Cecil, Re [2002] QLRT 44

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Ian Charles Cecil [2002] QLRT 44 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 50191 - Application by Ian Charles Cecil for Mining Lease FILE NO: AML00042/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 30 July 2002 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that the mining lease be granted over the entire area sought for the term sought by the Applicant for the purpose of mining dolomite but not for the purpose of mining clay. (at [18] and [5]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – MINERAL – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss., 5, 245, 252(1), 252A, 252C(1), 269(4), 270, Schedule COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by Ian Charles Cecil under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a .3015ha. area of land 23 kilometres north-west of Wondai for the purpose of mining brick clay and dolomite. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Brisbane mining district on 7 May 2002. No objections to the Application were lodged during -- 1 of 5 -- the public objection period, which ended on 5 July 2002. 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 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: [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 reserve or restricted 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 Ian Cecil sworn on 9 July 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 4 June 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 4 June 2002, which he can only do if satisfied that the Applicant is 1 Section 252A. 2 Section 252C(1). -- 2 of 5 -- eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the Application.3 I note that the underlying tenure is freehold and that the Applicant is one of the owners of the property. 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 brick clay4 and dolomite. The Applicant has not provided any information to establish that the area is mineralised with clay suitable for such use. In the circumstances I do not consider that I am able to recommend that the mining lease be granted for the purpose of mining clay. [6] The Applicant has established that the small area applied for is mineralised with dolomite by drilling the area, using a 2 metre auger on a tractor. The Applicant has been mining dolomite for 22 years, has applied for another mining lease in this vicinity and already holds 3 other mining leases, all conducted as a project. One of those mining leases is ML 6618. It appears the Applicant has recovered high-grade dolomite up to the western boundary of ML 6618. Drilling within the application area indicated that material continues into this area. 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 has been mining dolomite for 22 years and is already operating a project comprising 3 other mining leases. There is no evidence to suggest the resource will not be developed and utilised. 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 area and shape applied for was determined by the results of exploration of the resource continuing from ML 6618. The area is very small, which suggests that the Applicant has carefully selected the area to be mined. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the size and shape are not appropriate. 3 Section 252(1). 4 Clay mined for its ceramic properties falls within the definition of mineral, (s. 5 & Schedule). -- 3 of 5 -- Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [9] The Applicant has sought a term of 10 years. The Applicant stated that this term is required to allow full exploitation of the resource and rehabilitation of the area. Given the area involved, it is unlikely that it would require 10 years to exploit and rehabilitate it. However, the lease will be operated in conjunction with other leases in the vicinity and the rate of exploitation will be dictated by market conditions. There is no evidence to suggest that the term is inappropriate for the proposed operation. 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 a lengthy history of mining dolomite. The operation proposed is a small-scale open cut mine using a bulldozer and an excavator as required. This is the method already employed by the Applicant on his existing project. He already owns or has a financial interest in the necessary plant and equipment. The Applicant is debt free. He and his wife own and operate a 129.42ha mixed farm. I am satisfied the Applicant has the necessary technical capabilities and financial resources to carry on the proposed operations. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [11] Both the Applicant and the Mining Registrar stated that there has been no enforcement action taken against the Applicant regarding his mining activities. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the Applicant’s past performance has not been satisfactory. Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permit or mineral development licences or existing Applicant for explo0ration permits or mineral development licences? [12] The only relevant exploration tenure is the Exploration Permit held by the Applicant. 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 Applicant owns the land, which is currently used for grazing cattle. The area involved is very small. The Applicant has experience with this type of mining and -- 4 of 5 -- rehabilitation and there is no suggestion that he has not fulfilled his obligations in the past. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof. [14] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the draft environmental authority on 23 May 2002. It 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 (January 2001). 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? [15] There is no relevant public infrastructure on the lease. There is no evidence to indicate the public right and interest would be prejudiced by the grant of the mining lease. It is significant that there was no objection to the Application. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [16] There is 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 be granted over the entire area sought for the term sought by the Applicant for the purpose of mining dolomite but not for the purpose of mining clay. -- 5 of 5 --