Anglo Coal (German Creek) Pty Ltd, Jena Pty Ltd, Coal Developments (German Creek) Pty Ltd, RAG Australia Coal Pty Ltd, Re [2002] QLRT 21

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Anglo Coal (German Creek) Pty Ltd, Jena Pty Ltd, Coal Developments (German Creek) Pty Ltd, RAG Australia Coal Pty Ltd [2002] QLRT 21 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 1831 – Application by Anglo Coal (German Creek) Pty Ltd, Jena Pty Ltd, Coal Developments (German Creek) Pty Ltd, RAG Australia Coal Pty Ltd for additional surface area of land No. 5 FILE NO/S: AML00120/2001 PROCEEDING: Application for additional surface area of land DELIVERED ON: 20 May 2002 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 Additional Surface Area No. 5, applied for by the Applicants, be included in ML 1831. (at [27]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL SURFACE AREA – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 252, 252A, 252C, 269, 270, 275, 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 Fourmile v Selpam Pty Ltd (1998) 80 FCR 151, applied COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: Minter Ellison, Solicitors, for the Applicants AGENT/S: N/A -- 1 of 6 -- [1] SMITH DP: On 4 July 2001 Anglo Coal (German Creek) Pty Ltd, Jena Pty Ltd, Coal Developments (German Creek) Pty Ltd, RAG Australia Coal Pty Ltd (hereafter referred to as “the Applicants”) lodged an Application for Additional Surface Area No. 5 to be included in Mining Lease No. 1831 with the Mining Registrar, Emerald District. [2] The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 275 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”). No objections were duly lodged to the application. [3] The Applicants have requested that the application be dealt with without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and have 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. Following a Directions Hearing on 5 February 2002, the Applicants provided an additional affidavit and supporting submissions. [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. Although there is reserve and restricted land in the area applied for, the relevant consents have been obtained. 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 sworn on behalf of the Applicants by John Laurence Merritt on 14 December 2001 together with the affidavit of John Laurence Merritt sworn on 8 April 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 -- 2 of 6 -- points, but not all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. [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. [7] For the purpose of this decision, I set out below, in summary form, the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the Act that I have taken account of and considered in reaching my conclusions in this matter. I have broken the various components of the evidence and other material into the subheadings listed below based on each criterion set out in s. 269(4) of the Act. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [8] On 17 July 2001, the Mining Registrar, Emerald District, issued a Certificate of Application which was accepted by the Applicants on 17 July 2001. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the Mining Registrar can only issue a Certificate of Application if satisfied that the Applicants are eligible to make this application and have complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the application. [9] Pursuant to s. 252A of the Act a Certificate of Public Notice was issued by the Mining Registrar on 26 October 2001. [10] I note that the underlying tenure is predominantly freehold with the balance gazetted road. Applying the Full Federal Court decision of Fourmile v Selpam,1 native title has been extinguished over the gazetted road. Accordingly, native title has been extinguished over the entire application area. Native title provisions are therefore not applicable to this application. [11] In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Act in respect to this application. Further, no material was in evidence before me to indicate any non-compliance with any relevant provisions of the Act. 1 (1998) 80 FCR 151. -- 3 of 6 -- Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [12] The land applied for is the surface land to ML 1831 for which mineralisation has already been established. This is further supported by the material supplied by the Applicants and Mr Merritt’s affidavit. 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 area subject to this application will be mined by underground methods as provided in the approved Plan of Operations. The surface land the subject of this application may be subject to surface subsidence effects. 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? [14] The surface area of this application is within ML 1831. The additional surface area is now required for the underground mining operation. 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 matches that of the existing (approved) ML 1831 which expires on 31 July 2020. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [16] The Applicants are experienced mining operators with large mining activities and access to appropriate human and other resources. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [17] All material supplied by both the Applicants and the Mining Registrar indicate that the past performance of the Applicants has been satisfactory. -- 4 of 6 -- 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? [18] There are no such underlying tenures which are not held by the Applicants. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [19] This application forms part of a large, existing mining operation. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed operations do not conform with sound land use management. Section 269(4)(f) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof. [20] A draft environmental authority was issued on12 October 2001. 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 be adequately dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the environmental authority. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [21] As referred to previously, the application area in this application is freehold and a public road. As regards the road (the Middlemount Dysart Road), the consent of Main Roads Queensland has been obtained. Main Roads is, from the material before me, clearly satisfied with arrangements made between the Applicants and Main Roads for continued public use of the road. [22] There appears to be no endangered flora or fauna within the application area. [23] 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 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 Applicants pursuant to that legislation to protect any sites of indigenous significance should they be located during the mining operations. -- 5 of 6 -- [24] I am satisfied that the public right and interest will not be prejudiced should this application proceed. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [25] 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? [26] The application forms an integral part of an existing, substantial mining operation. The application is without objection. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [27] 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 Minister for Mines that Additional Surface Area No. 5, applied for by the Applicants, be included in ML 1831. -- 6 of 6 --