion to dispense with a hearing have been fulfilled. The material supplied by the Applicants and the Mining Registrar addresses each of the criteria that I must consider in making my recommendation on this Application. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me to enable me to properly consider this matter. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this Application be dispensed with. [3] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon Mr Bjelivuk’s Additional Information and Statutory Declaration sworn on 26 May 2006. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the Applicants with the Department of Natural Resources, Mines & Water and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this Application. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not to all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. Native Title Considerations [4] The Application is over non-exclusive land. The Applicants has opted in as a “grantee party” pursuant to the Winton Indigenous Land Use Agreement.1 As the Application post dates 1 March 2003, the native title provisions of the Act do not apply to this application.2 Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [5] On 16 March 2006, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Public Notice.3 The Applicants lodged a Declaration of Compliance with the requirements for notifying the Application, within the time required.4 The Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application on 2 February 2006, which he can only do if satisfied that the Applicants are eligible to apply for the mining lease and have complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the Application.5 There is no evidence to suggest that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. 1 An Indigenous Land Use Agreement between Ella Teresa Gordon, Janet Hoare McCabe, John Harry McCabe and Joslin Eatts on their own behalf and on behalf of the Maiawali and Karuwali People, the State of Queensland, the Queensland Boulder Opal Association and others registered on the register of indigenous land use agreements pursuant to s. 24CG(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) on 13 June 2002. 2 Section 650. 3 Section 252A. 4 Section 252C. 5 Section 252(1). -- 2 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [6] The Application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of mining opal. The Applicants have mined opal for the last 9 years. The area applied for is in a known opal producing area, adjoins existing leases and shows surface traces of opal. I am satisfied that the area is generally mineralised. Section 269(4)(c) – If the land applied for is mineralised, will there be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for? [7] There is no evidence to suggest that there will not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for. Section 269(4)(d) – Is the land and the surface area of that land in respect of which the mining lease is sought of an appropriate size and shape in relation to – (i) the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c); and (ii) the type and location of the activities proposed to be carried out and their likely impact on the surface of the land. [8] The size and shape of the area applied for is determined by the area of potential and by the boundaries of adjoining leases. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [9] The term sought for this mining lease is 10 years. The Applicants consider this term is required to fully exploit the expected resource. The ability to mine and undertake rehabilitation is affected by seasonal conditions. There is no evidence to suggest the term sought is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Have the Applicants the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [10] There is no evidence that the Applicants do not have the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease. The Applicants have mined opal for the last 9 years under other leases. They currently hold two other mining leases in Queensland. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicants been satisfactory? [11] There is no evidence of unsatisfactory past performance by the Applicants. Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing Applicants s for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [12] There are no holders of or Applicants for exploration tenures who would be disadvantaged by the grant. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [13] The land is currently used for low intensity grazing and is the vicinity of a number of other mining leases. The land holder did not object to the grant of the mining lease. The Applicants and the land holder have entered into a compensation agreement in relation to this lease. The Applicants are required to comply with the conditions of an environmental authority that will govern land management. The area applied for is located in a known mineral producing area. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed operations will not conform with sound land use management. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [14] A draft environmental authority was issued on 8 March 2006, which requires the Applicants to carry out activities in accordance with the Standard Environmental Conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. I note that there was no objection to the terms of the draft environmental authority. There is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impacts will not be adequately dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the Code. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [15] There is no public infrastructure on the area applied for. There was no evidence before me that indicated the public right and interest would be prejudiced. It is significant that there was no objection to this Application. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [16] There was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this Application should be refused. Section 269(4)(m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? [17] On the basis of the evidence considered in relation to criteria (i), (j), (k) and (l), I consider the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [18] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water that Mining Lease No. 95520 is granted over the entire application area for the purposes and for the term sought by the Applicants. -- 4 of 4 --