Eidsvold Siltstone Pty Ltd, Re [2002] QLRT 93

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Eidsvold Siltstone Pty Ltd [2002] QLRT 93 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease 80106 - application by Eidsvold Siltstone Pty Ltd for Mining Lease FILE NO/S: AML00102/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease DELIVERED ON: 20 November 2002 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 Lease is granted over the area applied for, for the purpose and for the term sought by the Applicant. (at [18]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 252A, 252C, 269(4), 270, Schedule Northern Safecorp Pty Ltd & Bellino v Stanthorpe Shire Council & D & JM Parsons [2001] QLRT 20 Re Michael Edward Whitty [2000] QLRT 8 Re Zeeno and Repatriation Commission (1988) 14 ALD 616 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by Eidsvold Siltstone Pty Ltd under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 38.45ha area of land approximately 19 kilometres south of Eidsvold for mining building stone - sandstone. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Rockhampton mining district on 9 September 2002. No objection to the Application was lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 7 November 2002. The underlying land tenure is freehold. -- 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 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: [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 the Michael Whitty, the Managing Director of the Applicant, sworn on 8 November 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 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 26 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 9 September 2002, which she 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? [5] The Application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of mining building stone - sandstone. Mr Whitty is a geologist and has worked in the mining industry for more than 20 years, primarily in exploration and drilling work. A mining lease can only be granted for a resource that falls within the definition of mineral under the Act.4 For the resource applied for to fall within that definition, the stone to be extracted must be capable of being mined in block or slab form and be suitable for use for building or monumental purposes. The Application specifies that the stone is to be extracted in block form. However no evidence has been presented in relation to its suitability for use for building or monumental purposes. 1 Section 252A. 2 Section 252C(1). 3 Section 252(1). 4 Schedule and see also Northern Safecorp Pty Ltd & Bellino v Stanthorpe Shire Council & D & JM Parsons [2001] QLRT 20. -- 2 of 4 -- [6] The area applied for backs onto an existing mining lease (ML80091), the grant of which I recommended in November 2000.5 During the hearing in relation to that application, Mr Whitty presented evidence regarding the quality of the stone and its suitability for use for building and monumental purposes. It is clear from the Application that the stone resource now applied for forms part of the same deposit as is partially covered by ML80091. I have taken into account that evidence in arriving at my recommendation in relation to this Application.6 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? [7] The Applicant proposed to mine the two leases as a project, starting in ML80091 and then continuing into the area now applied for. A Plan of Operations is with the Environmental Protection Agency awaiting approval and the Applicant is seeking an extractive industries permit from the Eidsvold Council. Once these approvals are obtained, the Applicant proposes to commence mining on ML80091. I am satisfied that appropriate plans to develop the resource are in place. 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? [8] The Applicant has sought a mining lease over the entire surface area applied for. The outcropping stone occurs over the entire surface area. There appears to be no reserve or restricted land involved and the landowners did not object to the Application. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) -Is the term sought appropriate? [9] The Applicant has sought a term of 20 years. This is the same term as was sought and recommended in relation to ML80091. There is no evidence to indicate 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? [10] The Applicant has provided satisfactory information about its financial status. Mr Whitty has extensive experience in the mining industry in exploration and drilling work. I am satisfied that the Applicant has access to the necessary technical and financial resources to carry on the proposed operation. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [11] There is no evidence before me to suggest unsatisfactory past performance by the Applicant. Mr Whitty stated that he had received no notices regarding non- compliance and has not been convicted of any offences in relation to mining. 5 Re Michael Edward Whitty [2000] QLRT 8. 6 Re Zeeno and Repatriation Commission (1988) 14 ALD 616. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permit or mineral development licences or existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [12] The Applicant holds a prospecting permit as its qualifying tenure in relation to this Application. It appears that there are no holders of or applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences that would be affected by this Application. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [13] The area applied for is currently used for cattle grazing. Whilst no compensation agreement has been reached with the landowners, they have not objected to the Application. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [14] The draft environmental authority was issued on 16 September 2002. It requires the Applicant to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. The draft authority was 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? [15] 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? [16] 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? [17] 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: [18] 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 area applied for, for the purpose and the term sought by the Applicant. -- 4 of 4 --