Capricorn Stone Products Pty Ltd, Re [2002] QLRT 108

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Capricorn Stone Products Pty Ltd [2002] QLRT 108 PARTIES: Re Application for Mining Lease No. 80102 by Capricorn Stone Products Pty Ltd FILE NO/S: AML00059/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 18 December 2002 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Koppenol P ORDER: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that Application for Mining Lease No. 80102 applied for by the Applicant be granted for the purpose, term and area applied for. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE APPLICATION – RECOMMENDATION Environmental Protection Act 1994, s. 228 Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 245, 252(1), 252A, 252C, 269(4), 270, 392 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 23B(2), 24JA(1), 24JB Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993, s 20(2) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: Mr A. Grillmeier (of Qantec Pty Ltd), for the Applicant Application [1] This is an Application by Capricorn Stone Products Pty Ltd (the Applicant) under s.245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over an 18.8ha -- 1 of 5 -- area of land situated 3.8km south-east of Stanwell township for the extraction and sizing of dimension stone (sandstone) as well as associated activities (silt dams, spoil heaps, storage of product, recutting of stone, access roads, office and amenities). The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Rockhampton mining district on 16 May 2002. No objections to the Application were lodged during the public objection period which ended on 12 September 2002. Dispensing with hearing [2] The Applicant requested in its Additional Information and Statutory Declaration form (AISD form) that its application be heard by the Tribunal on the papers and without an oral hearing. Under s. 270 of the Act, the Tribunal has a discretion to dispense with the hearing if 4 specified criteria have been satisfied. Because (for reasons which will appear) I am satisfied that (a) the provisions of part 7 (Mining Leases) of the Act have been complied with, (b) there was no objection to the grant of this Application, (c) the consent of the owner of the relevant reserve land (quarry) has been obtained and (d) the consent of the owner (the present Applicant) of the relevant restricted land (shed and plant) has been obtained, I regard this an appropriate case to dispense with a hearing. I order accordingly. Section 269(4) criteria [3] In respect of the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the Act (which are required to be taken account of and considered in a case such as this), I have relied upon the material lodged by the Applicant with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal, the AISD form and the Mining Registrar’s Report dated 21 October 2002, and also upon the report of Dr B.J. Franklin dated 20 December 2001. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not to all of the relevant evidence and other material, 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 15 August 2002, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the Mining Registrar can only do so 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. Pursuant to s. 252A, a Certificate of Public Notice was issued by the Mining Registrar on 15 August 2002. The Applicant has lodged statutory declarations certifying compliance with the statutory requirements for notifying the Application.1 I note that the underlying tenure involves 3 areas of land – lots 179 and 252 (statutory leases) and 184 (quarry reserve). With respect to lots 179 and 252, any native title is extinguished by s. 20(2) of the Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 because each area is covered by previous exclusive possession acts (a prickly-pear selection and a special lease for business purposes, each granted under the Land Act) under s. 23B(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). Lot 184 is a quarry reserve created in 1940 and because the evidence (especially Dr Franklin’s report) satisfies me that the proposed mining lease’s impact on any native title will be no greater than the earlier quarrying, under 1 The declaration lodged under s. 252C of the Act was 1 day late, but as no prejudice is demonstrated by the delay, I am satisfied under s. 392 of the Act that the Applicant has substantially complied with the lodgment obligation. -- 2 of 5 -- ss 24JA(1) and 24JB of the NTA, the mining lease may validly be granted. For present purposes, it need not be determined if any native title has been extinguished. Consents have been obtained from the owners of the relevant reserve land and restricted land. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. 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 extraction and sizing of dimension stone (sandstone) and associated activities. The Applicant’s AISD form refers to its contiguous dimension stone mining lease and says that the exploration of old quarry faces indicate further reserves of quality dimension stone. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the area 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? [6] The stone in the area of the proposed mining lease will be developed slowly along with the stone from the Applicant’s existing mining lease as orders are fulfilled. The existing extraction methods of pre-trenching, wire-cutting, drilling and splitting will be extended into the new area after the overburden is removed. Progression into the new area is expected in 1 to 2 years at existing rates of mining but could be immediate depending upon orders for stone. The plan of operations sets out relevant details for the next 5 years. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. 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 Application said that the area and shape applied for extends the extraction area of the Applicant’s contiguous mining lease and provides an area for activities directly associated with the mining. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [8] A term of 20 years is sought. That term is required because of the extensive size of the sandstone resource and having regard to the expected demand for dimension sandstone. I am satisfied that the term sought 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? [9] The Applicant already conducts sandstone extraction operations on the contiguous mining lease. Existing human and technical resources, equipment and infrastructure will be used with little need for the additional injection of capital. The Applicant’s relationship with its bankers is cordial and ongoing. I am satisfied that the Applicant has the requisite financial and technical capabilities. -- 3 of 5 -- Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [10] The Applicant has operated the contiguous mining lease (ML 7341) successfully for several years. Its managing director has more than 25 years experience in the sandstone industry. The Applicant has never received a show cause notice, conviction or penalty or had a tenure cancelled under the Act. There was no material before me to suggest any unsatisfactory past performance by the Applicant. 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 such underlying tenures which are not held by the Applicant. No relevant disadvantage should therefore result. 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 part vacant, part access and part stone sizing. Apart from mining-related activities, it is not capable of being used for any other purpose. The mining activities will be carried out in accordance with the draft environmental authority issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act). After mining, the land will be appropriately rehabilitated. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impact caused by the proposed mining operations, and if so, the extent thereof? [13] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft environmental authority in relation to this mining lease application on 28 June 2002. This requires the Applicant to comply with the standard environmental conditions outlined in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects approved under the EP Act. The Code includes relevant conditions for dealing with land disturbance, rehabilitation and other issues. There was no objection to the draft environmental authority being issued and, pursuant to s. 228 of that Act, the environmental authority must be issued in substantially the same terms. I am satisfied that the standard conditions imposed by the EPA will adequately deal with the environmental impacts of this activity. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [14] There was no evidence before me that indicated that the public right and interest would be prejudiced. No public infrastructure traverses the subject land. Access will be via the abutting Power Station Road. It is significant that there was no objection to this Application. -- 4 of 5 -- 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 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 and material considered in relation to criteria (i), (j), (k) and (l) above, I consider that the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [17] Taking into account all of the evidence and other material before me and, in particular, that referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that Application for Mining Lease No. 80102, applied for by the Applicant for the extraction and sizing of dimension stone (sandstone) as well as associated activities (silt dams, spoil heaps, storage of product, recutting of stone, access roads, office and amenities) be granted over the whole application area (18.8ha) for the term of 20 years. -- 5 of 5 --