Brown and Cooper, Re [2004] QLRT 154

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re B.J. Brown & R.J. Cooper [2004] QLRT 154 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Leases No. 60367 and 60368 – Application by Barry James Brown and Richard John Cooper for Mining Leases FILE NO: AML168/2004 AML169/2004 PROCEEDING: Applications for mining leases DELIVERED ON: 10 December 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that the Mining Leases are granted over the entire application areas, for the purposes and for the terms sought by the Applicants. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 269(4), 270(1) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] These are applications by Barry James Brown and Richard John Cooper under s.245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for mining leases over 2 parcels of land (ML60367 – 2.392ha; ML60368 – 2.2332ha) at Boobara Station via Cunnamulla in the Paroo Shire for the purposes of opal mining, stockpile ore and camp. The Applications were lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Quilpie mining district on 23 July 2004. No objections to the Applications were lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 26 October 2004. The underlying tenure is a pastoral holding. As these applications were filed after 31 March 2003, the native title provisions of the Act do not apply. -- 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 Applications. There are no objections to the Applications. There is restricted land in ML60368 and the owner has consented to the grant of the lease. It appears there is no reserve land in the areas applied for. I am satisfied that the preconditions to exercising my 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 Applications. 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 these Applications 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 of Barry Brown on behalf of the Applicants sworn on 5 October 2004. 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 these Applications. 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 14 September 2004, the Mining Registrar issued Certificates of Public Notice.1 The Applicants lodged Declarations of Compliance with the requirements for notifying the Applications, within the time required.2 The Mining Registrar issued Certificates of Application on 14 September 2004, which he can only do if satisfied that the Applicants are eligible to apply for the mining leases and have complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the Applications.3 Section 269(4)(b) - Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [5] The Applications seek the grant of the mining leases for the purposes of opal mining, stockpile ore and camp. Both Applicants have previous opal mining experience. They have identified surface traces of opal on the areas applied for which contain some old workings. They are in the vicinity of a number of other leases. I am satisfied that the areas are generally mineralised. The other purposes for which the leases are sought are associated with mining and are appropriate purposes for the grant of the leases. 1 Section 252A. 2 Section 252. 3 Section 252(1). -- 2 of 4 -- 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 each have prior experience in mining opal. They intend to commence mining activities (both small scale open-cut and underground) as soon as the leases are granted. There is no evidence to suggest that there will not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the areas. 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 Applicants determined the boundaries of the leases on surface indications of the area showing the potential to produce opal. The Applicants have sought mining leases over the entire surface area applied for. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape of both areas is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The Applicants seek a term of 5 years. Whilst the term is short, the areas applied for are small. There is no evidence to suggest that the term sought is not appropriate. 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 stated that they have sufficient resources to undertake the proposed operation. They have access to the necessary equipment. Both Applicants have prior mining experience. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicants do not have 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 the Applicants’ past performance 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] The holder of EPM12548 consented to the applications. There are no other 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 land is currently used for low intensity grazing. The landholder did not object to the applications. I also take into account the terms of the environmental authorities referred to below in making this recommendation. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [13] The draft environmental authorities were issued on 29 July 2004. They require the Applicants to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. The authorities were publicly advertised and there was no objection to their grant or to their terms. There is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impacts will not be appropriately dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the Code. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [14] There appears to be no public infrastructure on the areas 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 these Applications. 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 these Applications 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 the Mining Leases are granted over the entire application areas, for the purposes and for the term sought by the Applicants. -- 4 of 4 --