Cronin, Re (No 2) [2003] QLRT 102

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re P.F. Cronin [No. 2] [2003] QLRT 102 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 60341 by Peter Francis Cronin FILE NO/S: AML00102/2003 PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease DELIVERED ON: 9 October 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [4]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that special conditions be included in Mining Lease No. 60341 in the following terms: (1) No open cut mining is to occur within 5 metres (or such greater distance as may be required by the electricity supplier) of any operational electricity supply power pole. (2) All mining machinery must maintain a safe operating distance of at least 3 metres (or such greater distance as may be required by the electricity supplier) from all operational electrical power poles and power lines at all times. (3) The Applicant, his servants, agents or subcontractors must stand off a minimum of at least 3 metres (or such greater distance as may be required by the electricity supplier) from all operational electrical power poles and power lines at all times unless otherwise accredited to do so. (at [26]) 3. Subject to order 2 hereof, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that Mining Lease No. 60341 be granted over the entire application area, for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. (at [32]) -- 1 of 6 -- CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – NATIVE TITLE – NOTICE OF NON-OBJECTION – POWER POLES – POWER LINES – PUBLIC INTEREST – ELECTRICITY SUPPLY – SAFETY – SPECIAL CONDITIONS – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 269, 270, 276 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 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] SMITH DP: On 26 November 2002 Peter Francis Cronin (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No 60341 with the Mining Registrar, Quilpie District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) for the purpose of mining for opal, mullock heaps and machinery shed. [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. 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 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 of 24 September 2003. 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 all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. -- 2 of 6 -- [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. Native Title Considerations [7] The Application is over non-exclusive land. However, the material reveals that the Native Title Parties have lodged notices of non-objection.1 Additionally, the Applicant has entered into a compensation agreement with the Native Title Parties.2 The native title requirements under the Act have accordingly been satisfied. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [8] On 16 January 2003, the Mining Registrar, Quilpie District, issued a Certificate of Application which was accepted by the Applicant. 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. [9] I note that the underlying tenures are two pastoral holdings. Native title issues have been dealt with in paragraph [7] hereof. [10] In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Act in respect to this Application. Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [11] The Applicant says that the land is known to be mineralised because it is near large mining operations and also because of surface indicators.3 The Field Record of GPS Observations of J.W. Barnes of 19 December 2002 is consistent with what the Applicant says. [12] 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? [13] 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. 1 Form 17.5 lodged on behalf of the Mardigan People on 31 March 2003 and Form 17.5 lodged on behalf of the Budjiti People on 31 March 2003. 2 A compensation agreement with the Mardigan People and the Budjiti People was entered into and filed with the Mining Registrar, Quilpie on 31 March 2003. 3 See Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of 24 September 2003. -- 3 of 6 -- 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? [14] 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? [15] The term sought for this mining lease is 15 years. Given the nature of the mining operations and the harsh weather conditions, in my view a term of 15 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? [16] Documents and evidence provided to the Tribunal show that the Applicant has the financial capabilities to carry on the mining operations. [17] From the material, it would appear that the Applicant has the necessary technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease from his previous seven years mining experience. [18] I am satisfied that the requirements of this criterion are met. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [19] With respect to this criterion, I also rely on the evidence relating to s. 269(4)(f) above. The Applicant’s evidence is that no enforcement action has been taken against him. The Mining Registrar’s report is consistent with what the Applicant says. 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 held PP 61093 and PP 60198. 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. The application area is within a known opal producing area. 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 29 November 2002, which requires the Applicant to carry out activities in accordance with the Standard Environmental -- 4 of 6 -- 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 adequately be 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 on the application area. However, as pointed out in the Field Record of GPS Observations of J.W. Barnes of 19 December 2002, the main power line to Yowah runs through the application area. The Applicant’s evidence is that he has made arrangements with the electricity supplier regarding safe operations under his mining program in the vicinity of the power line.4 [24] In his report of 19 December 2003, Mr Barnes states that “there is indication that the public right or interest may be prejudiced”. I take it that Mr Barnes is concerned, quite rightly, with the supply of electricity to Yowah and safety issues for mining near powerlines. [25] The Applicant’s evidence from his Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of 24 September 2003 in this regard is as follows: “I have contacted Ergon Power & you have to stand off three metres from Post and Line unless you are a Credited Person.” I take the Applicant’s referred to “Credited Person” to mean an accredited person. [26] I share Mr Barnes’ concerns. It is essential that the mining lease, if granted, not interfere with the power supply to Yowah. It is equally essential that the mining operations be safe from the possibility of electrocution accidents. Accordingly, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that special conditions be included in ML 60341 in the following terms: 1. No open cut mining is to occur within 5 metres (or such greater distance as may be required by the electricity supplier) of any operational electricity supply power pole. 2. All mining machinery must maintain a safe operating distance of at least 3 metres (or such greater distance as may be required by the electricity supplier) from all operational electrical power poles and power lines at all times. 3. The Applicant, his servants, agents or subcontractors must stand off a minimum of at least 3 metres (or such greater distance as may be required by the electricity supplier) from all operational electrical power poles and power lines at all times unless otherwise accredited to do so. [27] There appears to be no endangered flora or fauna within the application area. [28] 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 4 See Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of 24 September 2003. -- 5 of 6 -- sites are identified, strategies for the protection or site avoidance can be implemented. I also note the requirements of various enactments protecting cultural heritage and note the requirements on the Applicant pursuant to that legislation to protect any sites of significance should they be located during the mining operations. [29] I am satisfied that the public right and interest will not be prejudiced should this mining lease be granted, provided the above special conditions are included in the mining lease. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [30] Apart from the electricity supply issue already dealt with, 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? [31] The materials show that the project is for the extraction of a potentially valuable resource in accordance with the environmental processes. The Application is without objection. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [32] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, and subject to order 2 hereof, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that Mining Lease No. 60341 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. -- 6 of 6 --