Busbridge, Re [2002] QLRT 97

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re EJ Busbridge [2002] QLRT 97 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 60331 – Application by Edward John Busbridge for Mining Lease FILE NO: AML00105/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 25 November 2002 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [4]) 2. Recommendation made that the Mining Lease is granted over the entire application area, for the purposes and for the term sought by the Applicant. (at [19]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 252A, 252C, 269(4), 270 & Schedule COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by Edward John Busbridge under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over an 8.3704ha area of land at Prairie Station, 120km south of Quilpie in the Quilpie Shire for the purposes of mining opal and petrified wood, to establish living quarters and camp and for mine waste and spoil dumps. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Quilpie mining district on 11 September 2002. No objection to the Application was lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 11 November 2002. The underlying land tenure is a grazing homestead pastoral lease. [2] The Applicant has requested the Application be dealt with without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and has provided the information required by Practice -- 1 of 4 -- Direction No. 1 of 2001. The Mining Registrar has also provided the Tribunal with a report, to which are attached relevant documents. Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270: [3] 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. There were no objections to this Application. It appears there is no restricted or reserve land in the area 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 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. Section 269(4) criteria: [4] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of the Mr Busbridge sworn on 9 October 2002. 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 significant 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? [5] On 30 September 2002, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Public Notice.1 The Applicant 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 11 September 2002, which he can only do 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.3 Section 269(4)(b) - Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [6] The Application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of mining opal and petrified wood4 and establishing associated infrastructure. The Applicant has extensive prior mining experience, including 5 years operating what he describes as a hobby opal mine with his father. The area applied for is in a known mineral producing area and is in the vicinity of other leases. The Applicant identified surface trace. I am satisfied that the area is generally mineralised. 1 Section 252A. 2 Section 252C(1) 3 Section 252(1). 4 Petrified wood, being silicified wood, falls within the definition of mineral in the Schedule to the Act. -- 2 of 4 -- [7] The other purposes for which the lease are sought (living quarters and camp and mine waste/spoil dumps) arise out of the proposed mining and are appropriate purposes for a mining lease. 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? [8] The Applicant proposes to undertake further test excavation to indicate the most prospective areas. Mining will be undertaken using contract workers and equipment. There is no evidence to suggest there will not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the area. 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? [9] The Applicant determined the boundaries of the lease on their assessment of the area of mineralisation based on surface indications. The Applicant has sought a mining lease over the entire surface area applied for. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [10] The Applicant seeks a term of 5 years, which he considers is sufficient to exploit the resource within the area. There is no evidence to suggest the term sought is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Have the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [11] The Applicant referred to his personal financial resources to establish his capacity to fund an operation of the nature proposed. He has extensive coal mining and quarrying experience and some opal mining experience. Contractors will be engaged to operate heavy machinery, such as the excavator on an as needs basis. There is no evidence to suggest the Applicant does not have access to the necessary financial and technical resources. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [12] There is no evidence before me to suggest 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 Applicant for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [13] The Applicant held the qualifying prospecting permit. There are no other existing exploration tenures or applications for same that would be affected by the grant. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [14] The current land use is low intensity cattle grazing. The Applicant has entered into a compensation agreement with the landholder, who did not object to the mining lease. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [15] The draft environmental authority was issued on 19 September 2002. It requires the Applicant to carry out activities in accordance with the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. The draft authority was also publicly advertised and no objections were lodged in relation to it. 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? [16] 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? [17] 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? [18] 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: [19] 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 the Minister for Mines that the Mining Lease is granted over the entire application area, for the purposes and for the term sought by the Applicant. -- 4 of 4 --