Re Adam
[2008] QLC 138
•4 July 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re Adam [2008] QLC0138
PARTIES:In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 20365 by Noel Alexander Adam
FILE NO:AML0022/2008
PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease
DELIVERED ON: 4 July 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr FW Windridge, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:1. Prior recommendation of 1 February 2008 is revoked.
2. The objection is struck out.
3. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that the application be granted.
CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION
Mineral Resources Act1989 ss 245, 260(4), 269(4), 270(1)
APPEARANCES: Not applicable – Heard on the Papers
WINDRIDGE JR: This is an application by Noel Alexander Adam under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining lease over 4.00 ha of land on Lot 1 on OL22/211, located approximately 8.5 km south-east of Irvinebank. Access is through the same lot as per the plan submitted. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Mareeba on 6 November 2002. One objection was lodged in the name of the Herberton Shire Council and served on Solomon Mines. The recommendation of 1 February 2008 is revoked and the following recommendation made in substitution thereof after a hearing of the objection on 1 July 2008.
The hearing - Section 270
The hearing took place at the Land Court Brisbane on 1 July 2008 with the applicant miner and objector in contact with the Court by telephone hook-up. Each party made written submissions and spoke to those submissions. Some documentation was supplied by the Registrar and where necessary I have referred to those documents for the purpose of accuracy in relation to background details.
Section 269(4) criteria
In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration sworn by the applicant and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Court and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this application.
Section 269(4) (a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with?
A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 13 August 2003 which can only be done if the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act. The applicant has a negotiated agreement with the registered native title parties. In relation to the objection, the applicant miner submits that the objector has not complied with the provisions of the MRA and seeks to have the objection dismissed. The grounds for this submission are that the objection was served on an entity called “Solomon Mines” and the applicant miner (Adam) only became aware of the objection some four years after the objection was filed. This appears to be verified by documents on the file. Section 260 subsection (4) of the MRA states:
“(4) Each objector to an application for the grant of a mining lease shall serve upon the applicant on or before the last date that the objector may lodge an objection to that application a copy of the objection lodged by the objector.”
The language of section 260(4) is clear and not susceptible to any interpretation other than the applicant must be served, and in this case the applicant is the person named in the application and appearing on the Certificate of Application and the Certificate of Public Notice. I find that while the objection was lodged within time, it was not served on the applicant on or before the last date for the lodgement of objection. The notice of objection is therefore not one that complies with the mandatory requirements of section 260(4) of the Act, and is struck out.
Section 269(4) (b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate?
The application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of mining tin ore, tungsten and the normal mining infrastructure associated with the operation including ore stockpiles. The area is generally known for the production of tin and associated minerals. I am satisfied that there is adequate evidence of mineralisation.
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?
The applicant proposes to mine the area using normal mining methods, treating the removed material off site, rehabilitating as mining progresses. Some infrastructure will be needed on the lease to complete the project. There is no evidence to suggest that there will not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the area. The applicant has been involved in similar operations for a number of years. Development of this project will depend on further investigations to test the viability of the operation in relation to quantity and quality of mineral that can be extracted. Costs of extraction and market prices for the product are factors that will have to be taken into account.
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?
The boundaries of the lease have been determined by the area of potential mineralisation and infrastructure requirements. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate.
Section 269(4) (e) is the term sought appropriate?
The applicants seek a term of 21 years. There is no evidence to suggest that a 21 year term is inappropriate. The applicant has the option of surrender if mining and rehabilitation is completed before the term expires.
Section 269(4) (f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease?
The applicant has sufficient assets, including the mining equipment required, to undertake the proposed operation. I am satisfied the applicant has or has access to the necessary financial and technical resources.
Section 269(4) (g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory?
There is no evidence to suggest that the past performance of the applicant has not been satisfactory. The applicant states that for all the time he has been mining he has had no previous fines, show cause or convictions in relation to mining.
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?
The applicant held a prospecting permit at the time of marking out. The consent of the holder of an existing EPM was lodged. I am satisfied that no other person is disadvantaged.
Section 269(4) (i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management?
The current land use is grazing. The extraction of the target minerals is an appropriate land use.
Section 269(4) (j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof?
The draft environmental authority was issued. It requires the applicants to comply with the environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. 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?
There is no public infrastructure on the area applied for. There was no evidence before me that indicated public right and interest would be prejudiced. Information given by the agent for the miner at the hearing provided more detail which is of some assistance to the Court. It appears that any product removed from this proposed lease will be taken to another lease nearby and not directly out on to the public road where access originates. Any product then will be taken from the Great Southern Mine out on to the public road. This in effect shortens the distance to Irvinebank. The concern of the Herberton Shire Council (as it then was) is damage to the public road and safety of other road users. The miner is not prepared to give an “open ended commitment” to road maintenance until the precise details of the Council’s requirements are made clear and the miner has committed to extraction of the ore. I take into account that it is not to the benefit of miners to run trucks over bad roads. This leads to damage to vehicles, down-time, and higher costs. It is in the interest of miners to ensure that roads used by them are fit for purpose and where members of the public might have equal rights of use, normal safety requirements are met.
Section 269(4) (l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease?
There was no evidence before me that indicated any grounds which would justify a refusal of the application. Subject to the miner deciding that the project is to proceed and use of part of the public road is essential, the miner and the local authority should confer with a view to ensuring the road is fit for purpose, satisfactorily maintained if damage from mine traffic occurs, and that the rights and safety of other public road users is protected.
Section 269(4) (m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land?
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
Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that the Mining Lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purposes and term sought by the applicant.
FW WINDRIDGE
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0