QCoal Sonoma Pty Ltd (Principal Holder) v Reed (No. 3)

In the matter of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, QCoal Sonoma Pty Ltd applied for an amendment to an existing environmental authority that governs its mining activities in Coral Creek. The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection referred the matter to the court for an objections decision under s.219 of the Act. The statutory party, pursuant to s.223 of the Act, required the Court to consider the application documents, relevant regulatory requirements, standard criteria, the status of any application under the Mineral Resources Act for each relevant mining tenement, and each current objection. The primary objection was raised by the level 2 objector, Mr Reed. The Court was required to decide whether the application should be granted, granted with conditions, or refused.

The Court considered the objections raised by Mr Reed and the submissions provided by the parties. It was noted that the draft amended EA did not authorise the diversion of Coral Creek or any other watercourse, as that would be a separate matter for an application under the Water Act 2000. The Court held that the objections raised by Mr Reed did not establish that the application should be refused, and that the draft amended EA would regulate the environmental impacts of mining activities in the area where the creek is proposed to be diverted, if that diversion is authorised under the Water Act 2000. The Court concluded that the application should be granted on the basis of the draft amended EA.

The Court recommended to the EPA Minister that the application be granted on the basis of the draft amended EA. The Court's recommendation was based on the consideration of the application documents, relevant regulatory requirements, standard criteria, and the objections raised by Mr Reed. The Court held that the objections did not establish that the application should be refused, and that the draft amended EA would regulate the environmental impacts of mining activities in the area where the creek is proposed to be diverted, if that diversion is authorised under the Water Act 2000. The Court's recommendation was made in accordance with s.222 of the Act.

The Court's final orders were that the application be granted on the basis of the draft amended EA, and that the recommendation be made to the EPA Minister. The Court's recommendation was based on its consideration of the application documents, relevant regulatory requirements, standard criteria, and the objections raised by Mr Reed. The Court held that the objections did not establish that the application should be refused, and that the draft amended EA would regulate the environmental impacts of mining activities in the area where the creek is proposed to be diverted, if that diversion is authorised under the Water Act 2000. The Court's final orders were made in accordance with s.222 of the Act.