Elliot, Re [2004] QLRT 59

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re M.J. Elliot [2004] QLRT 59 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 10314 by Maurice James Elliot FILE NO/S: AML00083/2004 PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the Papers MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [4]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy that Mining Lease No. 10314 be granted over the entire application area, for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. (at [29]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 269, 270, 276, 392 Sinclair v. Mining Warden at Maryborough and Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473, applied Beattie v. McGrady (Unreported) Supreme Court of Queensland, Cullinane J., 20 July 1993, applied Re M.J. & J.M. Elliot [2004] QLRT 23, referred to COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] SMITH DP: On 30 March 2004 Maurice James Elliot (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No 10314 with the Mining Registrar, Charters Towers District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the -- 1 of 5 -- Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) for the purpose of mining for sapphire, zircon, diamonds, gold and silver ore.1 [2] No objections were duly lodged to the Mining Lease Application. [3] The Applicant has requested that the Application be dealt with without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and has provided the information required by Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001. The Mining Registrar has also provided the Tribunal with a report to which are attached relevant documents. [4] I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). For reasons that follow, 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. There is no reserve land in the area applied for. The owner of restricted land in the area applied for has consented to the Application.2 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 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 enable me to properly consider this matter. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this Application be dispensed with. [5] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the Act, I have relied on the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of the Applicant dated 7 June 2004, I have also relied upon the material lodged by the Applicant with the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy 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 all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. [6] In considering this matter, I have also applied, where relevant Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough and Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473 and Beattie v McGrady (Unreported) Supreme Court of Queensland, Cullinane J., 20 July 1993. I have also considered the provisions of the Act, in particular ss 252, 269 and 276. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [7] On 22 April 2004, the Mining Registrar, Charters Towers District, issued a Certificate of Application. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the Mining Registrar can only issue a Certificate of Application 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. [8] I note that the underlying tenure is a Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease. Native title issues are therefore not relevant to this Application. 1 I note that the Applicant has also stated in his Application that he requires the surface area for treatment plant; dams; spoil heaps, storage and amenities area. 2 See letter to the Applicant dated 15 April 2004. -- 2 of 5 -- [9] In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Act in respect to this Application. Further, no material was in evidence before me to indicate any non-compliance with any relevant provisions of the Act. Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [10] The Applicant’s evidence is that the land applied for is mineralised. The Applicant further deposes of surface trace and old diggings in the application area, and also relies on the results of exploration. [11] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the land applied for is 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? [12] The material before me reveals the Applicant’s proposed mining operations and program, and shows appropriate 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? [13] The material before me appears to indicate a mining lease application of an appropriate size and shape in light of the plan of operations. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [14] The term sought for this mining lease is 20 years. In my view a term of 20 years is appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [15] Documents and evidence provided to the Tribunal show that the Applicant has the financial capabilities to carry on the mining operations. [16] I am satisfied from his experience and current operations that the Applicant has the necessary technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease. [17] I am satisfied that the requirements of this criterion are met. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [18] With respect to this criterion, I also rely on the evidence relating to s. 269(4)(f) above. -- 3 of 5 -- [19] Although the Applicant has previously had two tenures cancelled, this situation has already been satisfactorily addressed.3 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? [20] The Applicant holds EP10154. There is nothing in the material to indicate any disadvantage to any other person. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [21] There is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed operations do not conform with sound land use management. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [22] A draft environmental authority was issued on 6 April 2004, which requires the Applicant 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? [23] The material before me indicates that there are no public roads or other public utilities on the Application area. [24] There appears to be no endangered flora or fauna within the Application area. [25] The material presented before me also shows that there are no identified sites of historical interest or Aboriginal significance within the Application area. If any such sites are identified, strategies for their protection or site avoidance can be implemented. [26] I am satisfied that the public right and interest will not be prejudiced should this mining lease be granted. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [27] There was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this Application should be refused. 3 See Re M.J. & J.M. Elliot [2004] QLRT 23 @ paras 17 & 18. -- 4 of 5 -- Section 269(4)(m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? [28] The material shows that the project is for the extraction of a potentially valuable resource and is linked to current operations by the Applicant. The Application is without objection. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [29] 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 Mining Lease No. 10314 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. -- 5 of 5 --