Re Donovan

Colleen Anne Donovan applied under section 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 for a mining lease over approximately 20 km north-north/west of St George and Mitchell River Junction for gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium and tin mining and related activities for 25 years. The application was lodged with the office of the Mining Registrar at Mareeba on 24 June 2005. No objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 6 June 2008. The applicant requested that the matter be dealt with on the papers by a member sitting alone. The court was required to decide whether the provisions of the Act had been complied with, whether the land applied for was mineralised or the purposes for which the lease was sought were appropriate, whether there would be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for, whether the size and shape of the land and surface area of that land in respect of which the mining lease was sought was appropriate, whether the term sought was appropriate, whether the applicant had the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease, whether the past performance of the applicant had been satisfactory, whether any disadvantage would result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences, whether the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conformed to sound land use management, whether there would be any adverse environmental impacts, and whether the public right and interest would be prejudiced. The court was satisfied that the provisions of the Act had been complied with in respect of the application. The applicant had sufficient assets, including the mining equipment required, to undertake the proposed operation. The area was generally known for the production of the minerals sought. The applicant proposed to mine the area with machinery and a mobile plant which was common practice in this area. There was no evidence to suggest that there would not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the area. The boundaries of the lease had been determined by the area of potential mineralisation. The applicant had sought a mining lease over the whole of the surface area. There was no evidence to indicate the size and shape was not appropriate. The applicant sought a term of 25 years. There was no evidence to suggest that a 25 year term was inappropriate. The applicant had the option of surrender if mining and rehabilitation was completed before the term expired. There was no evidence to suggest that the past performance of the applicant had not been satisfactory. There were no other holders or applicants for exploration tenures who would be affected by the grant. The current land use was low intensity grazing. The draft environmental authority was issued. It required the applicant to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. There was no public infrastructure on the area applied for. There was no evidence before the court that indicated public right and interest would be prejudiced. There was no evidence before the court that indicated any grounds which would justify a refusal of the application. On the basis of the evidence considered in relation to the criteria, the court considered the proposed activity was an appropriate land use. The court recommended to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that the Mining Lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose and term sought by the applicant.