Re Chelepy
[2009] QLC 37
•9 March 2009
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re Chelepy [2009] QLC 0037
PARTIES:James Albert Chelepy
(applicant)
FILE NO:AML00137/2008
PROCEEDING: Application for Mining Lease No 70398
DELIVERED ON: 9 March 2009
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT:Heard on the Papers
MEMBER:Mr PA Smith
ORDER/S:1. Hearing dispensed with
2.Recommendation made that the Mining Lease be granted
CATCHWORDS: Mining – mining lease – all objections withdrawn following negotiations – recommendation - Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 245, 252, 269, 270
APPEARANCES: N/A
On 28 February 2008 James Albert Chelepy (“the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No 70398 with the Mining Registrar, Emerald District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for the purpose of mining for sapphire, gold, diamonds and zircon. Although objections were duly lodged to the Mining Lease Application and the draft Environment Authority, following extensive negotiations, the objections were withdrawn.
I note that the original application area has been reduced by the abandonment of part of the application area[1], and further that the proposed access to the mining lease has also been amended[2].
[1] Partial abandonment on 31 March 2008 and partial abandonment on 8 April 2008.
[2] See Mining Registrar’s letter to Applicant dated 19 February 2009.
Request to dispense with a hearing – Section 270
The Applicant has requested that the Application be dealt with without an oral hearing. Taking in to account s. 270 of the Act, I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this Application be dispensed with.
Section 269(4) criteria
In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the Act, I have relied on the Applicant’s Additional Information and Statutory Declaration. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the Applicant with the Mining Registrar 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.
Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with?
On 23 June 2008, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application. The Mining Registrar can only issue the Certificate 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.[3] I note that the Application is over freehold land. In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Act in respect to this Application.
Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate?
[3] See s. 252 of the Act.
I am satisfied from the Applicant’s evidence that the land applied for is mineralised. I note the Applicant’s evidence that gemstones have been found in the vicinity. The Application is in a known mineral producing 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?
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?
The material before me appears to indicate a mining lease application of an appropriate size and shape in light of the proposed mining operation.
Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate?
The term sought for this mining lease is 5 years, which I consider appropriate.
Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease?
The material indicates that the Applicant has the financial and technical capabilities to carry on the mining operations. The Applicant has had an involvement with mining for sapphire since 1988. I further note that the Applicant is on a disability support pension and that, whilst he does not have extensive financial reserves, he has indicated that he has sufficient resources to adequately meet the requirements of this small-scale operation. I am satisfied that the requirements of this criterion are met.
Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory?
The Applicant’s evidence is that no enforcement action has been taken against him. The Mining Registrar’s Report is consistent with what the Applicant says.
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 PP73104, PP73106, PP73112 and PP73127. There is nothing 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?
There is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed operations do not conform with sound land use management.
Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof:
A draft environmental authority was publicly advertised. Although there was an objections lodged, it was withdrawn following negotiations. There is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impacts will not be adequately dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the authority.
Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced?
There is nothing in the material to indicate any prejudice to the public right and interest.
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 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?
The materials show that the project is for the extraction of a potentially valuable resource in accordance with the environmental processes. The application in its current reduced size and amended access has come about as a result of agreements reached between the Applicant and the former objector, for which both are to be congratulated. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation 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 Mining Lease No. 70398 be granted over the current application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant.
P A SMITH
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0