Barlow & Ors, Re [2005] QLRT 35

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re R. Barlow & Ors [2005] QLRT 35 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No 80119 - Application by Robert Barlow, Jeffrey Robert Barlow, Stewart Darrell Barlow and Elaine Florence Barlow for mining lease FILE NO: AML00031/2005 PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease DELIVERED ON: 23 March 2005 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 purpose and for the term sought by the Applicants. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 252A, 252C, 269, 270 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by Robert Barlow, Jeffrey Robert Barlow, Stewart Darrell Barlow and Elaine Florence Barlow under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 17.094ha area of land approximately 31kms northeast of Rockhampton in the Livingstone Shire for the purpose of mining foundry sand and silica sand. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Rockhampton mining district on 7 December 2004. No objection to the Application was lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 7 March 2005. The underlying tenure is freehold. -- 1 of 4 -- [2] The Applicants have 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 [4], 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 the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration sworn by the Applicants’ agent, David Kershaw, on 9 March 2005. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the Applicants 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] On 4 February 2005, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Public Notice.1 The Applicants lodged a Declaration of Compliance with the requirements for notifying the Application, within the time required.2 The Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application on 9 December 2004, 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.3 There is no evidence to suggest that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. 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 foundry sand and silica sand. Sand for construction purposes is currently being extracted from the area applied for, pursuant to an extractive industry development permit granted by the Livingstone Shire Council. Tests of the sand extracted have demonstrated its high levels of silica and its suitability for use as foundry sand. 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 purpose of the application is to permit the removal and sale of mineral sand from the same operation which currently extracts and sells the same physical material as construction sand. There is no evidence to suggest that there will not be an 1 Section 252A. 2 Section 252C. 3 Section 252(1). -- 2 of 4 -- 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? [7] The size and shape of the area applied for generally coincide with the area of land currently under the extractive industry development permit. Minor adjustments to the boundaries have been made to allow for a buffer area and resumption of land to be opened as a road that will be used as access for the lease. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The term sought for this mining lease is 10 years. This is based on the Applicants’ estimate of the mineral resource and the anticipated demand. They consider the term will allow full extraction of the resource and time to conclude rehabilitation works. There is no evidence to suggest the term 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? [9] The Applicants are currently operating an extractive operation. That operation is subject to a development permit and environmental authority. The process used in that operation, including the dry screening of sand, will also be employed for the mining operation. The Applicants have demonstrated their financial and technical capability to run the existing operation. They have engaged experienced consultants in relation to this application. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicants do not have access to the necessary financial and technical resources. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicants been satisfactory? [10] There is no evidence to suggest the past performance of the Applicants has 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] There are no holders of or applicants for exploration tenures that 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 Applicants are the owners of the land. The existing extractive operation is the subject of a development permit and associated environmental authority. The Applicants have outlined their proposals for the management of environmental impacts in relation to the mining operation. The Applicants will also be required to comply with the conditions of an environmental authority for the mining operation. -- 3 of 4 -- 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: [13] A draft environmental authority was issued on 1 February 2005, 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. The applicants have already outlined to the Enviromental Protection Agency how it will comply with those conditions. The area is located within 2 kilometres of a Category A Environmentally Sensitive Area and 1 kilometre of a Category B Environmentally Sensitive Area. A special condition is included in the draft environmental authority to restrict activities involving machinery within 800 metres of the Category A area and 250 metres of the Category B area. There was no objection to the terms of the draft environmental authority. There is no evidence to suggest that the existing operation has not appropriately dealt with the environmental impacts or that they 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 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? [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 and Mines that Mining Lease No. 80119 is granted over the entire application area for the purpose and for the term sought by the Applicants. -- 4 of 4 --