Carrol, Re [2005] QLRT 75

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Carrol [2005] QLRT 75 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 80124 by Ian Patrick Carrol FILE NO/S: AML74/05 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 29 June 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers MEMBER: Windridge MR ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy that Mining Lease No. 80124 be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose of mining for gold, silver ore, copper ore and zinc ore for a term of 10 years. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 245, 269(4), 270(1) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] WINDRIDGE MR: This is an application lodged by Ian Patrick Carrol under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining lease over 79.64ha of land. The application area is located on Lot 19 on CP RN45, County of Raglan, Parish of Gelobera, located approximately 12 kilometres south east of Mount Morgan. Access is through the same lot. The land is freehold. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Rockhampton on 1 April 2005. No objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 3 June 2005. -- 1 of 4 -- 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 Act have been complied with in respect of the application. There were no objections to this application. It appears there is no restricted land in the area the subject of the application. The applicant is the owner of the freehold background tenure and has given the necessary consents. I am satisfied that the preconditions to exercising my discretion to dispense with the hearing have been fulfilled. The material supplied by the applicant 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. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this application be dispensed with. 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 on 8 June 2005. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicant with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines 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 3 May 2005 which can only be done if the Registrar is 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. 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 gold, silver ore, copper ore and zinc. The applicant has explored the area under the authority of EPM 14616. The area is historically known for the production of high grades of gold. The applicant has conducted a drilling program and has submitted the results for professional analysis. I am satisfied that there is adequate evidence of mineralisation. 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] Mining will commence as an open cut operation with backfilling as mining progresses. 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. -- 2 of 4 -- 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 applicant has sought a mining lease over surface area of 79.64ha. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The applicant seeks a term of 10 years. There is no evidence to suggest that a 10 year term is inappropriate. The term is required for mining and rehabilitation purposes, and the applicant has the option of surrender 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 applicant has sufficient assets through company sources to undertake the proposed operation. I am satisfied the applicant has or has 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 applicant not been satisfactory. 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] The applicant held a current Exploration Permit for Minerals at the time of marking out. I am satisfied that no other person is disadvantaged. Ascarco, being the holder of EPM 13491, has given consent. 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 cattle grazing under favourable conditions. The applicant is the landowner. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof? [13] The draft environmental authority was issued on 6 April 2005. It requires the applicant to comply with the 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. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [14] 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. 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 grounds which would justify a refusal of the application. 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 Energy that the mining lease be granted over the application area for the purpose and term sought. -- 4 of 4 --