Doroshenko & Anor, Re [2006] QLRT 42

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Doroshenko & Anor [2006] QLRT 42 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 95522 by Peter John Doroshenko and Tony Russell Hutton FILE NO/S: AML86/06 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 25 May 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 applied for and for the term sought by the Applicants. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 269(4), 270(1) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A [1] WINDRIDGE MR: This is an application by Peter John Doroshenko and Tony Russell Hutton under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over 10.6377ha of land in the Winton area for opal mining. Each party will hold the lease in equal shares of 50%. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Winton on 7 February 2006. No objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 4 May 2006. The land applied for is located on Lot 4 on Plan EL44, being part of Cadell Holding. Access is through the same property. 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). For reasons that follow at paragraph [4], I am satisfied that the provisions of part 7 of the -- 1 of 4 -- Act have been complied with in respect of the application. There were no objections to this application. I am satisfied that the preconditions to exercising my discretion to dispense with the 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 properly consider this matter. 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 Doroshenko on 16 May 2006. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicants with the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and 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. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [4] A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 7 February 2006 which he can only do if satisfied that the applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the application, including marking out, lodging, posting, advertising and the giving and service of notices.1 I note the statutory declarations relating to these matters filed with the Registrar. Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [5] The application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of mining opal. The area applied for is in the vicinity of a number of other leases. The applicants have explored the area under the appropriate exploration tenure and have located old diggings and surface trace. 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? [6] The applicants propose to mine the area using conventional open cut methods. The applicants have the necessary infrastructure and equipment to complete the project. There is no evidence to suggest that there will not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the area. 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? [7] The boundaries of the lease have been determined by the area of potential mineralisation. The applicants have sought a mining lease over the whole of the surface area. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. 1 Part 7 MRA. -- 2 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The applicants seek a term of 10 years. There is no evidence to suggest that a 10 year term is inappropriate. The applicants have the option of surrender or abandonment if mining and rehabilitation is completed before the term expires. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [9] The applicants have sufficient assets, including the mining equipment required to undertake the proposed operation. I am satisfied the applicants have or have access to the necessary financial and technical resources. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [10] There is no evidence to suggest that the past performance of the applicants has not been satisfactory. The applicants have been involved in the industry for a number of years. Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing Applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [11] There are no other holders or applicants for exploration tenures who would be affected by the grant. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [12] The current land use is low intensity cattle grazing. The landholders did not object to the mining lease, and have entered into a compensation agreement with the applicants. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof? [13] The draft environmental authority was issued and it requires the applicants to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. The draft authority was publicly advertised and no objections were lodged in relation to it. 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? [14] There is no public infrastructure on the area applied for. There was no evidence before me that indicated public right and interest would be prejudiced. I take into account that there was no objection to this application on public interest grounds. The applicants have become a party to the local ILUA. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease? [15] 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? [16] 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 [17] 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 the Mining Lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purposes and term sought by the applicants. -- 4 of 4 --