Cooney, Re [2003] QLRT 25

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Gerard James Cooney [2003] QLRT 25 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 60342 by Gerard James Cooney FILE NO/S: AML00020/2003 PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease DELIVERED ON: 11 March 2003 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 Mining Lease No. 60342 be granted over the entire application area, for the purposes sought by the Applicant for a term of 20 years. (at [29]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 269, 270, 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 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] SMITH DP: On 6 December 2002 Gerard James Cooney (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No 60342 with the Mining Registrar, Quilpie District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) for the purpose of mining for opal, spoil dumps (mullock) and campsite. -- 1 of 5 -- [2] No objections were duly lodged to the Mining Lease Application. [3] The Applicant has requested that 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. [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. It appears there is neither reserve nor restricted land in the area applied for. 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 of the Applicant sworn on 21 February 2003. 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 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. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [7] On 6 December 2002, the Mining Registrar, Quilpie District, issued a Certificate of Application which was accepted by the Applicant. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the Mining Registrar can only issue a Certificate of Application 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. [8] I note that the underlying tenure is a Grazing Homestead Perpetual Lease. Native title issues are therefore not relevant to this Application. [9] 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. Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [10] The Applicant’s evidence is that the land applied for is mineralised. The Applicant further disposes that the land is known to be mineralised because “whilst exploring -- 2 of 5 -- the area under EPM 13419 there was very good surface trace of opal”. The application area is within a known mineral producing area. I further note the Field Inspection Report of J. Barnes of 10 January 2003. [11] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the land applied for 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? [12] The material before me reveals the Applicant’s proposed mining operations and program, and shows appropriate development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for. 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? [13] The material before me appears to indicate a mining lease application of an appropriate size and shape in light of the Plan of Operations. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [14] The term sought for this mining lease is 20 years. Given the nature of the mining operations as set out by the Applicant and the harsh weather conditions, in my view a term of 20 years 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? [15] Documents and evidence provided to the Tribunal show that the Applicant has the financial capabilities to carry on the mining operations. [16] It would appear from his experience that the Applicant has the necessary technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease. [17] I am satisfied that the requirements of this criterion are met. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [18] With respect to this criterion, I also rely on the evidence relating to s. 269(4)(f) above. [19] The Applicant has had previous mining experience. He has sworn that no enforcement action has been taken against him. The Mining Registrar’s report is consistent with what the Applicant says. -- 3 of 5 -- 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? [20] The Applicant held PP 61100, still holds EPM 13419 and is the Applicant for EPM 13868. There is nothing in the material to indicate any disadvantage to any other person. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [21] There is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed operations do not conform with sound land use management. The application area is within a known opal producing area. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [22] A draft environmental authority was issued on 13 December 2002, which 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. 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 adequately be dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the Code. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [23] The material before me indicates that there are no public roads or other public utilities on the application area. [24] There appears to be no endangered flora or fauna within the application area. [25] 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 Applicant pursuant to that legislation to protect any sites of indigenous significance should they be located during the mining operations. [26] I am satisfied that the public right and interest will not be prejudiced should this mining lease be granted. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [27] There was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this Application should be refused. -- 4 of 5 -- Section 269(4)(m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? [28] The materials show that the project is for the extraction of a potentially valuable resource in accordance with the environmental processes. The Application is without objection. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [29] 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 Mining Lease No. 60342 be granted over the entire application area for the purposes sought by the Applicant for a term of 20 years. -- 5 of 5 --