Re Telford
[2007] QLC 74
•11 October 2007
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re Telford [2007] QLC 74
PARTIES:In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 90156 by Gregor William Telford
FILE NO:AML156/07
PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease
DELIVERED ON: 11 October 2007
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARD AT:Heard on the Papers
MEMBER:Mr PA Smith
ORDER/S:1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2])
2.Recommendation made that the Mining Lease be granted. (at [17])
CATCHWORDS: Mining – Mining lease – native title agreement – native title claim dismissed – no objections - recommendation
Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 245, 252, 269, 270, Part 17
APPEARANCES: N/A
On 21 March 2003 Gregor William Telford[1] (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No 90156 with the Mining Registrar, Mount Isa District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for the purpose of mining for gold, silver and copper. No objections were duly lodged to the Mining Lease Application.
[1] I note that the original application included another person as holding a part interest in the Mining Lease Application, but that that interest was wholly assigned to Mr Telford on 19 May 2004.
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 Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of the Applicant. 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 21 March 2003, 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.[2] I note that the Application is over a non-exclusive tenure.[3] 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?
[2] See s. 252 of the Act.
[3] I also note that this application is subject to a Native Title Negotiated Agreement with the Mitakoodi Juhnjlar People following Native Title processes in Part 17 of the Act. I further note that, although there was originally a further Native Title Party (Kalkadoon People), their native title claim was dismissed by the Federal Court. As a consequence, the native title provisions of the Act no longer apply to this Application which can proceed in the Land Court without reference to the Land and Resources Tribunal
The Applicant principally relies on prospecting activities carried out by his late father-in-law over the area applied for, together with his own extensive experience in mining. I note that the Applicant and his family have over 60 years experience in mining. On balance, I am satisfied from the Applicant’s evidence 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?
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 21 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 previous mining experience. 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 EPM 14000. 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?
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 and received no objection. 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?
The material before me does not reveal any area of concern for the public right and interest. I particularly note the letter dated 11 August 2004 from the Regional Manager, Water Business (North Region), Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (as it then was) to the Mining Registrar regarding protection of existing watercourses.
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. In particular, I note that the Applicant has reached agreement with both the landholders and the Mitakoodi Juhnjlar People regarding this application. 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. 90156 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant.
PA SMITH
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0